Pr CS5 - List of supported CUDA Cards

[Curt Wrigley]

Adobe is working on a playback and rendering engine for Adobe Premiere Pro called the Mercury Playback Engine. This new engine is NVIDIA® GPU-accelerated, 64-bit native, and architected for the future. Native 64-bit support enables you to work more fluidly on HD and higher resolution projects, and GPU acceleration speeds effects processing and rendering.

The Mercury Playback Engine offers these benefits:

• Open projects faster, refine effects-rich HD and higher resolution sequences in real time, enjoy smooth scrubbing, and play back complex projects without rendering.
• See results instantly when applying multiple color corrections and effects across many video layers.
• Work in real time on complex timelines and long-form projects with thousands of clips — whether your project is SD, HD, 2K, 4K, or beyond.

Ensure your system is ready to take advantage of the Mercury Playback Engine in a future version of Adobe Premiere Pro. The Mercury Playback Engine works hand-in-hand with NVIDIA® CUDA™ technology to give you amazingly fluid, real-time performance. See it in action

* PR CS5 supports the following list of CUDA cards:

	GeForce GTX 285	Windows and MAC
	Quadro FX 3800	Windows
	Quadro FX 4800	Windows and MAC
	Quadro FX 5800	Windows
	Quadro CX	Windows

More hardware details:

http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/systemreqs/

[kdoc2]

I'm a little late in coming to the table of this discussion, but here's what I think about the CUDA Card debate--that Adobe has shot themselves and their users in the foot (or face). Here they have finally come out with a potentially fast and stable product, one which can compete seriously with the others, one that is excellent, and what do they do--they make it so that only a very few users will be able to use the new Mercury Engine with their current system!! Yes, it's true that even without CUDA acceleration the new CS5 works terrifically in 64 bits, with Raid 0--at least mine does. But we're not getting the full extraordinary value and speed of the product. I just shelled out $1300 on the new computer for the 64 bits, Raid 0, increased RAM, and a hell of a lot for CS5 Production Premium. And now I'm being forced to spend nearly as much for the card as for the computer, depending on which one I were to get. And we don't even know which less expensive cards might be acceptable and/or coming out. What Adobe has done is really counterproductive to their effort in strengthening their place in the market! What needs to be done is to work with NVidia or some other vendors and come up very quickly with an affordable CARD which is supported. Adobe: please solve this and give us and yourselves a break.

kdoc

[Guest]

kdoc2 wrote:

I'm a little late in coming to the table of this discussion, but here's what I think about the CUDA Card debate--that Adobe has shot themselves and their users in the foot (or face). Here they have finally come out with a potentially fast and stable product, one which can compete seriously with the others, one that is excellent, and what do they do--they make it so that only a very few users will be able to use the new Mercury Engine with their current system!! Yes, it's true that even without CUDA acceleration the new CS5 works terrifically in 64 bits, with Raid 0--at least mine does. But we're not getting the full extraordinary value and speed of the product. I just shelled out $1300 on the new computer for the 64 bits, Raid 0, increased RAM, and a hell of a lot for CS5 Production Premium. And now I'm being forced to spend nearly as much for the card as for the computer, depending on which one I were to get. And we don't even know which less expensive cards might be acceptable and/or coming out. What Adobe has done is really counterproductive to their effort in strengthening their place in the market! What needs to be done is to work with NVidia or some other vendors and come up very quickly with an affordable CARD which is supported. Adobe: please solve this and give us and yourselves a break.

kdoc

Totally agreed, that's been the sentiment overall, but as you scroll through this thread and others, you'll see that there's a bizarre community of fogeys who have rooted for Adobe at every turn, saying that this issue has gone pretty well and it was "wise" for Adobe to artificially inflate interest in the Quadro cards despite the total lack of technical basis.

Pretty much everyone understands by now that this was a predatory, anti-consumer backroom deal cut between nVidia and Adobe to push the early adopters into buying the Quadra cards that have a dramatically higher profit margin which goes directly back to nVidia, rather than through its third-party partners.

As an FYI, though, those of us who bought GTX 285 cards used (mine was under $200) as a stop-gap until the madness would pass, I noticed that Adobe just released a Premiere Pro patch for CS5 that adds greater capacity for the GTX 285 (probably making it equivalent completely to the overpriced Quadra counterpart).

