Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply ask a new question.

Level 1

48 points

Video Card upgrade for early 2008 MacPro II

I want to upgrade my two cards, (both ATI Radeon HD 2600 ) in my Mac Pro 3.1 (spec posted below) and found this thread, https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4816633?answerId=24010822022#24010822022 so rather than start a new one, I initially posted there, but on advice from The Hatter, I have created a seperate post too

I watch the occassional Photoshop instructional video, but really use the Apple TV for any real films .

Don't play any games, so guess I do not need all the fancy 2D renderiing cards??? or do I. That is totally unknown to me if better 3D perfromance specs make any difference to Photo editing performance.

Main use is with Lightroom 4 and Photoshop CS6..very occassionally (like 3 or 4 times a year) iMovie or Final Cut

Having read here that some cards don't display on boot..I don't want that . I would like full compatibility, even if that means not getting the latest and greaest card..any improvement would be good.

From what I read, I just have PCIe 1 is that correct?

Does it make any difference if my 'Main' work sreen runs off Slot 1 or Slot2

I see links about requiring extra power leads...does my Mac Pro have extra leads on the PSU that just need an adapter..or is soldering of new connectors needed...either way no issue, just never looked at my PSU for so long. How the machine is positioned..it is a major job to get the side off.

Thanks

Here is the system spec

Model Name: Mac Pro

Model Identifier: MacPro3,1

Processor Name: Quad-Core Intel Xeon

Processor Speed: 3 GHz

Number Of Processors: 2

Total Number Of Cores: 8

L2 Cache (per processor): 12 MB

Memory: 18 GB

Bus Speed: 1.6 GHz

Boot ROM Version: MP31.006C.B05

SMC Version (system): 1.25f4

Chipset Model: ATI Radeon HD 2600

Type: GPU

Bus: PCIe

Slot: Slot-2

PCIe Lane Width: x16

VRAM (Total): 256 MB

Vendor: ATI (0x1002)

Device ID: 0x9588

Revision ID: 0x0000

ROM Revision: 113-B1480A-252

EFI Driver Version: 01.00.252

Displays:

PANASONIC-TV:

Resolution: 1600 x 900 @ 60 Hz

Pixel Depth: 32-Bit Color (ARGB8888)

Philips 170B4:

Resolution: 1280 x 1024 @ 60 Hz

Pixel Depth: 32-Bit Color (ARGB8888)

Chipset Model: ATI Radeon HD 2600

Type: GPU

Bus: PCIe

Slot: Slot-1

PCIe Lane Width: x16

VRAM (Total): 256 MB

Vendor: ATI (0x1002)

Device ID: 0x9588

Revision ID: 0x0000

ROM Revision: 113-B1480A-252

EFI Driver Version: 01.00.252

Displays:

SyncMaster:

Resolution: 1920 x 1200 @ 60 Hz

Pixel Depth: 32-Bit Color (ARGB8888)

HP L1950:

Resolution: 1280 x 1024 @ 60 Hz

Pixel Depth: 32-Bit Color (ARGB8888)

Posted on Dec 4, 2013 7:23 AM

41 replies

The hatter

Level 9

60,990 points

Dec 6, 2013 10:52 AM in response to Neil Paisnel

Never wasted.

Maybe maxed out Mac-Mini willl fit your needs - a proper full upgrade of gpu, upgrade and add more faster storage, and get displays working properly and with enough RAM should be fun, not a downer. Rewarding.

Neil Paisnel Author

Level 1

48 points

Dec 6, 2013 11:14 AM in response to The hatter

You reckon that would be faster than than the 08 Mac Pro? Currently 3.0Ghz Zeon 8 core....er 18 gig ram if it runs 4 outputs and has space for three or four internal HDD's / spare bays for adding extra internal storage later, it may just be easier.

.not looked at them yet. I know I don't want an iMac..just don't like everything built in to the screen.

but not going to look tonight off to bed.

Neil Paisnel Author

Level 1

48 points

Dec 7, 2013 2:00 AM in response to Neil Paisnel

`**** forum..can't go back and edit my last post to prevent myself from looking stupid and not knowing what a Mac Mini is 😊

was not thiking straight after comin gout of hospital visit..thats my excuse anyway !

