GPU differences

Welcome everyone,
Would anyone be willing to identify and tell me the difference between these two cards?
Cheers and Thank You,
Mike

Thank you guys. That pic came from a Facebook MSI board where they asked about the difference. After so many people have failed I wondered if that was even possible.
Thanks again and have a good day

Similar Messages

Should i go for macbook pro 13" or air 13"

hey guys, now that i've been new macbook pro has come out light, thinner and with extra 4GB RAM, i just do not know if i should get macbook air or pro.
I am a college student where power ports are readily available in my campus. so battery life of 7~8 hours and up are totally fine.
Pros for macbook pro are:
BEAUTIFUL screen
better CPU & GPU (even though there may only be slight difference)
Good palm rest
Pros for macbook air are:
LIGHT AND THIN
EXTREMELY GOOD battery life
I have seen many reviews where they said difference in size and weight is negligible for a person with healthy body (lol) but also CPU and GPU difference are also negligible since it doesn't differ very much in terms of performance.
I do not know if those are true, but regardless, i wanted to get some advices from people who owns pro, air or even both.
Thanks in advance guys !
ps. i heard apple might come up with RETINA displace macbook air in late 2014 or early 2015. is it trust able?

Yes, you should be able to dual boot Windows 7 and above using a built-in utility called 'Bootcamp'. I personally has boot camped Windows 7 and Windows 8.1. Installing Windows only took about 10 minutes (lightning fast) and all the drivers installed correctly. Windows has never looked better =D
However, I will report one issue. In OS X Mavericks, you can use multi-touch gestures to interact with the system, for example two-finger scrolling, or pinch-to-zoom. In Windows, these multitouch gestures do not work on the trackpad at all. For me it was frustrating, and I ended up deleting Windows simply because of the fact that multi-touch is not supported by Windows. However, basic trackpad functions work, for example tracking, right-clicking, and dragging windows.
All other drivers are fully functional. If you need any assistance with Bootcamp, visit the Apple Support website, or just post in this same forum and I will be glad to help you.

MSI AG270 2PE All-in-one customizable?

Hi everyone ,
I am new to this forum and this is my first post, which is about MSI's gaming all-in-one PCs. I always admired the idea of a gaming AIO and finally MSI released this AG270 gaming AIO. However, what I didn't like about it is the third-generation Intel processor and the mobile/laptop GPU rather than the desktop GPU (as in Maingear's alpha 24 gaming AIO). Also, it would be more awesome if it had 4K resolution such as Dell's XPS 27. Still, from what I've seen, AG270 is the best gaming AIO as of yet (correct me if I am wrong ). Anyways, my question is can I replace the Nvidia Geforce GTX 880M graphics card with the GTX 980M and can I replace the third-generation Intel processor with Intel's new generation Haswell processors? If possible, would there be a significant difference in terms of gaming performance and FPS?

Hello,
Regarding a screen: you would need external screen for this, since AIO comes as it is.
Regarding GPU: Difference wouldn't be big in some games. But it doesn't quite matter since there would be some compatibility issues (power, BIOS, vBIOS).
Regarding CPU: No. 3rd Gen and 4th/5th Gen has a bit different CPU socket so no way to update from 3rd Gen to Haswell.
However best if you ask MSI since they might be able to customise it for you (If able, then you'd obviously have to pay before it'll be even made with 4K screen etc)
>>How to contact MSI.<<

Timing Accuracy

Used Acrobat 9 to create a slide show with auto transitions and music background. Problem is trying to synchronize music with slides since same pdf file played on different computers have music ending at different spots (photos) in the slideshow. Since presumably the music is played at the right speed, is there a way to make the xx seconds for autoflip more accurate (so music and slideshow ends at the same point regardless of which computer pdf file is played on)?

Again, your response provoked me into more timing experiments. This time I used the same pdf file as before but changed the transitions to NONE and again timed the play on two machines. The results were that the transitions ADD to the total length of the slides (unlike using a video editor), so the total time on both machines were substantially shorter (but still longer than the number of pages x autoflip time). HOWEVER, there was still about 20 seconds DIFFERENCE in the total playback time to reach the same point in the pdf file. You may be correct in saying CPU/GPU differences is making the difference, but it's for displaying the page, NOT for the transitions! So again, there is a fairly large timing inaccuracy using autoflip.