[Eric Addison]

hpmoon wrote:

Totally agreed, that's been the sentiment overall, but as you scroll through this thread and others, you'll see that there's a bizarre community of fogeys who have rooted for Adobe at every turn, saying that this issue has gone pretty well and it was "wise" for Adobe to artificially inflate interest in the Quadro cards despite the total lack of technical basis.

Fogeys? Bizarre? Really? I don't consider myself that, and I couldn't disagree with you more. First off, I am a LONG time PPro user, so I've seen some really good versions from Adobe and some not so good versions...and PPro CS5 is one of the BEST versions they've released. By limiting the number of cards they supported on inital release, they've been able to release a really stable version - that was a very smart move. And with the very quickly released 5.0.1 patch, they increased the support for the GTX285. I'll admit that I'm not privy to what goes on between Adobe and NVIDIA, but from what I do know Adobe was trying to make the best product they could, not try to "inflate interest in the Quadro cards".

hpmoon wrote:

Pretty much everyone understands by now that this was a predatory, anti-consumer backroom deal cut between nVidia and Adobe to push the early adopters into buying the Quadra cards that have a dramatically higher profit margin which goes directly back to nVidia, rather than through its third-party partners.

No - everyone does not understand that to be the case, and unless you have some proof to back that up, why don't we all just calm down about conspiracy theories...

The funny and ironic thing about so many posts lately is that for years, people have been coming to these forums posting about how much Premiere Pro sucks, how it won't work on their computer, and ranting about how much better FCP is, when all along I was having (as was MANY others) a fine experience with it. People would build their own computers with a hodge-podge of parts, often not designed for the rigors of video editing, and then would post here about how Adobe blew it, and they're switching to FCP - an NLE that has one big hardware requirement...you have to buy a Mac!

Adobe finally puts out a version that is stable and fast, and the only really big hardware requirement to get even better performance is a short list of cards...cards Adobe thoroughly tested to make sure they would work really well - and they do. And now, without much else to complain about, people now feel the need to complain about how Adobe is trying to screw us out of money but cutting a deal with NVIDIA. Well, you know...it's just crazy to me.

Sorry for the rant, but it's just a tad ridiculous...it really is.

[chupacabracobra]

Eric Addison wrote:

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}

hpmoon wrote:

Totally agreed, that's been the sentiment overall, but as you scroll through this thread and others, you'll see that there's a bizarre community of fogeys who have rooted for Adobe at every turn, saying that this issue has gone pretty well and it was "wise" for Adobe to artificially inflate interest in the Quadro cards despite the total lack of technical basis.

Fogeys? Bizarre? Really? I don't consider myself that, and I couldn't disagree with you more. First off, I am a LONG time PPro user, so I've seen some really good versions from Adobe and some not so good versions...and PPro CS5 is one of the BEST versions they've released. By limiting the number of cards they supported on inital release, they've been able to release a really stable version - that was a very smart move. And with the very quickly released 5.0.1 patch, they increased the support for the GTX285. I'll admit that I'm not privy to what goes on between Adobe and NVIDIA, but from what I do know Adobe was trying to make the best product they could, not try to "inflate interest in the Quadro cards".

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}

hpmoon wrote:

Pretty much everyone understands by now that this was a predatory, anti-consumer backroom deal cut between nVidia and Adobe to push the early adopters into buying the Quadra cards that have a dramatically higher profit margin which goes directly back to nVidia, rather than through its third-party partners.

No - everyone does not understand that to be the case, and unless you have some proof to back that up, why don't we all just calm down about conspiracy theories...

The funny and ironic thing about so many posts lately is that for years, people have been coming to these forums posting about how much Premiere Pro sucks, how it won't work on their computer, and ranting about how much better FCP is, when all along I was having (as was MANY others) a fine experience with it. People would build their own computers with a hodge-podge of parts, often not designed for the rigors of video editing, and then would post here about how Adobe blew it, and they're switching to FCP - an NLE that has one big hardware requirement...you have to buy a Mac!

Adobe finally puts out a version that is stable and fast, and the only really big hardware requirement to get even better performance is a short list of cards...cards Adobe thoroughly tested to make sure they would work really well - and they do. And now, without much else to complain about, people now feel the need to complain about how Adobe is trying to screw us out of money but cutting a deal with NVIDIA. Well, you know...it's just crazy to me.

Sorry for the rant, but it's just a tad ridiculous...it really is.

