Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

At what point does a card become too much for editing

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 2, 2012 3:39:05 AM

Seems you can never have too much, but i'm curious if there becomes a point at which you end up with a more gaming-suited card when searching for an editing-capable card. I will end up picking up a few games but I won't be maxing them out, I want the card geared more towards rendering/editing. Obviously the high-end cards favor gaming, but I want to think I don't need a 7850 for my purposes.

Granted some software uses the GPU more than others, some in question are Sony Vegas and Adobe. So for my setup, i'm looking for a card that will display 2 devices at no more than 1920x1280, maybe up to 2560x1440 but that's a stretch, and for HD viewing onto 2 displays.

It's easy to set a budget under $200 but then $250 gets you quite a bit more, hard to set a limit...$150 is my target unless there is just too much card to be had for $200-$250......crazy huh?

With a 520W PSU, should I just go with a 6xxx card or go for the GTX 480? The 480 at just over $200 is extremely attractive regardless that it's power hungry. Currently my GPU is my OBV which is a Radeon 4290, which bluescreens occasionally with 2 displays.

More about : point card editing

a c 99 U Graphics card
June 2, 2012 4:07:20 AM

You'd want a professional or workstation card such as the quadro's from Nvidia. They are specifically designed for rendering/editing purposes.
June 2, 2012 4:15:44 AM

I agree, but say I want to run BF3 then will a quadro in my budget even be worthwhile? I have never used a quadro so I cannot even comment on them. I don't edit in high volumes, just an occasional HD video but editing/rendering can hog the system down at times.
Related resources
a c 99 U Graphics card
June 2, 2012 4:35:45 AM

Some of higher-end gaming cards such as the 5870 and above, 6870 and above, 7850 and above, 570 and above, 670 and above, are all capable at doing the things you are wanting to do. It's a good mix. It's only for serious hardcore editing and rendering that you get a professional card.

You'll be able to play and do some editing with the cards I listed.

Best solution

a c 290 U Graphics card
June 2, 2012 5:57:22 AM
Share

No, you don't want a Quadro for Sony Vegas. It doesn't do GPU rendering, so you would be just wasting money. Professional cards aren't made for video editing, they are made for 3d modelling.

Programs like Sony Vegas depend entirely on the CPU. People with intend of sole video editing even use integrated graphics to save money for better CPU.

I'd recommend HD 6870, as it's very near your target budget and will play Battlefield 3 on high settings:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

If you want to get a bit better card, at higher cost comes Zotac GTX 560 Ti AMP! with very high factory overclock - it's very fast.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

If you don't mind high power consumption and you have good case ventilation, you may choose GTX 480 as well:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I wouldn't go higher, as there aren't better cards that are below $280 (GTX 570).
a c 99 U Graphics card
June 2, 2012 6:10:30 AM

In cases such as this, you would need a workstation card to take the load off the CPU. In this case, OP wants to play both games and do edits/rendering. It's better for OP to have a good card that does a mix of both.
a c 290 U Graphics card
June 2, 2012 6:19:22 AM

fantastik, no card even workstation can't take the load off the CPU if the program doesn't have that feature. It's basics of programming.
a c 99 U Graphics card
June 2, 2012 6:46:39 AM

Can you tell me why Nvidia offers adobe photoshop support and advertises video editing?
June 2, 2012 6:47:30 AM

Not to get off topic, but I happened to read this thread and you guys raised a question I have been trying to find an answer to. Most video editing software claims to have GPU acceleration. Most people on forums and whatnot will usually suggest otherwise.

You mentioned Sony Vegas HD. Sony claims :

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/moviestudiope/compa...

GPU-accelerated AVC/H.264 encoding (all editions)
Comprehensive GPU acceleration for editing, effects, and output (only pro)

Sys requirements for platinum edition do not list a GPU.


So, for this particular software only the actual encoding uses a GPU, unless you get the pro version.

