Difference betyween stock 6600 and 7800 Quad graphic cards

Question

Level 5

7,918 points

Difference betyween stock 6600 and 7800 Quad graphic cards

Ref: getting ready to buy a Quad PM.

I'm hearing that the 7800 vs. 6600 improves (reduces) rendering time. I'd like to get some kind of metric that I can use to justify or not to buy the 7800 card rather than stock. The +$350 for the 7800 isn't small change but would be a good investment if it save a bunch of render time over the weeks and months of being used. FCP is the main App in use.

Also, just how does the 7800 card help in reducing the rendering time. Is it that Apple's Core Image technology somehow offloads some of its CPU work to the card and some cards accept this while others don't ?

Thanks... Barry

iPod, Shuffle, 14"iBook, 17" PB, Dual 2.5GHz PM G5, Mac OS X (10.4.6), SwiftData 200, LightScribe DVD

Posted on May 17, 2006 12:09 PM

Reply

Answer 1

Best reply

Allan Eckert

Level 9

79,512 points

May 17, 2006 12:30 PM in response to BarryXSharp

Hi Barry;

I don't think you will find that a change of graphics card will help FCP to render more quickly. If you wish to see a thread that confirms this go to 7800 and FCP

Allan

Reply

Answer 2

May 17, 2006 12:31 PM in response to BarryXSharp

I don't know about the FCP rendering times improving but your graphics will be faster with the 7800. Couple that with the fact that you currently can't get the 7800 unless you get it CTO with a G5 from Apple and buying it now seems like a pretty good deal.

Reply

Answer 3

Jeyell

Level 2

260 points

May 17, 2006 12:48 PM in response to BarryXSharp

Barry,

There are a lot of 6600 owners (some with quads) who post in the Aperture forum. A few managed to use a 3rd party video upgrade website - strangedogs. Bottom line is the 6600 is detested by Aperture users, those who upgraded have found a much improved experience. UI sliders are instant and adjustments are visible in real-time, unlike the multi SBBOD experience using the 6600.

Don't get locked-into the 6600 as its not upgradeable from Apple - a SHOCKING disgrace.

So from an Aperture users point of view, Aperture is a heavy user of coreimage, don't buy anything less than the 7800. Check out the Aperture forums for more info. Also check barefeats website where they did a comparison of various graphics cards in heavy coreimage tests. Needless to say the 6600 was lowest, even than some 3-4 year-old AGP cards. For what its worth...

Reply

Answer 4

BarryXSharp Author

Level 5

7,918 points

May 17, 2006 1:04 PM in response to BarryXSharp

Hmmmm- take a look at http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/sd/ for additional cards compatible with Quad.

Reply

Answer 5

May 17, 2006 1:14 PM in response to BarryXSharp

Those are specialized video capture cards. Not the same thing as the 6600 and the 7800 video cards.

Reply

Answer 6

BarryXSharp Author

Level 5

7,918 points

May 19, 2006 6:07 PM in response to BarryXSharp

An update...

Son now is very interested in the QUADRO FX 4500 512MB SDRAM card - he must have money to burn, and he does have a big lucrative video job lined up. He's researching this card with his video peers etc and also wants me to research the usefulness of this card. So pls help me.

Sooooo, just what does this QUADRO FX 4500 512MB SDRAM card bring to the table for the +$1650 ?

This card is fat in as much as it takes up 2 PCIe slots in the machine. Is it the cooling fan that causes this ?

Apple says "The Quadro FX 4500 boasts 512MB of ultrafast GDDR3 SDRAM." Is this a significant part of the +$1650 ?

Maybe I should make a seperate Topic post for this...

Reply

Answer 7

May 19, 2006 7:59 PM in response to BarryXSharp

Unless he is using Maya, Shake or other 3D iintensive modeling apps, 1650 is probably a waste of money.

The Quadro has some scientific app resources that make it pretty special.

Any more detail on the specific apps he will be using, or is he just trying to max out this config?

Reply