It is a little curious that nvidia ha sbeen bragging about CUDA support for all of their cards and everyone goes on about how things like OpenCL, CUDA, etc. mean that it doesn't matter WHICH card you have, so long as it meets minimum specs you don't need to compile a separate program for each card and then suddenly there is all this talk about how there is such a huge risk of bugs popping out unless you use certain cards (which oddly just happen to be Quadro plus the single most expensive consumer card in each generation). At the very least it makes you at least wonder.... Do they only give a list of approved CPU/memory/motherboard/BIOS/ versions?? Either CUDA is not quite as well worked out as claimed or there likely was at least a minor backroom deal going on (such things are not so rare actually), who knows.

But considering that all you need to do is type the name of your card and you are good to go, it's not really much of a big deal, no need for people to go crazy. Just type in your card's name and run.

Hodge-podge of parts had nothing at all to do with things like 5D2 footage editing horribly slowly on PCs when fed directly into PP. It had a TON to do with more backroom type stuff, Apple vs. Microsoft battles and quicktime being a piece of junk on the PC (if you strip the quicktime wrapper, CS4 suddenly editing 5D2 files like literally 4-5x faster) and partly because PP didn't have the fastest engine in the world (it still doesn't use graphic card h.264 decode, although it's possible there might be legit reasons since perhaps that is onyl limited to 1 or 2 tracks etc. hard to say without knowing more details).

Anyway what matter is that all you need to do is type the name fo your grpahics card into a text file and that the new engine, regardless of that, is quite a bit faster and there is no need to play games and re-wrap certain formats (whether using h.264 could reduce the system stress by 6-10x more hard to say, yes if they would be able to use, no if not) and it's certainly a big step forward.

[kdoc2]

Can you tell us if what kdd108 suggested (above) is safe? For example will it overheat the computer? Also, which cards can it be expected to work on--I have the GTX 260--does that have suffecient cores or whatever (I'm not a computer expert) to even try it? Do you or does anyone know what the "unexpected consequences" of this kind of fix?

kdoc

[chupacabracobra]

kdoc2 wrote:

Can you tell us if what kdd108 suggested (above) is safe? For example will it overheat the computer? Also, which cards can it be expected to work on--I have the GTX 260--does that have suffecient cores or whatever (I'm not a computer expert) to even try it? Do you or does anyone know what the "unexpected consequences" of this kind of fix?

kdoc

It won't overheat it anymore than playing a 3D game or crunching a lot of data would. If that melts your system then so will this, if your system is fine with everything else, it will be fine with this. There is nothing outlandish or magical that this does, it just uses the GPU instead of the CPU for some stuff. On my card it doesn't even usually use the GPU all that much. In all honesty you should be more afraid of playing the latest game, if anything.

I'm sure some hope paranoid fears will drive at least a few people who would not have otherwise to spring for quadros just to be 'safe'.

[chupacabracobra]

kdoc2 wrote:

Can you tell us if what kdd108 suggested (above) is safe? For example will it overheat the computer? Also, which cards can it be expected to work on--I have the GTX 260--does that have suffecient cores or whatever (I'm not a computer expert) to even try it? Do you or does anyone know what the "unexpected consequences" of this kind of fix?

kdoc

i don't recall off-hand the 260 specs, but i'm sure it should help even though it is not as fast as a 275+ or 400-series

just so long as you have at least 800MB or so

[kdoc2]

Would someone mind instructing an ignorant physician, non-computernik, how to run it. I'm not dos compliant. I found GPUSniffer.exe under C:\program files\adobe\Adobe premiere Pro CS5, but don't know how to run it. In cmd.exe I end up in C:\users\keith. what then? How do I get the List of information and instructions shown?

kdoc

[medeamajic]

chupacabracobra,

I agree with you. I do hope that in a few months they will release PP CS 5.21 and all CUDA enabled cards will be detected by default. No more hacking!

[vecomvideo]

Hello,

I have a GTX 295, on a 64 windows 7 family editions.

I did follow step by step the hack, but it doesn't work...

Premiere Pro CS5 does not starts. If I erase the line "GeForce GTX 295" in the cuda_supported_cards.txt then Premiere starts but still don't recognize the GPU mercury acceleration in the premiere settings.

Please, if you have any solution let me know.

sincerly

[Jeff Bellune]

Please don't cross-post.  I deleted your other posts.

