You only want a nVidia GeForce GTX 660 or better, the rest is irrelevant.
Thank you for your reply Ham. Would you please go a bit farther with me on this topic? From what I have been able to gather the Quadro series of cards work better with AE, 3D rendering, raytracing, and long rendering operations than the GeForce series of cards and are supposed to be more stable. Is this true to your knowledge? With me it's not as much an issue of cost (within reason of curse) as it is an issue of performance and stability. Please understand I am not questioning your expertise, I am trying to gain a deeper understanding of this subject as the Quadro series seem to be heavily pushed by many sides and that makes it confusing. Thanks again Ham. If you desire I am willing to continue this discussion in private through email if you feel it may be taking up valuable forum time and space.
[moved to the hardware forum]
Now that you're here, this is the perfect place to talk about such things. Discuss away!
Quadro cards are overpriced and under-performing. It is a myth that Quadro's are more stable. Take a look at http://ppbm7.com/index.php/results?showall=&start=3 and see where a Quadro 4000 ends up, despite the price tag.
Maximus is another well touted route to go, according to Adobe, but I have not seen that a combination of a Tesla C2075 and a Quadro 5000 or 6000 delivers performance close to a GTX 670 or 680, despite being around 10+ times more expensive.
The only reason to choose a Quadro card is when you NEED 10 bit output to an expensive 10 bit monitor. But you have to bring a big wallet.
If you go to http://ppbm7.com/index.php/results?showall=&start=4 you will see only 6 Quadro 4000 cards among the 126 observations and they all show poor results at best, well the best system with a Quadro 4000 card is barely in the median range, and two systems are among the bottom 25% performers.
Thanks for moving me Jeff and sorry for originating my post in the wrong section. First time I have posted here. My discussion with Ham aside, I was considering the difference between the Quadro 5000 and the K5000. The older Quadro 5000 still outputs many more gigaflops when using double precision processing than the K5000, even though the K5000 is the newest generation of Quadro card, although the K5000 wipes the floor with the Quadro 5000 in single precision processing. That being the case I needed to know if Adobe CS6, Specifically PPRO and AE, were single or double precision processing applications. Could you or anyone else please answer that question for me? Thanks all.
PS: Here's a box of Twinky's for you Jeff....
Ham I noticed that there are two GTX 680's, one with 2mb and one with 4mb. Is there any appreciable difference in performance when used with PPRO and AE in CS6?
No, unless you use large dimension clips. The price difference is relatively small, but if you happen to edit large stills or Red 4K or EPIC 5K material, you run the risk of running out of VRAM. In that case PR reverts to software MPE only mode automatically and without any warning and can not go back to hardware MPE mode during the rendering. But the biggest problem is that when PR reverts to software MPE mode, you are also losing the maximum quality settings of hardware MPE, so not only does it take much longer to render, but you also lose quality in the process. For the relatively small price difference, I would always opt for the largest memory available. But if you are still using SD or 1920x1080 material and have no intention to move to high res DSLR, Red or EPIC material, you can save the extra cost by choosing a 2 GB card.
I can not give you hard figures on when VRAM is depleted and software MPE kicks in. Would be very interesting to know.