Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

PNY VCQ6000-PB Quadro 6000 6GB 384-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 Workstation Video Card

Jun 1, 2012 12:26 PM

I 'm would like to know if anyone has used a PNY VCQ6000-PB Quadro 6000 6GB 384-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 Workstation Video Card with a tesls c7075

or is somthing better to run Premiere CS6 Suite. (for video editing or is it over kill)

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 1, 2012 12:52 PM   in reply to Skulltrail Editing

    I heard about one organization that uses a setup like this:

     

    Dual Xeon i5-2690 (€ 4,000)

    96 GB memory (€ 2,200)

    Tesla C2075 (€ 2,200)

    Quadro 6000 (€ 3,600)

    Petarack (€ 500,000)

     

    and the other minor periphernalia (€ 8,000) .

     

    Seriously, how many do you expect to spend around € 5,800 on a video solution with only 448 CUDA cores for MPE assitance, when a GTX 680 goes for € 450?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 1, 2012 1:02 PM   in reply to Skulltrail Editing

    Currently 'Harm's Beast', soon to be replaced by 'Harm's Monster'. See Benchmark Results

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 1, 2012 1:55 PM   in reply to Skulltrail Editing

    My personal preference is currently the 4 GB GTX 680 version, but I'm hoping that nVidia will come out with a version, that I have called the 685, with a 384 bit memory bus instead of the current 256 bit bus. That will make a huge difference in performance. The 690 does nothing for PR, since the second GPU is not used at all, it is completely idle.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 1, 2012 11:37 PM   in reply to Skulltrail Editing

    The K20 is nice according to the specs, but I would not be surprised to see prices like K10 for around € 2600 and K20 for around € 4000. That brings the cost together with a Quadro 6000 into astronomous ranges. BFTB-wise it is still a lousy investment.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 5, 2012 2:20 AM   in reply to Skulltrail Editing

    Hi Skulltrail,

     

    couldn't quite figure out from your configuration exactly what kind of workload you are trying to address?  If it is just editing, your current configuration should be more balanced between cpu, video, & disk.  imo there are too few disks, spent waayyy too much on video and the $$ would be better spent on disk then cpu.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 5, 2012 9:38 AM   in reply to Skulltrail Editing

    This is a system that may equal a single i7-3930K in performance for around four times the price, at least if you are lucky. Quite possibly it will not quite reach the performance level of a € 3000 system for four times the price. It has a lousy BFTB. A rough guesstimate is that this system will end up around rank # 150 or worse on our PPBM5 Benchmark despite the massive amount spent.

     

    PS. Don't shoot the messenger, shoot the decision maker.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 5, 2012 9:45 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Dont mind Harm. Its generally known he is biased against dual xeon systems.And guess which system he does have  ......

     

    Depending on what codec footage you edit and the kind of work you do, a  powerful GPU and  multicore CPUs power can come in handy. And if you can afford it, much the better. Bang for buck isnt always a wise guideline for purchasing equipment. How it fits your needs is sometimes more important. But if you a just doing weddings or anything but Red / Epic stuff, he may have a point 

     

    Most people that I know that are working professionally on a wide range of formats, are involved in motion graphics  and make longer form projects will benefit from a more powerful system. Hobbyists maybe not so much.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 5, 2012 10:15 AM   in reply to lasvideo

    Dont mind Harm. Its generally known he is biased against dual xeon systems.

     

    That is only half of the story. I'm biased against Dell, HP, Boxx, Alienware etc. as well because they steal you blind if you want anything more that the base configuration, they deliver their stuff with crippled BIOS preventing you to overclock, they sometimes use non-standard PSU dimensions (HP) so you can't upgrade it, they do not offer sufficient expansion options, etc.

     

    If dual Xeon systems were leading the pack in the benchmark, I would adjust my thinking, but they are nowhere comparable to a single CPU overclocked system. But the price is astronomically higher, especially from companies like Dell and HP.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 5, 2012 10:34 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    I certainly agree about big box stores, that why I went to ADK and Puget eventually!

