-
Quadro vs. GTX – Performance in MPE
I’m sort of in an obsessive mode right now. I’m about to invest over $12,000 in a full edit suite, and I’m making damn sure I have everything perfect for my needs. I got almost every aspect cleared up: CPU, mobo, RAM, RAID card, disks, PSU, Case, Video I/O, monitor…. all but one…. the damn GPU!
I’m having second doubts between a Quadro 5000 or a GTX580. For weeks, I’ve read the forums, many, many times. I’ve spoken to many local video editing integrator “specialists”, I tried to contact a product specialist at Adobe (and failed). I searched, researched, googled, yahooed and binged…
PRO QUADRO: Adobe seems to “cherish” the Quadros more then the GeForces in the form of: More Quadros in the recommended list then before, while only a few GTX have been added (probably to “please” the “commoners”). They showcase the Quadros more predominately in their videos on Adobe.TV. But Adobe can’t really say why they are better. Nor do they provide comparative benchmarks. Also, nVidia promotes Quadros to be the go to cards for CS5 and up, never mentioning the GTX series, let alone providing any insightful benchmarks. Video editing integrators don’t want to touch the GTX with a 10 foot pole, saying bullshit like “they heat up, break and are highly unstable”.
PRO GEFORCE: Yeah… obviously the price. Rare are the forum users recommending in favor of the Quadros. Everyone stated that GTXs are faster, and that Quadros are a waste of money. Even the heavy hitters. Spec wise, they are faster in every way: more cores, more memory bandwidth, more MHz… (Less RAM, but more then 1 to 1.5GB VRAM is inconsequential in MPE anyway). The GTX is a better card all around RAW computationally speaking. It’s gaming status gives it a bad rep in some way, but a properly cooled GTX shouldn’t be a problem, in theory.
What does MPE need? From what I’ve gathered through my research so far, is the number of CORES and overall SPEED! All of which are a lot less of in a Quadro. 10-bit? GTX580 supports it, like the Quadro! Instability due to over heating? Sure it’s hotter and draws more power, but I’m looking into the PNY with a water cooled GTX580 coming in the next few weeks.
And what’s this I heard about layer limits on GTX and not an a Quadro? How come? Quadro’s aren’t faster! Is it still the case on CS5.5? Or is that an imposed limit to promote the sales of Quadro’s? Kind of a cheap marketing ploy if you ask me? I don’t care how much drivers are optimized on a Quadro, it’s impossible to optimize them in such a way that a 256 core Quadro would beat a 512 core GTX… If it’s the case, then GTX drivers are pretty badly written in the first place.
It is said that: A Quadro is not a gaming card, and it will not perform well in games. Alternatively, a GTX is not a 3D Workstation card, and will not perform as well at 3D modeling and rendering. I’ve heard the speech about Quadro drivers being optimized (thought mostly for OpenGL and 3D stuff, I gather), and that the GeForces were optimized for pushing pixels, for the obvious gaming capabilities. So what category is MPE in really? MPE is not 3D/OpenGL, calculating vectors and polygons by any means. But does seem to react well to more cores and more speed, pushing data and processing pixels, just like a game!?!?!?!
Nowadays, the gaming world is driving a lot of high end industries. Aviation is one. Did you know that CAE full flight simulators run off GTX cards? Yes, real airline pilots basically train on gaming cards. I know this for a fact, I’ve seen the evolution in corporate videos I did for them. Two years ago they ran on GTX285, last year was the GTX480, and now it’s the GTX580. They looked into the Quadro cards, and it wasn’t a viable solution. It simply did not process enough compared to the GTX. Not to mention the were more expensive.
I’ve never seen a fair comparison between a Quadro and a GTX on PremierePro MPE. By fair comparison, I mean using the SAME computer, changing only the card, and running the same Benchmarks (PPBM or others) or any other real-world tests. Testing different things that would challenge the Mercury Playback Engine in various ways.
Side note: A GTX for PPro MPE is not that solicited when you think about it. It works like crazy when you play the timeline. Everything else is CPU and RAM driven. Only MPE uses CUDA. Besides, any game will overdrive a GTX a hundred fold, compared to MPE, because it is always running it’s virtual environment non-stop.
