RjL190365
LEGEND
RjL190365
LEGEND
Activity
‎Dec 06, 2012
12:51 PM
1 Upvote
The GTX 650 Ti is slower than a GTX 470. You see, 768 Kepler cores (as in the GTX 650 Ti) are effectively equivalent to only 384 Fermi cores in CUDA operations (the GTX 470 has 448 CUDA cores in the Fermi architecture). Plus, the GTX 470 has a memory throughput of 134 MB/s versus only 86.4 GB/s for the GTX 650 Ti.
... View more
‎Dec 05, 2012
03:02 PM
Yes, the GTX 660 would be an improvement over your current GTX 285: Although the GTX 660 has slightly less memory bandwidth than the GTX 285 (144.2 GB/s versus 159 GB/s), the 660 has far more CUDA cores (960 versus 240). Plus, Premiere Pro CS6's MPE GPU acceleration works best with GPUs that have more than 300 Fermi or older cores or 600 Kepler cores. (Your original choice of the GTX 650 Ti has 768 CUDA cores, all right, but is limited by its mediocre memory bandwidth.)
... View more
‎Dec 05, 2012
02:16 PM
I was talking more in terms of GB/s, not MHz, for the memory throughput between the two GPUs. The GTX 650 Ti has a memory bandwidth of 86.4 GB/s while your current GTX 285 has a memory bandwidth of 159 GB/s. Also, the GTX 650 Ti's GDDR5 RAM has only a 128-bit bus width while the GTX 285's DDR3 RAM has a 512-bit bus width.
... View more
‎Dec 05, 2012
10:26 AM
That's in games. Premiere Pro, on the other hand, makes extensive use of the graphics card's memory in GPU accelerated mode. Premiere Pro does not fully utilize the GPU itself yet relies fairly heavily on the graphics card RAM. Games, on the other hand, make the most use of the GPU but relatively incidental use of the graphics card RAM.
... View more
‎Dec 05, 2012
08:18 AM
The GTX 650 Ti would, if anything, be a performance downgrade (however small) from your current GTX 285. This is because the GTX 285's memory throughput is over 86 percent higher than that of the GTX 650 Ti, and that a CUDA core in Kepler does not run at as high of a speed (relative to the nominal GPU clock speed) as a CUDA core in Fermi and older GPUs. However, since you're having stability issues with the GTX 285, I would have to make an exception: The GTX 650 Ti's performance falls just shy of that of a GTX 285 in practice--in other words, its performance is close enough to your current card so that it would not leave you feeling very frustrated.
... View more
‎Dec 04, 2012
06:07 PM
That is because the GT 240 is a relatively feeble card by current standards to begin with. Only 96 CUDA cores and no more than 54.4 GB/s memory throughput even with GDDR5 memory. Compare that to the 768 CUDA cores and 86.4 GB/s memory throughput of the GTX 650 Ti, and you've gotten a nice improvement in performance. However, I'd still agree with Bill that the GTX 660 (non-Ti) is a better value (bang-for-the-buck) for Pr, especially if you have at least an overclockable quad-core Sandy or Ivy Bridge i5 CPU (i7 is better). 2GB of 192-bit GDDR5 RAM (versus 1GB of 128-bit GDDR5 RAM on the base GTX 650 Ti), 960 CUDA cores and 144.2 GB/s memory throughput - all for $80 (retail) more than the GTX 650 Ti.
... View more
‎Dec 03, 2012
09:53 AM
Gammarik wrote: Would this hack make AMD cards work too? Just curious No. The hack is CUDA only - and only fairly recent Nvidia GPUs support CUDA at all. No AMD GPU supports CUDA.
... View more
‎Oct 26, 2012
02:40 PM
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).
... View more
‎Sep 16, 2012
10:13 AM
I take it, calling Adobe for a referral to a good local integrator - wouldn't be very effective? Back in the pre-FireWire days of Adobe forum being on Compuserve and Bertel Schmitt sysop-ing it, things were simpler, in a way. The main way to get a video editing system was through an authorized VAR, for better or for worse. It would not be very effective because the company itself tends to be biased towards HP and Dell - the "big corporations" in the PC business. As such, they tend to favor companues that deliver the poorest bang for the buck (or one that charges the absolute highest price for any given level of performance). Sadly, the local integrators aren't much better these days: They build mostly office configurations with minimal RAM and minimal graphics - and few of them stock any higher-end parts at all whatsoever. And most of the local integrators I've been to recently sell mostly used parts that are two or more generations old and carry few if any current-generation parts.
