Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Video Editing: 450, 460, or 470?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 19, 2010 2:43:11 AM

OK, before I get to asking questions, I need to explain my setup. I'm a filmmaker/video editor who plans on using Adobe After Effects, Premiere, (CS5) and Sony Vegas 9, I won't be using Avid at all. Also, I might ask some other questions that don't entirely apply to the GPU, but hey, we'll see if anyone can help me out.

After studying for what feels like days, I've come across many articles saying that for filmmaking and video editing, Nvidia Quadro FX cards are the best. However, there are two problems:
1. I'm poor.
2. That's considered to be a workstation type card. I'm hoping for a card that can still handle some in-between gaming, but can still endure in a video editing environment.
Despite these articles saying I should dump a few hundreds into this workstation card, I've come across some more budget-appropriate cards from Nvidia labeled as GTS and GTX. The reason I think these should be fine for me is that they have CUDA technology, which after reading plenty of Newegg pages about it, I have learned that they improve functionality and loading times, encoding, etc. for larger applications (such as Adobe CS5 and Sony Vegas). So, after looking for some cheap models I came across the GTS 450, the GTX 460, and the GTX 470. Each one seems to have a pro and con for me that is screwing up my consumer inhibition:

The GTS 450 model (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...) seems to have faster clock scores than the 460 and 470 I'm looking at. However, it's only 128-bit, and it has only 192 processing cores, and when I think of processing cores, I wonder if more processing cores = better video editing/rendering. I could be wrong, I honestly am new to the whole GPU craze, but what's keeping this thing afloat is the fact that it has OpenGL 4.0 Support. I've looked it up and I'm guessing that's designed for 3d applications, but then again, there may be some important times to use a 3D feature in Adobe, I dunno. I'm not even sure if that benefits video applications or anything along the lines of transcoding, editing, and special effects, so any insight on if this would help me would be greatly appreciated.
$129.99, $89.99 after mail-in rebate

The GTX 460 model (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...) has a bit slower clock rates, which seems like that would be a problem, but it has 336 processing cores, which I'm guessing would be a major improvement for my setup. The real con is that it's 768 MB, which obviously isn't 1 GB, yet I've noticed some say you won't even notice the difference when it comes to memory size. But, it comes with something called RAMDAC and it's at 400MHz. To be honest, I have no idea what this does, but at least it's there. Also, simple question: it says the power connector is 2 x 6pin, does that mean it needs 2 6pin connectors, or a 6+2 (8) pin connector?
$169.99, $139.99 after mail-in rebate

The GTX 470 model (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...) has the slowest clock rates, which seems odd that it keeps decreasing the "better" the model, but the difference between this and the 460 is negligible compared to the 450-460 difference in clock frequency. Another question: is a higher clock frequency better or worse? Anyway, it has 448 processing cores, which is a small improvement over the 460. Plus, it has a memory size of 1,280 MB, or 1.25 GB, and it's 320-bit, which I'm guessing is how fast it loads, I'm not really sure if that would make a difference in video editing. It says it's 3-way SLI, but I won't be buying 2 or 3 of these, since I'm cheap, so it's a pointless feature. The one blatant problem with this is its price. It looks like it's a little better than the last 2, but it's $100 more; it might be more powerful, but according to the bang-for-buck ratio, I'm guessing that's more for a gamer's battlestation instead of a video editing juggernaut. I could still get this, it's just that until I get some income rolling in after a month or two, I won't be finishing this thing until the start of February.
$269.99, $249.99 after mail-in rebate

