# Recommended Video cards for use with Adobe Premier...?



## cayenne (Jun 13, 2013)

Hi guys,

A club I'm in is wanting to set up a computer for video editing, and we're likely going the Adobe Premier route.

I've read that Nvidia Cuda technology is taken advantage of with Premier.

Can ya'll recommend a video card that would give most bang for the buck? 

We have a used workstation we're trying to beef up. Starting with:

HP WORKSTATION Z400 1X INTEL XEON QC W3580
3.33GHz 12GB RAM 1 X 1TB HDD

Thanks,

cayenne


----------



## docholliday (Jun 17, 2013)

Any of the newest generation Quadros - you can use 1x Quadro K2000 or 2x Quadro K600 (Kepler core) in a box and get really good results. The 600's are pretty cheap, but the 2000's are still the best performance-price break. It all depends on what your budget is - a K6000 would perform best with it's 1500+ cores. 

The older generation cards just don't have the number of Cuda cores as high, so the newer ones give Premiere more processing power. Too few cores, and it'll be faster processing via CPU than Cuda. Just stay away from ATI cards - they used to be good, but nowadays, they suck a coprocessing and are slower than sh*t. Plus, the OpenCL implementation isn't always successfully supported in software.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 17, 2013)

In case you did not see this, it basically repeats docholiday's response.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/premiere-pro-cs6.html

Be sure to check the power requirements, you might need a amazingly big power supply which then means better cooling.


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 17, 2013)

I'm saving up for the Nvidia Quadro K4000. That should give a nice BIG boost to Pr/Ae. Although I'm not sure how much performance-boost it will give to Cinema 4D, which I plan to start using eventually.


----------



## docholliday (Jun 17, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> In case you did not see this, it basically repeats docholiday's response.
> 
> http://www.nvidia.com/object/premiere-pro-cs6.html
> 
> Be sure to check the power requirements, you might need a amazingly big power supply which then means better cooling.



That's a definite! I run a PC Power and Cooling 1.2Kw in my box for procs, ram, board and video. There's another box externally plugged into my SCSI for storage that is by itself 1Kw.

The HP workstations should support 2x K600 or 1xK2000 with no problem, as long as you don't have a ton of disks in it. Keeping your 1x1TB would be ok. You might want to also consider adding a striped SSD array (2x256GB or 2x512GB) for capture/swap/rendering - it's one of the major bottlenecks.


----------



## NormanBates (Jun 17, 2013)

AFAIK, there's basically no performance difference betwen a super-expensive quadro card and a $150 geforce gaming card:
http://www.studio1productions.com/Articles/PremiereCS5.htm

This may change with newer versions, but I wouldn't spend that kind of money without being sure it's not a stupid expense.


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 17, 2013)

NormanBates said:


> AFAIK, there's basically no performance difference betwen a super-expensive quadro card and a $150 geforce gaming card:
> http://www.studio1productions.com/Articles/PremiereCS5.htm
> 
> This may change with newer versions, but I wouldn't spend that kind of money without being sure it's not a stupid expense.



After reading this, I did some research and found the following.

http://blogs.adobe.com/premierepro/2013/05/improved-gpu-support-in-adobe-premiere-pro-cc.html

This does appear to open up a lot of cards, but it's not like the entire Quadro line is now outcompeted by a $150 card.

I'm looking at the GeForce GTX 680 as an alternative to the Quadro K4000, but I'm wondering if that extra 1GB of memory in the K4000 will increase performance by 33%.


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 17, 2013)

The top end Quadro cards do make a massive difference especially if you have a machine that is high specs with regards to the other components (cooling, CPU etc etc).

I have a Quadro 4000 M and am always impressed by the results. When I bought the laptop the best Quadro was the 5010M but that was a lot more than just an extra US$ 1,000 or 2000 so I went for the 4000M

Same with anything, you get what you pay for.


----------



## docholliday (Jun 17, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> NormanBates said:
> 
> 
> > AFAIK, there's basically no performance difference betwen a super-expensive quadro card and a $150 geforce gaming card:
> ...



As a hardware engineer, developer and consultant (for 25+ years), I've heard that before from so many people - here's what it translates to: "I have a Chevy Cavalier that'll do 120mph. Why do I need a Corvette? I can run just as fast as them on the road.". Then, 1 hour later "I don't understand why my Cavalier blew up."

