Skip navigation

Video Card Advice for CS6 (Win)

Apr 24, 2012 8:57 AM

  Latest reply: roddiehorton, Dec 18, 2013 11:38 PM
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2012 6:53 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    Jim Simon wrote:

     

    Interesting.  I wonder if that will make the 680 more attractive, and possibly worth the price.  (Not sure it's worth an extra $300 for the meager Mercury improvements alone.  But for SpeedGrade...)

     

    Speedgrade does not use CUDA, it uses OpenGL.

    If you were to use SpeedGrade and only SpeedGrade, the best bang for the bucks right now is, without comparison, the Radeon 7970.

    That is of course no good for CUDA application since it uses OpenCL instead.

     

    The GTX 680 is one of the worst cards you can get in terms of raw compute power...it is the first generation of Nvidia cards that has had its compute power artificially capped (one would assume to sell more Quadro cards)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2012 7:04 AM   in reply to RjL190365

    I appreciate all the replys. What do I need to do to hack the text file in CS5.5 for GeForce GTX 560Ti 2g card? And what will I need to do for CS6?  Thanks! I guess I made a mistake getting this card for my son it just seemed like it met the specifications and was a good card in the price range and in my budget at the time. Too late to get another. :-(Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:49:14 -0600

    From: forums@adobe.com

    To: karenleemoore@live.com

    Subject: Re: Video Card Advice for CS6 (Win) Video Card Advice for CS6 (Win)

     

     

     

     

     

     

          

               

               

               

        Re: Video Card Advice for CS6 (Win)

     

     

        created by RjL190365 in Hardware Forum - View the full discussion

     

     

     

    Jim Simon wrote: The computer tech guy said a hack had the potential to crash my system He was not correct about that. I'd venture there are probably more hacked cards in use out there than officially supported cards.  I mean, there's only three non-Quardo, still in production cards on that list.Actually, only two. The GTX 470 is EOL.

     

     

         Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: Re: Video Card Advice for CS6 (Win)

         To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at Re: Video Card Advice for CS6 (Win). In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.

          

         Start a new discussion in Hardware Forum by email or at Adobe Forums

      For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936746#2936746.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2012 7:39 AM   in reply to SvendBendt

    Wrong again. You are mixing OpenGL and OpenCL performance and CUDA performance.

     

    The GTX 680 is one of the worst cards you can get in terms of raw compute power...it is the first generation of Nvidia cards that has had its compute power artificially capped (one would assume to sell more Quadro cards)

     

    This ONLY relates to OpenGL compute power performance and that is utterly irrelevant. It is about equal to saying this car weighs less than another car, and thus it is the best car. That is BS. The AMD Radeon 7970 is about the worst card to get performance wise compared to a limited nVidia card for 25% of the price that delivers around ten times the performance. nVidia delivers around 400 times the value of the 7970 in rendering. You can't tell anything about Speedgrade, since it has not been released.

     

    Those who know don't tell, those who tell don't know.

     

    PS. If you are not happy about the co-operation between nVidia and Adobe, choose AMD and live with that. Your choice.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2012 8:42 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Harm Millaard wrote:

     

    Wrong again. You are mixing OpenGL and OpenCL performance and CUDA performance.

     

    The GTX 680 is one of the worst cards you can get in terms of raw compute power...it is the first generation of Nvidia cards that has had its compute power artificially capped (one would assume to sell more Quadro cards)

     

    This ONLY relates to OpenGL compute power performance and that is utterly irrelevant. It is about equal to saying this car weighs less than another car, and thus it is the best car. That is BS. The AMD Radeon 7970 is about the worst card to get performance wise compared to a limited nVidia card for 25% of the price that delivers around ten times the performance. nVidia delivers around 400 times the value of the 7970 in rendering. You can't tell anything about Speedgrade, since it has not been released.

     

    Those who know don't tell, those who tell don't know.

     

    PS. If you are not happy about the co-operation between nVidia and Adobe, choose AMD and live with that. Your choice.

     

     

    /sigh

     

     

    I'm not mixing anything.

     

    OpenGL is used for everything in After Effects except the new ray-trace engine which is CUDA driven.

    SpeedGrade DOES NOT USE CUDA (!!!) http://www.adobe.com/products/speedgrade/tech-specs.html

    Notice the part where it says: OpenGL 2.0–capable system? And therefor Radeon 7970 is eons faster then any cheap gfx card from Nvidia for use in SpeedGrade...period!

