3D Graphics Cards for Video Editing (what's the real deal?)

Hi
I've known for some time that 3D graphic cards offers no REAL significant improvements to VIDEO EDITING and RENDERING.
I also know that for real video editing, one needs the likes of Quadro cards, not 3D Gaming Cards like GEforce/Radeon.. and that the SOFTWARE being used needs to have support for using GPU for rendering such as CUDA technology
I tried to update myself and read around a bit... w/ the advancements of software today, 3D gaming cards now offer more improvements for video editing should software use 3D effects, transitions, or similar.. but still not that much really
Q1: am i on top of things so far?
And recently i found out that Adobe Premier CS4 (and other vid ed software) now takes advantage of GPU power.. (really?)
Q2: HOW MUCH advantage though? like a lot like equally as useful as CPU power?? or a bit of gpu power to help cpu?
Q3: So, would it be practical to spend $$$$ on a highend GeForce Card like GTX295 to improve video editing/rendering performance? or would it be rather more useful to spend that on higher CPU or overall PC specs?
Would really like to hear your thoughts on these.
Thanks

In terms of impact on performance, you can rate the various components from most important to least important:
1. CPU
2. RAM
3. Disk setup
9. Video card.
Even a mildly priced card like an ATI HD 48xx is not taxed to its full capacity on a very fast system, even on a 3.8 GHz overclocked Nehalem the CPU is the bottleneck, not the GPU.

Similar Messages

Which video card for video editing?

I am about to order my first iMac. I've always had MacBook Pros and have never had to choose a video card as I always just got the one that came with the laptop. I will primarlily use the iMac for video editing using FCPX
I do not know what kind of impact the video card has on vdeo editing with FCPX.
I do not play video games and I do not create complex 3D graphics.
Will I notice any better performance if I go for the faster, more expensive video card that is offered for the iMac?

AppleBrianJones wrote:
… will I notice a difference in performance if I go for the faster, more expensive video card…?
not on edit.
on Im-/Export, a 'faster' GPU with more VRam could make a difference.
but ... 'waiting' 12 or 15minutes? ... is a 20% improvement, but less than a coffee/cigarette/hello-my-dear-texting. Plus,you can do other things meanwhile ...

Best Graphics Card for Photo Editing

Hello All,
I am a professional photographer. I currently use Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 4.1. I am in the process of having a new computer built just for editing my photography. The board will be an ASUS P9X79 with an intel Core i7-3820 and 16 GB memory. The technician building the computer would like a recommendation of the fastest and or best graphics card for editing still images.
All of my work is done in RAW from a 5D MII. 21 megapixel.
Processing speed has always been a bottleneck for me and Lightroom 4 has not helped.
Can anyone please recommend the best or fastest graphics card for this system?
Thank you, Jim

I would focus on your PS CS5 requirments. If you intend on using a wide gamut display at some point I'd give serious consideration to graphics card that will truly support 30 bit display data (10bit/color) in PS CS5/6.There are only a handful of graphics cards that actually support a 30 bit data path with PS CS5/6. Some links:
http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/photoshop-cs6-gpu-faq.html
http://www.amd.com/us/products/workstation/graphics/software/Pages/adobe-photoshop.aspx
http://www.nvidia.com/object/photoshop-cs6.html
http://forums.adobe.com/message/4487697
You may also want to read this concerning limitations of using a wide gamut display with non-color manged applications (i.e. browsers, MS Office, etc.):
http://www.gballard.net/photoshop/srgb_wide_gamut.html

WIndows XP Mode Virtual PC Graphics Card For Video Games

Hi All,
I have a GeForce GT525M Graphics Card installed on my laptop. I am using Windows XP Virtual PC to let me play Spore as Windows XP is supported by Spore whereas Windows 7 is not. After an hour of searching for what my problem was, I found out that my
XP virtual machine was using a virtual graphics card instead of my physical graphics card which supports what I need to play Spore. I know
that Virtual PC is not built for playing games but I really want to figure how to use my physical graphics card Instead of a virtual one for my benefit and for others benefit.
Any help as to how to use my physical graphics card would be greatly appreciated.