-Jeff

[Tim_Kolb]

Wow,

I thought the conspiracy stuff had run its course on some of the other forums outside, but it lives on here I see...

I suppose that I'm a "fogey", but I have not been accused of being an apologist for Adobe on anything I think they've made a mistake on...but here's a take some of you may not have considered:

1. Adobe does not have infinite resources and they decided to QC each card they "certified" and make sure they knew what the specifics were...that way they can support users.

2. PNY has a support staff that is on the other end of the phone to help with Quadro cards...and of course having people available to troubleshoot issues who know what they're talking about isn't inexpensive.

I have no idea what sort of support the consumer cards have, or if those who support them understand anything about video production and the other peripherals they need to co-exist with, and the color spaces and framerates and sizes that are employed in professional video production.  If I need to know why the texture mapping is whack on Halo...maybe there is someone who can answer that question in the consumer card part of NVIDIA.  (No, I'm not being sarcastic...gamer cards aren't cheaper because the professional cards are a ripoff...gamer cards are a consumer product with no support infrastructure relative to pro-level cards.)

3. Adobe has been abused in the past for various stability issues relative to Avid and FCP...both systems that are still FAR more restrictive in their configuration than PPro...whay do you think that is?  So, Adobe is narrowing the hardware they support so they can verify it...  To a professional, this is valuable.  Several hundred or even several thousand dollars for a display card that is supported could easily be the losses incurred while trying to solve a conflict with a consumer card.  I do not mess around with my computer for a living...I do production with it.  If I'm troubleshooting, I'm losing money...fast.

Users are going to have to decide whether they like the fact that PPro is more professional, and the investment to set up an appropriate system is what one would expect for any other professional NLE system...OR decide to get some other product that is more appropriate for a hobbyist.  The high end of the production industry is taking notice of PPro CS5...and it's because of exactly what Adobe is doing to stabilize the system and optimize responsiveness.  Certainly anyone who has set up an appropriate Avid or FCP system to handle HD as well as CS5 does wouldn't find these cost considerations unreasonable....

4. Consumer display cards have driver updates frequently.  Professional cards don't have driver updates nearly as frequently...  What's possible to QC?  With all the possible configurations on the Windows side of the equation, combined with all the models of consumer cards (just think how many GTX series models there are alone, not to mention other manufacturers...), how could Adobe even keep these drivers QC'd?

This whole conspiracy thing is exciting for some to keep churning, but then Avid and certainly Apple must have their own covert operatives as they've been involved in plots like this for a decade....  . Adobe is doing with Quadro cards what Avid has been doing for years upon years with their hardware systems...and Autodesk...and others...  They've all had hardware based systems that lean on a Quadro card for extra processing muscle, and they don't give you a choice, it's part of the rig. 

Adobe has taken a LOT of abuse for being something less than "professional quality" in the minds of many of the more visible post professionals at the top of our industry for a long time...some of that assessment has been deserved and some of has been really undeserved.  CS5 seems very solid to me.  Mercury runs very well on a system with a big CPU and no GPU as well...  AVCHD and DSLR footage isn't for underpowered computers anyway, and the GPU only takes over the effects preview...NOT the video decode.

As far as being "forced" to upgrade?

The industry is "upgrading" everything all around you...tapeless formats...highly compressed files...motion RAW 4K....  If you resent Adobe going 64 bit, or using specific peripherals, how are you handling acquisition?  Have you had to switch from P2 to SxS?  Why wouldn't Panasonic and Sony use the same type of card?  ....hmmmm.

Do you really think that Adobe is moving their software to 64 bit unecessarily?  FCP has had a 64 bit OS for some time now, and its relative stability in the last couple years has left PPro looking a little rough as Adobe has tried to stay 32 bit compatible for two versions past where they probably should have.  CS3 was well known to run like a jet fighter on a 64 bit OS, but many of us still spent our time on web forums telling cranky users, trying to run the CS4 Master Suite on their 5 year old dual core Intel running XP Home with 2 GB of RAM, that they just might be underpowered...and they reply that Adobe is causing this problem.  People scream for feature add ons, and then complain that it takes beefier hardware to run the software...

I'm a professional, and as hard as things have been economically lately, I understand exactly what Adobe is doing.  They're taking an editing tool that has always had potential to be something better and finally reached a point where all the pieces have come together and they've given this tool credibility in the larger market...

