Video Card Advice for CS6 (Win)

[Ed.Macke]

I'm currently using Premiere Elements, but am looking to buy the CS6 Suite with Premiere Pro. While I do mostly SD editing, my son wants to get into AVCHD editing and especially using AfterEffects.

Given that I currently have a homebuilt PC (specs at end of post) with only integrated Intel HD2000 graphics, I guess

• Question #1 is will I really need a dedicated video card, or is the HD2000 enough for what I want to do? Of course faster = better, but how much faster will it be for my money, i.e. bang for the buck.

• And Question #2 would be... if so, which card? I really don't want to spend more than I need, but I also don't want to go cheap and end up with a solution that's not much better than what I have.

I'm especially confused with Mercury Playback, AfterEffects, SpeedGrade, and what is truly needed. Looking at this page, they really push the Quadro GPU and Quadro SDI Output cards. But on the "officially supported" page, it lists GeForce GTX, Quadro FX, and Quadro cards.

What the heck? Can somebody help me wade through this alphabet soup of cards, and what supports what?

Let's say I went with the GTX 570... is 1GB enough ($300 for the EVGA version) or do I need 2GB ($340)? Would the 570 be good enough?

Or do I need to go to the GTX 580? At $430 for the 1.5GB and $480 for the 3GB, it's signficantly more money than the GTX570 so it better be significantly better than the GTX570.

Or there's the the Quadro 2000 or 2000D for about $400. It seems to fall between the 570 and 580 price-wise, but it's a different line. Also, cards only seems to be made by PNY... what's up with that?

I can look at tech specs and marketing hype until I'm blue in the face, but it's not helping me decide what I really need - and how cheap I can go

TIA!!

System Specs

---------------------------------------------------------------

Win7 Home Premium 64-bit

Intel i7-2600 (not overclocked, stock cooler)

Intel DZ68BC motherboard

16GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 1333

SeaSonic 620W Power Supply

WD Caviar Blue SATA III 500 GB (programs)

WD Caviar Blue SATA III 500 GB (data files)

WD Caviar Black SATA III 1TB (video files)

Antec 1200 case w/ 6 fans

[RjL190365]

eclipse_crow wrote:

Swapping out a PSU is akin to getting an upgraded engine and not using a completely different car from a cheaper manufacturer of a smaller format!

The OP has a Seasonic PSU and they are Mercedes class let’s say so I suggest a better analogy is this:

Take a C class Mercedes and compare one with an entry level engine and one with an upgraded engine.

Is the entry level engine less reliable? No.

Is the entry level engine less efficient? For the same engine type it’s generally more efficient.

Is the entry level engine noisier? For the same engine type generally not.

On the other hand, if a given car ships with an underpowered engine as its entry level engine, then it will be significantly noisier and less efficient - and it may very well be ill-suited for highway driving because it cannot reach typical highway speeds reliably. This is the situation if an even lower-wattage PSU from the same manufacturer is used - one that turned out to be unable to handle a typical editing system configuration. (That analogy is similar to a car that's equipped with an engine that's mismatched to the weight of the vehicle.)

And yes, a 1700W power supply that's outputting no more than 350W most of the time is like putting an 8.6L V12 engine in a Ford Mondeo/Fusion.

[eclipse_crow]

“On the other hand, if a given car ships with an underpowered engine as its entry level engine, then it will be significantly noisier and less efficient - and it may very well be ill-suited for highway driving because it cannot reach typical highway speeds reliably. This is the situation if an even lower-wattage PSU from the same manufacturer is used - one that turned out to be unable to handle a typical editing system configuration. (That analogy is similar to a car that's equipped with an engine that's mismatched to the weight of the vehicle.)”

In this context we’ve already shown that a Seasonic 620W is more than capable of handling the load so this seems another poor analogy; it feels as if it has been stretched well beyond breaking point.

[RjL190365]

While what you stated is true for the Seasonic, it is not true for the many "650W" PSUs that can barely handle 450W under realistic conditions.

[eclipse_crow]

“While what you stated is true for the Seasonic, it is not true for the many "650W" PSUs that can barely handle 450W under realistic conditions.”

I appreciate that but surely we are here to respond to the OP and not some random spec!

[Todd_Kopriva]

Regarding SpeedGrade:

Don't think of SpeedGrade as "being accelerated by the GPU". Think of SpeedGrade as "running on GPU". The dependence of SpeedGrade on a powerful GPU with plenty of VRAM is deep and unaviodable. It is not like Premiere Pro or After Effects, in which the processing will fall back to the CPU if the GPU isn't capable.

A related example: If you try to run SpeedGrade on Windows on a Mac with Bootcamp, you'll have problems with the UI not even appearing, because it's relying on the GPU for some things that don't work under Bootcamp. (I learned this from experience.)