You can't. Virtual PC only presents the virtual video adapter to the
virtual machine and there's not way to change that.
VMWare and VirtualBox both support some enhanced video, but I don't know
if they will do what you need, but I can bet the performance would not be
very good, even if it worked. virtualization just doesn't work well for
any real-time activity, especially games.
Bob Comer

Laptop Video Editing: What are the MOST important specs

I've been editing, for a while now, various projects of various lenghts shot on my HV20, on an IMac using Adobe Premiere Pro. Actually, I bought the CS4 Extended Production Suite. It came with OnLocation, which is, I think, a fantastic tool. I really want to be able to record and monitor my future shoots using OnLocation. I've seen how useful monitors and scopes are on set, and the idea of being able to shoot in HD and actually checking the focus on something larger than a few inches is very appealling!
So a laptop is in my future. Now, what are the most important specs?
I could buy 1) a barely used Macbook pro early 08- 17" HD led display ,4g Ram ddr2 ,nvidia 8600M GT 512 VRAM ,800Mhz BUS, 200G 7200HD
and have enough money left to buy an Apple Display 30" refurb
OR 2) a new Macbook pro 17, 4 g Ram ddr3, 512 VRAm, 4g Ram ddr3, double procsessors 9400M+9600M GT 512 VRAM, 1066 BUS, 500G 7200HD
and wait for a second display!
Plus, of course, a portable External Scratch Drive on the Express Card. Now, if that fast drive is handling the footage, could'nt I settle for a 5400HD in the laptop,, they seem much less prone to problems-clicking noise, heat-than the 7200, especially in the new unibody model. Is 800 versus 1066 BUS a terrible trade-off? In terms of secondary displays , I've heard less than lukewarm things about the new Apple 24 LED (glossy is no-no for me).
My intentions are to make documentaries and short fictions as well. I make a living as an actor so I don't need to be performing as a director/editor business wise!
I do want to explore that side of the craft, in a professional and enjoyable way though. I know that, in addition to the laptop, I will get a MacPro in a few years.
Thanks a lot for the inputs!

CPU, RAM, bus speed, system HD, external HD, graphics - basically in that order
You should think in terms of purchasing for maximum future use. In that regard the new 17" MacBookPro is the way to go. The specs are significantly better than the early '08 MacBook and you will be much happier in the long run with performance, software support and longevity.
If you really need a large display, consider a 24" Dell, HP, NEC, etc. in the $200-$300 price range to stay within your total budget. You will be pleasantly surprised how good they are.
You could start out with the 5400rpm system HD - you can replace it anytime with a 7200rpm drive if necessary for hardly any more $ than it would cost in the first place; and replacing it does NOT void your warranty. But you WILL want/need a good external FW800 or eSATA drive (for eSATA you will need an eSATA expressCard/34 however) no matter what.
One other thought, if your primary use will be with an external display, and you don't actually need eSATA capability (FW800 will do you just fine at this point), then the 15" 2.66GHz or 2.8GHz MacBookPro models will be just fine at a significantly lower cost than the 17" model.

Better for Video Editing? MBP 13" or 15" w/9600M GT

I am planning on purchasing a Macbook Pro for relatively extensive use of Final Cut Pro (HD video) along with possibly some light Motion work and video transcoding. In addition I will be using it for photo editing and web editing. I don't plan on using it for any high-end gaming.
I will be purchasing a $200 24" external monitor to use most of the time along with external keyboard and mouse (so MBP screen size isn't an issue), but I need the portability and don't have the funds to purchase an additional dedicated desktop yet.
I am having trouble deciding between the 13" and the 15", mainly due to conflicting opinions I've been hearing over the importance of a dedicated graphics card for video editing. Salespeople at the Apple store tell me it's important and I should get the 15". Research online yielded heated forum arguments over whether it really makes a difference or not.
The price difference is quite significant though at the configurations I picked ($765) so I am seeking advice here for whether people think the cost difference is really justified for my needs. Note that both configurations include 4GB of RAM, smallest hard drive option (i've got external drives) and AppleCare protection.
Pricing with education discount after tax:
13" 2.26GHz - $1520
15" 2.66GHz w/9600M GT 256MB - $2285
*Is there a real difference in video editing performance and if so, is it really worth an extra $765? Or is there a better option that I'm not considering?*

