Note the warning against AMD, because they are so slow and do not support DirectX 12 to the full extent. Quadro cards are usually around 8 - 10 times more expensive than GTX cards and do not show any performance benefit.
For your system, look at the GTX 960 or maybe the 970.
Really helpful cc_merchant. Thanks for replying. I've reviewed the information on the page you linked to. Good to know that the consumer cards offer better value.
I'm interested in the CUDA vs OpenCL argument. I'm wondering if the distinction is a bit out of date? With mac pros containing AMD cards, I can't help thinking OpenCL support is only going to get better and better... plus on the official Adobe specs page the new NVIDIA cards (970/980) are not listed as being officially supported, whereas the radeon r9 290X/295X are both listed.
Acceleration with CUDA is years ahead of OpenCL. Apple's approach often defies rational behavior and the choice for AMD only is further proof of that.
Adobe is notoriously lousy in keeping their list of supported cards up-to-date.
Would love to see some benchmarks... it's a shame nobody seems to have done a like for like comparison. The closest I could find was this:
Which seems to suggest that it's much of a muchness between OpenCL and CUDA...
Maybe I'll get both cards and run some tests!
that rendering test you linked is comparing a R9 290x vs gtx 670. the R9 290x in other program benchmarks ranks over 25% faster than that gtx 670, so its not a fair comparison. if anything it shows that a slower gtx using cuda kept up with a faster amd using opencl in premiere. amd cards are fast, but it comes down to the programs being able to tap into that power. premiere is getting better at working with opencl, but as cc_merchant points out, cuda has been around alot longer and therefore works better. you should also consider that nvidia drivers dont have as many problems as amd's and there are still other editing programs, animation programs, and plugins that do not accept opencl, only cuda. these forums are heavily intel+nvidia biased, because people find them working better vs amd. in the end its up to you, if you dislike/hate nvidia or just like amd (the underdog) more, then get the amd. many use amd and it may work fine for you.
The nMPro's are also still having issues with rendering with the Open CL cards. Open CL only performs better on 2 applications out in the GPU acceleration application market right now and the 2nd is questionable at this point. Vegas is the only 1 that definitely performs better with Open CL but you deal with more stability issues. Redcinex Pro did originally since they developed the GPU acceleration in Open CL first but the latest build seems to have caught the Cuda acceleration up. Also the Cuda acceleration with RedcineX Pro caches far greater since their memory management profiles are more aggressive. Overall Cuda has been the best performing GPU acceleration out for years because it has far more R&D time behind it and is far more mature than Open CL. The Memory management profiles are better and it's more stable. If you expect Open CL to surpass Cuda anytime soon then I am sorry to say it's not going to happen. Open CL is still years away from the refinement and development Cuda has. The 900 series cards also out perform the current AMD crop atleast with the higher end cards. That is where you want to look first.