6 Replies Latest reply on Jun 8, 2013 11:53 AM by MD Optofonik

    GT640 vs GT630 upgrade for my rather dated system

    MD Optofonik Level 1

      I've got some conflicting reports about the GT640, some indicating it won't do much for me because the GPU;s CUDA cores won't come into play. That being the case I wonder if the less expensive GT630, with fewer CUDA cores, would do just as well. I would be doing straight forward doc style editing for now, no CG that I can think of. My current system specs follow. Thanks in advance.


      Windows 7 x64 sp1

      MSI K9A2 Platinum V1

      AMD Phenom 1100T

      G.SKILL 8GB (4 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500)

      Seagate SATA2 500G x3 (audio HD, sample HD, and general storage/virtual memory HD)

      Seagate  SATA2 750G x1 (video HD)

      WD SATA2 350G x1 (system HD)

      M-Audio Audiophile 198 x2

      ATI FireGL V3350 x2 To be replaced

      NEC Spectraview 21" LCD Monitor x2

      ACER X193W 19" LCD Monitor x2

        • 1. Re: GT640 vs GT630 upgrade for my rather dated system
          RjL190365 Level 4

          Don't waste your money on that GT 630, either (especially if it is priced so close to the GT 640): It is not of the same GPU generation as the GT 640 - but a much older GPU generation (two GPU generations old). It is, in fact, a renamed old low-end Fermi-derived GT 440 with lousy DDR3 memory (on most versions of the GT 630).


          As such, if the GT 630 DDR3 is priced almost as high as the GT 640, then go with the GT 640. Otherwise, try to find a GT 630 with GDDR5 memory.

          • 2. Re: GT640 vs GT630 upgrade for my rather dated system
            MD Optofonik Level 1

            "Don't waste your money on that GT 630, either" Either?

            • 3. Re: GT640 vs GT630 upgrade for my rather dated system
              RjL190365 Level 4

              MD Optofonik wrote:


              "Don't waste your money on that GT 630, either" Either?

              I meant "for that matter". I had implied that if you can get only the DDR3 version of the GT 630, and it costs almost as much money as the GT 640, then don't bother buying the GT 630 at all. In other words, it's even more of a waste of money, especially at typical street prices.

              • 4. Re: GT640 vs GT630 upgrade for my rather dated system
                Harm Millaard Level 7

                Your current system is pretty weak. If you were to use PR on a regular basis, you would have to start saving for a new Intel i7 system, but since you said Cubase is your main application, this may not be urgent.


                I would suggest the 640 if you have no plans or budget to get a new system in the future.

                I would suggest the 650 if you plan on a new system in the not too distant future. You can port this card to a new system where it can be used quite good, even when it is overkill on the current system.

                I would forget about the 630, just too weak and slow.

                • 5. Re: GT640 vs GT630 upgrade for my rather dated system
                  RjL190365 Level 4

                  I would also like to clarify a few things about the GT 630:


                  1) I was correct that the retail-boxed version of the GT 630 is a renamed GT 440 with (more commonly) lousy DDR3 RAM or (much rarer) GDDR5 RAM. As such, the retail GT 630 is not Kepler-derived at all - but is actually derived from an older Fermi architecture.


                  2) However, there is an OEM-only version of the GT 630 that is actually half of a GT 640 (GPU-wise). This GPU forms the basis for the Quadro K600. (This version is a Kepler derivative, but is still saddled with an equally lousy 28.5 GB/s memory throughput as the GT 640.)


                  In either case, the GT 630 is too weak and slow for anything modern (like Harm stated).

                  • 6. Re: GT640 vs GT630 upgrade for my rather dated system
                    MD Optofonik Level 1

                    Thanks. Although using Cubase for writing and recording music is my main focus, I would still like to be able to edit doc-style video with Premiere. I'm not looking to do anything fancy, transitions and titles, just simple stuff. It really looks like the GT 640 is my only choice unless I go even lower to a GT 610 or GT 620 since all my research indicates that it really has come down to form factor even more than price.




                    I've kept this system going for quite awhile now; the BIOS update from MSI to accommodate the Phenom II 1100T was it's saving grace for my budget but I knew it was a band-aid. Unfortunately, an incremental update to Cubase 6 ripped the band-aid off and I’ve been bleeding out for about a year while looking for a solution.




                    Believe it or not Adobe's choice to go CC actually helped since I felt forced to buy CS6 perpetual. Once I saw that Premiere worked with my older cards I was able to go to Steinberg with proof of a problem. The first time I called tech support last year was not pleasant so I wasn't looking froward to another pissing contest. I'm glad to say that this last time was a huge improvement. I indicated that Premiere's graphic demands should be much higher than Cubase's and there was agreement that something was amiss.




                    Steinberg offered a few solutions including a refund for the paid 6.5 update, or discounts on some other products, but none of the offers entail fixing the video engine for little ol' me. The current state of affairs is a possible workflow workaround that involves using Cubase 6 x86 for composing to picture then moving to Cubase 6.5 x64 for mixing sans picture. There are a lot of implications, however, including installing x86 versions my plugins that are currently x64. It will entail a complete software rebuild. This could be my only option because I don't even know if a new card will work under the circumstances. I never expected my system to be capable of editing The Dark Knight and composing it's score but a ten minute music piece with video shouldn't be a problem.




                    Again thanks for all the insight. You guys here and Jeff at Cubase tech support have been great.