Thanks everyone for the feedback!
Studio X wrote:
Are you planning on making any money at this or are you only in it for fun? Have you ever edited before? Have you ever edited with FCS before? What of the 44 billion HD formats are you planning on editing? Do you have a camera? What format does it record? If it's a flash media based device, what's your back up strategy? How are you planning to externally monitor the HD material ? What are you planning to use as media drives as the system drive should not be used for media capture or playback?
Still, I guess I come down on the side of "it doesn't matter as neither one is a serious editing machine". If I was in the market for a laptop and was limited to the current apple lineup, the only machine of interest is the 17" MacBookPro. The other two MacBookPros you are considering have no expresscard slot and come only with glossy screens - both are serious deficiencies in my world.
I do plan on using this computer professionally. I am a recent college graduate but do have professional FCS editing experience under my belt. However my work was done using both school and employer resources. I do have an archive of work in Mini DV(HDV) and AVCHD formats. I don't currently own an HD camera, however will likely be purchasing one in the near future. As far as externally monitoring HD material, what else would I need other than the 24" external monitor (perfectly capable of full HD) or a separate HDTV? In addition to several older usb2 external drives for backup I do have a 1TB 7200rpm external capable of FW800 and eSATA that I would use as a media drive.
I currently have an old 17" dell notebook with a glossy screen. The screen hasn't really bothered me, but the size and weight of the notebook has. And while the 17" MBP is a little lighter and smaller than my old dell, I would still prefer a 13" or 15". But from the opinions I've been hearing I'm steering away from the 13" and fully realize the downsides to the lack of ExpressCard slot in the current 15" as well. Still wondering while Apple decided to remove it.
MartinR wrote:
If budget is a primary constraint, then consider a refurbished 15" or 17" MBP from Apple, or a used MBP from a reputable supplier.
I hadn't checked into the refurbished options, but now that I did, I found a nice 15" (late 2008 unibody) configuration that would provide a lot more value for the buck. For about $550 more than the new 13" config I would get a faster processor, 2" bigger screen, 9600M 512mb GPU, double the internal storage, removable battery as well as the ExpressCard slot (even though its not listed in specs, it's there). The only trade off I can see is battery life.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC026LL/A?mco=MjE0NjE5MA

Best Graphics Card for InDesign

I have seen a number of articles discussing the best graphics cards for a number of Adobe products such as Photshop, AfterEffects, SpeedGrade and Premiere Pro, but we have users that do not use these products extensively, but do use InDesign, Acrobat and Illustrator quite heavily, during prep for a paper catalogue.
Can anybody give me some advise on the best graphocs card for these particulat products please...? we are using CC.
Thank you.

Only really need a graphics card for video editing - 3D modelling etc.
Even then the video softaware doesn't address the graphics card all that much.
It's only recently that video software and 3d software request access to the graphics RAM.
Mostly the processors these days have pretty good onboard graphics cards. That should be plenty for photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign.
It's more physical RAM that is required, not graphics cards.
I have 20gb RAM and i7 4770 processor with no additional graphics card.
It works great.
Although a standalone graphics card would be better for video editing and 3d modelling.

