PDA

View Full Version : High End Graphics cards



Geek4414
27-02-2008, 11:16 PM
Has anyone got any recommendation which graphics card to choose for mid-range video editing, probably around $1,000 to $1,200 price range?

nVidia Quadro FX1500 (256MB GDDR3) ?

nVidia Quadro FX1700 (512MB DDR2) ?

nVidia GeForce 8800 GTX (512MB, 640MB or 768MB DDR2) ?

nVidia GeForce 9600 (new release) ?

Or Any ATI cards?

I know this is a silly question, how does an onboard GeForce 7100 (HDMI output) stack up for video editing?

Speedy Gonzales
27-02-2008, 11:20 PM
I dont think the videocard has anything to do with video editing.

I'm using an ATI 256 mb card, and I do a bit of video editing, no prob at all.

The CPU / amount of ram would be more important than a videocard for video editing.

Depends on how fast you want things to happen

Deathwish
27-02-2008, 11:34 PM
I dont think the videocard has anything to do with video editing.

I'm using an ATI 256 mb card, and I do a bit of video editing, no prob at all.

The CPU / amount of ram would be more important than a videocard for video editing.

Depends on how fast you want things to happen

Erm.... I was under the impression that the videocard had everything to do with video editing, yes? I've had systems with crap proc but decent video cards which handled much better with video processing side of things than systems with decent cpus and crap video cards.

Greg
27-02-2008, 11:39 PM
[edit] I misread the previous post.

Speedy Gonzales
27-02-2008, 11:41 PM
Nope, I dont think so.

The only reason youre using a videocard is, so you can see something on a screen.

If you think a videocard has anything to do with video editing, tell me WHAT it would actually do.

All you need depending on what youre editing is firewall, (which is better than USB 2 for this), a big hdd helps, a pretty fast CPU helps, and a bit of ram also helps. And the program to load and edit the video.

kimatg
28-02-2008, 12:03 AM
Well system specs depend of what level of video editing you're gonna do,

But You need LOTS of RAM. I should say, minimum 2GB, and a multi-core processor. Because chances are that you're gonna open up lot of programs at once, and those programs are likely to be GIANT memory consumers. (Adobe Premiere itself consumes about a 1.5GB of memory i think)

Doesn't really matter if you're doing home video editing, using drag-and-drop softwares like Windows Movie Maker/DVD Maker though, since these programs only require adequate CPU power during final rendering (encoding)


High-end GPUs are required if you are putting in a lot of effects onto the video. Especially 3D effects. NVIDIA Quadro series are targeted at professional 3D graphics designers, who use programs like 3dsmax, Maya, etc. Multi-GPU systems like NVIDIA SLI and ATI (AMD) Crossfire are designed to improve real-time 3D performance in games.

So I can say lots of GPU memory/power is not a significantly large factor in video editing. One with 256MB memory and an optional VIVO would be all right for average video editing.

Personally I did a lot of video work with my PC, mostly 3-5 min promotional video montages. Didn't have a lot of fancy effects, but yes I did have quite a few animated overlapping captions/titles and opening sequence.

My setup was(and is right now)
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (2.4GHz, Dual-core)
2GB DDR RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 7900GT x2 SLI (256MB+256MB factory OC)
and it was working fine for me, though it was lacking RAM some of the times. Highly recommend 4GB. :)

Geek4414
28-02-2008, 12:04 AM
The video editing requirements also involve a little to moderate level of 3D animation, hence the need for a high end graphics card.

Btw, Nvidia only list the FX1500 and FX1700 as mid-range cards.

I have been getting conflicting advice from various sources. Some said the GeForce 8800GTX is recommended by Apple for their workstation class 3D work. I guess the 8800GTX is good enough for 3D animations as it does not requiring as high a precision as CAD work.


I have just stumbled upon a very interesting forum while googling around ...

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/582432.html


I found these comments very interesting ... especially the part about turning a $180 (USD?) 6800GT card into a $2,500 (USD) Quadro FX4000???!!!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quadros are nothing more then a Geforce (insert number here) that are badged and sold as a Quadro (insert number here). the difference is the drivers are optimised for workstation apps and have to go through a much more arduous certification program before being released as in a gaming card a few precision errors might mean a few pixels aren't right but for professional workstaion users thats catastrophic.

