Quadro 4000 VS GTX 680 for Video encoding and editing

[niquil]

Hi there,

I'll get right to the point. I want the best videocard for use with Adobe premiere 6 when it comes out. Yesterday, the choice was made, I was going for the Quadro after reading countless of forums that seemed to be THE card for me. I went to bed happy since I had been at it for 5 hours straight. reading fora and watching video's.

Today however is another day. Again I see peolpe stating the Quadro is outmatched by the GTX680 when used for:

- video editing
- rendering realtime playback of effects and video
- encoding / export

So there it is basicly using adobe premiere pro.

At the same time I see people state that the 580 GTX outperforms the 680 GTX when encoding saying the 680 is ´just for games´

So first I was like... and then I was like... well you get the picture.


I have 3 questions:

1) I would really love to see some benchmarks between the two but I can't find any.
2) The Quadro has 256 cuda cores, the 680 has 1500+, how does this compare?
3) Is the 2 year old quadro really still better then the NEW GTX 680?

*I will use this rig as a Working desktop, so no gaming what so ever*

I have read
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/348181-15-what-diff-4000

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.

Is that true? If I use colorcorrection, scaling, picture-in-picture gamma correction, slowing & speeding and stuff is that still true?

For those who want to help me: I found this a very interesting thread:
http://www.studio1productions.com/Articles/PremiereCS5.htm






References:

i7 3930
16GB 1600mhz ram
180gb ssd for windows - premiere
6 x 2TB Raid-1
720watt cooler master silent pro

I have read and didnt understand:
http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/showthread.php/171394-slow-transfer-speed-on-fermi-cards?s=36b6a9de5b1aaf87837d4eaf30bd89cd&p=1216119#post1216119
I have read:
http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/2678/18/intel-core-i7-3770k--i5-3570k--i5-3550-ivy-bridge-review-benchmarks-720p-mpeg-naar-x264-video-encoding
http://www.overclock.net/t/1249944/which-is-faster-to-encode-videos-sony-vegas-gtx-580-or-680
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/EVGA-GeForce-GTX-680-Video-Card-Review/1523/13;

PS: I keep getting errors when trying to post a message here!

 

[niquil]

Anyone? Please?

Especially explaining this would be helpfull: http://www.studio1productions.com/Articles/PremiereCS5.htm

 

[Sunius]

Does adobe premier even support GPU rendering? Because frankly, I very much doubt it.

 

[niquil]

Hi there Thanks you for your reply!
http://www.adobe.com/nl/products/premiere/mercury-playback-engine.html

The last chapter here indicates just that I think

PS: Should I not use chrome for this forum? It seems broken

 

[sk1939]

Hi there Thanks you for your reply!
http://www.adobe.com/nl/products/premiere/mercury-playback-engine.html

The last chapter here indicates just that I think

PS: Should I not use chrome for this forum? It seems broken

Works fine for me. The GTX680 would be faster at rendering, but it's not on the official list, so I have no idea if it would work or not.

 

[dedekind]

As for being in the official list, it's not really important, you can just add the name of the card to a txt file and get the mercury engine working on the GTX 680 which of course would work like a charm.

I don't see what the advantage of Quadro 4000 would be. But, again, it is more workstation-oriented so it might have some..

 

[niquil]

Hi guys, thanks for your replies. However I am not looking for more statement. I want to know why and how much difference the cards have. I'd love some benchmarks for instance.



PS: The forum is broken indeed. @moderators, u could use url-rewriting to add the trailing-slash which is now missing, providing us with the internal server error (500)

 

[Sunius]

Yea something happened yesterday and it's still not fixed. I'm afraid there isn't much we can help with benchmarking, unless someone with Quadro 4000 and GTX 680 would be kind enough to benchmark it for you. I've been looking in google, however, I wasn't able to find any numbers on it.

 

[niquil]

Ah, thank you for your effort, it is much apperciated!.

 

[niquil]

Here they say the 680 will render faster.
Ofcourse again no benchmarks or arguments...

http://forums.adobe.com/message/4302228

 

[niquil]

K I have mailed the writer of this here thread
http://www.studio1productions.com/Articles/PremiereCS5.htm

And he tells me

Go with the GTX680 over the Quadro 4000. The Quadro 4000 is old technology, based on the GTX 400 series of video cards. The Quadro 4000 is over priced and under powered.

I don’t talk about the Quadro cards because very few people use them. I have not tested them myself, however, there is a post production house in Orlando where I know the owners. Last year, they switched from a Quadro 4000 card to the GTX580 and said that the GTX580 was much faster. For the timeline, they saw approx. 20% speed increase with the GTX580 over the Quadro 4000 and when they exported to a MPEG 2 DVD, they said the export times where almost twice as fast with the GTX580.

There is a website called http://www.ppbm5.com where you can see benchmark results using a Premiere CS5 project to test various video cards on different systems. You will see the Quadro lags behind the GTX580.

Best Regards
Dave
Studio 1 Productions
http://www.studio1productions.com

Ill be buying a 680 or a 580!

Thanks all!

 

[JohnathanM]

This will REALLY spin your head!

I have a GTX580 and guess what? It was SLOWER than my old GTX295!

Guess what I did? I popped out the GTX580 and put the GTX295 to render my project quicker.

And I timed it... this wasn't just by eyesight or hoping for, this was timed with a stopwatch and
it was a sad thing to witness. I almost got rid of the GTX295 recently too.

How is this possible? It wasn't even by way of any O.C.'ing which I use to do when I was gaming
with it... It was that it was a Dual-GPU and a MUCH wider memory data path.

In case you think I don't know what I'm talking about... I'm old school and can school many of you.

I'm talking starting with an Magnavox Odysee II back when I was 4, a Vic20 to learn basic on when
I was 10, my first modem stolen from a bank (a Hayes 300 baud) to look at porn b.b.s. ads in the
back of magazines like Byte... and overclocking with the first 500MHz computer in NJ back in 95.

Now I'm in a situation with $10k to burn to put together a new PC mainly for video and photo editing
(After witnessing all of the cheats and hacks on BF3, I'm done with online gaming) and I have to decide
whether to through the GTX690 in there or wait on the GTX695 or better?

 

[niquil]

You should buy 3 gtx 695's.

 

[eupremier]

You should buy 3 gtx 695's.

Hi Niquil,

I happened upon this thread while researching the Quadro 5000.

I have had a lot of good reports on it and was comparing to the GTX690.

I'm building a workstation to perform 3D rendering and animation and am finding it very diificult to decide the best components...

The spec so far includes a Xeon E5-2687W (3.1GHz, 20Mb cache, 8 cores) together with 32Gb of 1600MHz DDR3 ECC RAM & a 256Gb SSD. I'm now working on the GPU.

Perhaps you can give some advice as you've been through the mill on this already?

I saw some comments on your thread where the Quadro 4000 was slated versus older 'gaming' cards in the GTX line-up. If the Quadro 4000 is based on an old GTX platform is that the same for the 5000?

Appreciate any advice,

Cheers.