Need New Graphics Cards For Editing PC

With the workload I deal with on a regular basis I often find it's my graphics that freeze up or it's just too slow rendering out Premiere Pro, After Effects and 3D work. So I'm looking to purchase either 2x(Mid Range Graphics Cards) or 1x(High End Graphic Card) for my editing PC. I'm really not that tech savi so I'd love some advice/recommendations to what I could/should get. By budget isn't that small but I wouldn't want to spend too much more for little difference (Maximum total £400/$650.12)
My Current PC Specs
Processor:
- Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2700K CPU @ 3.50GHz, 3501 Mhz, 4 Core(s), 8 Logical Processor(s)
Motherboard:
- ASUSTek Computer INC. SABERTOOTH P67
Memory:
- 16GB
Internal Drives:
- SanDisk SDSSDX-120G-G25 120GB Extreme SATA III 6Gb/s 2.5in Internal Solid State Drive
- 2x 2TB WD HDD (Were external but now internal
Video Cards:
- 2x AMD Radeon HD 7450
OS:
Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
Programs I Use:
- Adobe Master Collector CS6 + Video Copilot's Element 3D plugin
- 3DS Max 2010
- Boujou 5.0
- FL Studio 10
- Cubebase 5
- Some Steam Games
If you require any other info or in more detail just ask

>often find it's my graphics that freeze up
For video editing, you need to scale your pictures before importing into Premiere Pro
Photo Scaling for Video http://forums.adobe.com/thread/450798
-Too Large May = Crash http://forums.adobe.com/thread/879967
-And another crash report http://forums.adobe.com/thread/973935

Is nVidia Geforce GT640 good graphics card for PrE10 despite low memory bandwidth?

Can anybody confirm that the nVidia Geforce GT640 is a reasonable graphics card for Premiere Elements 10 and Photoshop Elements 10?
The person who assembled my Core i7 3770K desktop with 16Gb of RAM at 1600mHz installed the nVidia GT640 card with 2Gb of DDR3 memory. He said that this was a good (fairly low cost) card for video editing because it has 384 CUDA cores - very helpful in video editing. I am pretty ignorant about graphics cards, but like the low power usage, 65 watts, and reputed cool operating temperatures. I have since read that DDR5 memory would have been much faster because of greater memory bandwidth - say 80-90Gb per second compared with 28.5Gb per second for the DDR3 memory on the GT640 card. I was after economical power use. DDR5 cards use 110 watts upwards and run much hotter than DDR 3 cards, all other things being equal. The really fast cards require special power units and cooling.
Does anybody know whether limited memory bandwidth is important in video editing? Is speed much more critical in gaming than in video editing? Are other attributes such as 384 CUDA cores, nvenc syncing, dedicated encodment, 28nm Kepler architecture, 2Gb memory frame buffer, 1.3 billion transistors, plenty of texture units - more important than memory bandwidth in video editing? Does bandwidth limited by DDR3 memory affect quality of image?
I read that the GT640 would be much faster (producing better image quality?) than the HD4000 integrated Intel graphics of the Core i7 Ivy Bridge processor. Is this so?
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit and all programs are installed on a 120Gb OCZ Agility 3 solid state drive. My data drive is a 1Tb Seagate SATA 3 at 7200 RPM. I have a beautiful 21 inch ASUS vs228n LED monitor and LG blu-ray burner.
I did lots of editing with PrE 3 with a Dell 3.06 gHz hyperthreading desktop and Win XP. The output and even the preview monitoring was clear and stable. I am still capturing standard definition mini dv tape by firewire from a 3MOS Panasonic handycam, but plan to upgrade to HD 3MOS with flash memory. I make the preview monitor really small - about 7cm wide - in PR10, because the quality of the preview picture is much poorer than the quality that I experienced with the Premiere Elements 3 program with Win XP. Is this just an indication of memory-saving in PrE 10 previews? I expect output to be much superior, although still mpeg2-DVD quality until I upgrade my camera. I have set rendering on maximum bitrate.
Anyway, despite these reservations with preview quality, the GT640 seems to be performing fine. Picture quality in Photoshop, online and elsewhere on my computer is excellent.
I updated the nVidia display driver only yesterday to version 306.23.
Nearly all graphics cards forums are about gaming. I hope to see more forums about graphics in editing here.
What do you think of the 2Gb nVidia GT640 for editing with PrE 10 and Photoshop Elements 10? What would you say about picture quality in the PrE 10 monitor versus quality of output? Was picture quality in the PrE 3 monitor sharper and more stable, as I imagine?
Regards, Phil

