Participant

Question

GTX 680 or Quadro 4000 for Premier and AE CS 6

Forum|Forum|13 years ago
June 1, 2012
6 replies
50765 views

the 680 has well over 1500 cuda cores, while the Quadro has 256 per. Im not very hip to the new video in computers but do understand that the purposes of these cards are very different.

Would it be better to buy a Quadro or a gtx 680? going in to a SR-X mobo w/48 gb ram and 4( by 4) HDD arrays on independant sas raid cards.

Im building a new system cuz my SR-2 isnt cutting it, keeps crashing after adding the second raid card to it.

thanks in advance.

This topic has been closed for replies.

U

urosfri

Participating Frequently

What about Nvidia K5000 graphics? I am choosing betwet 2 cards now: GTX 780 or K5000?

cc_merchant

Inspiring

Definitely the 780. It beats the K6000 on price and the K5000 on price and by a wide margin on performance. The K5000 performs even less than the 760 for € 190.

MarkWeiss

Inspiring

I'm presently considering the GTX680 FTW 4GB model, for my existing Gigabyte P35 DQ6-based system.

I know the recent update to Premiere CS6 added the GTX680, but they don't specify the FTW version and I was wondering if that version also works? Almost triple the cores of the 580 listed in the earlier release. My other concern is it's a PCE-E 3.0 card, and my Gigabyte motherboard is just PCE-E.

I'm currently running an 8800GTS with 640MB, but none of the MPE features are available, even with the hacks. Keppler GPU required.

These are the GTX680 specs. I wonder how much improvement over the 8800GTS in Premiere? I typically edit four camera XDCam 1080p with 15 tracks of audio, mostly classical symphony concerts, so more performance is always desired, and if a GPU will shorten my 25+ hour blu-ray rendering times, that would be a huge help.

Base Clock: 1084MHz
Boost Clock: 1150 MHz
Memory Clock: 6008MHz
Cuda Cores: 1536
PCI-e 3.0
4096MB GDDR5 256bit

U

urosfri

Participating Frequently

Thank you very much for this reply. Now I have this setup:Gigabyte B75-D3V motherboard, i7 3770, SSD Liteonit 512GB, and quadro q4000. But I cant really work nice at 4K editing. So my plan is to buy something like this: MSI-B85-G43 motherboard, i7 4770k, SSD SanDisk Ultra II 240GB, and GTX 970? Would this setup be any better?

Thank you very much for reply. And happy new year to all.

cc_merchant

Inspiring

No. See Tweakers Page - Disk Setup

You need several disks and lots of memory (32+ GB). Better go for a Samsung 850 Pro, instead of the SanDisk Ultra II.

U

urosfri

Participating Frequently

Several disks you meen for system (raid) or for storage. Because I have now ssd for system and other disks for storage and files. If I look at the write and read speed of Sandisk ultra and Samsung pro, there is no difference, except the price..:). And another thing is memory: is RAM more important than graphic card?

U

urosfri

Participating Frequently

So is there any conlusion? I have Q4000 now and I want to update to 4K editing. As I am looking to specifications of Q4000 max resolution is 2.560. And of course I want to speed up the system for 4K editing. Is GTX680 solution or maybe multiple GTX680 into SLI is the best solution for rendering?

Bill Gehrke

Inspiring

The GTX 680 is now (1-2 years later from this antique thread) not worth considering look at the GTX 970 or GTX 980. Forget the Quadro unless you have on of the very expensive 10-bit monitors.

G

ggameon

Participant

I have had a few cardt gtx and quadro.

Quadro cards are rip offs lol. I sold my 2 quadro 4000 and use gtx cards. It might be that if you use 3ds max for complicated stuff that quadros will be more stable....i wouldnt know. For adobe and i suspect every other software gtx cards are cheaper and better. Maybe quadro 6000 if you are loaded and don't care about the price....

i dont knoiw the difference between 6000 and 5000 series gtx cards there semems to be some differences and the more cuda cores doesnt mean faster......

ECBowen

Inspiring

3DS Max is Direct X based now. Quadro's will not have any performance advantage with Max anymore.

Eric

ADK

Todd_Kopriva

Inspiring

The GTX 680 and several other GPUs have been added to the list of cards that After Effects will use for GPU acceleration of the ray-traced 3D renderer in the After Effects CC (12.1) update.

See this page for details:

http://adobe.ly/AE_CC_12dot1_details

C

Colin_Grigson

Participant

I've been researching Quadro4000 vs GTX for some time. Harm/Bill and many others here are really anti-Quadro from what I can understand. However they've a lot more knowledge than me in this area.

Personally I've been corresponding with 3 people building machines based on VideoGuys DIY9 but with GTX cards. They've had endless stability problems with the graphics drivers and everything has been solved by switching to Quadro4000. Sure, the speed may no longer be breaking records, but the joy of reliability has sure returned.

I'm currently building a P9x79 / 3960x / Quadro4000 system myself so will be able to tell you first hand in a couple of weeks more about this.

Maybe I'll be eating my words? Research lots.

Bill Gehrke

Inspiring

We are not anti-Quadro by any means, it is just the both of us believe the extra money that you spend for a Quadro does not pay off, out of the 900 results submitted for the PPBM5 benchmark only 75 are using Quadros. Those people using Quadro cards all have benchmarks that are appreciable lower than those using GTX cards. And is a waste of money unless you also acquire a very, very expensive 10-bit monitor to pair up to it or have other software that requires a Quadro. I personally have never experienced any stability problems with the proper drivers. Just for users of our benchmark I have acquired 8 different CUDA cards that I use in comparison testing. I strongly expect a new generation of Quadro cards to be available soon.

Here is my current list in order of performance

GTX 680
GTX 580
GTX 480
GTX 560 Ti 448
GTX 285
GTX 260
GTX 550 Ti
9500 GT

R

RjL190365

Legend

Bill,

Thanks again for the ranking. The small difference in performance between the GTX 480 and the GTX 560 Ti 448 boils down to the differences in the memory throughput (177 GB/s for the GTX 480 versus 152 GB/s for the GTX 560 Ti 448). A similar pattern occurred between the GTX 260 and the GTX 550 Ti (in this case, despite both GPUs having 192 CUDA cores, the memory throughput is 112 GB/s on the GTX 260 versus only 98.5 GB/s on the GTX 550 Ti).

On the other hand, the GTX 285 ended up being slower than the GTX 560 Ti 448 despite the former's slightly greater (159 GB/s) memory throughput because the 285 has significantly fewer CUDA cores (240 versus 448).

No wonder why my particular reference GTX 470 (which I have since sold off) is barely faster than my GTX 560 (non-Ti) in CS5+: Both GPUs have more than 300 CUDA cores, and the memory throughput is barely higher on the GTX 470 than on the non-Ti GTX 560 (134 GB/s versus 128 GB/s).