LARGE GPU vs. CPU Export quality differences in MPEG2 (and others?)

I noticed that encoding to MPEG2 (for DVD's) using the CPU (through Media Encoder) produces much better results than does the MPEG2 codec the uses the GPU. Just finished a documentary and was preparing it for DVD. During fades to black, I would get grey macroblock errors on the first full-black frame. Also the encode quality was very poor (mosquito noise, lots of pixelation, and the macroblock errors). Rather than exporting directly from the timeline, I decided to queue to Media Encoder (which on CS6, only uses the CPU). While this increased the render time from 20 minutes up to 55 minutes (for a 57-minute show), the resultant file was of much higher quality (less mosquito noise, no macroblock errors, MUCH less pixelation). Both of these encodes had the exact same parameters. Exact. With the Media Encoder render, the CPU was maxed properly at 99% and the GPU was only handling the RT Effects from the timeline and such, varying in the low percentages of its utilization. With the GPU direct timeline render, the CPU was working around 40%-50% and the GPU was utilizing about 50%-88% of its potential.
I also tried test renders changing from single-pass to two-pass encoding. Absolutely no difference. Results were visually identical with same issues in GPU encode. Also tried the usual tests with switching on and off various features (maximum render quality, maximum depth, etc.)
I'm assuming, as with many other compression programs, there are different codecs because of the different processor architectures (cpu vs. gpu).
Has anyone else seen whether this has been resolved in later versions (CC+)? Because while I LOVE the low render times, the quality difference is HUGE (with MPEG2 for DVD).
Thanks!
Intel 3930K
16GB RAM
GTX680 2GB
CS6
Win7/64 SP1

Give us your screenshots to better understand

Qosmio X70-A - difference between nVidia and Toshiba GPU driver

Is there any difference between the nvidia display driver and the one packed by toshiba?
I've been using the one from toshiba but Geforce Experience is giving me a headache with warnings about a newer driver and toshiba doesn't seem to supply one.

Yes of course there is a difference between the nVidia GPU drivers (or any drivers provided by graphic card manufacturers) and drivers provided by Toshiba.
The GPU drivers from Toshiba driver page are modified and made for mobile usage.
Every notebook model supports different components (CPU, cooling modules, etc) and different design. Therefore the heat dissipation is always different.
The GPU driver provided by Toshiba supports some kind of GPU overheating protection and protects the graphic chip from damage. This means that GPU performance is controlled by the driver and in case the internal temperature would increase to critical level, the GPU performance would be decreased. Also the notebook shuts down automatically if temperature would be too high.

Have functional difference with GPU acceleration and software processing of Mercury Playback Engine?

Used Decklink SDI and Premiere CS6 to testing.
I have a question~Have functional difference with GPU acceleration and software processing of Mercury Playback Engine?
(Can GPU acceleration export same used 59.94i external monitor export?).
IN specification，Is it need“software processing”？ whether other restrictions?
If Anyone know please tell me.
thank you.

Thank you for your help, and sorry about didn't make it clear.
Use Decklink SDI and Premiere CS6 to test.
In GPU mode of Mercury Engine, the signal form SDI is 1080i, but even fields will be missing.
Take a simple test:
Make quick slide for reproduce animationin in quadrangle(1080i 29.97), but it can't paly smooth and same gone to 30P.
If in Software mode, the action can be smooth.
Although use Software mode can be ok,but if GPU does not realize,it will take long time to render.
system info:
macpro 10.8.1
premiere cs6.0.2
blackmagic driver 9.6.4
GTX285
sequence of premiere
Presets/blackmagic/8bit YUV/interlace/59.94i
Have any problems with my System or the GPU mode can no external monitor output in 59.94?
IN specification，Is it need“software processing”？ whether other restrictions?
thank you!