     

    As for a better card for Premiere then Gtx 680, I was talking about other Nvidia cards obviously....like the GTX 580 or 570. You will get about the same CUDA performance as with the 680 and save a ton of money.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2012 9:15 AM   in reply to SvendBendt

    And therefor Radeon 7970 is eons faster then any cheap gfx card from Nvidia for use in SpeedGrade...period!

     

    Post that in the Speedgrade forum. It is utterly irrelevant on the PR forum and here there is nothing worse than an AMD card. Want to buy one, go ahead, but stop cluttering this board with meaningless messages on unreleased software with unfounded statements.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2012 9:22 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Did I do something to upset you? You seem hostile to say the least.

     

    The guy who made this thread asked specifically about the performance in After Effects, SpeedGrade and Premiere.

    You don't think I'm allowed to answer his question?

     

    As for "unfounded statements" with regard to OpenGL performance, I have a feeling that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2012 9:53 AM   in reply to SvendBendt

    My point about taking an interest in the 680 was this.

     

    For the meager CUDA enhancements the 680 provides over something like the $200 560Ti, it doesn't seem worth it.  But since SpeedGrade (which admittedly isn't using CUDA) uses ONLY the GPU for processing, I wonder if the 680 might now provide a significant enough improvement over the 560Ti to make it worth the extra $300.

     

    What Radeons can do by comparison is not much relevant.  We still need (or at least want) the CUDA for PP.  So my only thought was how much better would the 680 be for SpeedGrade over a 560Ti?  The extra $300 isn't worth it for CUDA, but will it made a larger difference with SpeedGrade?

     

    I wonder...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2012 9:45 AM   in reply to Ed.Macke

    Ed.Macke wrote:

     

    Well, my question wasn't really about performance per se... it was about whether I even need a video card and if so which one would best meet my stated needs.

     

    Are you suggesting that - given what I want to do - the answer to my question would be to get a Radeon 7970?

     

    No. You would not get the benefit of Mercury engine in Premiere and hardware accelerated ray-trace in After Effects. I would get a GTX 570 or GTX 580 if I were you. Skip the Quadro cards.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2012 9:51 AM   in reply to Ed.Macke

    For OpenCL performance try these links:

    http://techreport.com/articles.x/22653/7

    http://www.geeks3d.com/20120427/clbenchmark-new-opencl-benchmark-for-w indows-tested-hd-7970-vs-gtx-680/

     

    For full performance considerations under CS6 for a range of applications I’d wait until it is released to see how the various nVidia cards perform. It seems likely that the GTX 570/580 will offer the best across the board performance (assuming OpenCL is an issue) until the top end Kepler GPU is released.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 27, 2012 10:08 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    Jim Simon wrote:

    I wonder if the 680 might now provide a significant enough improvement over the 560Ti to make it worth the extra $300.

    The extra $300 isn't worth it for CUDA, but will it made a larger difference with SpeedGrade?

     

     

    Nvidia is said to announce a card in May that should correct the embarrassing compute performance of the GXT 680, but it most likely won't be cheap. Best bang for you bugs right now is a GTX 570 or GTX 580. The GTX 680 is the worlds fastest single-chip gamer card but not much else.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 4:51 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5699/45193.png

     

    This is a benchmark from PrimeGrid. A CUDA accelerated math application.

    This shows the GTX 680 being beaten by not just the 580 but also 560 Ti 

     

    The 680 is a fantastic card......for games.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 6:40 AM   in reply to Ed.Macke

    I hate to burst anyone's bubble but later today I will have complete data on how much better the GTX 680 is for Premiere users.  I have a new personal benchmark that uses AVCHD 1920 x 1080 source clip and I have applied several necessary video effects and then exported it to MPEG2-DVD.  So far I have tried three different GPU's (GTX-680, GTX560 Ti 448, and GTX 285) and as soon as I can get around to running a GTX 580 and formatting the data for presentation I will come back with the information, but believe me the GTX 680 is a Premiere Pro users dream!  Of course my baseline will be using the CPU only as would happen if you have an ATI/AMD card.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 6:47 AM   in reply to Bill Gehrke

    Bill. since many PrP users are also AE users, it would be interesting to see how the various cards perform there as well. Many folks that got sneak peek access to AE CS6 report the Quadro 4000 dramatically speed up the new ray tracing mode that allows text extrusion/reflections/transparency/etc.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 7:16 AM   in reply to lasvideo

    Send me a Quadro 4000!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 7:33 AM   in reply to RjL190365

    I found a bat file to hack for the GTX 560 Ti for PE Do I need to do something to AE as well? I cannot find anything under Search Cuda Hack. Thanks!

    Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:57:50 -0600

    From: forums@adobe.com

    To: karenleemoore@live.com

    Subject: Re: Video Card Advice for CS6 (Win) Video Card Advice for CS6 (Win)

     

     

     

     

     

     

          

               

               

               

        Re: Video Card Advice for CS6 (Win)

     

     

        created by RjL190365 in Hardware Forum - View the full discussion

     

     

     

    For now, that's your only option. At least on initial release, the Adobe list of supported cards in CS6 for Windows remains completely unchanged from CS5.5.

     

     

         Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: Re: Video Card Advice for CS6 (Win)

         To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at Re: Video Card Advice for CS6 (Win). In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.

          

         Start a new discussion in Hardware Forum by email or at Adobe Forums

      For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936746#2936746.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 7:50 AM   in reply to Bill Gehrke

    Yes, Bill, the GTX 680 may be a gamers' and Premiere Pro users' dream. However, it is relatively weak in some other applications that take full advantage of the compute capabilities even when compared to some of the older and lower-end GeForce GPUs. This is a GPU that for now I'd place in "great for gaming and Premiere, weak on everything else" category.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 7:56 AM   in reply to RjL190365

    The After Effects ray-traced 3D renderer can't use Kepler-class cards like the GTX 680 yet. There's a special library that we need to integrate to make them work. We're working on it. I won't make specific promise on whether or when we might release an update to enable this, but I will say to stay tuned.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 8:47 AM   in reply to Todd_Kopriva

    Thanks Todd. Thats very good to know as I anticipate making a major transition from my 2008 Mac Pro to the ADK system below sometime in the future.

     

    Screen Shot 2012-04-27 at 4.46.22 PM.png

    This will be supplemented with a Kona 3 card and a 8TB. Maxx Digital raid array (750MB/s)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 10:38 AM   in reply to Todd_Kopriva

    ray-traced 3D renderer can't use Kepler-class cards like the GTX 680 yet.

     

    That is very good information to have.  Thank you for reporting.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 5:23 PM   in reply to Todd_Kopriva

    Todd that is great news that Adobe is looking into the GTX 680

     

    Here is my promised GPU testing highlighting the GTX680.  This is clip from my 1920 x 1080 AVCHD from my Sony NXCAM.  It has Fast color Correction , Brightness and Contrast, and Gamma video effects.  As it is encoded to MPEG2-DVD it of course has frame size reduction.  All these effects and the scaling operation are GPU assisted.  The clip was 80 seconds long.  The CPU is a hex core i7-980X overclocked to 4.2 GHz.  IT has 24 GB of DDR3-1964 RAM.  The project disk drive is a way overkill of 8 each 15,000 rpm drives in RAID 0 on an Areca controller. 

     

    GPU-Testing.jpg

    If you set the 56 seconds from the CPU only testing as the 100% standard the the GTX 680 is 311% faster.(better thaqn three times faster) where the GTX 580 is then only 254% faster.

     

    If I were to test a Quadro 4000 since it has just a few more cores than the GTX 285 you can see where it would rank in this testing.

     

    Message was edited by: Bill Gehrke

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 6:15 PM   in reply to Bill Gehrke

    Hmmm.  23 seconds for less than $300, or only 18 seconds for about $500.

     

    I still think the 680's performance is disappointing by comparison, and not a very good buy just yet.  (Especially since the ray-tracing won't work on it.)

     

    Thanks for testing, Bill.  It's good data to have.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 8:11 PM   in reply to Bill Gehrke

    Thanks, Bill, for your testing. This means that the GTX 680 is still not worth the premium at its current street price. It needs to be priced about $100 lower just to compete with the GTX 560 Ti 448 in terms of overall bang for the buck.

     

    And those results only confirm that any CUDA GPU with less than 192 CUDA cores on a PC with a highly overclocked CPU or an expensive high-performance CPU might as well be forced to use CPU-only: The GPU results would have been slower than the CPU-only results with such cheapo GPUs.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 8:29 PM   in reply to RjL190365

    I guess its worth depends on how much you use the GPU and how much your time is worth.  For an occasional user 50% faster does not mean much but to a real production house it would be money in the bank!

     

    if you had a big job and it was 23 hours or 18 hours, I am sure that it might change the viewpoint!  Remember this was only an 80 second clip.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 8:54 PM   in reply to Bill Gehrke

    On the other hand, a lot of people spend so much money on fast equipment only to lose money and go completely bankrupt. Remember, for every user making money with judicious use of expensive fast PC components there are dozens or even hundreds that fail and go bankrupt. In fact, there are lots of people who are actually wasting money just to even have the fastest PC out there - so much that many people who have the very slowest of current-generation PCs or even old-generation PCs who are actually far more productive. In this case, then, it boils down to the quality of the work that each individual is doing. Remember, a fast PC does not guarantee even good results, let alone great results.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 9:00 PM   in reply to RjL190365

    > Remember, a fast PC does not guarantee even good results, let alone great results.

