None. Only headaches. Use only one video card.
There is no preview during HDV capture, as is clearly stated in the manual/help files.
If you're only planning to run one or two monitors, there is currently no benefit to running multiple graphics cards under Premiere Pro.
Technical Marketing Manager, NVIDIA
One of the Adobe techs I spoke to said that adding a second card would be recognized by the system and would help with graphics processing, and could drive a preview monitor (separate from the dual monitor system) but I feel the way you do... SIMPLIFY when you can... I'm concerned that the GTX 470 is not up to the task though. The guy who built the system says I should probably go for a quadro card? Has anyone had experience with the GTX 470 or the Quadro cards?
The tech is right that the card is recognized, but it does not help with the graphics processing, it is only used as a pass-through of the signal to a third monitor.
The GTX 470 is better and faster than the Quadros, unless you need 10 bit output to a Dreamcolor monitor or the like.
Look at the PPBM5 Benchmark to see how many use the GTX range and how many the Quadros and how they score. Look specifically at the MPE results.
Another thing to consider is that when installing two video cards, you may have to get a new, more powerful PSU and you definitely need to do something about cooling.
Would using two cards allow the PNY Nvidio quadro FX 3800 to be used for rendering while using the second card to continue working? Currently if I am rendering from Premiere and working on another project, the render stops during playback of a project in Premiere.
A second video card, even an outdated and underspecced overpriced model like the FX3800, is completely irrelevant for the question you posed. Multi-tasking is independent of the number of video cards installed.
Your question is like: If we have two cars and my wife went shopping, can I still mow the grass?
1 person found this helpful
It's actually a decent question and one that confuses many end users. Not sure just dismissing the question really offers the kind of help the poster was looking for.
The fact that the rendering stops when playing back another project isn't so much a function of the graphics card, it's an attempt by Premiere to allow you to continue working while encoding. Normally encoding uses up as much system processing cycles as it possibly can and since encoding taxes system resources there would be very little left over to work with. Heavy system utilization during encoding could also have unwanted effect on your encode such as sync issues or dropped encode frames which you definitely would not want. Adding an additional GPU would not benefit you because your encode would still be using up the lions share of your system resources. (Additionally the GPU is not used for the actual encoding of the video, although it figures heavily into the preparing of the video frames to be handed off to the encoder and as such can significantly reduce the overall time to encode). Utilization of multiple GPU's within Premiere is something that would be nice to see in future Premiere Pro releases, but is currently not possible.
Technical Marketing Manager, NVIDIA
Background rendering is possible even with a $ 30 video card. Addiing more video cards does not make any difference at all.
I just wonder how often we all have to repeat ourselves, before the OP grasps it. You and I have clearly stated there is NO benefit whatsoever, only drawbacks.
When you say "background rendering" do you mean the rendering on the timeline? I have not been able to experience that yet... when I try to render the work area or a sequence, it ties up the system... On the other hand, the Media Encoder does render the completed files in the background while you work... Is this what they meant? I was expecting the timeline type rendering... although, with the GPU and "yellow slices", we don't need timeline rendering in the same way we used to. I spent quite a long time with Adobe support today, and they said that the 470 was more than adequate, but I'm still experiencing horizontal slices across panned shots during playback, but that is another topic here in the forum. But, just to clarify, the background rendering is just for output... correct?
Background rendering in the sense that you press enter and rendering starts in the foreground. You then switch to another application, bringing PR into the background, while the rendering continues.
Thank You for clarifying that... So, that means I can switch to Photoshop and work on graphics instead of getting a cup of coffee....