So I won't be fitting extra HDD's in a Mac mini..but stil looking at my geekbench score and comparing, to the late 2012 early 2013, Mac Minis I get around 12,760 on Geekbench, which is about right. it is still up there and better than some of the basic iMacs avaialble.

I bought my Mac pro new, to a much greater spec than I really needed, in order to have it last a bit longer..sort of future proof it for a few years.

I'll stick with it for now..and an upgrade..

thinking now after a good nights sleep..

A twin SSD SATA to PCIe card..

500 gb SSD for boot on that adapter..think i saw you can boot from PCIe adapter..although it adds 10-15 seconds to boot time.

Use my current SSD as the Photoshop scratch disk, also on the PCIe adapter.

One new graphics card..I ony tend to use two screens for photo editing..the other being used for mail window, and TV for slideshows etc.

Complete new RAM as per lik above..I could go for less than full set..but I guess it is better to get matched RAM rather than mix'n'match with what I already have?

Those few upgrades should see me few for another couple of years..maybe three or four

Still..not going back to work till next year..so it is goiing to have to wait.

have d/loaded Maverick..Holding off installing it though..may have to bite the bullet ..maybe partition the SSD and instal on clean partition and see how I like i..or not..did not like what they did with 10.8..so ent back to 10.6.4

The hatter

Level 9

60,990 points

Dec 7, 2013 4:43 AM in response to Neil Paisnel

Yes you can gradually invest in and get the years out of the Mac Pro that you planned for.

I would NOT put the system on a PCIe card. It adds complexity, and the system does not really run any faster regardless of benchtests and such. Whereas your scratch, audio, or Lightroom 4/5 and Aperture, and also iPhoto library, will all benefit from SSD on a PCIe card. And leave your 4 internal drive bays to -

system / user data / media projects / TimeMachine+clone (I put a small 200GB partition clone of the system SSD there for emergency-backup-maintenance) and use 3TB drive or whatever you need for backups.

500GB is overkill for a system unless you don't have a scratch disk. All the user files are not going to be on the system volume (leave 5GB of user account "library" though) but iTunes and everything else is on another drive).

How to relocate system and user data to another drive:

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-57603361-263/how-to-move-a-home-folder-in-o s-x/

http://chris.pirillo.com/how-to-move-the-home-folder-in-os-x-and-why/

Neil Paisnel Author

Level 1

48 points

Dec 7, 2013 5:00 AM in response to The hatter

Yes, I did wonder about moving the system disk to PCIe,

Would there be any advantage to moving the App folder to PCIe SSD?..or at least the Lightroom/photshop apps?

My User hole folers already on a seperate HDD, as outlined in your links. I did that from day one back in 2008. Always done that, be it Windows, Linux etc..keep user data/ My Docs folder on seperate partition or drive so as to be able to do a clean OS install without loosing User documents.

iPhoto library s stupidly big..but the girlfriend can't handle more than one library. so it all has to go in one..but i do only load it with small jpegs.

Just checked the current Boot SSD...only 115gb,

I'd still go for thr 500gb boot SSD though, so as you say to give seperate boot partitions for expirementation with new OS variants, clone images etc.

But still the initial problem remains...which new graphics card to choose 😕 ummm... or do you recon I would getting more perf improvements from the RAM and PCIE upgrades than I will get from the GPU upgrade

..oh and he minor point of not going back to work till next year (Feb at the earliest) ..so to be able to pay for it all..on top of the mortgage

The hatter

Level 9

60,990 points

Dec 7, 2013 5:23 AM in response to Neil Paisnel

Never except in a few cases move applications off the system drive.

I tried with a 15K system and having a 2nd 15k drive for my applications, then with stripe the two 15k drives

Nope. Keep that all together and simple.

Exceptions: X-Plane (full suite 60GB?) and such that are huge and don't need to plus allow for installing wherever you want

For GF and iPhoto: it is sluggish if the iPhoto Library and "Pictures" folder are on t he same device (read/write cycles never go well). Put them on separate devices. I have 100GB iPhoto library on its own 250GB SSD - iPhoto was driving me crazy and was how I came to invest in Sonnet Tempo SSD (not Pro version so it was only $150, and not using RAID).