I'm teaching an intermediate PPro CS5 course on fxphd.com this term...normally the dominion of Nuke and Flame and Smoke (and Avid and FCP) with teachers from Pixar and WETA.  Think things haven't changed?

I guess users can fret about conspiracies created to make them spend a couple hundred dollars, and resent having to upgrade their OS, or even their computer, but PPro CS5 is going to give Adobe users a credibility boost in the marketplace because of the leaps Adobe has taken with it.  Is it perfect?  Probably not.  Is it the answer for every budget?  Also unlikely.  Have the changes to CS5 made it a worthy competitor at the high-stakes end of the market?

Yes.

I don't go to a Mercedes dealership and yell at the salesman because the tires on the car are overpriced and I can't afford the maintenance...It's not their problem.  I drive a plain old Ford.  It meets my needs and my budget.  That's not being arrogant...that's just how it is.

TimK

Message was edited by: Tim Kolb -typo

[firetrak]

Hi, All

Is this card supported officially?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125280&cm_re=GeForce_GTX_285-_-14-125-280-_...

GIGABYTE GV-N285UD-1GH GeForce GTX 285 1GB 512-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card

supposed to be according to these forums and adobe, just want to make sure.

thanks

[Todd_Kopriva]

> Is this card supported officially?

> ...GeForce GTX 285...

Yes. Here is the list of officially supproted cards:

http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/systemreqs/

[chupacabracobra]

Tim Kolb wrote:

Wow,

I thought the conspiracy stuff had run its course on some of the other forums outside, but it lives on here I see...

I suppose that I'm a "fogey", but I have not been accused of being an apologist for Adobe on anything I think they've made a mistake on...but here's a take some of you may not have considered:

1. Adobe does not have infinite resources and they decided to QC each card they "certified" and make sure they knew what the specifics were...that way they can support users.

2. PNY has a support staff that is on the other end of the phone to help with Quadro cards...and of course having people available to troubleshoot issues who know what they're talking about isn't inexpensive.

I have no idea what sort of support the consumer cards have, or if those who support them understand anything about video production and the other peripherals they need to co-exist with, and the color spaces and framerates and sizes that are employed in professional video production.  If I need to know why the texture mapping is whack on Halo...maybe there is someone who can answer that question in the consumer card part of NVIDIA.  (No, I'm not being sarcastic...gamer cards aren't cheaper because the professional cards are a ripoff...gamer cards are a consumer product with no support infrastructure relative to pro-level cards.)

3. Adobe has been abused in the past for various stability issues relative to Avid and FCP...both systems that are still FAR more restrictive in their configuration than PPro...whay do you think that is?  So, Adobe is narrowing the hardware they support so they can verify it...  To a professional, this is valuable.  Several hundred or even several thousand dollars for a display card that is supported could easily be the losses incurred while trying to solve a conflict with a consumer card.  I do not mess around with my computer for a living...I do production with it.  If I'm troubleshooting, I'm losing money...fast.

Users are going to have to decide whether they like the fact that PPro is more professional, and the investment to set up an appropriate system is what one would expect for any other professional NLE system...OR decide to get some other product that is more appropriate for a hobbyist.  The high end of the production industry is taking notice of PPro CS5...and it's because of exactly what Adobe is doing to stabilize the system and optimize responsiveness.  Certainly anyone who has set up an appropriate Avid or FCP system to handle HD as well as CS5 does wouldn't find these cost considerations unreasonable....

4. Consumer display cards have driver updates frequently.  Professional cards don't have driver updates nearly as frequently...  What's possible to QC?  With all the possible configurations on the Windows side of the equation, combined with all the models of consumer cards (just think how many GTX series models there are alone, not to mention other manufacturers...), how could Adobe even keep these drivers QC'd?

This whole conspiracy thing is exciting for some to keep churning, but then Avid and certainly Apple must have their own covert operatives as they've been involved in plots like this for a decade....  . Adobe is doing with Quadro cards what Avid has been doing for years upon years with their hardware systems...and Autodesk...and others...  They've all had hardware based systems that lean on a Quadro card for extra processing muscle, and they don't give you a choice, it's part of the rig. 

Adobe has taken a LOT of abuse for being something less than "professional quality" in the minds of many of the more visible post professionals at the top of our industry for a long time...some of that assessment has been deserved and some of has been really undeserved.  CS5 seems very solid to me.  Mercury runs very well on a system with a big CPU and no GPU as well...  AVCHD and DSLR footage isn't for underpowered computers anyway, and the GPU only takes over the effects preview...NOT the video decode.