Sheltie,
Thank you for the kind words. We all work very hard to help others with video-editing. Some of us also show up on other Adobe forums, depending on the products that we use most often.
Besides helping out, I also find that I learn something new every day, even about programs that I have used for decades. Heck, I just learned something new about PrE vs PrPro (my main NLE program), when I went to try and help a user. I probably actually use PrE more to test my theories, or to replicate a user's problem, than I do to actually edit my videos. Still, when applicable, I do real work in the program.
With about a dozen "regulars" here, if one of us is not around, several more usually are. Personally, I do not understand how Steve Grisetti and John T. can dedicate so very much time here. Steve is a noted author of books on PrE, PSE, Sony DVD Architect, and others, plus helps run a video/photography Web site, Muvipix.com, that is very active, and has so very much to offer. John T. is always under the watchful eye of The JobJarQueen, and gets dragged, kicking and screaming, out into the yard, or up on his roof, so can be gone for a bit.
Neale usually beats us all, since he's in the UK, and normally answers all the questions, that come in too late for us to see. He is also a PrE power-user, so beats me hands down.
I travel a great deal, but no one ever misses me. Was supposed to do a trip to Sydney last Dec., but had to cancel. Have not gotten details on the reschedule of that trip, but it would have been my first jaunt south of the Equator. Gotta' make that happen.
Good luck, and happy editing,
Hunt

Graphics card for use with FC Studio

So I'm purchasing a Mac Pro for use mainly with Final Cut Studio in the next few days, and I'm unsure as to which graphics card I should order, the GeForce 7300 GT or Radeon X1900 XT (I know nothing about video cards).
I won't be using much Motion, so the question is: in what ways does a better graphics card improve video editing? I understand that it would help for real time effects or previewing unrendered footage, but is that all? I'd love to hear some real world examples

Adam,
Did you post this in the Final Cut Pro Discussion, too? You might get more detailed answers. I asked a similar (but more general) question there last week, and the clear consensus was that the performance boost from the Radeon -- across the board -- would be well worth the upgrade.

Best graphics card for Motion 4???

I'd like to upgrade to the best graphics card possible for Motion 4.
I have a Mac Pro desktop 2 x2.8 Ghz Quad-core Intel Xeon with 4GB of RAM and an Nvidia GeForce 8800 GT (512MB RAM) but I find that Motion is very slow at rendering and playback. I am working with many layers in my Motion timeline (dozens), but what can I do to increase Motion's speed?
I've heard of the ATI Radeon 4870 and much more expensive NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800. Has anyone used these graphics cards with Motion?
What is the best graphics card on the market right now for Motion 4?
Would it help if I doubled my RAM from 4GB to 8GB of RAM? Or does FCP7 and Motion 4 not use more than 4GB of RAM?
Thanks very much in advance,
- Nick

Hi Marc and Patrick, thanks for both your feedback.
Sorry Marc, I didn't mean to imply that I didn't believe you. I was just confused at to why a card that had 1.5GB of memory would not be better than one with 512MB. But I'll take your word that the 4870 is the way to go.
Regarding the ATI Radeon 4870. I went to Apple's web site in the store section but it looks like they're just selling the single DVI option of that card. BH Photo Video is selling it with Dual DVI option.
So I'm confused, should I be getting:
Diamond Viper ATI Radeon HD4870 (dual DVI) ($309.50 at BH Photo Video )
or
ATI Radeon HD 4870 Graphics Upgrade Kit for Mac ($349.00 Apple Store)
Which card or version of the card are you referring to exactly?
Thanks in advance for your help.
- Nick

The new i mac is it good for video editing

apple just release 2 new models of imac they still looking very good but they are considerable cheaper so i wonder if any of these models good for video editing.

