Those are mindless leaps to conclusions (with no actual technical
diagnosis), and have pretty much been your only contributions -
repeatedly - to this emerging discussion I can only present my opinions on why things were done this way. They may have a basis in fact, but it's up to you (or anyone else) to decide if you believe that. I can assure you, for whatever it's worth, that those conclusions are not mindless, nor are they very big leaps at all. Again, your choice as to whether to believe me or not. The objective is to uncover whether Adobe was being overcautious by
disabling CUDA/GPU acceleration for certain cards You'd have to define "overcautious". With stability and performance being stated goals for CS5, how many more cards would Adobe have been able to test properly and thoroughly before putting those goals at risk? One? Six? Zero? How many? How many cards did they start out with? How many failed QE for one reason or another? Why did they fail? I don't know those answers, and I don't think you do, either. Conspiracy theories aside, maybe you could give the guys who write the code the benefit of the doubt on this one. And I do remember the earlier debate blip in this thread about the
number of accelerated tracks available with each respective card, which I
find irrelevant since I'm not NBC Sports dealing with feeds from
multiple angles at the Kentucky Derby You may find it "irrelevant", but you better believe there's a significant segment of Adobe's customers who don't. Look, I really hope that folks who alter their Pr installation to get access to CUDA-accelerated playback, effects and rendering end up with a really fast and solid editing experience. The fact is that some (many?) will not. Is it worth the risk? Everyone has to decide for themselves. And everyone will have to take responsibility for that decision if things go fruit-shaped. -Jeff
... View more