As far as being "forced" to upgrade?

The industry is "upgrading" everything all around you...tapeless formats...highly compressed files...motion RAW 4K....  If you resent Adobe going 64 bit, or using specific peripherals, how are you handling acquisition?  Have you had to switch from P2 to SxS?  Why wouldn't Panasonic and Sony use the same type of card?  ....hmmmm.

Do you really think that Adobe is moving their software to 64 bit unecessarily?  FCP has had a 64 bit OS for some time now, and its relative stability in the last couple years has left PPro looking a little rough as Adobe has tried to stay 32 bit compatible for two versions past where they probably should have.  CS3 was well known to run like a jet fighter on a 64 bit OS, but many of us still spent our time on web forums telling cranky users, trying to run the CS4 Master Suite on their 5 year old dual core Intel running XP Home with 2 GB of RAM, that they just might be underpowered...and they reply that Adobe is causing this problem.  People scream for feature add ons, and then complain that it takes beefier hardware to run the software...

I'm a professional, and as hard as things have been economically lately, I understand exactly what Adobe is doing.  They're taking an editing tool that has always had potential to be something better and finally reached a point where all the pieces have come together and they've given this tool credibility in the larger market...

I'm teaching an intermediate PPro CS5 course on fxphd.com this term...normally the dominion of Nuke and Flame and Smoke (and Avid and FCP) with teachers from Pixar and WETA.  Think things haven't changed?

I guess users can fret about conspiracies created to make them spend a couple hundred dollars, and resent having to upgrade their OS, or even their computer, but PPro CS5 is going to give Adobe users a credibility boost in the marketplace because of the leaps Adobe has taken with it.  Is it perfect?  Probably not.  Is it the answer for every budget?  Also unlikely.  Have the changes to CS5 made it a worthy competitor at the high-stakes end of the market?

Yes.

I don't go to a Mercedes dealership and yell at the salesman because the tires on the car are overpriced and I can't afford the maintenance...It's not their problem.  I drive a plain old Ford.  It meets my needs and my budget.  That's not being arrogant...that's just how it is.

TimK

Message was edited by: Tim Kolb -typo

I didn't see anyone here resenting Adobe for going 64bit.

I highly doubt they are updating CUDA all the time in special ways in the consumer drivers compared to the pro drivers, how many games, if any, even use CUDA now. And CUDA is nothing like whether they optimized some texure mapping this or that for HALO. It's just letting you run massively parallel code on the GPU instead of the CPU and nothing more.

I think it's pretty clear someone did hope to move a few extra quadro and highest end consumer cards (and right there note that the 285 is officially supported, consumer drivers and all (so much for your how can they possible keep those drivers QC'ed), and tell me exactly what difference that matters in terms of that sort of thing between the 275 and 285? right.)

Of course companies want to push their pro hardware, if possible. I'm sure some quadros and 285s got sold because of this that would not have otherwise. And it may even have been at the least softly planned that way, such stuff goes on all the time, nothing new. OTOH, Adobe clearly made it super easy to 'hack' (and I put it that way since they made it so clear to handle it can barely even be called hacking to get it to work) so as to not ultimately lose customers who had less expensive cards.

Anyway, as I just said, they kept it super easy to use all CUDA-supporting cards with enough memory so it's hardly a big deal. All takes is about 15 seconds to find the file, type in a name and copy it back to the directory! Boom, anything with enough memory and even half-way recent works. Nothing to bother about.

Maybe someday they'd use some new feature of Fermi and need to lock out older cards, but not in CS5.

[kdoc2]

Hi: I've been away. I have no solution: mine didn't work with the GTX 260 either. Let me know if anything has turned up since I've been away.

keith

[thenoisystuff]

kdoc2 wrote:

I just shelled out $1300 on the new computer for the 64 bits, Raid 0, increased RAM, and a hell of a lot for CS5 Production Premium. And now I'm being forced to spend nearly as much for the card as for the computer, depending on which one I were to get. And we don't even know which less expensive cards might be acceptable and/or coming out.

Are we talking professional video production here?  I could cover that outlay in a couple of days from my professional clients because they value the service and end product. I think two days fee is quite reasonable to completely upgrade a computer. I think another 1/2 day fee is also good value to add a GTX285.  This is peanuts compared to what AVID would expect to charge for a software/hardware solution.

