Skip navigation
4K3D
Currently Being Moderated

Quadro FX 5800 vs. GTX 590 vs. GTX 680 in CS5.5

Mar 28, 2012 3:08 PM

I'm about to buy a new graphics card, and which card might be most powerful in terms of rendering and such in After Effects and Premiere CS5.5 ..?

 

Are the number of CUDA cores the most important factor?  The QFX shows 240, the GTX590 shows 1024 and the GTX680 shows 1536 ( ! ). 
Then there's RAM, the QFX has 4GB, the GTX590 has 3GB and the GTX680 has 2GB.

Then there factors such as base speed of the card; memory bandwidth, interface width and speed; texel fill rate (which *seems* like would be more important for gaming) and more - some of which isn't in the specs of all 3.

 

Bottom line, they're not that different in price - well, the QFX is a bit higher, but not so much so if you buy it used.  So - thoughts? 

 

Or, has anyone seen actual render times and the like based on different cards in the same system?  If so can you point to those tests?

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 28, 2012 3:53 PM   in reply to 4K3D

    The choice is up to you.  You don't buy such a card for the way it can help AE, you buy it for the way it can help OTHER applications.  Let that be your guide.  The reason: AE doesn't rely on the resources a card provides.  It relies on lots of processors and RAM instead.

     

    "Well, how about Open GL?"

     

    Yes, the Adobe and Nvidia propaganda would lead one to think that Open GL is just about the greatest thing since sliced bread.  However, please allow me to reveal a big, fat, slice of reality: Adobe employees don't use Open GL to accelerate rendering speeds in AE.  They just don't.  So do you think YOU should use a hot card's Open GL capabilities in AE?

     

    Since this is a forum on the Adobe web site, and since plenty of Adobe employees scrutinize the forums, do you think I could get away with writing such a thing if it wasn't true?

     

    Now, this whole Open GL business may change in the future, but I don't know that... either as fact or rumor.  And when was the last time you bought computer hardware in anticipation that it might become useful in the future, with no guarantee that it will actually come to pass?

     

    Forget about AE in your choice of cards.  Look at the other applications to influence your choice of cards.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 28, 2012 4:41 PM   in reply to 4K3D

    If i remmber from when i asked the same question back a year or so, i foudn out after so many posts that PP is limited to how many cores it will use, so if you had say the 580 which has just over 512 cores, it wont even use 3/4 of them .. but thats from back then.

     

    i still for the life of me cant fathem as to why ADOBE would restrict perfomance with a gpu such as the cores. and especially with AE with no help from any gpu at all. bafles me, especially again when its been proven time and time again gpu's are now much faster at renderign and real time playback than what was the fastest cpu out the 9890x i think it was.

     

     

    so i guess to answer the question, cuda cores yes, but still get te highest spec system posisble for cpu/memory/ssd/ etc for the PP, and with AE its seems to still be highest specs posisble excluding the gpu

     

    but it could have changed, but i doubt it

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 28, 2012 5:01 PM   in reply to mathewlisett

    Accelerated GPU processing depends on preprogrammed and stored routines. Gaming engines, for example, are built on these routines that use predetermined physics and shading algorithms and are controlled by inputs that occur within a range of variables. Animation doesn't do that in the same way.

    That's only a very small part of why After Effects doesn't use GPUs the way you think they should be used.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 28, 2012 5:07 PM   in reply to bogiesan

    which is odd since ive never used AE for animation but AE does other filters besides for animation which adds to asking why they would not gie the option and expand the performance cababilty to the user and advance rendering time

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 9:47 AM   in reply to mathewlisett

    See this for how OpenGL is used by After Effects:

    http://www.video2brain.com/en/videos-5359.htm

     

    Matthew, your statements about limitations of CUDA in Premiere Pro are a couple of years old, and not relevant since Premiere Pro CS5 (5.0.1).

     

    I recommend going through all of these materials:

     

    "FAQ: What computer and components should I buy for Premiere Pro or After Effects?"

    http://forums.adobe.com/message/3804380#3804380

     

    Dave, show me what "propaganda" from Adobe you're referring to. As you know, I'm the first to warn of OpenGL misconceptions.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 28, 2012 11:30 PM   in reply to 4K3D

    From best to worst,

     

    1. GTX 680

    2. GTX 580 3 GB

    3. GTX 580 1.5 GB

    4. GTX 590 (only used for 50%)

    5. GTX 570

    6.

    7.

    8.

    9. QFX 5800

     

    The 680 is the latest architecture. The 590 is a dual GPU card, and PR does not work with dual GPU's, so 50% of the card is not used at all, making it a waste of money.

    The QFX 5800 is several generations old, is underspecced, underpowered and overpriced.

     

    GPU-test-PPBM5.5-new.jpg

     

    As you can see, number of cores has a big impact. For further info, look at Benchmark Results

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 8:04 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    To expand on this further (relative to other currently available GeForce GPUs):

     

    1. GTX 680

    2. GTX 580 3GB

    3. GTX 580 1.5GB

    4. GTX 590

    5. GTX 570

    6. GTX 560 Ti 448

    7.

    8.

    9. GTX 560 Ti (384-core)

    10.

    11.

    12. GTX 560 (336-core)

    (tie) QFX 5800

     

    So, if a very expensive Quadro performs only about as fast as a sub-$200 GeForce, that makes a QFX 5800 a total waste of money. In fact, the QFX 5800 was based on the GTX 285.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 9:44 AM   in reply to Todd_Kopriva

    Todd_Kopriva wrote:

     

    Dave, show me what "propaganda" from Adobe you're referring to. As you know, I'm the first to warn of OpenGL misconceptions.

     

    Okay, Nvidia is far more guilty of gilding the Open GL lily for AE use than Adobe; you really need to read their fine print before you take the plunge.  I was on a roll when I wrote it. 

     

    I stand corrected.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 9:49 AM   in reply to 4K3D

    hi,

     

    When I first built my system a few years ago,I  went out a purchased the Quadro fx5800, I tested it against a gtx 480, and was supprised that a gtx performed so mutch better for premiere.

     

    I later sold it as quickly as I could, and Now have a 680.

     

    Baz

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 30, 2012 2:36 AM   in reply to Dave LaRonde

    OpenGL is the only thing keeping my (substandard) Dell desktop handling previews for my After Affects CS5.5 compositions.

     

    The Dell computer is an XPS-8300. 3.4Ghz i7 2600 CPU, 8GB 1333Ghz RAM, AMD Radeon HD 6770 graphics card.

     

    Ram Preview struggles when I add Gaussian Blur and Digital Depth of Field (another Blur). I use those effects the most, and they really impact on preview speeds. Allowing OpenGL at least gives me a preview, however ugly it looks.

     

    If there's hardware available that can speed up OpenGL, I really want to know.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 30, 2012 4:00 AM   in reply to 4K3D

    IF YOU HAVE A MOBO X79 ---> GTX680

    IF YOU DONT HAVE A MOBO X79 ---> GTX570 GPU cloockspeed +850mhz

    IF YOU LIKE TO WASTE YOUR MONEY ---> Quadro FX XXXX

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points