New GPU, so many choices...

Jack,

"Superclocked" means that the GPU has been slightly overclocked at the factory. But that particular eVGA card has only an Nvidia reference cooler, so the slight overclock on the GPU would make very little if any difference whatsoever in the performance. And in my experience with a GTX 470 with the reference cooler, the fan often ramped up to maximum speed, then slowed down and sped up alternately. That indicated that the GPU started throttling down in speed (to prevent overheating) during MPEG-2 DVD from HD transcoding, making it slower than it should have been.

And the GTX 560 Ti 448 does work with the hack. After all, it is essentially a GTX 580 with two of its 16 texturing units disabled. (Likewise, the GTX 570 has one of the GTX 580's 16 texturing units disabled.)

As for the 2TB card, it isn't needed with typical DSLR or AVCHD footage with only a few layers of video in the project.

I would rather go for more cores than a slightly overclocked card, since you can define your own user profile, where you overclock a bit, but you can't add cores from software.

I have one of the new 448 core GTX560's and it is great. The MPEG2-DVD encoding is slightly more (slightly slower) than the PPBM5 score of my GTX 580 at ~$300 versus ~$500 the choice is yours.  The GTX 570 at only ~$350 is a good buy, unfortunately I cannot afford a GTX 570 to test it

That is precisely the one that I have.

It seems slightly fussy on the driver version but I am using the one on the disc that comes with it which is not the one on the nVidia site.  The included CD disc driver is 285.66 and the web site has 285.62. 

I'd go for the 2GB EVGA myself.  The superclocked probably won't provide any noticeable improvement.  The 448 core might show some very slight improvement, a second or two.  But the less than 2GB models can show serious slowdown under some conditions, forcing the rendering back onto the CPU if you run out of video memory.

Jack,

I'm not Jim, but a 2GB card would work better for higher-than-HDTV content such as RED 4K.

I am already using Nvidia GTX 460 with 2GB ram and planning to upgrade my GPU.

I have two choices Nvidia Quadro 4000 or Nvidia Geforce GTX 680, I would appreciate if someone can help me to finalize the choice.

Thankx

Nix the Quadro unless you have a specific reason for needing it, like needing 10-bit output or some other software beyond Premiere that could take advantage of the Quadro.

So sorry I didn't get it, you mean Quadro is better for premiere rather than GTX 680

The ONLY reason to buy the overpriced Quadro is if you need 10 bit output

No. If you're only using Premiere, the Quadro 4000 is a huge waste of money right now because its specs are actually lesser than a $180 GeForce GTX 560 (only 256 CUDA cores in the Quadro 4000 versus 336 CUDA cores in the GTX 560, and both cards with only 256-bit VRAM bus width) - but the Quadro 4000 costs a whopping $800. In fact, the closest GeForce GPU to the Quadro 4000 (specs-wise) would be the 288-core GeForce GTX 460 SE (or its OEM-only successor, the GTX 560 SE).

So, even accounting for the more robust OpenGL support in the Quadros, the Quadro 4000 would be at best only a cross-grade (performance-wise) from your current GTX 460: They both perform about equal to one another.

Thankyou Guys.... I will go for GTX 680.

One caveat: The GTX 680 can be ported to a new PC although (depending on your current system's CPU, RAM and motherboard) its performance benefit in Premiere may be limited by the weakest link in that existing PC. So, if you're running only a four-year-old Core 2 Quad, even the GTX 680 would be a waste of money unless you're planning to get a new PC in a few months since its performance would still be significantly slower overall than PCs with fast i7 CPUs that are equipped with GPUs that are half as powerful as the GTX 680.

One caveat:

Two actually.  The 680 can't take advantage of the ray-tracing 3D renderer in the new After Effects CS6.  It might someday, but who knows when.

True.

I have DEL studio XPS with i7 with 16GB Ram and GTX 460 GPU..... but everytime I place an effect on premiere timeline a red line comes on and playback lags a bit.

I saw my my friend has Xeon Cpu with quadro GPU and the video doesnt lag.

Here's the problem:

That Dell XPS Studio uses an older generation, LGA 1156 "Lynnfield" i7 CPU, either an i7-860 or an i7-870. The trouble with either CPU is that they are no faster than a low-end i7-9xx series (LGA 1366) CPU in terms of performance. Worse, Dell has locked its BIOSes so that you can't even tweak the CPU or memory at all as far as speed and voltage is concerned. Your friend's system using a Quadro seems faster - but only because he likely has a dual-CPU system. Most systems using only a single Xeon are, if anything, slower than the i7-860 because they are clocked lower than the i7-860 to begin with.

I have i7 920 @2.6 speed.

So will it make a difference in premiere by replacing gtx460 with gTx 570 or 580?

As I stated, any of the fastest GPUs will be limited by the slow (by current standards) CPU. Therefore, I would not recommend such a GPU upgrade unless you're planning to upgrade the rest of your PC within the next few months.

I'd also be surprised if you saw enough improvement over the current 460 to make it worth the money.

So will it make a difference in premiere by replacing gtx460 with gTx 570 or 580?

No.

Thank you for the info. I will certainly upgrade my CPU to i7 extreme and GTX 680. I have loads of video to edit.

Just for the info I tried sony vegas 11 with my current system and the video lags more than premiere.

Thank you again.

Don't forget, the 680 can't do ray-tracing in After Effects.

So is GTX 580 a better choice? I only use Premiere Pro and AE.

I consider it so.