I think a reality check is needed here!

[Guest]

thenoisystuff wrote:

kdoc2 wrote:

I just shelled out $1300 on the new computer for the 64 bits, Raid 0, increased RAM, and a hell of a lot for CS5 Production Premium. And now I'm being forced to spend nearly as much for the card as for the computer, depending on which one I were to get. And we don't even know which less expensive cards might be acceptable and/or coming out.

Are we talking professional video production here?  I could cover that outlay in a couple of days from my professional clients because they value the service and end product. I think two days fee is quite reasonable to completely upgrade a computer. I think another 1/2 day fee is also good value to add a GTX285.  This is peanuts compared to what AVID would expect to charge for a software/hardware solution.

I think a reality check is needed here!

How comical that you are admonishing us to have a reality check, while you yourself are not seeing the reality that the most compelling filmmaking is to be found from the independent, no-budget community who don't waste their days doing corporate training videos, cable television ads or wedding events.  Yes, there is money to be made at those gigs and it's a respectable profession, but for those of us who do other things with our time, we treat Adobe's tactics rather like someone walking up to us on the street (in a business suit no less) and saying, "Give me a thousand bucks."  What do you think the answer is?

Technological familiarity and know-how has evolved.  Digital video is not anymore within the expertise of professionals.  It's really not that complicated.

[DVDmike]

HPmoon, if NLE is so simple now, then what are you complaining about.  Just use the software (other than PPro) that is free/inexpensive and does what you need it to do.  Why do you need PPro in the first place.  Use the software that does not use the same "tactics" as Adobe does.  Case closed.  No problems.

[thenoisystuff]

I don't know hpmoon.  If a company asks you for a very reasonable amount of money for software they've invested a lot of time in, what do you tell them?

Do you actually own the software you're complaining about or have you merely acquired it?

And what do you do with your time if you're not editing professionally? That's what I thought this forum was all about.  Do you class commercials editing or pop promos as wasting time or does everyone have to be in movies?

As you seem to have got the meaning of life sorted, perhaps you need a publishing deal so you might share it with those of us who never quite

graduated from watching Orson Welles as opposed to directing like him.

[Tim_Kolb]

I think the issue here is that somehow Adobe is obligated to enable hobbyists or independent filmmakers by not making a profit?

I'm a guitar player...just a hobbyist.  I can't afford the same guitars that guys who play for a living play...  But that's not the fault of the guitar manufacturer.

Adobe makes software...and they sell it.

They get as much input from users as they reasonably can, and make the product it appears most people want...and then they charge what they feel is a competitive price for it so they sell a few.  Anyone who makes the argument that Adobe is somehow expensive hasn't been around the industry very long.  I was paying over 2000.00 for After Effects alone when it came on 4 or 5 floppy disks and didn't even have a timeline.  Now you not only get a version of After Effects that is so advanced from their that it's almost unrecognizable, but you get 7 or 8 other applications...for about the same price.

Mercedes Benz is not mounting a conspiracy against me because I can't afford one...

Adobe isn't somehow oppressing enthusiast video makers because their product may be out of a hobbyists' justifiable range of expenditure.

Reality check kind of captures it.  I make my living at this and the price of software these days (or even hardware) is so incredibly cheap that I just don't have a frame of reference for the users who are yelling about the expense involved.

[Guest]

Tim Kolb wrote:

I think the issue here is that somehow Adobe is obligated to enable hobbyists or independent filmmakers by not making a profit?

I'm a guitar player...just a hobbyist.  I can't afford the same guitars that guys who play for a living play...  But that's not the fault of the guitar manufacturer.

Adobe makes software...and they sell it.

They get as much input from users as they reasonably can, and make the product it appears most people want...and then they charge what they feel is a competitive price for it so they sell a few.  Anyone who makes the argument that Adobe is somehow expensive hasn't been around the industry very long.  I was paying over 2000.00 for After Effects alone when it came on 4 or 5 floppy disks and didn't even have a timeline.  Now you not only get a version of After Effects that is so advanced from their that it's almost unrecognizable, but you get 7 or 8 other applications...for about the same price.

Mercedes Benz is not mounting a conspiracy against me because I can't afford one...

Adobe isn't somehow oppressing enthusiast video makers because their product may be out of a hobbyists' justifiable range of expenditure.