     

    Some issues that somewhat negate your stance are ....most editors / facilities I know dont overclock (which is a moot point with E5).....current PPBM benchmarks do not  reflect a work flow with Red / Epic / Arri / Alexa  footage which for the "industry" are becoming a standard. They also dont take into account that lots of PrP editors do a lot of dynamic linking with AE.

     

    So its really a matter of where you stand and what you do in this wide field known as video editing that is determinant of what you buy.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 6, 2012 4:45 AM   in reply to lasvideo

    This is because the current PPBM5 benchmark concentrates on the most popular of HD and SD video formats at the time of the benchmark's development. Prior to PPBM5, previous versions of PPBM were strictly standard definition.

     

    Harm and Bill have been working on a test that involves some of those higher formats. But to run those tests to anyone's satisfaction, both the disk system and the graphics and CPU subsystems must be able to keep up with such demands. As a result, any BFTB ratings will be completely ignored (read: thrown out the window) because such material requires a system that costs at least $25,000 (an amount that very, very few people are even willing to spend even if they can "afford" it) just to even work at all.

     

    And normally, dual-CPU systems are slower than some single-CPU systems due to the extra latency caused by the switching and splitting of the single bus to two CPUs. That split is the weakest point in current dual-CPU systems.

     

    I do agree with Harm that the Quadros are mostly a waste of money if one will only be working with Premiere Pro. However, After Effects does take some advantage of the more robust OpenGL performance of the Quadros. In certain OpenGL productivity apps, the GeForces (yes, even the very fastest, latest one) are significantly slower than even a relatively old, very slow (by today's standards) Quadro FX 580, let alone a Quadro 4000 or above.

     

    Message was edited by: RjL190365

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 6, 2012 5:26 AM   in reply to lasvideo

    In addition to Randalls remark, there are practical considerations like:

     

    • Download size of the test. It is impractical to include footage of RED 4K and EPIC 5K and Arri and Alexa. It would mean a huge download.
    • The testing time. Consider testing times on the current test roughly varying between 131 seconds to more than 4000 seconds. If the new test we are working on, which includes Canon XF 422 and RED 4K material, increases by a factor 10, the testing time for lesser machines would become prohibitive. You can't expect people to run a benchmark test if it means 11 hours or even more to run it.

     

    We have to compromise.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 6, 2012 5:45 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Harm,

     

    Regarding how long it takes to run PPBM6, maybe running "too slow" for slower PCs need not be an issue. PPBM5 should work fine for their needs.

     

    Or, for PPBM6, maybe a separate "large format" test (for RED, EPIC, etc.) with its own separate "large file" download could be implemented that could be considered optional in order for user's to turn in a test submission.

     

    In any case, thanks for all the hard work that you do (you too Bill!) to support the PPBM franchise!

     

    Regards,

     

    Jim

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 6, 2012 6:30 AM   in reply to JEShort01

    I can appreciate the constraints Harm and Bill have to deal with, with the large professional formats. But as Premiere gets more refined, its attracting the kind of crowd that uses them. If its not practical to run benchmarks, then we will have to acknowledge that the PPBM is not the final word in which systems to purchase since it cant reflect all the new work conditions that facilities and higher end freelancers have to deal with.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 6, 2012 6:47 AM   in reply to JEShort01

    Jim,

     

    We are currently testing both a short form test and a long form test and may have to use different result pages for that.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 6, 2012 8:33 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    I would like to add one historical note.


     


    PPBM when I developed it back in 2005 was designed as a hardware evaluation tool for Premiere users.  I was unsatisfied with all the unfounded "theories" in the forum at that time on hardware configurations.  We have made amazing strides since that time.  Since we cannot possibly cover all formats, it will have to be up to the users to extarpolate. to many of  the formats.

