-
Video Card Question for AE users
I am looking at upgrading my system with a better video card for work. I have tested with a Tesla 2250, Quadro K5000, and soon to test with a GFX680. Which card would you go with? From benchmark tests I’ve found on-line, and ran I’m not getting the results I expected out of the Tesla or the K5000. Are gaming cards better suited for AE? Would I be better off with two GFX680s?
Any insight would be helpful.
-bsides
-
5 Replies
-
Billy
Ae loves more RAM. If you want to speed up your performance then go for more RAM instead of good Graphic card. GPU is mainly used for Ray Tracing feature and some other few features
GPU (CUDA, OpenGL) features in After Effects.For better performance have a look at this:
Vishesh Arora
3D and Motion Graphics Artist
Films RajendraBlog:
https://digieffects.wordpress.comDemo Reel(3D):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHPgIJU_BR8 -
I’m in agreement with Dave and Vishesh, RAM is more important than video cards, however for Ray Tracing the video card makes an enormous difference.
I’ve just upgraded to a GTX 570 and love it.
See uan Salvo and Danny Princz’s AE/GPU benchmarks
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/2/1019643#1019643 -
I’ll add my vote to the “spend your money on RAM” camp – I have a pair of Quadro 4000s in my machine with 2GB RAM each, and After Effects is as slow as a slug when using them for Raytracing. Unless you’re a masochist, you’d be better off spending your money on 3D software such as Cinema 4D if you’re going to be doing raytraced animations rather than waiting aeons for AE to render out a couple of HD frames or raytracery. Whatever video card(s) you end up with, you’ll probably end up doing a lot less 3D in After Effects than you might anticipate – it really is only suited for very basic work unless you have a long, long time* to wait for redraws and renders.
*compared to dedicated 3D software.
Don’t get me wrong – the 3D capabilities in AE are fantastic for the occasional bit of extruded text and such things, but any thoughts of major projects with dozens of refracting elements with depth of field and motion blur should be laid to rest!
-
[Paul Roper] “Don’t get me wrong – the 3D capabilities in AE are fantastic for the occasional bit of extruded text and such things, but any thoughts of major projects with dozens of refracting elements with depth of field and motion blur should be laid to rest!”
Unless you are using Video Copilot’s Element 3D. I have to say it is the best AE plugin I have ever bought. It renders 3d objects like lightning over open GL, and they look great. I can do 3d rendering and compositing right in one AE timeline, and much faster than using raytracing. I haven’t done a graphics card comparison, but I suspect it benefits a lot from a good graphics card.
Need a quick break from motion graphics?
Try my game Constellation at:
https://www.paperdragongames.com -
My current PC has the following specs:
Intel Xeon CPU X5675 @ 3.07GHz 3.06GHz (2 processors – 12 cores)
24 GB Ram
64bit Operating SystemNVIDIA Quadro 4000 PCI bus 3
We primarily work with AE and C4D, and recently Element for AE. We also use Maya, Lightwave, Blender, and Premiere (Depending on the artist, various products are used.). We work in a variety of resolutions, some extreme sizes such as 4HD signals wide or high. Our typical work is primarily motion graphics, but we do a lot of 3D previs work too.
We were hoping that amping up the video card would allow us to get a less beafy PC.
The pc we are testing on has these specs:
Intel Xeon CPU E5=1620 0 @ 3.60GHz 3.60GHz (8 cores)
32 GB of ram
64 bit Operating SystemWith one of the video cards mentioned previously.
-bsides
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up