Media Encoder CC not using GPU acceleration for After Effects CC raytrace comp

I created a simple scene in After Effects that's using the raytracer engine... I also have GPU enabled in the raytracer settings for After Effects.
When I render the scene in After Effects using the built-in Render Queue, it only takes 10 minutes to render the scene.
But when I export the scene to Adobe Media Encoder, it indicates it will take 13 hours to render the same scene.
So clearly After Effects is using GPU accelleration but for some reason Media Encoder is not.
I should also point out that my GeForce GTX 660 Ti card isn't officially supported and I had to manually add it into the list of supported cards in:
C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe After Effects CC\Support Files\raytracer_supported_cards.txt
C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Media Encoder CC\cuda_supported_cards.txt
While it's not officially supported, it's weird that After Effects has no problem with it yet Adobe Media Encoder does...
I also updated After Effects to 12.1 and AME to 7.1 as well as set AME settings to use CUDA but it didn't make a difference.
Any ideas?

That is normal behavior.
The "headless" version of After Effects that is called to render frames for Adobe Media Encoder (or for Premiere Pro) using Dynamic Link does not use the GPU for acceleration of the ray-traced 3D renderer.
If you are rendering heavy compositions that require GPU processing and/or the Render Multiple Frames Simultaneously multiprocessing, then the recommended workflow is to render and export a losslessly encoded master file from After Effects and have Adobe Media Encoder pick that up from a watch folder to encode into your various delivery formats.

Adobe, please stop running from this issue! (GPU vs CPU anomalies / fades)

Adobe,
I have tried to bring this issue to light many times, and your own users have argued it ad finem, but to no avail! I am TIRED of getting terrible alpha blending (and opacity curve) results with GPU acceleration enabled, vs CPU. In fact, it is SO BAD that I NEVER work with GPU acceleration any more.
Here is the issue:
When GPU acceleration is enabled, you simply CANNOT do a smooth fade and/or cross dissolve. It appears to fade down smoothly to about 20% opacity, and then the next frame it will jump right to 0% quite abruptly and disappear. It's almost as if the fade simply gives up and switches off! Regardless of whether you use Cross Dissolve, or Film Dissolve the results are the same. Also, your alpha blending is all messed up, CLEARLY showing a different result when comparing CPU and GPU rendering outputs. Once again, this issue ONLY exists with GPU acceleration ENABLED. Switch off GPU/MPE and the problems disappear. But of course you lose the speed and other benefits GPU acceleration offers, which would be great to have! Especially seeing as I have also heard (from various other resources) that GPU acceleration can improve the quality of rendering out to compressed formats like H264. But we will never know that, will we? Because, every time I enable GPU, my fades and blending looks noticeably bad!
I have seen in various other threads that your response has been along the lines of: "That's just the way it is". But unless your name is Bruce Hornsby, this response is unacceptable! You cannot advertise a "great feature" of your products (in this case, GPU/MPE), yet when people try to use it and see odd results, simply tell us: "oh by the way, yeah, it does not work in a few scenarios, like fading, but otherwise you are good to go!" The way I see it: cross-fades (even fades in general) as well as opacity/blending are some of the most common, if not THE most common techniques used in video projects! Having an anomaly of this nature showing a DISTINCT difference in quality output when one of your fantastic "features" is enabled is just poor form. What is evern poorer is your responses (or lack thereof) related to the issue. Especially seeing as this problem has been present since CS5, and now we are STILL seeing it in CC!
Here is a thread which documents the issue well (even shows examples, and other details someone prepared for you to apparently ignore):
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/773441
...it was never addressed there.
Another issue which details it going back as far as CS 5.5:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/987306
...once again, never resolved.
Now I am using CC, latest version, up-to-date, a fast i7 processor, a CUDA supported card, and all of those go to waste because I have to have GPU and the mercury playback engine disabled to yield decent quality results.
I implore you, not just for myself, but on behalf of everybody here who has already addressed this issue, but has had their pleas fall on deaf ears: PLEASE FIX THIS PROBLEM. Telling us simply that: "This is the way GPU cards choose to render" is NOT ACCEPTABLE. It's just like me saying when I drive my car on the wrong side of the road: "that's just the way I drive!". Doesn't mean it is acceptable!
You may have won people over since Final Cut Pro screwed the pooch with version X... but I can guarantee if this does not get resolved soon, the issue won't just be isolated to the forums here. Expect to read about it in MANY online publications that I am sure your competitors will ENJOY watching!
Mat.

