Workstation GPU vs. Normal GPU

[1nf3rn0x]

Hey guys, I like doing some work with AAE and other editing software. But aae (Adobe After Effects) takes a toll on using my cpu, it gets a little faster using opengl with my gts 250's/6850 xfire yet not as speedy. Wondering would spending $300-400 on a workstation gpu for aae opengl be much faster than using what I currently use to render? Thankyou

Examples : http://ijk.com.au/branch/ijk/product_info.php?cPath=353_341&products_id=131001
http://ijk.com.au/branch/ijk/product_info.php?cPath=353_341&products_id=127324

 

[Neuromancer]

Wow, thats about twice what they should cost. With the strong AUD you should get someone to buy one for you and ship it.


Anywho, I looked into going firepro myself for a 2600 based server I am toying around with. Going to watch this thread and see what hte answers are (I was actually looking at one for light gaming over RemoteFX RDP via some old ass PCs ) But defintiely interested in the OpenGL performance for rendering

EDIT: Oh BTW, there is a separate download for AMD OpenGL drivers.

http://help.adobe.com/en_US/aftereffects/cs/using/WSF13D6BED-C53B-408a-B2D6-C8B4205D4FB7a.html

Note 2GB RAM "per core" recommendation

EDIT EDIT

According to this guy Link OpenGL rendering in AE is so limited that hte only thing that will improve it is more cores and faster CPU.

 

[1nf3rn0x]

bummmp

 

[Shihab]

Not sure if this would be much of a help but, I read once that you can use modded drivers to "unlock" the FireGL/Quadro capabilities of their corresponding Radeon/Geforce cards (which, IIRC, use the same cores). Or at least some of them.
Another thing to add, Adobe software aren't SLI/XFire aware AFAIK. Also, isn't Quadros and FireGLs aimed at CAD more ? Video decoding shouldn't be a problem with current generation gpus.

 

[Disparia]

Just installed a Quadro 600 for a friend of mine. He doesn't game at all, just PS, PP, and AE. Was a big help overall, but it replaced a much older/weaker GeForce card than a GTS 250.

Haven't had much time to test it myself yet, so I couldn't definitively say yay or nay vs your current card.

AFAIK. Also, isn't Quadros and FireGLs aimed at CAD more?

The higher-end cards are, the entry level cards are usually targeted at photo and video editing.

 

[Horrux]

The real difference between "professional" GPUs and their gaming counterparts resides in the testing and binning they have to go through before they qualify as professional grade.

Look at it this way: if while gaming one polygon on one of the frames is malformed, or if the texture is misapplied, it'll be a 1-frame flicker and it'll be gone. No biggie. If that happens when rendering a multi-million dollar movie to film, it will be quite miffsome. If the same thing happens when performing GPGPU operations for a mission-critical application, again pretty severe consequences ensue. So basically "Professional" grade GPUs have similar error rates as general-purpose CPUs, which is VERY LOW, whereas gaming GPUs are largely untested with regard to error rate beyond "does it render graphics?"

So while they are the same, they are different. But if you aren't depending on your GPU to render or compute error-free at all times, your cost/benefit will be much greater when using a gamer card.

 

[repman244]

I don't think you would see any performance increase with a quadro/firepro. Only some parts of the program benefit from OpenGL...
Take a look here:http://forums.adobe.com/message/3467080

You don't buy a Quadro for use in AE, not even for preview purposes; the Quadro's contribution to previewing speed is negligible, verging on none. It's useless when rendering in AE.



You buy a Quadro for use in Premiere, where it is EXTREMELY beneficial... jaw-droppingly so.

I would get more RAM if I were you, at least 8GB - it's cheap now anyway.

 

[thebluebumblebee]

This is a question, as I have not followed or read up on this: Wouldn't it be better to go SB with a Z68 motherboard? Isn't this where it shines?

 

[Neuromancer]

This is a question, as I have not followed or read up on this: Wouldn't it be better to go SB with a Z68 motherboard? Isn't this where it shines?

AVX helps in premiere not AE. (although GPUs will help in everything Adobe makes. the benefits vary)

And I concur from what I read up on about this, more CPU and RAM will be better (and cheaper) than a quadro/firepro

 

[CrackerJack]

Not sure if anyone has said this or not. But i'll try to help...

Normal GPU for video editing: If the software supports CUDA (Nvidia) or Stream/CPP. You get mid boost vs without. I've tested both ATi/Nvidia. For instance CS5 uses CUDA, the advantage gain between CUDA on/off is very little.

Workstation GPU: These cards are built to this type of work. Video editing, 3d editing and design.. etc The gains are very good. Choosing on a card, just depends on the type or editing and how serious you are about doing so. Get a decent card for starter (~$300 range) is perfect. The higher end cards... IMO they can keep those.. But with these cards, there will be less render times and less usage on the cpu.

Rule of thumb I went by using CS3,CS4 and CS5. A decent CPU 4+ cores, 4gb+ RAM, HD 4K+ GPU

With Premier CS5 I can render ~30 avchd files, equal to a hour. With mild effects, within 20-30min. On my old system (Wife's Computer)

 

[Delta6326]

This maybe of help I didn't watch it all the way through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRxFJOwlO9s&feature=player_embedded#!

or this vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=552Qz35QNcw&feature=relmfu

 

[techtard]

A workstation card uses much more stable drivers and will usually be faster in professional applications that are optimized right.
It comes down to whether getting the job done a little quicker is worth the extra cash to you.