There are ways and means for turning said Geforce's into said Quadro's and i'll leave it at that

that Quadro 560 is nothing more then a 7600 GT with professional app drivers

Here's a review of professional 3dcards using different workstation apps
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/quadrofx-vs-firegl.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh btw heres the forums for rivatuner. The program that can convert Geforces to Quadros ;-)

http://forums.guru3d.com/forumdisplay.php?f=18

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

get a 6800 card(6800GT eBay $180, bought 1 day ago), use River Tuner to sofmod or even reflash it into a quadro FX4000 (cost over $2500).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speedy Gonzales
28-02-2008, 12:10 AM
I think youre getting confused between video editing (video editing can be something you've recorded with a video cam, and all you're doing to it, is editing it / adding titles, then burning it to DVD).

AFAIK, 3D animation has NOTHING to do with it.

Altho programs like Nerovision (part of Nero 8 ) give you the option of adding animated 2D/3D titles, before you burn whatever to DVD.

And 3D animation / something like CAD.

They are NOT the same thing.

In both cases, the speed of the CPU and the amount of ram you've got, would still be more important than the videocard.

Geek4414
28-02-2008, 12:16 AM
Well system specs depend of what level of video editing you're gonna do,

But You need LOTS of RAM. I should say, minimum 2GB, and a multi-core processor. Because chances are that you're gonna open up lot of programs at once, and those programs are likely to be GIANT memory consumers. (Adobe Premiere itself consumes about a 1.5GB of memory i think)

Doesn't really matter if you're doing home video editing, using drag-and-drop softwares like Windows Movie Maker/DVD Maker though, since these programs only require adequate CPU power during final rendering (encoding)


High-end GPUs are required if you are putting in a lot of effects onto the video. Especially 3D effects. NVIDIA Quadro series are targeted at professional 3D graphics designers, who use programs like 3dsmax, Maya, etc. Multi-GPU systems like NVIDIA SLI and ATI (AMD) Crossfire are designed to improve real-time 3D performance in games.

So I can say lots of GPU memory/power is not a significantly large factor in video editing. One with 256MB memory and an optional VIVO would be all right for average video editing.

Personally I did a lot of video work with my PC, mostly 3-5 min promotional video montages. Didn't have a lot of fancy effects, but yes I did have quite a few animated overlapping captions/titles and opening sequence.

My setup was(and is right now)
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (2.4GHz, Dual-core)
2GB DDR RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 7900GT x2 SLI (256MB+256MB factory OC)
and it was working fine for me, though it was lacking RAM some of the times. Highly recommend 4GB. :)


Hi kimatg,

Thank you very much for your reply.

Yes, I am aware that multi-core CPU and loads of RAM will be the key. We are intending to spec the system with a Quad Core CPU and 2GB of memory as a start.

I have been reading up a lot about XP Pro's limit on 4GB addressable space. The 4GB limit includes the page file and any memory on the graphics card and in fact any other devices in the system that need any address space.

So if you have a 512MB on your video card, it will only leave an absolute max of 3.5GB addressable space for XP Pro, that is ignoring any swap file and any other memory address reserved for other hardware devices.

Apparently, the only way around this limit is to use 64-Bit version XP/Vista. There is no other way around it. In fact, people have been sighting that as the main reason to use the 64-bit OSes given the lack of 64-bit apps.

Anyway, as I mentioned in my last post, I stumbled onto a forum that suggest using RivaTuner to turn a GeForce card into a high end Quadro FX.

I will spend some time to read up on that forum and see it's possible to convert an integrated GeForce 7100 into a Quadro with that software! :cool:

Metla
28-02-2008, 12:18 AM
The rendering he referred to is real time playback of the file with all the transitions and effects, viewed from within the editor, before the file is rendered.

It is taxing, On the entire system, But any mid-range to low end video card will do fine.

Speedy Gonzales
28-02-2008, 12:19 AM
So if you have a 512MB on your video card, it will only leave an absolute max of 3.5GB addressable space for XP Pro

You would get 3.25 / 3.5 whether you had a 512mb card or not.

You could use a 256 mb card, and you would still have 3.25 / 3.5 on XP.

Thats its limit.

