Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

What's the diff? 680 or 4000

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 28, 2012 7:42:23 PM

I am building a workstation mainly for editing video (NLE) I use AVID products these are supported by AVID and other Editing Guru's if you will. I cannot figure what the difference is on these two besides $$ or if it will make any difference to me in the long run....
Thanks for you help

The ASUS GeForce GTX 680
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

PNY VCQ4000-PB Quadro 4000
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

More about : diff 680 4000

a c 91 Î Nvidia
March 28, 2012 8:08:12 PM

If you are doing video editing then you do want to go with the Quadro 4000 because it was specificaly made for that just like the 680 was made for gaming. I wouldn't use the Quadro for gaming and it's not recomended to do so.
m
0
l
March 28, 2012 9:14:25 PM

inzone said:
If you are doing video editing then you do want to go with the Quadro 4000 because it was specificaly made for that just like the 680 was made for gaming. I wouldn't use the Quadro for gaming and it's not recomended to do so.


Well respectfully, Why? I mean I see people make statements like, so and so is the best! But that is a trickle down from advertising in my view.
Is it the Cuda, or is it the bandwidth,shading etc..? I mean why is the Quadro better then the other for editing> Do you know? Or is it speculation?
Thanks
m
0
l
Related resources
March 29, 2012 1:30:36 AM

The Quadro is better for workstation applications that it supports (ex. 3Ds Max, AutoCad).
This is because the Quadro's drivers are more optimized and have specific profiles for certain applications, the Quadro's drivers are more focused on line anti-aliasing (for modeling).

The Quadro's GPU is also significantly older, based on the GTX 285's core (having 256 shaders), instead of Fermi (GTX 480/580, 512 shaders), or Kepler (GTX 680, 1500 something shaders).
m
0
l
a c 91 Î Nvidia
March 29, 2012 3:21:21 AM

It's certianly not speculation but if you look at the section in the video card dept. why would they have one catagory for desktop graphics cards and one for profesional graphics cards?
If I thought that because of the price that the profesional cards would be better at gaming then I would have one , but they are not and the dasktop cards are much better for that.
You can use a desktop card for both gaming and video editing but the Professional cards are specificaly designed for video editing. I have not seen a desktop card with 6gb of v-ram which the Quadro 6000 has and the Quadro 5000 has 5gb of v-ram. That tells me that these cards are made for video editing because you do use a lot of v-ram for video editing.
I don't remember the article but when I was questioning as to how you could use one of these cards for gaming this article shot that idea down by saying it would not make a good gaming card.
A gaming card is made for speed , fast action rendering while a professional card is made for accuracy and fine detail.
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
March 29, 2012 3:44:35 AM

The short answer is:
The Quadro is designed for Workstations (such as videoediting) and the GTX680 is a cross-over card but aimed more at video gaming.

You would have to look at benchmarks for the SPECIFIC video editing programs you intend to use.

For example, the Quadro is OPTIMISED for editing but do you get the best VALUE for the MONEY?

It's going to come down to comparing the BENCHMARKS to the cost of the video cards but the short answer is... Quadro.

Quadro was designed to be workstation cards.

(In fact the GTX680 appears to be LESS optimized than the GTX580 for workstation programs but we'll have to wait and get more benchmarks.)
m
0
l
March 29, 2012 4:20:55 AM

No, the Quadro will not provide a speed benefit in video editing because it is does not have any Quadro-exclusive benefits in video editing.

I have extensive experience in modeling (where Quadro CAN be better), and video editing.

THE ONLY sped up part of the video content creation pipeline is the video transcoding process, which is GPU-accelerated via OpenCL, DirectCompute, or CUDA.

As the compute section of the 7970 review visually justifies, in the case of video transcoding via such a codepath the Quadro driver's advantages would be minimal, and certainly more than offset by the GeForce's massively increased shading power.

About the guy who's convinced that VRAM is necessary for GPU-accelerated transcoding, I will tell you that VRAM requirements are in practice minimal, as the VIDEO is stored in the RAM (the system RAM), since the VRAM is not directly-callable by applications.
So, the transcoding application CANNOT see the VRAM, that is used through the driver.
m
0
l
March 29, 2012 7:53:12 AM

sabot00 said:
No, the Quadro will not provide a speed benefit in video editing because it is does not have any Quadro-exclusive benefits in video editing.

I have extensive experience in modeling (where Quadro CAN be better), and video editing.

THE ONLY sped up part of the video content creation pipeline is the video transcoding process, which is GPU-accelerated via OpenCL, DirectCompute, or CUDA.

As the compute section of the 7970 review visually justifies, in the case of video transcoding via such a codepath the Quadro driver's advantages would be minimal, and certainly more than offset by the GeForce's massively increased shading power.

About the guy who's convinced that VRAM is necessary for GPU-accelerated transcoding, I will tell you that VRAM requirements are in practice minimal, as the VIDEO is stored in the RAM (the system RAM), since the VRAM is not directly-callable by applications.
So, the transcoding application CANNOT see the VRAM, that is used through the driver.



