Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GPU for Video Editing

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 6, 2006 3:27:01 PM

I finally upgraded to a digital camcorder (DVI) but now find that video editing (w/ Adobe Premiere Elements 2.0) those huge files is just unbearable on my P4 2.8 Ghz, 1.5 GB DDR machine. I am about to build a new machine: C2D (6600), 4 GB DDR2, using my two old SATA 150 120 GB hard drives in Raid 0 for the system drive and a 320 GB Seagate SATA 300 perpendicular HD I just picked up for data. I have not decided yet on a motherboard, but I am considering the Intel BOXD975XBXLKR or an ASUS P5B Deluxe. I am not into overclocking or gaming and the video output needs for my monitor are modest (SyncMaster 940b / analog running at native 1280x 1024).

Here is my question ... I have no clue how much the GPU impacts video editing and transcoding ... ATI promotes the AVIVO hardware accelleration, but says that it is available on any of the X1___ cards. Does that mean for video editing purposes an x1300 will be just as adequate as a x1900xt? Any significant difference between ATI and NVidia when it comes to video editing / transcoding?

If the newer generation GPU's actually do improve video editing / transcoding performance then I was considering a x1900xt ... if it does not have much impact I may go for a lower model and wait until next year to upgrade to a DX10 GPU.

Thanks in advance for any info / advice you can provide!

More about : gpu video editing

October 6, 2006 4:21:56 PM

what ati means by all X1000 series supporting avivo is that they can all use avivo to compress video but the higher end the gpu the faster it will compress.

Normally GPU isn't really used unless your apply a GPU effect in the video stream.

The slow down is probably related to your CPU since i have less ram then your current system but my cpu is a beast (opteron 165 @ 2.38 GHZ)

You'll be really happy with the e6600 but for the graphics card something like a 7900gt or 7600 gt or ati X1600/X1800 GTO would be a good place to start.
October 6, 2006 6:20:17 PM

AVIVO will most likely only be useful when you want to look at your video on something other than your computer monitor, I don't know what nvidia has that is comparable.

Since you are probably capturing from your video camera using USB or firewire, the video card doesn't come into play.

I prefer ATI-All In Wonder cards because they include TV tuners that can also capture TV programs to the hard drive.

Premiere Elements will most likely be doing your video encoding/transcoding, Premiere recognizes and utilizes multiple CPU's (dual core etc.), I'm guessing Elements will doe the sam but I have not checked.
Related resources
October 6, 2006 6:22:06 PM

Quote:
ATI promotes the AVIVO hardware accelleration, but says that it is available on any of the X1___ cards. Does that mean for video editing purposes an x1300 will be just as adequate as a x1900xt? Any significant difference between ATI and NVidia when it comes to video editing / transcoding?


AVIVO on Ati X1x00 cards will accelerate4 certain video encoding, but ONLY through the AVIVO software. It won't help if you're using, say, Premiere Elements.

The X1900 will encode faster than an X1300 in the AVIVO software, but through Premiere you won't see a difference.

It seems like a no-brainer that Ati should release a plugin for Premiere, not sure if that's in the works or not...
October 6, 2006 6:33:42 PM

Quote:
AVIVO will most likely only be useful when you want to look at your video on something other than your computer monitor, I don't know what nvidia has that is comparable.

Since you are probably capturing from your video camera using USB or firewire, the video card doesn't come into play.

I prefer ATI-All In Wonder cards because they include TV tuners that can also capture TV programs to the hard drive.

Premiere Elements will most likely be doing your video encoding/transcoding, Premiere recognizes and utilizes multiple CPU's (dual core etc.), I'm guessing Elements will doe the sam but I have not checked.


If he is transferring using Firewire he doesn't need a capture card only a firewire connection.

Secondly preimere elements 2.0 uses the exact same engine as Premiere Pro. The only difference is in the feature set.

For video editing it is much better to focus on CPU/RAM and HD I/O (Raid 0, etc) SATA II or SCSI :D .
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2006 7:04:42 PM

Quote:

Here is my question ... I have no clue how much the GPU impacts video editing and transcoding ... ATI promotes the AVIVO hardware accelleration, but says that it is available on any of the X1___ cards. Does that mean for video editing purposes an x1300 will be just as adequate as a x1900xt? Any significant difference between ATI and NVidia when it comes to video editing / transcoding?