As you can see, I’ve done my homework. Although only summarized here. Yet, I still can’t find a definite web resource, or persons that actually unbiasedly tested both fairly, that can answer this often asked, but simple question: Money aside, what is really better, a Quadro, or a GTX? And why?
Thank you all for your patience! 😉
Frederic Segard
-
8 Replies
-
I did a semi thorough search recently and decided a Gtx 285 was a good choice. Paid around $380 for a new one on eBay. Had to get that one for mac. I found benchmarks on Barefeats and it beats the quaddros in some tests and loses in others. But extremely competitive and less than half the price. And I have boot camp and it runs great with 3ds Max – better than any card I used before.
As far as ppro layers I think that can be a bit a false standard. It can probably do mire boxes than you raid can supply with frames. But how many 6 or 9 box effects have ever done. In 15 years I could count on one hand.
What is important is real time scaling and color correction and using colorista it all works very well
I think you’ll be more than happy with a Gtx and save a few hundred bux.
-
I recommend looking at the PPBM5 test results and seeing what cards are used in the highest-performing machines:
https://ppbm5.com/DB-PPBM5-2.php———————————————————————————————————
Todd Kopriva, Adobe Systems Incorporated
Technical Support for professional video software
After Effects Help & Support
Premiere Pro Help & Support
——————————————————————————————————— -
-
Did you ever get your answer?
Did you finally make a decision?
-
Hi Kevin,
Yes I did make a decision… and I regret it deeply. I took An Asus Matrix GTX580. I’ve had it for a month now. Unfortunately, I’m having lots of issues with my system overall. Not all related to the GPU, but I’m in the process of changing a few components.
It turns out I’m overloadeding my PCIe bus with too many cards in my system, and it causes a few issues. I have a GTX580 GPU, an Areca 1880 RAID card, a BlackMagic Decklink Extreme I/O card, and a TI Firewire card, all in a Sandy Bridge motherboard. Sandy Bridge is nice and affordable, if you don’t overload it with too many cards.
Sandy Bridge has only 20 PCI lanes (4 for the system, and 16 left for the PCIe slots. The GPU usually takes 16, but will drop at 8 it you have other cards installed. The Areca uses 8, and the Decklink 4. Not forgetting the Firewire card at 1 (my motherboard does not have a firewire port, and I still needed a firewire interface). Right there, with these cards I’m using up 29 pci lanes out of the 16 available. The GPU drops to 8x instead of 16x, so I’m actually using 21…. theoretically. But you know, something has got to give when editing uncompressed between the GPU, the RAID card and the Decklink on only 16 lanes.
This is why I’m thinking of swiching to the tried and tested x58 platform with 32 pci lanes dedicated to the PCIe bus. I need stability. I can’t afford to have crashes and weird unexplainable bugs. I should have went this route in the first place instead of thinking I could get away with slightly less expensive alternatives.
I’m also switching to a Quadro 4000 card. Yes a GeForce works, but among other things, a gaming card’s ever changing drivers makes it problematic. Last driver update gave me hell. I had to revert to an older version. But still, my system integrator suspects the GTX for some of the instabilities I’ve been experiencing. I’ve also had the diplomatic version of “I told you so” speech. Anyway, I initially insisted on a cheaper and “faster” GTX (based on forum reviews). But the fact is, all video system integrators will push for a Quadro card for a reason. Stability (even at the expense of slight performance drop) is more important, business wise. A GTX will be great for an enthusiast, but it’s actually a problem for professionals. And right now, I’m paying the price, and I’m kicking myself for not going the safe route.
I know lots of people have fully functional and stable GTX setups. But you have to ask yourself what is more important? The latest and greatest at the cheapest price? Or the tried tested and true with piece of mind? I personally want a stable system that I can count on. Right now, my system is back at the shop to be re-hauled. And I’m back on my old and very slow computer in the meantime.
Hope this helps.
Frederic Segard
-
Sounds to me like you are still going on smoke and mirrors explanations regarding the GTX vs. Quadro question. Clearly you have the wrong chipset in the motherboard. Frankly, I think you should be looking at Sandy Bridge 2 and the new six core Intel CPU. Sandy Bridge-2 has 40 PCIe lanes as I recall.