some say the pice cut is not worth it
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/07/1099-imac-review-lose-50-of-your-performanc e-to-save-18-of-the-money/

What is the Best Power MAC G5 for Graphic Design and Video Edit

I need the Best Power MAC G5 Processor CPU
and Ram HDD Graphic card for Graphic Design and Video Edit
and the name of the Processor
how much the price

Hi GabreilKnight;
You are aware that the PowerMac G5 is no longer being produced hence if you find one it will be on the used market?
For what you are looking at doing I would suggest that you consider a Mac Pro instead.
Allan

What is the best Monitor for Video editing & Graphic Design?

Hi every one,
I would like to find out what is the best monitor for video editing and graphic design that you recomend, I am trying to buy one but not sure which one is good and not expansive.
Thanks very much

I don't want 2 monitors, so a single 27inch model just what I need... plenty of room for PPro, or I can have a Word document and a Text file open and side by side
John,
That is personal taste and there is no discussing taste. However, from my perspective, and that is personal, I prefer 3840 x 1080 resolution with dual monitors over 1920 x 1080 with a single monitor, but that is because I very often have Firefox, Filezilla, Dreamweaver and some other applications open at the same time, switching between the Adobe forums, Gmail accounts, Notebook results from the PPBM5 data submissions, PPBM5 form submissions, MySQL access, phpadmin pages to update the database, the PPBM5 results pages and various DW .php pages for the maintenance of our database and switching back and forth between various versions of PR. I occasionally really run out of real estate with all these applications and could not consider a single monitor with only 1920 x 1080 resolution, even if it were a 105" screen. In the future I would even like to have a four monitor setup (with MPE hardware support) in a two by two configuration, so that I can freely move my application screens around.
If that happens, notice I say if and not when, my preference for a monitor would be something like 4 Samsung F2380 monitors. Small bezel, great display and panel, affordable.

Graphics card for hd video

I keep hearing conflicting reports about the graphics cards needed to capture, playback, and render effects for HD video. I'm getting an older 2007 upgraded macbook pro. Mac osx 10.6 intel core dual 2.5 ghz. the graphics card is Nvidia geoforce 8600m GT. Is that good enough? I've heard you supposed to have two graphics cards is that true? Is the card easy enough to change, ugrade and add second card? Thanks for any help.

Hi p, and welcome to Apple Discussions.
postalwriter wrote:
I keep hearing conflicting reports about the graphics cards needed to capture, playback, and render effects for HD video. I'm getting an older 2007 upgraded macbook pro. Mac osx 10.6 intel core dual 2.5 ghz. the graphics card is Nvidia geoforce 8600m GT. Is that good enough?
It's difficult to say without knowing what apps you're using. Many list the minimum GPU and VRAM requirement.
I've heard you supposed to have two graphics cards is that true? Is the card easy enough to change, ugrade and add second card? Thanks for any help.
Not possible. This machine has one GPU, it's soldered onto the logic board, it is not upgradeable, nor is there a slot for another one to be added (this is a common setup for laptops). Some of the Unibodies have dual GPUs, one with its own dedicated VRAM, one integrated into the LB and sharing system RAM (the 9400/9600 come to mind).
2007 upgraded macbook pro. Mac osx 10.6 intel core dual 2.5 ghz. the graphics card is Nvidia geoforce 8600m GT.
No such machine. The 15" was produced only in 2008, while 2.5GHz versions of the 17" were produced in 08 and into 09.
If you have the 15" 2.5GHz Original MBP, then you have 512MB VRAM, so maybe you can check the apps you want to use to see what will/will not work.
Also, this machine has a native/max built-in display resolution of 1440x900, but will drive a full HD external display (1920x1080) and higher (the earlier 17" 2.5GHz has native/max built-in resolution of 1680x1050, while the later 17" 2.5 is 1920x1200).
Message was edited by: tjk

3D Graphics Cards for Video Editing (what's the real deal?)

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for