[Jim_Simon]

Interesting.  I wonder if that will make the 680 more attractive, and possibly worth the price.  (Not sure it's worth an extra $300 for the meager Mercury improvements alone.  But for SpeedGrade...)

[SvendBendt]

Jim Simon wrote:

Interesting.  I wonder if that will make the 680 more attractive, and possibly worth the price.  (Not sure it's worth an extra $300 for the meager Mercury improvements alone.  But for SpeedGrade...)

Speedgrade does not use CUDA, it uses OpenGL.

If you were to use SpeedGrade and only SpeedGrade, the best bang for the bucks right now is, without comparison, the Radeon 7970.

That is of course no good for CUDA application since it uses OpenCL instead.

The GTX 680 is one of the worst cards you can get in terms of raw compute power...it is the first generation of Nvidia cards that has had its compute power artificially capped (one would assume to sell more Quadro cards)

[Harm_Millaard]

Wrong again. You are mixing OpenGL and OpenCL performance and CUDA performance.

The GTX 680 is one of the worst cards you can get in terms of raw compute power...it is the first generation of Nvidia cards that has had its compute power artificially capped (one would assume to sell more Quadro cards)

This ONLY relates to OpenGL compute power performance and that is utterly irrelevant. It is about equal to saying this car weighs less than another car, and thus it is the best car. That is BS. The AMD Radeon 7970 is about the worst card to get performance wise compared to a limited nVidia card for 25% of the price that delivers around ten times the performance. nVidia delivers around 400 times the value of the 7970 in rendering. You can't tell anything about Speedgrade, since it has not been released.

Those who know don't tell, those who tell don't know.

PS. If you are not happy about the co-operation between nVidia and Adobe, choose AMD and live with that. Your choice.

[SvendBendt]

Harm Millaard wrote:

Wrong again. You are mixing OpenGL and OpenCL performance and CUDA performance.

The GTX 680 is one of the worst cards you can get in terms of raw compute power...it is the first generation of Nvidia cards that has had its compute power artificially capped (one would assume to sell more Quadro cards)

This ONLY relates to OpenGL compute power performance and that is utterly irrelevant. It is about equal to saying this car weighs less than another car, and thus it is the best car. That is BS. The AMD Radeon 7970 is about the worst card to get performance wise compared to a limited nVidia card for 25% of the price that delivers around ten times the performance. nVidia delivers around 400 times the value of the 7970 in rendering. You can't tell anything about Speedgrade, since it has not been released.

Those who know don't tell, those who tell don't know.

PS. If you are not happy about the co-operation between nVidia and Adobe, choose AMD and live with that. Your choice.

/sigh

I'm not mixing anything.

OpenGL is used for everything in After Effects except the new ray-trace engine which is CUDA driven.

SpeedGrade DOES NOT USE CUDA (!!!) http://www.adobe.com/products/speedgrade/tech-specs.html

Notice the part where it says: OpenGL 2.0–capable system? And therefor Radeon 7970 is eons faster then any cheap gfx card from Nvidia for use in SpeedGrade...period!

As for a better card for Premiere then Gtx 680, I was talking about other Nvidia cards obviously....like the GTX 580 or 570. You will get about the same CUDA performance as with the 680 and save a ton of money.

[Harm_Millaard]

And therefor Radeon 7970 is eons faster then any cheap gfx card from Nvidia for use in SpeedGrade...period!

Post that in the Speedgrade forum. It is utterly irrelevant on the PR forum and here there is nothing worse than an AMD card. Want to buy one, go ahead, but stop cluttering this board with meaningless messages on unreleased software with unfounded statements.

[SvendBendt]

Did I do something to upset you? You seem hostile to say the least.

The guy who made this thread asked specifically about the performance in After Effects, SpeedGrade and Premiere.

You don't think I'm allowed to answer his question?

As for "unfounded statements" with regard to OpenGL performance, I have a feeling that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

[Ed.Macke]

Well, my question wasn't really about performance per se... it was about whether I even need a video card and if so which one would best meet my stated needs.

Are you suggesting that - given what I want to do - the answer to my question would be to get a Radeon 7970?

[SvendBendt]

Ed.Macke wrote:

Well, my question wasn't really about performance per se... it was about whether I even need a video card and if so which one would best meet my stated needs.

Are you suggesting that - given what I want to do - the answer to my question would be to get a Radeon 7970?

No. You would not get the benefit of Mercury engine in Premiere and hardware accelerated ray-trace in After Effects. I would get a GTX 570 or GTX 580 if I were you. Skip the Quadro cards.

[Jim_Simon]

My point about taking an interest in the 680 was this.