Those are the best 3 models I could find using my novice GPU know-how and guess-timating. This really isn't my area of expertise when it comes to computers; in fact, I'm still in the process of figuring out the best parts for my first desktop build, and since I'm on a low budget, I'm trying to make sure my first will last quite a while. So, if you decided to skip straight to the articles, I understand, but if you think you've found a better product, or if you've actually used one and can tell me firsthand what you'd choose, that'd work, too. I am aware that when it comes to video editing, the video card is actually not as important as one would think, but I know they can still improve other parts of video software that other components can't. So, let me lay out the real details:
I'm making a video editing PC, but I would like some gaming possibilities to be open, mainly just emulators of old games, since I'm a console gamer by heart. I still would like to play some modern generation games on it if possible, I've always wanted to play some crystal-clear games on PC, however, I have a budget to watch. If you can find me a graphics card under 200$ that still has CUDA technology and has equal, or if not, better stats to the ones I've laid out, I would gladly listen, I'm just out of my element when it comes to GPUs. If you could explain some of the questions above as well, such as openGL, the power connectors, etc., that would really benefit me as well. And, one more question (I know it's more about the PSU but I have to ask): after testing my setup with a GTX 470 on two PSU calculators, one says I would need at least 630 watts, and another is saying I need 670 watts. I have a 700 watt PSU, and I'm guessing that as long as 700 > 670 or 630, then I should be fine...right? It seems really unsafe that they'd be so close, and I'm guessing that I might need a 750 watt PSU instead, that is if I were to get the 470 GTX. So, another possible reason not to get that, I guess. Still, would the PSU be able to handle that amount of wattage?
Other than that I have nothing else to ask from those willing to help. I tried to keep this very organized, but I know I type book-sized posts on forums, so sorry if you had to read that giant wall of text. I hope someone can help me solve my dilemma though: thanks for reading.
a b Î Nvidia
December 19, 2010 7:30:55 AM

What is exactly your PSU? brand? model?
The rest of your system?
Having a good GPU is fine, but having a great CPU is more important, since you want to do 3D works like video editing...
GTX470 is the best from 3 options above but tend to runs hot and consumes much power from GTX460.
Score
0
a b Î Nvidia
December 19, 2010 8:38:46 AM

for video editing, better to have a fast multi core CPU than fast video card. for gaming, at 1080p a gtx460 or better is what you want and a good brand 500w+psu. You can get hardware video encoder cards which are the fastest option for video encoding http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/leadtek-winfast-pxv...
Score
0
Related resources
December 19, 2010 12:58:03 PM

wa1 said:
What is exactly your PSU? brand? model?
The rest of your system?
Having a good GPU is fine, but having a great CPU is more important, since you want to do 3D works like video editing...
GTX470 is the best from 3 options above but tend to runs hot and consumes much power from GTX460.

Here's my system so far:
Case: Rosewill Challenger Black Gaming ATX Case
Motherboard: ASRock 870 Extreme3 AM3 AMD 870 Motherboard
Processor: AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Deneb 3.4 GHz Processor (I understand that the CPU is much more important than a GPU)
RAM: G.Skill Ripjaw Series 2 x 2 GB 240-pin DDR3 SDRAM 1333 Desktop Memory
Hard drive: Western Digital Caviar Black 7200 RPM SATA 6.0 GB/s 3.5" internal hard drive
PSU: Raidmax Blackstone series RX-700AC 700W Continuous Power ATX12V V2.3 80 Plus Bronze Certified Modular PSU

I'm planning on getting a 1920 x 1080 monitor in the future, not sure if that even matters for this.
Score
0
December 19, 2010 1:00:19 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
for video editing, better to have a fast multi core CPU than fast video card. for gaming, at 1080p a gtx460 or better is what you want and a good brand 500w+psu. You can get hardware video encoder cards which are the fastest option for video encoding http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/leadtek-winfast-pxv...

I know: as posted above, I'm getting an AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition. It may not be a six-core or more, but I'm pretty sure 4 cores will do for the computer, as well as my budget. I'll have to check out those, I didn't know video encoder cards existed...
Score
0

Best solution

a b Î Nvidia
December 19, 2010 1:24:57 PM

Okay, for 1920x1080 get GTX460 1GB version, that should enough for your need and you can do some gaming, that card can handle most of games with decent setting at 1920x1080. Your specs are good.
GTX470 is faster than GTX460, but like I said before, it consumes more power and produce lots of heat. I think you'll better with GTX460 1GB.
Share
December 19, 2010 1:27:59 PM

wa1 said:
Okay, for 1920x1080 get GTX460 1GB version, that should enough for your need and you can do some gaming, that card can handle most of games with decent setting at 1920x1080. Your specs are good.
GTX470 is faster than GTX460, but like I said before, it consumes more power and produce lots of heat. I think you'll better with GTX460 1GB.

Alright, thanks for the advice!
Score
0
December 19, 2010 1:28:09 PM

Best answer selected by SmashBro722.
Score
0
a c 171 Î Nvidia
December 19, 2010 2:12:10 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!