Anyway, back to the Quadro/GTX thing. Your system integrator seems to be chastising you based on zero evidence. I’m not saying he’s wrong. I’m just saying that you are back to square one with assertions and no evidence. I’ve been doing the same search you did and find zero compelling evidence as to why a Quadro is better, just a lot of vague commentary that smacks more of marketing than anything else. Makes me think that Adobe and Nvidia struck a deal to cross promote each other.
The whole gaming card vs. “Pro” card has a long history with me as a Lightwave 3D guy. Many years ago folks I knew at a mid-level CGI studio talked about how they dumped their “Pro” OGL cards in favor of gaming cards because the “Pro” card were horrible with Photoshop and no better with the OGL with Lightwave 3D. Also, if the GTX series cards were inherently unstable, then why does that flight simulation company use them? Hmmmm….
And finally, why the heck would you update drivers on a stable editing system? You can’t gig a component much based on a driver update. My understanding is that the rule of thumb is to update drivers for stable editing systems only for very specific reasons when there is a known benefit or problem being solved. Oh yeah – I forgot. Your system was never stable because you went with the wrong system chipset. Not trying to beat you up here, but you’ve got too many variables in play (based on what you’ve posted at least) to have any conclusion about the Quadro/GTX question.
BTW, I was just fiddling with a system instability problem. The cause? The cooling fan going out on the BlackMagic card. Probably the only “Pro” device in this particular system. BTW, I”m also the purchaser some time ago of a Medea RAID system. At the time, it wasn’t an approved AVID drive system. But hey – I wanted reliability and the affordable approved arrays weren’t redundant. So I went against the official recommendation. A few years later, Avid buys Medea and starts selling the drive arrays themselves (I guess the were approved then?)- before eventually killing the line. Go figure.
-
Hi Fred, Others,
In 2 weeks…around the same time Adobe releases CS6 to market, DELL will release the new T7600 line of workstations that will absolutely smoke the editing market.Look it up on Youtube…DELL T7600
Dual Xeon sandy-bridge, CUDA, etc…
That, Fred, is what you need to purchase. Get your money back, or put it on Ebay. This is not a faecisious remark. We almost went your route a week ago, but upon learning of this development on the YouTube, we are holding off for a couple more weeks. The benchmarks (PASSMARK) for dual CPU Sandybridge Xeons is incredible….
I wish you the best of luck,PCFXR4u
-
A bit outdated of a thread but here is the gist
premiere saturates about 8 cpu threads max and benefits more from horsepower and overclocking than additional threads on top of that. Therefore the i7 4770k is your best bet for its clockspeed and overclockability. Remember xeons are not clocked as fast and have locked multiplier
As for GPU
Quadro is a beast for complex geometry and color depth. Great for apps like photoshop (colour depth), maya and autocad (geometry viewport acceleration)GTX is much better at compute power because games use Cuda and OpenCL for physics. Premiere MPE makes use of this power (but keep in mind the drivers are for games, and ive run into driver issues when updating sometimes)
Tesla is a compute double precision monster, and not worth the price for MPE. More for math, physics simulations or if you are using a high end quadro for a 3d app and want to boost the cuda power.
For me, the apps i use the most are photoshop and premiere so the quadro K600 is best. It drives my 10 bit monitor and the premiere MPE engine very stably even though its not certified for premiere. Remember the MPE doesnt need that beefy a videocard to push it and make a great difference.
HOWEVER! if you are using aftereffect raytace engine like A LOT. Go with a powerful GTX. Quadro WILL dissapoint and the maximus configuration is overkill for video editing.
Also the differences between 8 bit and 10 bit color monitoring are very very subtle to the human eye (I have the proper set up and workflow) Only really useful for photo editing, and realistically i can do without it. I actually did an entire project having forgotten to enable 30 bit editing in PS. it took like 15 photos in before i was like… hey. (also you have to edit in 16 bpc to see an effect, and that means less filters at your disposal)
hope my experiences help people
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up