Indeed. Yes Adobe, please explain.
And here is an example of what I am talking about:
CPU only (MPE and GPU DISABLED):
This appears to be what I would consider accurate, as it is not only well blended, but the fades work smoothly thanks to it relying on the CPU...
GPU (MPE and GPU ENABLED - Linear Color ON - as per default):
This provides identical image quality/blending results as the CPU only benchmark. However, the fades are very abrupt, as per the original problem...
GPU (MPE and GPU ENABLED - Linear Color OFF, as per your recommendation):
This is your recommended solution. The fades are as smooth as they are in the CPU version. But as you can see the color, alpha and blending are VASTLY different. Actually, it looks HORRIBLE! The BG text is barely visible, and the foreground text appears to be more prevalent over the top of the back layer, making its fade-up quite disjointed and selective.
...So as you can see, the "solution" you provided seems to create more problems and/or inconsistencies in the overall output. Now we have no idea what is the "standard"!
I personally find these inconsistency's very concerning. And I am sure I'm not the only one. Please tell me there is actually a logic to this "solution" and it wasn't a simple duct-tape fix that nobody there at Adobe actually looked deeper into to see exactly how it would effect overall image quality! It sure appears that way!
I appreciate that you, Kevin, are not directly responsible for this issue, and you are indeed a representative trying to help. But please realize that for many of us here, we are LONG time Premiere users, with years of experience and influence in this industry, and this definitely isn't our first rodeo! When we flag these issues we do so out of a REAL need, which means the consequences Adobe faces as a result of not addressing these issues are equally as REAL! As such; I encourage you to expedite the process of resolving this issue, because it has been prevalent since CS5.5, and the fact that it is not been resolved and/or has been addressed poorly does not bode well for your overall reputation. Especially when you are trying to make Premiere the industry standard. Like I said, I would hate to have to look at alternatives, so give me a solution, because if I decide to move on from using Premiere, I won't be the last. And no, I am not being melodramatic here. If a piece of software cannot seem to get something as simple as fades and blend modes right (or at least CONSISTENT), how can the software be trusted to handle high-end workflows? Food for thought.
Mat.

Integrated GPU (or driver) fails on built-in screen only: Mid 2009 MBP 15

Hello All,
Long time reader, first time poster. Thanks in advance for your valuable time helping with this strange issue.
Note:
This MBP uses dual GPU's, but does not feature automatic graphics switching; graphics switching is either accomplished by logging out or launching GFXCardStatus. GFXCardStatus was not installed prior to this problem presenting.
Symptoms:
I first noticed this problem recently while on battery power, disconnected from all external devices, when I tried to switch to the integrated GPU from the discreet Nvidia GeForce 9600M. At this point, I was on Yosemite 10.1 installed fresh from the app store two months previously (reformat done to use the SSD's hardware encryption). When I logged out, the display went black immediately, but the backlight was still on. I restarted, reset NVRAM and the SMC, and held option key on startup to attempt simply to get the grey screen, but still had no action on the display except for the backlight. At that point I hooked the laptop up to my Cinema Display and voilá, I could see the usual login screen. I immediately switched back to the discreet GPU, and both the built-in and external displays worked properly. The problem is perfectly duplicable; on the integrated GPU, only the external display is responsive. With discreet GPU, the built-in display works fine every time. It had been a long time since I remembered using the integrated GPU.
Console revealed that XPC was unable to find display 0x00001 (invalid address). A number of other posts have described XPC issues with other MBP's using dual graphics and Yosemite, but all of the other threads described being unable to connect to external displays; this is the first case, to my knowledge, of the XPC problem interfering with the built-in display.
Also, the MBP built-in display works fine when booted into safe mode. It appears that the MBP is using the integrated GPU when in safe mode. I reviewed all of my extensions and startup items, and it appeared only that the Realtek wireless drivers were loading a third-party (non-Apple-supplied) kext. Removing the Realtek extensions made no difference.
I changed Colorsync color profiles for the built-in display using while running on integrated GPU to no effect. My next step will be to reinstall from scratch and see if the problem is fixed, but given the implied low level of the problem (it appears to be related to the drivers or SMC) I think that fix isn't guaranteed. With driver files not being available by themselves though, a reinstall may be my only option. Oh yes: Apple Diagnostics lists no problems. Permissions repair and Disk Repair have been ineffective. Also, the OS still lets me drag things over to the built-in display when both the built-in and external displays are active; in Displays preference panes, things look normal except for the fact that the built-in display is all black.
Updating to Yosemite 10.2 made no difference.
Thanks again for reading!
Gar

It is most definitely recurring as I cannot reach the OS by any means. Tried resetting the PRAM also, starting via recovery disk also leads to an automatic restart. In all cases the Apple logo can bee seen with the progress indicator running. At one point it stops, and restarts itself. The machine can only be used in target disk mode.