ATi's transcoding is better and free, but their decompression is is the same. Playback used to be nV better then ATi better, and now the same.

The thing to remember is that for HD1080P you need at least an X1800 (maybe 1650, but I doubt it) ATi currently limits the X1300-1600 series to 720P. nV limits some features for 1080P to the GF7600GT (GS can't do all the GT does)

Quote:
If the newer generation GPU's actually do improve video editing / transcoding performance then I was considering a x1900xt ... if it does not have much impact I may go for a lower model and wait until next year to upgrade to a DX10 GPU.


New may or may not add features, but it's unlikely really. Intel has improved alot of their features on the GMA965/3000 specifically for video.

I would suggest the cheapest X1800/1900 for the task, then if things improve with the G8x/R(V)6xx series cards, sell and rebuy if it's worth it to you.

As Cleeve mentions though these encoding benefits are post processing in ATi and nV's dedicated software, not other apps. Matrox has a Premiere plug-in, but I don't know it's impact as no one has investigated it thoroughly that I have seen.
October 6, 2006 7:23:11 PM

Some good advice guys. I do have one thing to say after reading the OPs question... a native res of 1280x1024 is not a standard ratio, i.e. 16:9 or 4:3. I wouldn't edit at that resolution because of this. 1280x960 or 1400x1050 would be better.
October 6, 2006 7:54:42 PM

i would go with either 1440*900 or go up to 1680*1050. both staying in the 16:9/16:10 ratio.
October 6, 2006 7:56:07 PM

Quote:
Some good advice guys. I do have one thing to say after reading the OPs question... a native res of 1280x1024 is not a standard ratio, i.e. 16:9 or 4:3. I wouldn't edit at that resolution because of this. 1280x960 or 1400x1050 would be better.


Well if you want to edit on a computer, then you have to play by computer rules.

You can't edit in full screen anyway (no room for buttons). Final Cut just has the lil preview in a window on the screen.
October 6, 2006 8:00:59 PM

Quote:
Some good advice guys. I do have one thing to say after reading the OPs question... a native res of 1280x1024 is not a standard ratio, i.e. 16:9 or 4:3. I wouldn't edit at that resolution because of this. 1280x960 or 1400x1050 would be better.


Well if you want to edit on a computer, then you have to play by computer rules.

You can't edit in full screen anyway (no room for buttons). Final Cut just has the lil preview in a window on the screen.

I understand that, and I wasn't talking about the room on the screen, I was talking about the X by Y ratio. I do heavy photo editing and I can't use 1280x1024 only because it distorts the picture making it apear "shorter" from top to bottom.
October 6, 2006 8:03:11 PM

well a widescreen display would give you more space from side to side to place your palletes and what not. I presonally edit video in elements 2 on my 20.1" widescreen LCD and love it to pieces lots of room for what i need.
October 6, 2006 8:04:31 PM

Yes, I wish I had a widescreen for photo editing. Just don't have the money at the moment.
October 6, 2006 8:05:35 PM

In fact, an Apple 30" HD Cinema Display would be GREAT!
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2006 8:57:27 PM

Quote:
Some good advice guys. I do have one thing to say after reading the OPs question... a native res of 1280x1024 is not a standard ratio, i.e. 16:9 or 4:3. I wouldn't edit at that resolution because of this. 1280x960 or 1400x1050 would be better.


I don't think he's trying to encode into 1280x1024, but his current monitor is 1280x1024, which is actually perfect for 720P, because it gives him pixel/pixel(line) view of input/output with room for a footer/header tools section. IMO 1280x960 or 14x10 or even 16x10 aren't any better than 1280x1024, the only other conecern would be the 1920x1080 which would require at least 1900x1200 or 19x14 like I have here at work in order to work with native 1080HD, those other option offer no additional benifit for that.

Anywhoo, doesn't matter much, they have little impact on his encoding it's just a view option.
October 7, 2006 6:25:13 PM

Thanks for all of the advice and input. FYI, I am importing via firewire (although I do have an ATI Wonder card for capturing analog) and the monitor resolution was just so everyone knew I did not need much of a gpu for everyday needs (in Adobe I am exporting to standard avi for dvd authoring w/ Nero7). With all of your help I now know to stick with a mid-range GPU and focus on the ram / hard drives for best performance.

Thanks Again!!!
!