     

    Amen!

     

    Even regarding speed, the fastest computer hardware isn't the only (or even most important) consideration.

     

    I've written a lot about performance and video work, and I always begin with tips about workflow and working smarter, before I ever get into computer hardware details. For example, I always tell people that the best way to get more done in less time is to test your pipeline and get your client to sign off on a test output file before you ever begin the bulk of your work---since saving yourself from redoing something or starting over from a dead end is more valuable than another 20% boost out of an overclocked CPU.

     

    (OK. I'm done with my semi-rant.)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 9:17 PM   in reply to RjL190365

    RJL- "Remember, a fast PC does not guarantee even good results, let alone great results.".

     

    No, but in the hands of a seasoned professional, it sure doesnt hurt to maximize the effectiveness of the Mercury PlaybacKl Engine. When you need the confidence that your system can handle whatever a client throws at you (formats / effects / show lenghts) and you want to maximize the speed that you can complete projects (exporting / rendering) it certainly doesnt hurt to have a powerhouse at your beck and call. I much prefer that to an imac 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 9:19 PM   in reply to Todd_Kopriva

    Not only that, but sometimes work doesn't get done on time simply because the PC that one is using simply can't keep up with the demands of the material that (s)he is working with. This could lead to a money-losing habit - so much that (s)he might as well pack it in. Or it could lead to overreaction - spending an astronomical amount of money on the fastest PC out there.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 9:26 PM   in reply to RjL190365

    RJL Im not sure you are responding to my post.

     

    If you are, you seem rather fixated on the amateur that doesnt know what they are doing. In which your observation, though theoretical, could be valid.

     

    But it casts a blind eye to the other users of Adobe that know what they are doing based on years of experience. In which case its a whole different ballgame since thier choices are more informed. If you know what you are doing, a powerfull computer that maximizes CS6's potential is a good thing.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 9:30 PM   in reply to lasvideo

    I actually responded to Todd's post, not your post.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 9:30 PM   in reply to RjL190365

    I see. Well, my point still stands 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 9:32 PM   in reply to RjL190365

    I think that we're all mostly in agreement here.

     

    I'm a big fan of having the best equipment possible, but I shudder when I see people obsessing over tweaking their gear when they have huge efficiencies left on the table because of bad workflow decisions or just not bothering to think ahead a bit.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 9:37 PM   in reply to lasvideo

    Fair enough.

     

    And not all pros sell their work, and thus those pros make no money at all whatsoever (at least from video work). And like Todd, I stand in disbelief when I see people on other threads obsess over the sheer performance of their PCs without mentioning their generally mediocre to poor workflow decisions.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 9:38 PM   in reply to RjL190365

    Todd - Yes, I do agree with that summation. I see your point.

     

    RJL - Arent pros that dont sell there work called hobbyists 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 28, 2012 9:43 PM   in reply to lasvideo

    lasvideo wrote:

     


    RJL - Arent pros that dont sell there work called hobbyists 

    True. But some people lump hobbists together with fumble-fingered amateurs. And that's another thing that I shudder at.

     

    With that said, I'm done with this thread until I have something more useful to contribute.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 29, 2012 2:55 PM   in reply to Bill Gehrke

    For an occasional user 50% faster does not mean much

     

    No, it would.  But you didn't get 50% faster than the 560 with the 680.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 29, 2012 3:00 PM   in reply to Jim Simon

    Jim Simon wrote:

     

    For an occasional user 50% faster does not mean much

     

    No, it would.  But you didn't get 50% faster than the 560 with the 680.

    Yes, Bill's "50%" figure is relative to the percentage points worth of improvement over software-only MPE. He was using software-only MPE as a starting point.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 29, 2012 3:03 PM   in reply to RjL190365

    Ah, got it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 18, 2013 11:38 PM   in reply to SvendBendt

    Wonder if my 1gb AMD 7570 would score about 12 or so on this test. Even that would probably be optimistic. LOL

    I have an Intel quad 3.ghx Dell. That has inspired me to budget $4000.00 on a rig. Going SSD for sure core i7. What ram, motherboard and video card. would spend $1200. for the right video card setup. If i had to.

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next
Actions

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