Future buyer of W530 with questions on screen type and GPU.

Hey guys,
I'm contemplating buying a W530 laptop to replace my aged Acer Aspire 5517. Anyway, I have some questions regarding screen type and graphics cards. One, my current Acer has a 16x9 HD screen that works perfectly fine for me, unless I go outside, so is it really worth the extra 200 bucks to upgrade to the 1920x1080 screen, or is that just overkill? same question regarding making a choice between the NVIDIA Quadro K1000M or K2000M, again, is it worth the money and what"s the biggest difference? Now I'm not a hardcore gamer, I mostly surf the web, do my work, and play a few games that are not really too demanding on the GPU.
Thanks!

henrodstone wrote:
Hey guys,
I'm contemplating buying a W530 laptop to replace my aged Acer Aspire 5517. Anyway, I have some questions regarding screen type and graphics cards. One, my current Acer has a 16x9 HD screen that works perfectly fine for me, unless I go outside, so is it really worth the extra 200 bucks to upgrade to the 1920x1080 screen, or is that just overkill? same question regarding making a choice between the NVIDIA Quadro K1000M or K2000M, again, is it worth the money and what"s the biggest difference? Now I'm not a hardcore gamer, I mostly surf the web, do my work, and play a few games that are not really too demanding on the GPU.
Thanks!
The 1920 x 1080 screen offered on the W530 is one of the best TN panels on the market so it's a worthwhile upgrade. Upgrading from a K1000M to a K2000M isn't a good idea unless you either spend a good amount of time playing games (or want higher settings playable) or need the extra power for CAD.
On my W530 , I upgraded the screen to the 1080P one and kept the K1000M GPU.

Playback and Rendering issues when GPU acceleration is enabled

I'm using the new MacPro with dual AMD FirePro D300. When I enable GPU Acceleration (Open CL) I can no longer play through an entire sequence. It specifically has issues playing through any layered graphics or titles, but seems to play with those disabled. I have tried having "Composite In Linear Color" enabled and disabled, and neither seemed to make a difference. It's the same deal when rendering. If I have titles, and use GPU Acceleration it jumbles clips, cuts to black or static, all manner of weirdness. Is there something I'm missing?
An example of what playback looks like if I have titles and GPU Acceleration enabled.

This computer thing seems complicated enough that if your system works better with GPU accel off, that's you best performance. I understand they've been trying to sort out these sorts of issues but there's so many dang variables, and trying to build software that interlinks with other complicated software is something no other NLE or Grading program does. That throws even more kinks into the list.

IMAC's Top graphics card frustration - Cheap and no support for Adobe Mercury Playpack Engine GPU Acceleration?