... View more
‎Sep 14, 2012
11:41 AM
Unfortunately, it's too old to run Premiere Pro CS6 - and also below Adobe's stated minimum requirements. The Pentium D is based on the now-very-obsolete NetBurst technology (used on the original Pentium 4), and it is extremely inefficient (in terms of performance per clock cycle). Adobe requires a Core 2 Duo (or a Core 2-based Pentium Dual-Core, not to be confused with the archaic Pentium D) at an absolute minimum to run Premiere Pro CS6 at all. But because of its 64-bit-exclusive operation, a Core i5 or higher is better if you're going to run CS6 at all. As for CS4, the Pentium D still barely meets Adobe's practical minimum requirements for HDV, and insufficient for AVCHD.
... View more
‎Sep 04, 2012
08:32 AM
Also, I would like to know exactly which laptop that you're currently using, and what exactly the specs (processor (CPU), RAM, hard drive(s), GPU or integrated graphics) are. After all, if you are running 32-bit Windows because your laptop is simply too old to run 64-bit programs properly (or if the components fall short of Adobe's minimum requirements, such as too little RAM or a CPU that simply cannot run most currently available programs properly), it's definitely time for a new laptop. Remember, the reason why CS5 and higher is 64-bit only is partly due to its tremendous requirements as far as the amount of RAM is concerned. In fact, CS6 really needs 16GB of RAM - far more RAM than any 32-bit version of Windows can address (remember, the most amount of RAM that 32-bit Windows can address is 3.99GB total minus the 700MB or so that is reserved for hardware interrupt caching) - just to perform acceptably, especially on weaker-performance laptops. And Adobe's official minimum is still 2GB although that amount barely runs Premiere Pro CS6 at all, and you would not have been able to do much if anything at all in that program. And had I given advice about a low-end laptop back then, I would not have picked a model with 32-bit Windows Vista or Windows 7 at all due to their extremely small amount of headroom between Microsoft's minimum RAM requirements (IIRC, Windows 7 requires a minimum of 1GB of RAM just to even run at all - and yet it cannot utilize 4GB of RAM) and the maximum amount of total RAM that it can address.
... View more
‎Sep 03, 2012
05:50 PM
As Jim stated, an emphatic NO. Premiere Pro CS6 is 64-bit exclusive, and thus requires an entirely 64-bit system (CPU and OS). If your system has only a 32-bit OS installed, Premiere Pro versions since CS5 will not even install at all, let alone run at all, on that system. The last version of Premiere Pro to support Windows x32 was CS4.
... View more
‎Aug 22, 2012
06:15 AM
Which type of system are you going to run? Windows? OSX? If you are running Windows, keep in mind that the Windows version of Premiere Pro CS6 still does not support OpenCL at all for GPU acceleration. Therefore, all AMD GPUs will force Premiere to run only in MPE software-only mode. The same goes for any non-NVidia GPU, or an NVidia GPU that either has less than 1GB of total video RAM or is too old to support CUDA. MPE GPU acceleration is still NVidia CUDA only in Windows. If you are running a Mac (OSX), it does support OpenCL for MPE GPU acceleration - but keep in mind that this support is officially limited to certain HD 67xxM GPUs inside newer MacBook Pros running on newer versions of OSX. Hope this helps.
... View more
‎Aug 20, 2012
02:26 PM
Ed, To be honest, the shaders in the GTX 570 run at double the GPU core clock speed while those in the GTX 660 Ti run at the same clock as the GPU core. The GTX 660 Ti, therefore, performs only slightly faster than the GTX 570 at best. In addition, despite the 192-bit bus width the memory bandwidth of the GTX 660 Ti is almost as high as the GTX 570's 320-bit memory.
... View more
‎Aug 18, 2012
05:55 AM
I'm not Harm, but the 1TB 7200.14 is equally as fast (sequential-speed-wise) as its 2TB brandmate. However, due to the single-platter design of the 1TB drive, it may have a somewhat slower random access time because it may use cheaper, slower head actuators. But as a media and/or projects drive, the seek/random access speed is largely irrelevant.