     

    Bill Gehrke

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 8, 2012 1:16 PM   in reply to Skulltrail Editing

    The questions is, do you for see editing large files like Red / Prores 4444 / Epic or a like. If so, you might need the power of the dual Xeon Sandy Bridge EP system. If not, the single SB should do it. Hey, if you are buying from ADK, Eric should be your spirital advisor on such matters. He is a very smart and friendly guy.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 8, 2012 1:31 PM   in reply to Skulltrail Editing

    Sorry, until I switch Im a Mac guy switching to a Sandy Bridge Dual Xeon systems for reasons discussed above. It would be wise to call Eric who has much more intelligent things to say about it than I do.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 9, 2012 12:01 AM   in reply to Skulltrail Editing

    Hi Skulltrail,

     

    Yes that is a nicely spec'd and fast machine for HD quality editing. 

     

    Remember speed is relative to the effects and transitions you use, size of the footage you edit.  

     

    Despite all the stuffas you hear from marketing the GPU still plays a fairly minor role as is it limited to a multi-camera mode, a few output codec's, rescaling & some effects.  If you don't use these features then the work falls back to the CPU, only you really know your workflow, so if you use more CPU intensive work then go with the xeons as CS6 seems scale to ~12-16 real cores.

     

    If you work with Cinema sized footage (3k-5k) then you'll want to consider having a robust disk subsystem.  For smaller footage sizes (3k) target 600+ MB/sec'ish for reasonable playback 4-6 source disks.  For 4-5k you'll wanna target about 1000-1500MB/Sec (8-12) source disks for good playback speed.

     

    If you care about future proofing, look at the top-end of what is being tested/demo'd at the time of release of the software and buy one of those. You can generally expect the software to perform well for the next 2 versions..

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 9, 2012 9:18 AM   in reply to StevRo

    [malicious web site link removed]

     

    Sorry but the Russiki's got to my computer!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 9, 2012 1:50 PM   in reply to Bill Gehrke

    "Sorry but the Russiki's got to my computer!"

     

     

    Bill, one of the scary things about moving to the PC

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 9, 2012 2:26 PM   in reply to lasvideo

    To take it completely off topic, @lasvideo, cyber criminals generally view mac's as soft targets as a group the users don't run anti-virus.  Mac's are 7x more likely to have malware than pc's.


    http://www.sophos.com/en-us/press-office/press-releases/2012/04/one-in -every-five-mac-computers-harbors-malware.aspx

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 9, 2012 2:32 PM   in reply to StevRo

    Interesting theory gents, but in 4 years of Mac use I never had a problem. Eight years on a PC was fraught with issues. Some due to the protection software fighting the edit software. Id be willing to wager that if 1 million Mac users were interviewed you would have about 1% complain about virus/malware problems. Compare that to a projected 95% of PC users and I think I make a point on most folks experience with this stuff. Iknow its an Achilles heel of sensitivity, but it exists and its a constant PITA and issue. We can bicker about this till the cows come in, that doesnt change the nature of the beast. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 9, 2012 2:53 PM   in reply to Skulltrail Editing

    From my perspective it works better on PC, going by the number of posts from MAC users. There may be other factors here, general lack of expertise of MAC users who don't know much about computers and expect everything to work after plugging into the wall outlet, having to get acquainted with using native formats instead of intermediate formats in either ProRes or QT, learning a new workflow, missing effects and transitions that are not available on MAC that are available on PC, and MAC's being slower and much more costly than equally equipped PC's, etc.

     

    Not to get into a fighting war MAC - PC, it is your choice to go for one platform or the other. Some crave the MAC environment, others the Windows environment.  So be it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 4, 2012 11:43 PM   in reply to Skulltrail Editing

    So what did you end up buying, and how is it working out? How much did you spend US dollars?

     

    I'm in the same boat right now, and I don't like the processors DELL is locking me into on the T7600. It seems over priced.

     
    |
    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