If anyone has a solution for getting the Mecury Playpack Engine GPU acceleration to work with Premiere Pro CS6 on an iMAC 2011, please let me know. Like I wonder if you could Thunderbolt an External graphics card somehow? Or is an upgrade possible? Ahh...not worth the risk.
Please, if you have a solution for me, let me know. Otherwise I find it pretty frustrating that I purchased a top-end iMAC, fully maxed-out in every way possible, and that the iMac doesn't support Adobe Premiere's Mercury Playback Engine GPU acceleration. Also, an old USB 2.0 Hub and thus the built-in SD card reader is slow. If you have SD cards with 95MB/s Transfer, Read and Write speeds, the iMAC will only transfer at around 30MB/s if you're lucky. Technically 480Mbs which is around 50MB/s but I haven't seen those speeds.
I figured this could at least be circumvented with a Thunderbolt SD card reader or a Thunderbolt to USB 3.0 adapter but of course no such thing exists.
Well, nothing with a reasonable price tag. This all might seem trivial to some but when you're uploading 24 hours of HD video footage from a 128GB SDXC card, the speed makes a big difference.
And come on, no BluRay support? Ridiculous. I get the politics of why but still, just ridiculous. It would be nice to be able to burn a BluRay to watch in my home theater system. There are other methods but BluRay is convenient and great for backing up large Video Files. Unfortunately BluRay looks like it's not going to make it. Maybe cable distribution companies will increase their Internet upload speeds one day and I can just store everything in the cloud and watch full length movies(that I've created) on Vimeo.
Anyways, I went and took a look at the hardware Apple stuffed inside my fancy (3.4 Ghz i7, 16GB 1333 DDR3, 2GB AMD 6970M, 256 GB SSD Internal and 2TB 7200 Internal) machine and it appears to be pretty middle of the range stuff. It's an iMAC, not a Mac Pro so why am I griping? Because my 2009 PC(which I tricked out over the last two years) is faster and does support the Mercury Playback Engine. I spent $2100 total on this PC which includes all my upgrades. I spent around $3300 on the iMAC. I feel ripped off.
Yes, I do love my iMAC on multiple levels but had I known my dated 2009 PC would render video projects faster, I would have gone with a MAC Pro or just a new PC. It seems that Mac is moving completely away from making high-end computers for niche markets(video editing) and focusing on their tiny laptops, IPADS and IPhones for the masses. Obviously smart from a capitalistic perspective(at present at least) but very frustrating for some.
I was actually told to purchase a MAC for video editing. I've been a PC guy for 15 years. I went with the iMAC because I had read many good things about it(probably just Apple propaganda) and also the MAC PRO was to be discontinued. Also the MAC Pro would have been triple the cost for what didn't seem like a whole lot more.
It's one's thing to prepackage a computer with inferior hardware(the iMAC I have is fast for most things and more than enough for 99% of the population) but to not allow us to pop open the computer and make a quit upgrade to the machine is what really makes me feel like I'm using a computer built for Grannies. I mean there is a reason my mother loves iMacs and Iphones. Amazing that I was able to upgrade my memory from 4 to 16GB but I've heard Apple has even done away with that. I get why they do it. Apple Warranty, Apple Care issues, Profit and World Domination: Apple wants a monopoly on everything.
Was great to see Adobe bounce back after the whole Flash/HTML5 thing and knock Final Cut Pro off the face of the Earth for good. People are still buying it b/c of the brand name but Final Cut is done. David Fincher used Adobe's Workflow for everything when he made The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo. Hollywood is making the shift and the world will follow. The Adobe Workflow has finally come together and there is just no way Apple can compete with Adobe Creative Cloud and an Engine that can just swap from Premiere to After Effects to Prelude to SpeedGrade to Photoshop to Story with speed for $29 bucks a month(or $49 for some). Apple better start supporting Adobe's Mercury Engine or they may have a problem. And if you're using Final Cut X, you're severely handicapping yourself. Problem is that people don't want to take the time to learn Adobe's products(steep learning curve for sure) which is where Apple's Granny software, and perhaps computers, comes in to play. Arnold Schwarzenegger once said "Milk is for babies, Real Men Drink Beer". I'm beginning to think that "Mac's are for Grannies, Real Men Use Adobe and PCs".
The major problem with Apple is you're forced to use Apple. Not sure but history has proven that people don't like to be forced into anything. Autocracies don't work. These systems eventually topple, even in the corporate world.
Amazon.com, now that's the company to emulate. What an amazing machine!
I've read that Apple may even discontinue the iMAC after 2013. Who knows?
If anyone has a solution for getting the Mecury Playpack Engine GPU acceleration to work with Premiere Pro CS6 on an iMAC 2011, please let me know. Like I wonder if you could Thunderbolt an External graphics card somehow? Or is an upgrade possible? Ahh...not worth the risk.
1) Graphcis Card - AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2048 MB (6990 would have been better or something from NVIDIA.
2) USB 2.0 Hub with only 480 Mb/sec
3) Seagate Baracude SATA I 7200 RPM drive with 3GB/s transfer rate and only a 32 GB Cach. It's ok. I would have expected at least a Western Digital Caviar Black 2 TB SATA III 7200 RPM 64 MB or the Velociraptor at 10,000RPM.
4)APPLE SSD TS256C Flash Drive. As you can see, it doesn't stack up so well against other SSD Drive.
Just average. http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/hdd_lookup.phphdd=APPLE+SSD+TS256C