... View more
‎Aug 17, 2012
07:59 AM
Sharon, Yes, you can use a Radeon with Premiere Pro CS6 - but you'll have to live with the editor being locked into the MPE software-only mode. This can increase render (as opposed to encode) times by a factor of 10 or more versus an otherwise comparably performing GeForce GPU with MPE GPU acceleration enabled.
... View more
‎Aug 17, 2012
07:08 AM
In this case, Sharon, you will have to compromise. Which is more important to you? Still image processing performance or video rendering (not to be confused with encoding) performance?
... View more
‎Aug 17, 2012
06:42 AM
Actually, I stated "spotty" in a relative sense: When the SSDs based on the very same Sandforce SF-2200 series controller first came out, they introduced a slew of random BSOD issues in Windows, including BSODs that occurred even when the PC is doing nothing! (This occurred even in "good" brands of SSDs based on that particular controller.) And did you know that the transfer rate claims on all of the Sandforce-based SSDs are based on highly compressible data? With non-compressible data, the true transfer speed of all Sandforce-based SSDs plummet severely - in some cases, to less than 100 MB/s! What's worse, the maximum read speed of most Sandforce-based SSDs with non-compressible data are also only half as fast as their claimed speed. Read well-written professional reviews of those SSDs and you see what I mean. (And don't rely on Newegg or any other user reviews on the account that their experience with this product category is highly variable, ranging from none to significant. And most of the positive reviews on Newegg of products that were judged "crappy" by professionals have either a horrible or outdated/obsolete/extinct reference product or absolutely no reference at all whatsoever to compare the said products to. In other words, those "positive" user reviews of products that have been judged "crappy" all have practically nothing to compare them to.) And what you stated about the Crucial M4 SSD is true for the 64GB size. The 128GB version is listed as having a write speed of 170 MB/s (although it is because the 128GB SSD might have been two 64GB SSDs linked internally via a RAID 0 bridge).
... View more
‎Aug 17, 2012
06:06 AM
Thanks for the info on the GTX 600 series GPUs. It appears that the GTX 660 Ti would be slightly faster than a GTX 560 Ti, but its memory throughput would fall just shy of a GTX 570 or GTX 560 Ti 448 (as its memory interface is only 192 bits wide instead of 256 bits on the full-blown GK104 GPUs). The GTX 660 Ti also has eight of its Raster Operator Units (ROPs) disabled in comparison to the GTX 670.
... View more
‎Aug 17, 2012
05:49 AM
I have the 180GB Corsair Force GT which has synchronous NAND flash memory like the OCZ Vertex3. I love it and it's super fast and have no issues. Here's the problem: That's the wrong Corsair SSD. The Force series SSDs are all based on Sandforce controllers. And Sandforce's track record has been spotty at best.
... View more
‎Jul 24, 2012
08:16 AM
...but for the budget version definitely still the 550 Ti. That still holds true today since there is currently no Kepler-derived GPUs in between the GT 640 (which is significantly slower than even a GTS 450, let alone a GTX 550 Ti) and the GTX 670. Plus, the plain non-Ti GTX 560 still costs significantly more than the GTX 550 Ti (although it performs faster than the GTX 550 Ti).
... View more
‎Jun 24, 2012
08:08 AM
Hsheibani wrote: Why doesn't someone suggest Ivy Bridge (3770K) ? Ivy Bridge is still limited due to the LGA 1155 platform it uses: Not enough PCI-e lanes if you're going to use a high-end GPU, a discrete hardware RAID card and a higher-end digital video I/O card all in the same system. Worse, the i7-3770K does not overclock as high on average as the previous i7-2600K, and if you use an i7-3770K on a pre-7-series Gigabyte-branded motherboard, the i7-3770K's macximum overclock will be limited to only 3.9GHz.
... View more
‎Jun 23, 2012
11:46 AM
Jim, I think I know the reason for the superior performance of that NH-D14: It's just a larger HSF - period. (And you have misjudged the clearance of the front 120mm fan of the NH-D14: It is low enough to create a serious conflict with any RAM module that's over 1 inch high; in the worst cases you might have to settle for RAM with no heatsinks.) And the Hyper 212 series isn't as efficient as they should have been because their numerous fins are packed very close together - so close that they require extremely loud, noisy fans just for themselves (let alone the CPU) to be cooled adequately. As such, I would not personally trust any of the Hyper 212 series for any current Intel CPU priced over $350 or so.