The Quadros are more stable, more efficient and have better drivers. They are for *creating* content, whilst the GeForce cards are designed for content playback. All the little gamers out there are screaming that their little gamer cards are just as good as the Quadro, but have dead cards 6 months later. They aren't designed to be pushed to the edge continuously - just in short bursts.

There's obviously more granular reasons why high end gear is what it's worth. I'd take a Supermicro workstation board over any Asus "workstation" board. I'll take SCSI and SAS over any SATA. I'll take ECC RAM over unbuffered. I'll take Panaflo, Nidec and Delta fans over any gamer box Thermaltake fan - faster, doesnt' fail and higher RPM capability. I'll take a solid rolled 16Ga steel case over some pretty plastic gamer case with windows - the shielding is better. And, I'll take my Wacom Intuos w/ mouse over any "high dpi" gamer mouse.

If you're playing around with your computer, then anything is fine. But, if it's something you want to rely on day after day, get the job done and the money made - buy gear that isn't designed for gamers. You don't want the vid card to be the weak link in your HP workstation - don't put cheap tires on your high performance car.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 17, 2013)

docholliday said:


> Keeping your 1x1TB would be ok. You might want to also consider adding a striped SSD array (2x256GB or 2x512GB) for capture/swap/rendering - it's one of the major bottlenecks.



+1

Lots of RAM is good, a powerful GFX card is good, but it's all no use if you are using a slow bus, slow interface or slow disks, as a 1TB spinning disk will be.

I would get a couple of external SSD drives, or an SSD RAID, set up one as the render disk and one as the scratch disk. Keep the 1TB as the system drive and nothing else, leave plenty of headroom on it.

One disk running the OS, running the application, and then chucking video into the processor for rendering and writing the rendered output is going to be slow and unstable no matter how good all the other links in the chain are.


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 17, 2013)

BTW if you can wait, then this monster may help:

http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/17/intel-leak-haswell-e-2014/

Intel leak reveals 8-core Haswell-E series desktop CPU for late 2014

6-and-8-core editions of the CPU, which can pack up to 20MB of L3 cache....

can support DDR4 RAM with a clock speed of up to 2,133MHz....

Mmmmm. Nice.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 18, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> In case you did not see this, it basically repeats docholiday's response.
> 
> http://www.nvidia.com/object/premiere-pro-cs6.html
> 
> Be sure to check the power requirements, you might need a amazingly big power supply which then means better cooling.



You don't need a quadro though. Nvidia and Adobe are just in bed so they try to make it seem like you need a Quadro. There is a simple text file where all you do is type the name of your graphics card into it and then instead of just one or two non-Quadros, basically any reasonably powerful GeForce card works (of course you need to meet min memory requirements and such and a wimpy card could be slower than a good CPU, but a good GeForce helps a lot and costs a lot less than Quadros).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 18, 2013)

docholliday said:


> dirtcastle said:
> 
> 
> > NormanBates said:
> ...



Oh come on some of those gamers play day and night with games that push graphics card as hard as heck.
Quadros even used to be exactly the same cards, just with some features disabled through software (after that got hacked so much they put internal locking firmware, some may have more memory or extra running but there is nothing radically different about the HW).


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 18, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> You don't need a quadro though. Nvidia and Adobe are just in bed so they try to make it seem like you need a Quadro.



The Quadro is faster, but I have a 4000M not because of Adobe, but because I frequently use Vegas Pro.

I have had machines without Quadro 4000M, that use GEForce or others and I can assure you that the Quadros are faster, especially if the rest of the machine is high spec.

Just between the 5010M and 4000M is a 30% real world speed difference, and the difference is amplified with the newer cards.

Your claim of there being little difference is a little like saying that there is little benefit buying a 1DX over your average P&S.


----------



## emko (Jun 18, 2013)

Quadro comes with drivers and firmware that are optimized for graphics applications not for games that's all your paying for that's why a Quadro cant run games like a Geforce.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 18, 2013)

expatinasia said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > You don't need a quadro though. Nvidia and Adobe are just in bed so they try to make it seem like you need a Quadro.
> ...



They don't put busy cycles in the drivers for certain routines that tend to be used only by graphics apps so they can be faster for some stuff, but it's not like you HAVE to have a quadro or that geforce are so sketchy. If you read the Adobe stuff it was kinda misleading, ooooooh the gamer driver might not be reliable and ooo this, all nonsense, a good GeForce card did plenty of good (thankfully they made it so easy to hack them to work that you can scarcely call it a hack) an dnot everyone had the money to dump on a Quadro or wanted a Quadro and yet if you read the forums some got scared into it over nonsense.