Whining and ranting about how iMacs can't do this or iMacs/orMacs can't do that is not going to get you a lot of help here.
Your "I love my MAC" is typical of the ever ubiquitous PC whiner.
If your video work needs were that computer intensive and critical , you should've done some online research and you should have budgeted for a Mac Pro.
Mac Pros are completely expandable and upgradeable unlike the iMac.
Mac Pros have much more faster and more CPU cores than the iMac line.
iMac line is limited to CPUs with 8 cores. The Mac Pros, I believe, are up to 16 core CPUs, now.
The Mac Pros can have their GPU upgraded and you even add/expand to use specialty audio/video cards.
Mac Pros are the defacto standard for real video work.
iMacs, even the high end model, is not really designed to do really heavy and intensive video work.
iMacs do do video creation and editing. Just not on the level that is needed from a more "Pro" computer.
It seems to me you are asking your iMac to do more than it was originally designed for, in terms of professional video editing.
You get a lot more out of a Mac Pro than an iMac for any real serious video, CGI or animation work.
You just didn't want to spend that much cash on one.
iMacs are not user upgradeable or friendly to user upgrades at all!!!
If you purchased a Mac Pro, you could've had that better, faster HD, better faster SSDs.
That said, I can offer no real help to but because of the nature of your post and the fact you just simply annoyed me, I feel some advice and explanations are in order
First off, you picked Adobe video editing software suite as your video creation software on the Mac. It's no secret to long-time video content creators on the Mac that Adobe products, especially those for video creation and editing are very user unfriendly on the Mac. Even though Macs are supported from Adobe, Adobe for a long time has treated the Mac and Mac users as second class citizens.
Before purchasing and installing Adobe Premiere, did you even check Adobe's site for the preferred system hardware and software requirements? Hmmm?
This is why you should KNOW what software you are going to be running on a computer first then research what computer make and model will run said software.
That's why Apple has its own apps like Aoerture, Logic and Final Cut.
Despite your ignorance in this matter, Final Cut Pro X is alive and doing well, thank you, and using this software on your iMac would kick Adobe Premier in the you know whats.
Final Cut Pro X is a complete video solution for and completely designed around the Mac.
Why are you using USB 2.0 connections for video work when you have a perfectly good FireWire 800 connection.
In case you are not aware, FireWire 800 is called so because it has a max throughput of 800 Mbps.
Your 2011 iMac can take up to 32 GBs of RAM. Not just 16 GBs.
This changed when the 2010 model iMacs came out.
Blu-ray? I believe you can buy external Blu-ray writers that work with Mac using said FW800 connection.
So you cite one movie and one videographer using Adobe Premier for your premise that Final Cut is dead in Hollywood?
Your argument that Apple locks you into everything in their world can be countered by saying Windows and Windows PCs lock you into the Windows world. What's your point?
Apple is not discontinuing their computers platforms any time soon.
All you are regurgitating is rumor. Probably from all of the PC crowd.
iMacs and professional desktop Macs are not going anywhere.
Currently, Apple is the only desktop/laptop computer maker that is still making a profit on their Macs and increasing their market share percentages for the last 5 years during which the PC market has continually slumped/dropped in its market share.

How do I know if I have Mercury Playback Engine GPU Acceleration (OpenCL)?

To anyone who can help,
BACKGROUND
I am new to Premiere Pro and just started my first project on CC 2014. A tutorial recommended I select 'Mercury Playback Engine GPU Acceleration (OpenCL)' over 'Mercury Playback Engine Software Only' in the VIDEO AND RENDERING section of the PROJECT SETTINGS window. Since the former option isn't grayed out, I'm assuming I have both to choose from, however, when I select 'Mercury Playback Engine GPU Acceleration (OpenCL), only the audio will play back in my source window; the video no longer plays back.
HARDWARE
I am on an (early 2008) Mac Pro desktop with two 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processors, and two ATI Radeon HD 5770 graphics cards.
I am running OS X 10.9.5.
QUESTIONS
1. Is there a way to figure out if I actually have this 'Mercury Playback Engine GPU Acceleration (OpenCL)' thing?
2. Is opting for 'Mercury Playback Engine GPU Acceleration (OpenCL)' over 'Mercury Playback Engine Software Only' (the default) really even going to make a noticeable difference in how my 1080p 24 fps movie is rendered?
Thanks in advance to any advice offered!
Shaun

I am not realy a mac person but Premiere can only use one graphics card. Can you disable one of the cards.
Might want to read this on how MPE works:
CUDA, Mercury Playback Engine, and Adobe Premiere Pro « Premiere Pro work area

Dell Precision T5810 Core options and GPU config? Running CC on virtual desktops?