The 5770 if you don't have it. Otherwise, look at Barefeats and look at your apps and his tests, and cost. GTX 670 or AMD 79xx Also, look at what MacVidCards on ebay has available for flashed PC cards and help.

Photoshop Performance Optimizing

http://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshopCS5-Benchmarks.html

http://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshop-Intro.html

http://macperformanceguide.com/PhotoshopCS5-performance.html

CS5 and Lightroom

http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2011/20110618_1_WhichMacProForPhotography--h owto.html

Adobe FAQ CS6

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshop/faq/

Juice Mac Pro Photoshop w/ video card:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1365904

The nice thing is you do what thing, get use to that, and go at your own pace and as budget allows.

The hatter

Level 9

60,990 points

Dec 7, 2013 5:20 AM in response to The hatter

http://www.barefeats.com has these benchtests

July 25th, 2013 -- Inject New Life in your Old Mac Pro with a Fire Breathing GPU

July 12th, 2013 -- Two and Three GPUs rendering Multi-GPU Aware Pro Apps (After Effects, OctaneRender, LuxMark, DaVinci Resolve) -- includes GeForce GTX 770s.

May 30th, 2013 -- Tandem GPUs = Faster Pro App Rendering. (Features Octane and After Effects rendering with dual GPUs; added DaVinci Resolve on June 5th.)

May 10th, 2013 -- Do the newest GPUs run faster on the 2010 Mac Prothan on the 2009 and 2008 Mac Pro?

April 26th, 2013 -- PART THREE: EVGA GeForce GTX 680 Mac Editionversus the 'Sharks' (insane GPUs like the GeForce GTX 580 Classified and GTX 690)

April 18th, 2013 -- PART TWO: EVGA GeForce GTX 680 "Mac Edition"Versus Past and Present Mac GPUs running Pro Apps

April 16th, 2013 -- PART ONE: EVGA GeForce GTX 680 "Mac Edition"versus Past and Present Mac GPUs running OpenGL accelerated Games and Benchmarks

April 5th, 2013 (Appended) -- SHOOTOUT WITH THE 'SHARKS': Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 for Mac versus "big fish" GPUs (Added full results for the Quadro K5000 and a flashed Radeon HD 7970.)

March 22nd, 2013 -- PART DEUX:Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 versus other Mac Pro GPUs (running StarCraft, Diablo, Team Fortress, FCPX, Premiere Pro, Photoshop, and LuxMark)

March 19th, 2013 -- REVIEW: Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 versus other Mac Pro GPUs (running DaVinci Resolve, Motion, OceanWave, Heaven 4, Valley, Civilization, and Dirt)

March 12th, 2013 -- The Current State of Mac Pro GPUs -- before the next "shoe" drops -- new benchmarks compare the current 'crop'

Alley_Cat

Level 7

20,548 points

Dec 7, 2013 8:30 AM in response to The hatter

I've been running a 5770 in my 2008 Mac Pro which is a similar spec for about 2 years.

I thought it was failing the other week but the DVI cable was loose!

The 5770 and 5870 were still available in UK store a few weeks ago.

Even a couple of years ago, I could not source any official Mac Pro GPUs for the Mac Pro from Apple UK excluding the Quadros.

Also my 200 Mac Pro is not behaving 100% lately - I have actually been conidering a Mac Mini replacement as they still have built-in FW 800, small factor and some benchmarks of the 4 core models are pretty close to the 2008 8x3GHz machines. Poor GPU on current Mini I believe though.

Dec 7, 2013 9:53 AM in response to Alley_Cat

Poor GPU on current Mini I believe though.

Mac Mini (2012 version):

• Integrated Intel 4000 graphics (same as 2012 MacBook Pro 13"). Display RAM "borrowed" from main RAM.

• 1920 by 1200 (just over 1080p) over HDMI or HDMI-converted to Single-Link DVI.