Some software is CUDA specific and requires an nVidia card. Is there a good resource to get this kind of information? For instance, Adobe products are supposedly CUDA accelerated now. But, what exactly is accelerated and how much benefit is not easy to determine.

a c 290 U Graphics card
June 2, 2012 7:04:25 AM

fantastik250 said:
Can you tell me why Nvidia offers adobe photoshop support and advertises video editing?


So people buy their cards? :lol: 

I used Sony Vegas myself, and in no way Sony Vegas supports GPU rendering. I've researched it and I know that the only benefit there is of having a graphics card for Sony Vegas is to preview prerendered videos with less lag. Personally, it works great with only CPU. That's it. Kind of useless.

The use of word 'accelerated' is overrated. There isn't much use for it because the effects are so small for these programs. As I mentioned before, it's not worth getting a graphics card for work unless you do 3d modelling.
June 2, 2012 2:50:37 PM

Sunius said:

I used Sony Vegas myself, and in no way Sony Vegas supports GPU rendering. ....... it's not worth getting a graphics card for work unless you do 3d modelling.



I know the previous versions don't utilize GPU rendering, i'm currently on Pro 10 and will likely upgrade to Pro 11 in the future...I believe Pro 11 uses some of the GPU.

I also will not be working with 3d modeling, mainly AVCHD encoding/rendering and viewing HD streams over 2 monitors, one of which is my main TV....the OBV has problems displaying both for some reason. I can get both to work but after restarting the PC and doing a chicken dance in hopes both will work :D 

Providing the 7850 would dip to right at $200 then I would jump on it, just seems for my purposes a $250 card is overkill, $150 seems to be the sweet spot.

Jumping slightly off topic, remove the power issue and what price point can you match or better the GTX 480?
a c 290 U Graphics card
June 2, 2012 3:04:08 PM

GTX 570 is just a bit faster and comes at $280. Then goes
HD 7870 at $340,
GTX 580 at $400,
HD 7950 at $390 (it's faster than GTX 580 when overclocked, and faster by A LOT),
GTX 670 at $400 (it's faster than HD 7950),
HD 7970 at $480,
GTX 680 at $520,
and finally
GTX 690 at $1000.

The performance chart:
June 2, 2012 3:15:38 PM

Sunius, the 6870 HD you listed is where i'm focusing my attention on. This coming down to reality from looking at the 7850 and GTX 570, I can't think unless i'm trying to max out the latest games that those two are completely overkill.

Only reason i'm considering the 480 is the price, the fact it offers what it does for the price is very tempting. I don't think the 480 will come down to the $150 before it is deactivated then I would have missed out..correct me if i'm wrong.

So back to the 6870, would it benefit me to go with the 2GB version at roughly $30 more?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

With 1920x1080 on 2 displays will I need more than 1GB for HD movies, or higher res on a single monitor?

a c 290 U Graphics card
June 2, 2012 4:49:34 PM

No you will not use up more than 1 GB of VRAM on HD 6870 unless you're gaming on 3 monitors. It's really not worth going for extra VRAM.

About GTX 480: It's already end of its life. The only reason for the price drop is because they want to sell them out. After all, it came out over two years ago. The only place where you could ever get GTX 480 for $150 is ebay.
June 2, 2012 11:19:30 PM

I think we have it narrowed down for the most part. Here's how I see it and have one more option...either go with the 6870 now and when the 570 comes down in price, then opt for the 570 or 7870 since it's very close to the 480 with far less power consumption.

Another option is to take the curent deal on the XFX 2GB 6950 at $199.... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... which is about $50 over the 6870 which should future-proof me for awhile. I feel setting my limit at $200 keeps things in perspective as far as what I really need.

So to almost wrap this up, is the XFX worth the price difference?
a c 99 U Graphics card
June 2, 2012 11:21:59 PM

The price on XFX 6950 2GB is a great deal right now. I recommended it another thread.
a c 290 U Graphics card
June 3, 2012 10:01:38 AM

HD 6950 at $199 is a very nice deal. It's really worth the money.
June 14, 2012 1:25:00 AM

Thanks for all the replies, I feel there is more than 1 best answer but I can only choose one, lots of good info.
June 14, 2012 1:31:01 AM

Best answer selected by i6pwr.
!