Yeah that is the angle I thought after reading Mind splitting specs....I thought the Quadro was a bit old and or the NEW 680, really brings a lot of specs to the table that the quadro of yesteryear has. SO that is the question. How much more do I get with that particular quadro card (the 4000) not the 5 or 6000 but the 4000. The ram is at 2gb as is the 680 and the support of Direct X and the shading is good too.

I have not stumbled across the 7970 review so I am not sure what that is??

I know that AVID swears by Quadro or supports it as they do Graphics Card: NVIDIA Quadro FX family3 (FX 560 or higher)
And that 680 is superior then the 560fx right?

AVID is my software BTW... Which I have been editing with a NV 8600GT with only 256mb dedicated and intel core 2 duo e6550 2.33 ghz
Albeit a slow process and constant crashing...
m
0
l
March 29, 2012 7:59:10 AM

inzone said:
It's certianly not speculation but if you look at the section in the video card dept. why would they have one catagory for desktop graphics cards and one for profesional graphics cards?
If I thought that because of the price that the profesional cards would be better at gaming then I would have one , but they are not and the dasktop cards are much better for that.
You can use a desktop card for both gaming and video editing but the Professional cards are specificaly designed for video editing. I have not seen a desktop card with 6gb of v-ram which the Quadro 6000 has and the Quadro 5000 has 5gb of v-ram. That tells me that these cards are made for video editing because you do use a lot of v-ram for video editing.
I don't remember the article but when I was questioning as to how you could use one of these cards for gaming this article shot that idea down by saying it would not make a good gaming card.
A gaming card is made for speed , fast action rendering while a professional card is made for accuracy and fine detail.


Well my point is, am I, as a video editor being lumped in with a CAD author? I think they are two different animals that are being lumped together. I checked with AVID for specs and they have a requirement of this
Graphics Card: NVIDIA Quadro FX family3 (FX 560 or higher) Which the fx family appears to me to go both ways, gaming and editing.
I am no expert nor am I arguing. I no hardly a thing about this, hence me being here and asking direct questions from people who have built or what I think, know more then a Dell sales person who has jelly on his shirt. LOL
m
0
l
March 29, 2012 8:07:51 AM

photonboy said:
The short answer is:
The Quadro is designed for Workstations (such as videoediting) and the GTX680 is a cross-over card but aimed more at video gaming.

You would have to look at benchmarks for the SPECIFIC video editing programs you intend to use.

For example, the Quadro is OPTIMISED for editing but do you get the best VALUE for the MONEY?

It's going to come down to comparing the BENCHMARKS to the cost of the video cards but the short answer is... Quadro.

Quadro was designed to be workstation cards.

(In fact the GTX680 appears to be LESS optimized than the GTX580 for workstation programs but we'll have to wait and get more benchmarks.)


OK thank you for that, please elaborate. [In fact the GTX680 appears to be LESS optimized than the GTX580 for workstation programs/]

What are the benchmarks that a person using a card for editing would look for? Using AVID, where does one find the preferred parts of the card? Or benchmarks,stats,etc..

I know that if i want to tow a small boat, a 1500 PU will do most of it. If I want to load the bed then a 2500 or 3500 is preferred.
But the people who name these cards and the badging of the hierarchy is like how they come up with candy names in the movie Brain Candy!
m
0
l
March 29, 2012 8:23:06 AM

Google PNY VCQ4000-PB Quadro 4000 and see what actual users say about that card, not a bunch of people in here in their basement wearing underwear, eating taco chips and worrying about how they can spend their money on the next best RATZ overpriced gaming mouse. :) 
m
0
l
March 29, 2012 10:35:45 PM

AVID looks to be audio and video editing software.

Basically zero benefit from Quadro cards; audio software in general is wholly CPU-dependent, so any Core i5/i7 should run it fine. Video transcoding can be performed by any recent GeForce.


Quadro cards are meant for line drawing and modeling programs (AutoCAD, etc), and visualization programs. In short: Does the program "render" anything?
If not then the Quadro has no benefit.
m
0
l
April 12, 2012 5:32:03 PM

sabot00 said:
AVID looks to be audio and video editing software.

Basically zero benefit from Quadro cards; audio software in general is wholly CPU-dependent, so any Core i5/i7 should run it fine. Video transcoding can be performed by any recent GeForce.


Quadro cards are meant for line drawing and modeling programs (AutoCAD, etc), and visualization programs. In short: Does the program "render" anything?
If not then the Quadro has no benefit.



Sabot00 Thanks for your input. Avid is just that. A video editor. Although the 'skuttle' going around about the Quadro card is that the Drivers are written to cater to Avid software. How true that is ?? I do not know.