• Thunderbolt/Mini Displayport supports an alternate/additional display up to Cinema 30" size (2650 by 1600).

Alley_Cat

Level 7

20,548 points

Dec 7, 2013 10:04 AM in response to Grant Bennet-Alder

Grant Bennet-Alder wrote:

Poor GPU on current Mini I believe though.

Mac Mini (2012 version):

• Integrated Intel 4000 graphics (same as 2012 MacBook Pro 13"). Display RAM "borrowed" from main RAM.

• 1920 by 1200 (just over 1080p) over HDMI or HDMI-converted to Single-Link DVI.

• Thunderbolt/Mini Displayport supports an alternate/additional display up to Cinema 30" size (2650 by 1600).

Depends what one would be using it for I guess.

For 90% of what I do i think it would be more than adequate - not a gamer, have FCP X, Aperture etc but hate processing video and photos 😝

The relatively low power consumption would be good for domestic usage too.

Mac Pro runs 24/7 more or less - server for iTunes and AppleTVs, benefit of internal drives etc, but most of the time it is probably not being used to the max.

Thinking of hooking a 2012 Mini to my projector via HDMI and using it as the LAN's iTunes server - with UK energy prices I could probably pay for it in 18 months by simply having the Mac Pro sleep more often!

Neil Paisnel Author

Level 1

48 points

Dec 7, 2013 10:59 AM in response to Alley_Cat

Not gamer either..better things to do with my time than 'virtual worlds of virtual games..like the real world!!

My Mac pro used to run 24/7 till I realised the cost of havin g three machines all runnin g24/7..so now all on remote X-10 power bar..all goes off at night and when we leave the house. backup srver only fires up on a remote timer/switch now when I need it to run a chronosync backup..even the bit torrent server is only on occassionally to keep my music site ratios up in the green.

I know what you mean about not using the machine to the max. I have had this one ..well since 2008..and have only ever heard the fans strt kicking in over the past year. last year bought a Canon 5D MkIII camera..shoot all in RAW..so when I get a batch process running for processing say 800 shots for renderiing the lot in to a timelapse video... First time I heard the fan kick in ..had me running to Google to find monitor apps ...followed by a strip down of the machin e, cleaning of the heatsinks etc.

But no issue..it was just the first time in its life I had given it some decent work to do..now I want it to do more..AND FASTER 👿

From reviews The Hatter posted up, looks like the nvidia GTX 580 680 cards are for me..seem to give better speeds in the tests for photoshop.

FOR LAN based servers, take a look at FreeNAS or NAS4Free... make use old old Intel hardware..that is what my backup servers run..Support for software raid, AFP/CFS/FTP/..shed loads of services. I prefer software to hardware raid..I once had a hardware raid controller card die..could not get another card the same..so i was screwed...software raid...rebuild array on another machine.

but for now money is the issue for me.

So..

My mac pro ...3.1

18 GB RAM

2 x AT2600 cards

no PCIe SATA HDD's.

for now..what is the cheapest performance upgrad..assuming for now I can ony do one?

RAM?

PCIE adapter & SSD's?

or GPU?

I am guessing the $200 32Gb RAM kit as mentioned earlier?...unless anyone has better suggestion?

The hatter

Level 9

60,990 points

Dec 7, 2013 11:23 AM in response to Neil Paisnel

SSD unless you have one now, or more.

Definitely for sytem.

A real plus for scratch than using a stock hdd

Aperture and Lightroom Library/Catalogues on SSD

I would not invest in more RAM unless your processing a lot of photos and feel the need, AFTER doing the SSD (and SSD on PCIe controller) first.

I would try to get beyond the 2600XTs though. PC Nvidia card that you can flash. Hit the other forums, MacRumors and http://netkas.org

Alley_Cat

Level 7

20,548 points

Dec 7, 2013 11:26 AM in response to Neil Paisnel

I think you already boot from SSD - that was the biggest performance boost for me in recent years.

I've had 14GB RAM for a few years - not convinced that more is going to boost performance as it's rarely all in use - you may want to check via Actviity Monitor.

If the GPU is lacking then I think that's the most likely thing to give you better performance but only in apps that will utilise it.