At least the Adobe Media Encoder will not tie up the system and I can go ahead back to Premier and.... do what?... By the time you're outputting to the Encoder, you're supposed to have the project completed... right? I guess it's a matter of "thank Heaven for small favors"... After having to learn several NLE platforms over the past few years (FAST Video Machine, Speedrazor, Pinnacle Liquid, followed by Avid Liquid) and having them either phase out or lose support, I'm hoping to be able to stay with Premier for the long haul... I LOVE the way the programs interface with each other... like "open in Photoshop" from the timeline and having it update there... Encore the same... After Effects the same... I really like the CS5 so far. Thanks to forums like this one, we can all sort of scratch our heads collectively and unveil the nuances of these multi layered platforms.
Sean, Technical Marketing Manager, NVIDIA wrote:
"Utilization of multiple GPU's within Premiere is something that would be nice to see in future Premiere Pro releases, but is currently not possible."
I have an idea that a LOT of work went into the Adobe/Nvidia joint project developing the Mercury Playback Engine.
Related to future releases, It doesn't seem to me like it should be that big of a technical deal for Adobe/Nvidia to get Premiere CS5's Mercury Playback Engine to work with, say two GTX 580's in SLI. What do you think?
Also, I think Adobe could do a better job in marketing MPE. For instance, I had a friend over 3 months ago who has been editing for years on a Mac FCP, Media 100 and Avid systems. He hadn't heard of the Mercury Playback Engine, so I showed him an old pre-release demo on youtube hosted by Dave Helmly. He was stunned.
At least the Adobe Media Encoder will not tie up the system and I can go ahead back to Premier and.... do what?... By the time you're outputting to the Encoder, you're supposed to have the project completed... right?
I start the next project or a variation of the one I am working on.
Heavy system utilization during encoding could also have unwanted effect on your encode such as sync issues or dropped encode frames
I question that. Unlike real time playback, an encode can wait as long as it needs to for the data to arrive.
I'm sure that many people multi-task successfully while encoding, but I've had heavy system usage mess up many tasks that should have been able to wait out the usage and continue. Video encoding, Audio conversion (resulting in tweaks and pops), CD/DVD burning, etc. I can't say I've specifically had that happen within Premiere, but if I were doing a multi-hour encode, I personally wouldn't take the chance. I've seen simple things like file browsing take down the explorer process and take the system on a one way ride to 100% CPU utliization and eventual system hang.
With Win 7 64 bit, such is almost certainly the rare exception rather than the rule.
You can worry about a meteor hitting and killing us all. It could happen. But the chances of such are so small that doing so seems irrational.
Win 7 64bit is certainly a much more robust OS than either XP32 or any version of Vista, and while a crashing app is less likely to take down the entire system, it still does happen as is the case with any OS (not to single out Windows in this regard).
I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure what we are debating (if that is indeed what we are doing here) in this instance. I'm not recommending one way or the other that anyone should or should not multi-task while encoding. As a general rule its something that I avoid. It sounds as though you may feel differently, which is likely based on your own experiences and preferences.
As far as odd go, I'm 8 times as likely to die from a slip in the bathtub or shower than in a car accident, that doesn't keep me from buckling my seatbelt when I get in a car. As far as meteor impacts, zombie uprisings, and alien invasions I'm more prepared for some senarios than others.
I am using CS5 with a quadro 4000 card. I have two Eizo's attached to the quadro 4000 via the display port. Everything is working fine. I need to connect a plasma screen to my pc (3 monitors total) for viewing red files. I could use the red rocket to export video to the plasma screen but it would be nice if I didn't have to install another driver other than the quadro 4000 nvideo driver. My question is, will having 2 video cards installed in my pc cause any problems? If it will, I will have to use the red rocket for the third monitor. Thanks
I have a Mac Pro with a Quadro FX 4800 and a Radeon HD 5870.
At first I was only running the ATI card and wanted to take advantage of the CUDA so I installed the Nvidia card. I noticed right away that encoding was faster but my video was slower. So I installed, connected my monitors to the ATI card and man I could see a world of difference. I checked to see if Premiere was still seeing the card so I could used the CUDA and it does. "VERY NICE"
The only problem I see is with Photoshop not recognizing the Nvidia card.
I hope this helps?