Unfortunately, Avid has no General questions email to ask, other then a forum. Being that the new Gforce card is so new and not many editors if any, have ventured out to see, or find out if it will jibe with Avid's software, my responses are biased and lean towards the quadro cards over there.
Do you have a resource to check compatibility, (Basically zero benefit from Quadro cards; audio software in general is wholly CPU-dependent, so any Core i5/i7 should run it fine. Video transcoding can be performed by any recent GeForce.) or the likes of on that card with that software, by any chance?

Avid states that these cards are OK:
http://www.avid.com/US/products/Media-Composer/system-r...

Graphics Card: NVIDIA Quadro FX family3 (FX 560 or higher) WINDOWS (which I am using)

One would think that new card would handle it as Video Guys states that they have used these cards with luck. But I do not think with the new Software...
VIDEOGUYS:
"GPU: We went with the Quadro4000. If you go with a GTX570 you can save almost $500. Going with the Quadro2000 saves you almost $350."
The resource if interested in this,
http://www.videoguys.com/Guide/E/Videoguys+DIY9+Sneak+P...
m
0
l
May 2, 2012 2:21:17 PM

netcommercial said:
Sabot00 Thanks for your input. Avid is just that. A video editor. Although the 'skuttle' going around about the Quadro card is that the Drivers are written to cater to Avid software. How true that is ?? I do not know.

Unfortunately, Avid has no General questions email to ask, other then a forum...
The Avid forums are very useful, Avid actively participates and posts to the forum. Check out http://community.avid.com/forums/t/99188.aspx, which states (emphasis is mine):
Quote:
Avid rates the graphics card performance from lowest to highest as an example: GeForce, FCX 1800, FX 3800, FX 4800 and so on. NVIDIA Quadro FX family (FX 560 or higher) is what we state as the minimum requirement and for full-screen playback we require a minimum of 128 MB of graphics memory.

With Graphics acceleration, the Media Composer application sends effects to the graphics card GPU for processing. This capability is only available with the NVIDIA Quadro cards. The transfer of the data to the GPU takes up cycles so if an effect is complex, lots of Color correction, Multi layer, etc. the transfer time is more than offset by the ability of the GPU to process the effects quicker than the CPU could by itself.

Basically, if you use a Quadro, rendering is offloaded to the GPU. If you don't, it's handled by the CPU. Depending on what you are doing, the Quadro may or may not speed things up.
m
0
l

Best solution

May 2, 2012 2:45:19 PM

I don't know much about this but I did read most of what you pay for with the Quatro is support ie someone that knows what there talking about can help you optimise it for your application and will help you with any problems. Also ask the software developers what they recommend when it comes to professional stuff.
Share
May 2, 2012 5:29:29 PM

Quadro 4000 that is
m
0
l
May 2, 2012 7:15:22 PM

My feeling (speculation) is that the GPU rendering is now an old thing. I recall seeing an earlier post where you have one of the best CPUs availables right now and CPU rendering will work even better than with the Quadro, so if you combine it with a good 580, you spend a lot less money for better performance.
m
0
l
May 2, 2012 8:23:03 PM

Gpu rendering is not old I think.
The newest processors with the ivey and sandy bridge can use the GFX power to render effects and the likes when you are editing video. In this manner you can get a 0-40% gain in speed depending on how manys effect you use.

Check this article out if you want to know more:

http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/choosin...

Kind regards NiQuil
m
0
l
May 2, 2012 8:24:50 PM

fredthe said:
The Avid forums are very useful, Avid actively participates and posts to the forum. Check out http://community.avid.com/forums/t/99188.aspx, which states (emphasis is mine):
Quote:
Avid rates the graphics card performance from lowest to highest as an example: GeForce, FCX 1800, FX 3800, FX 4800 and so on. NVIDIA Quadro FX family (FX 560 or higher) is what we state as the minimum requirement and for full-screen playback we require a minimum of 128 MB of graphics memory.

With Graphics acceleration, the Media Composer application sends effects to the graphics card GPU for processing. This capability is only available with the NVIDIA Quadro cards. The transfer of the data to the GPU takes up cycles so if an effect is complex, lots of Color correction, Multi layer, etc. the transfer time is more than offset by the ability of the GPU to process the effects quicker than the CPU could by itself.

Basically, if you use a Quadro, rendering is offloaded to the GPU. If you don't, it's handled by the CPU. Depending on what you are doing, the Quadro may or may not speed things up.



Note that this ONLY goes for the effects-rendering.

http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/choosin...

Kind regards, NiQuil
m
0
l
September 5, 2012 8:04:36 PM

Best answer selected by netcommercial.
m
0
l
September 5, 2012 8:07:34 PM

I went with the 4000 for support, was told over and over that the Drivers are written for the software I am using. Although, the other cards may be faster and cheaper. The Drivers can get you through some rough water. IE 4 hours of editing hit render or Playback and the file crashes because the 'other' card did not know which way to go when instructed to render. I thank all of you for you input as most all of you had some good insight.
Thanks Again
netcom
m
0
l
!