Hi, two questions really but didn't want to start multiple threads.
I tried searching for answers to my questions but was not very successful so am trying to post. I am looking at buying some computers for our office which will be using the CC subscription for their workflow. Predominately this is short form video editing on Premiere (3-10min, AVCHD & DSLR mix, 2-3 camera steams, 50/50 just as straight streams/multicam), some light to mid graphics on After Effect and Photoshop then compression through Media Encoder.
Our media will be stored on a Small Tree shared storage server across a dedicated gigabit network.
As Dell have just launch their new workstations using the new version of the Xeon 16 series with DDR4 RAM I was thinking of going down that road. Would I be better getting the Hex Core 1650v3, 500GB HDD, 16GB DDR4 2133 RAM with either a Quadro K2200 or Firepro W5100, or Quad Core 1620v3, 500GB HDD, 16GB DDR4 2133 RAM with Quadro K4200?
As I understand it is important make sure systems are balanced between CPU, GPU, RAM and discs. Which of the above configs would perform better for our work, as I am not sure if the hex core will be more so with a lower GPU, or if the quad with a faster/more expensive GPU will perform better?
I know when it comes to GPU's a kick off would be to say ditch the workstation line for a GTX to save money, but we have a business deal with Dell as a business their 3 year support is an important consideration to us something they do not support if we chop and change out unsupported components such as a GTX card.
The other option I have been made by our IT department is that we could buy Dell servers, add graphics cards and run virtual desktops for the editors on them instead of buying stand alone towers. I have not really seen this being done before for video editing which suggests to me that this does not work for one reason or another, but I have not been able to find out much with my Google-fu (which again is probably a bad sign). Is this as bad an idea as I am assuming or is this a potential avenue.
Hopefully that has all made sense and apologies if I have not followed any forum etiquette, (first time so be kind!)
Thanks in advance for all and any help.
Ed

Hi,
Thank you for the replies. Having looked at the virtual option more closely I have discounted it as an option. Was never really something I wanted but our IT insisted I evaluated it as part of the process.
Regarding the workstations I had decided to go with the hex core E5 1650 option so it is good to hear I am heading down the right road! My reasoning for look at the new T5810 (DDR4 RAM) over the previous T3610 which had the 1650v2 (DDR3 RAM) was based on the fact the the cost difference on the website was only about 70-80 pounds. For that little difference it seemed like a good idea to buy the latest offering for future proofing. I will however get Dell to quote me for the two systems and see what the end result is after adding in 32GB of RAM.
I will also speak to them about their warranty as I was under the impression that by putting a non approved card in the system that if there were issues that involved the card in anyway then they would not assist. Either way I had decided to go Nvidia after reading up about the Firepro computability. Sadly I don't think I would have budget for the K4200 but the K2200 looks like it might be a decent performer as it is based on the maxwell architecture so I would expect it punch a bit above its weight. Would this act as the bottle neck in such a system or would it be fast enough to balance out a E5 1650 and 32GB RAM?
If it is only the card itself that will not be supported then I guess this is lesser risk and I could consider a consumer card. If I did go down the GTX route then looking at the price of GTX 770 (ideally I would want the 4GB version as the 2GB could be limiting for the future), there does not seem to be a lot in it between them and the GTX970. I would expect due to the maxwell architecture that this would offer better performance at a lower power draw so I would expect the be better temps than the previous gen. If so then would this be a better option to go for?
For drives I will look at putting the media cache onto separate drives (we currently do this with our systems that run local storage), though will probably have to be HDD rather than SDD as I have them spare and fast running out of budget!
Thanks again for all comments.

GPU differences

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for