For the meager CUDA enhancements the 680 provides over something like the $200 560Ti, it doesn't seem worth it.  But since SpeedGrade (which admittedly isn't using CUDA) uses ONLY the GPU for processing, I wonder if the 680 might now provide a significant enough improvement over the 560Ti to make it worth the extra $300.

What Radeons can do by comparison is not much relevant.  We still need (or at least want) the CUDA for PP.  So my only thought was how much better would the 680 be for SpeedGrade over a 560Ti?  The extra $300 isn't worth it for CUDA, but will it made a larger difference with SpeedGrade?

I wonder...

[SvendBendt]

Jim Simon wrote:

I wonder if the 680 might now provide a significant enough improvement over the 560Ti to make it worth the extra $300.

The extra $300 isn't worth it for CUDA, but will it made a larger difference with SpeedGrade?

Nvidia is said to announce a card in May that should correct the embarrassing compute performance of the GXT 680, but it most likely won't be cheap. Best bang for you bugs right now is a GTX 570 or GTX 580. The GTX 680 is the worlds fastest single-chip gamer card but not much else.

[SvendBendt]

This is a benchmark from PrimeGrid. A CUDA accelerated math application.

This shows the GTX 680 being beaten by not just the 580 but also 560 Ti 

The 680 is a fantastic card......for games.

[roddiehorton]

Wonder if my 1gb AMD 7570 would score about 12 or so on this test. Even that would probably be optimistic. LOL

I have an Intel quad 3.ghx Dell. That has inspired me to budget $4000.00 on a rig. Going SSD for sure core i7. What ram, motherboard and video card. would spend $1200. for the right video card setup. If i had to.

[mmaderek]

I spent about $300 upgrading our computer's graphic card for my 12 year old son who has CS5.5 installed and uses it for Video Production. I put in  GeForce GTX 560Ti 2g card on my I7 PC with 16gb RAM and I don't see it on the list of accepted cards?!?! Will he be able to run CS6? What do I need to do? This is very confusing. Why can't Adobe issue an update for their accepted cards? My son is having the same issue with 3Ds max. (((Please help)))

[RjL190365]

Search the forums for "CUDA" and "hack". The GTX 560 Ti is not on the official list of supported GPUs in Premiere Pro CS5.5; however, you can make MPE GPU acceleration work with that GPU with the CUDA hack.

[Jack Banatoni]

FWIW, I haven't encountered any issues with my MSI 560 Ti 2GB card since getting it in December.  Your results may vary, of course, but I don't regret getting that card.

Plus, it came with a great basketball game I can play during render breaks... just kidding! 

[mmaderek]

I had to also pay additional to put in 750w when the GTX 560Ti 2g was installed and I am am way over budget with this system so that my 12 year old can advance his video editing skills. The computer tech guy said a hack had the potential to crash my system so I was afraid. Why can't Adobe update their list of approved cards? I don't get it?! It is a CUDA card and seems to meet the specifications otherwise. Now my son wants to upgrade to CS6. Is a hack my only option?

[RjL190365]

For now, that's your only option. At least on initial release, the Adobe list of supported cards in CS6 for Windows remains completely unchanged from CS5.5.

And it beats me that Adobe has certified the Quadro 2000 - a GPU that's based on a much less powerful GPU than the GTX 560 Ti (in this case, the Quadro 2000 is based on an underclocked GTS 450) - in addition to certifying the GTX 570 and GTX 580. (And as I noted, the GTX 680 is not included because it is still too new to have been tested sufficiently by Adobe engineers.)

[mmaderek]

I found a bat file to hack for the GTX 560 Ti for PE Do I need to do something to AE as well? I cannot find anything under Search Cuda Hack. Thanks!

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:57:50 -0600

From: forums@adobe.com

To: karenleemoore@live.com

Subject: Video Card Advice for CS6 (Win)

Re: Video Card Advice for CS6 (Win)

created by RjL190365 in Hardware Forum - View the full discussion

For now, that's your only option. At least on initial release, the Adobe list of supported cards in CS6 for Windows remains completely unchanged from CS5.5.

Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page:

To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at . In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.

Start a new discussion in Hardware Forum by email or at Adobe Forums

For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936746#2936746.

[eclipse_crow]

@mmaderek

Don’t worry as the hack is merely editing a text file I believe. I personally wouldn’t have any qualms about this sort of hack as its inconsequential. Any card that officially supports CUDA and has 1GB of RAM or more is okay with the more CUDA cores the better.

Adobe just don’t want to spend the money to validate every card which makes sense. nVidia should check for general CUDA compatibility and that is the issue.

[Harm_Millaard]

Have a look at the number of cards that have been 'hacked' without any problems. Notice that these charts only show cards with at least 10 observations in the database, so the Quadro 5000 and 6000 do not show up due to the small number of observations, as are missing cards like the GTX 680, also because of too small a sample.

http://ppbm5.com/MPE%20Charts.php