Metla
28-02-2008, 12:21 AM
I will spend some time to read up on that forum and see it's possible to convert an integrated GeForce 7100 into a Quadro with that software! :cool:

I take it your trying for laughs?

If you want a capable video card then buy one.

And if your seeking to do professional level video editing, Your going to have to spend up large on the entire system.

Geek4414
28-02-2008, 12:29 AM
One interesting observation ...

Why does the FX1500 come with GDDR3 but only 256MB memory whilst the FX1700 comes with only DDR2 but with 512MB?

The FX1700 suppose to be newer and better but yet some of its specs seems lower than the FX1500

FX1500 256-bit 40GB/sec
FX1700 128-bit 12.8GB/sec

There seems to be some conflicting figures?

The FX1500 has lower specs on the "3D Primitive Perf" section but yet the "3D Application Performance" seems to be better than the FX1700??? Am I reading the figures wrong, is the 3D app performance measured in seconds or some form of index??

See this for the full comparison ... http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_11761.html

Bantu
28-02-2008, 06:27 AM
Geek just out of interest what CPU, Ram and Hard Drives are you using or planning to use?

I do Video Editing almost on a weekly basis for clients with Adobe Premiere and After Effects and these are the three main things i would be looking at.

Raw DV takes up heaps of HDD space.

By 3D DV I assume you just mean titles. Any graphic card would handle that. My Backup PC only has a 128Mb card and it can do the job just fine.

Geek4414
28-02-2008, 08:20 AM
Geek just out of interest what CPU, Ram and Hard Drives are you using or planning to use?

I do Video Editing almost on a weekly basis for clients with Adobe Premiere and After Effects and these are the three main things i would be looking at.

Raw DV takes up heaps of HDD space.

By 3D DV I assume you just mean titles. Any graphic card would handle that. My Backup PC only has a 128Mb card and it can do the job just fine.

I am looking at the C2D Quad Q6600 2.4GHz, as the next step up to the QX9650 is like triple the price!!!

As for RAM, not too sure what the diff is between these two Corsair
Twin2x2048-6400C4 2GB DDR2-800 unbuffered 4-4-4-12 matched pair
Twin2x2048-6400 2GB DDR2-800 unbuffered 5-5-5-12 matched pair

For hard drive, probably looking at a Western Digital SATA 500GB (WD5000AACS GreenPower)

To be honest, I don't know the exact amount of 3D requirements, it will initially be mainly 2D video editing in Premiere Pro, but there will be some 3D work in the future, a bit beyond just 3D titling.

pctek
28-02-2008, 09:21 AM
See here for hardware requirements:

http://www.aboutvideoediting.com/hardware/start.shtml

It doesn't need a high end card. High end cards are for GAMING.

Geek4414
28-02-2008, 09:45 AM
See here for hardware requirements:

http://www.aboutvideoediting.com/hardware/start.shtml

It doesn't need a high end card. High end cards are for GAMING.

Hi PCTek,

Thanks for that article link. However, have you noticed that the article reference Windows 98 and Mac OS 7.5. I think the world of DTV has moved a long way since, with HD and all. However, I got your point of not requiring a high end card for straight video editing. This system will however be used for creating some 3D contents as well, not just 2D DTV.

As I understand from the stuff I googled last night. The main difference between a gaming based card such as the 8800GTX and the Quadro FX series is that the gaming cards have drivers that are optimised for speed and FPS for live actions, whilst the Quadro series is optimised for precision.

In this particular case, the user will most likely never venture into such high precision work, however, they are already using the FX1500 in their existing system and would prefer the same or better for the new system. Personally, I would say the 8800GTX would be a much more economical choice, but the user prefers the FX1500 or better.

Bantu
28-02-2008, 03:32 PM
I would not loose sleep over which graphic card. Your CPU is fine, your ram is fine. But 500Gb of HDD space? It does not sound very much if your going to be doing a lot of DV.

I have 8 internal drives a total 1.5TB and some of those fill up from time to time.

PaulD
28-02-2008, 04:30 PM
In this particular case, the user will most likely never venture into such high precision work, however, they are already using the FX1500 in their existing system and would prefer the same or better for the new system. Personally, I would say the 8800GTX would be a much more economical choice, but the user prefers the FX1500 or better.

Is this a case of a consultant dragging recommendations out of nowhere and repackaging them as advice? You're not George selling another workstation are you?