Reality check kind of captures it.  I make my living at this and the price of software these days (or even hardware) is so incredibly cheap that I just don't have a frame of reference for the users who are yelling about the expense involved.

thenoisystuff wrote:

I don't know hpmoon.  If a company asks you for a very reasonable amount of money for software they've invested a lot of time in, what do you tell them?

Do you actually own the software you're complaining about or have you merely acquired it?

And what do you do with your time if you're not editing professionally? That's what I thought this forum was all about.  Do you class commercials editing or pop promos as wasting time or does everyone have to be in movies?

As you seem to have got the meaning of life sorted, perhaps you need a publishing deal so you might share it with those of us who never quite

graduated from watching Orson Welles as opposed to directing like him.

You guys have completely lost track of what this thread is about.  It has nothing to do with how much Adobe charges for Premiere.  It has everything to do with arbitrary decisions that are not grounded in technical reasons but rather in profit motivation tied to inter-company, anti-competitive agreements -- in this case, between nVidia and Adobe.

Regarding the perceived insult against people who make a living shooting events, commercials, etc., please don't think that.  I chose my words carefully, saying that while those subjects make for a respectable profession, many (maybe most) of us don't do that.  And anyway, most for-hire videographers I know have side projects that exercise their creative instincts.  For these endeavors, it becomes absolutely relevant that big companies like Adobe should not gouge customers when, again, there is no technical reason to do so.

The overall tenor of this thread is, how dare Adobe arbitrarily lock out particular video cards that are practically identical to the authorized ones (e.g., the GTX 295 is locked out but the GTX 285 is good to go) - but wait, we found a ten-second hack that eliminates the restriction.  All is well.

[thenoisystuff]

"It has everything to do with arbitrary decisions that are not grounded in technical reasons but rather in profit motivation tied to inter-company, anti-competitive agreements -- in this case, between nVidia and Adobe"

What on earth are you talking about for goodness sake!

This is globalized commerce not Stalinist Russia.  Of course Adobe seeks to partner with hardware vendors where they can.  It gives them a competitive advantage.  Do you think Avid or Apple do not?  Since Avid came into existence is was hardware dependent.  Are you going to trash Avid for being good at what they do and undoubtedly the industry standard?

It's not a question of locking out specific cards.  It's a question of guaranteeing the performance of CS5 with a set few.  This is not only pragmatic but it makes perfect sense to the vast majority of users who need to know their hardware will be cross supported by the software suppliers.  A GTX285 is $400 dollars!!!!  Which bit of your bank will that break?

Look, if you don't like the CS5 set up - stay with CS4 as DVDMike said. Better still keep with whatever amateur movie maker kit you've already got.

Just stop wasting everyone's time with your juvenile rants.

[Guest]

thenoisystuff wrote:

"It has everything to do with arbitrary decisions that are not grounded in technical reasons but rather in profit motivation tied to inter-company, anti-competitive agreements -- in this case, between nVidia and Adobe"

What on earth are you talking about for goodness sake!

This is globalized commerce not Stalinist Russia.  Of course Adobe seeks to partner with hardware vendors where they can.  It gives them a competitive advantage.  Do you think Avid or Apple do not?  Since Avid came into existence is was hardware dependent.  Are you going to trash Avid for being good at what they do and undoubtedly the industry standard?

It's not a question of locking out specific cards.  It's a question of guaranteeing the performance of CS5 with a set few.  This is not only pragmatic but it makes perfect sense to the vast majority of users who need to know their hardware will be cross supported by the software suppliers.  A GTX285 is $400 dollars!!!!  Which bit of your bank will that break?

Look, if you don't like the CS5 set up - stay with CS4 as DVDMike said. Better still keep with whatever amateur movie maker kit you've already got.

Just stop wasting everyone's time with your juvenile rants.

Wow.  Nerdy aggression.  Cool it.

Let's start from the top, since you've ignored just about everything discussed here, and have anger issues.

Query:  What is the difference between a GTX 295 and a GTX 285?

Data point:  MPE GPU acceleration is disabled for the GTX 295.

Scenario:  Let's say I own the GTX 295, and follow your advice to purchase a GTX 285 for $400.  Your question to that is, "Which bit of your bank will that break?"  My answer to that is, give me $400 (PayPal accepted).  Because I said so.

[FelixUnderwood]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125280  Under $300 including shipping. Also, it's perfectly legal to run CS5 w/o Hardware MPE. Stop whining. Please.