... View more
‎Jun 22, 2012
02:43 PM
Sorry for not making that clear enough. All of my info in the above post are in CS6 relative to those same tests done in CS5.5.
... View more
‎Jun 21, 2012
01:13 PM
The PPBM5 benchmark will run in CS6 although you will have to do several additional steps: 1) When it asks you to save the project on first launch, leave this as the default "Benchmark_1.prproj". Then, after you run the render/export portion of the PPBM5 test (as per instructions), resave that project as the original "Benchmark.prproj" file name (this will overwrite the original "Benchmark.prproj" file if done correctly; if it asks you that the file will be overwritten, click "Yes"). 2) Now, when you load in the three timelines in Adobe Media Encoder, change the H.264 output file name to "H.m4v". After all that is done, when you look at the results, the Disk I/O time and the MPE Off time should be slightly faster (lower times) while the H.264 Blu-ray and MPEG-2 DVD encode times should be quite a bit slower (higher times).
... View more
‎Jun 21, 2012
11:23 AM
Another Photographer wrote: Is this an issue even with GTX 670 and GTX 680? Yes. This is exactly one of the reasons why the GTX 680 is only slightly faster than the previous-generation top-end NVidia GPU, the GTX 580, despite triple the number of CUDA cores. But you also have to remember that the total VRAM bandwidth of the GTX 680 is only about equal to that of the older GTX 580. This hurts performance to the point that a GPU with more cores isn't all that much faster (if at all) compared to an older GPU with fewer CUDA cores.
... View more
‎Jun 20, 2012
04:32 AM
How about a GT 640 with 384 cores and DDR5 (but only 128 bit)? Unfortunately, that particular version of the GT 640 is OEM-only (meaning that it is only supplied to big-name PC brands for use in their PCs at present). No retail cards are available in that configuration (at least not yet). The only announced retail version(s) of the GT 640 all use 128-bit DDR3 VRAM whose memory throughput is only about half that of your current GT 240 (28.5 GB/s on the GT 640 versus 54.4 GB/s on your current GT 240). In addition, that particular GT 640 and all retail GT 640s are Kepler-based, whose shaders are only about half as fast (relatively speaking) as the shaders in Fermi (GeForce 400- and 500-series). Put it this way, while Fermi shaders run at double the core clock speed, Kepler shaders run at only the same clock speed as the GPU core clock speed. This greatly diminishes, if not completely eliminates, the effect of the greater number of CUDA cores. As such, the GT 640 retail would not be a sufficient inprovement over your current GT 240 to justify its cost, in your case. It would cost around $100, all right - but its performance would be slower than even a two-generation-old GTS 450, let alone a GTX 560 Ti.
... View more
‎Jun 19, 2012
08:07 PM
1) Number of CUDA cores 2) Memory throughput (in GB/s) Your GT 240 has only 96 CUDA cores and a memory throughput of only 54.4 GB/s. By comparison, the GTX 560 Ti that I recommend has either 384 or 448 CUDA cores, with a memory throughput of 128 to 152 GB/s.
... View more
‎Jun 19, 2012
06:48 PM
Prices on RAM are, if anything, creeping upwards slightly. Upgrading to 32GB if you are getting 4 x 4GB sticks will require taking out all of the RAM and replacing them completely: No LGA 1155 enthusiast-level motherboard has more than four DIMM slots. And as I stated earlier about the GPU, it is best if it is (relatively speaking) a good balance with the CPU that you'll be using the GPU with. Your existing GT 240 is OK for a slow system with only a dual-core CPU or an old LGA 775 Core 2 Quad-based PC, but will definitely bottleneck even a totally stock-speed i7-2600K, let alone an overclocked one (especially if your particular card has only 512MB of VRAM or uses slower DDR3 VRAM instead of the DDR5 VRAM).
... View more
‎Jun 19, 2012
03:32 PM
Intel isn't the only "good" brand of SSD. Other "good" brands of SSDs are: Crucial and Samsung, plus certain Corsair models (Performance Pro, which does not use a Sandforce controller like other Corsair SSDs). However, I do not count Kingston as a "good" brand because all of its models use either JMicron or Sandforce controllers.
... View more
AdChoices