I've known for some time that 3D graphic cards offers no REAL significant improvements to VIDEO EDITING and RENDERING.
I also know that for real video editing, one needs the likes of Quadro cards, not 3D Gaming Cards like GEforce/Radeon.. and that the SOFTWARE being used needs to have support for using GPU for rendering such as CUDA technology
I tried to update myself and read around a bit... w/ the advancements of software today, 3D gaming cards now offer more improvements for video editing should software use 3D effects, transitions, or similar.. but still not that much really
Q1: am i on top of things so far?
And recently i found out that Adobe Premier CS4 (and other vid ed software) now takes advantage of GPU power.. (really?)
Q2: HOW MUCH advantage though? like a lot like equally as useful as CPU power?? or a bit of gpu power to help cpu?
Q3: So, would it be practical to spend $$$$ on a highend GeForce Card like GTX295 to improve video editing/rendering performance? or would it be rather more useful to spend that on higher CPU or overall PC specs?
Would really like to hear your thoughts on these.
In terms of impact on performance, you can rate the various components from most important to least important:
3. Disk setup
9. Video card.
Even a mildly priced card like an ATI HD 48xx is not taxed to its full capacity on a very fast system, even on a 3.8 GHz overclocked Nehalem the CPU is the bottleneck, not the GPU.
I also know that for real video editing, one needs the likes of Quadro cards, not 3D Gaming Cards like GEforce/Radeon
I disagree. Those cards are overkill for video editing. Spend your money on other things. I myself use a $30 ATI 4350 video card, an upgrade from an older X1650 Pro, and see no appreciable difference in performance.