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