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 19, 2013)

Does anyone have actual evidence that Geforce cards are actually competitive with Quadro cards for heavy, long-term video/graphics editing?

I think we have established that there are comparable *specs* between Geforce and Quadro cards. But clearly the firmware is different. And there is also the question of durability over time, in the context of heavy video/graphics editing.

Some evidence to back up these claims would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 19, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> They don't put busy cycles in the drivers for certain routines that tend to be used only by graphics apps so they can be faster for some stuff, but it's not like you HAVE to have a quadro or that geforce are so sketchy. If you read the Adobe stuff it was kinda misleading, ooooooh the gamer driver might not be reliable and ooo this, all nonsense, a good GeForce card did plenty of good (thankfully they made it so easy to hack them to work that you can scarcely call it a hack) an dnot everyone had the money to dump on a Quadro or wanted a Quadro and yet if you read the forums some got scared into it over nonsense.



Like I said, I have a Quadro 4000M but wanted to the 5010M, the difference in performance is huge (30% or so) and that is in real world usage and between two Quadro cards. I have also said that I have other laptops that have GeForce etc and there is a massive difference between them.

The top GeForce are great cards, but the Quadros are better for graphics, video, 3D, engineering software etc.

Same as a 5D Mark III is an excellent camera, one of the best on the market, but is it the best for sports photographers? Not by a long shot, but it is still a very, very good camera. That is the camera industry, why do you think the graphics card industry is any different?

I do not game so I cannot comment on that.

dirtcastle - I am sure there are plenty of benchmarks out there.


----------



## DFM (Jun 21, 2013)

Bill and Harm's site at http://ppbm5.com/ is the de-facto reference for Premiere Pro hardware comparisons (there are ppbm6 and ppbm7 websites too, the latter being a subscription service, but the bulk of the data is on ppbm5)

_You'll notice that the top slots are now taken by GTX cards_. Adobe advised use of Quadros purely for reliability, there is no inherent _performance_ gain over the latest GTX models but you can run a stock Quadro at 100% for 8 hours a day and have a my-job-depends-on-it expectation that the GPU won't die. Hammering a gaming card requires some care and attention around cooling etc., plus there are so many rebadged GT dies on the market (some with less attention to quality control than others) it would be unrealistic for Adobe to have officially 'approved' them all.

Yes, there are some vendors (Autodesk for example) which have Quadro-specific plugins which enhance their software; but Adobe does not.

Now that there's been time to watch how all these cards perform in real-world situations it's clear that there aren't great waves of exploding GTX-flavored silicon, even with the lowest-spec 'gaming' cards and the mobile GPUs. Because of that, with the arrival of CC you can now run the Mercury Playback Engine on _any_ card with the minimum specs. You'll get a one-time dialog saying the card isn't on the officially-tested list, but you no longer have to hack the software.

Personally, the original question on this thread was about a computer for a club - and in that case I would go with a GTX card and spend the savings elsewhere. You won't be encoding 4k footage 8 hours a day, and if an MPE export did fail (unlikely) then there's no business penalty in rerunning the job. Maxed-out DRAM, SSDs and a fast RAID controller will give far more performance gain per dollar spent. Even things like a second monitor or a tape backup may be of more practical worth, depending on what the machine is being used for.




expatinasia said:


> I am sure there are plenty of benchmarks out there.


----------



## bluegreenturtle (Jun 21, 2013)

I've used both quadro and GTX cards for premiere cs 5.5 and 6, currently have a GTX 660. 

I didn't notice anybody asking Cayenne what he plans to do - what sort of editing. There's a huge misconception about what the CUDA acceleration actually does. It only affects very specific functions and huge amounts of common editing features are still CPU and most important, hard disk bound. The common things that this will help with (some) are that you don't have to re-render after color correction, applying some (and only some) effects, and some (and certainly not all) encoding tasks. 

The single biggest upgrade to premiere you can do is to have it and your content coming off SSDs. I upgraded from a several years old bottom end GTX to a mid level Quadro to a current mid-top end GTX and there is absolutely no difference in Premiere in common editing situations. 

DFM has it right on the advice of Quadros - like most software manufacturers - they are recommended for reliability. They are also very profitable for Nvidia. Get any card you can afford and you'll be fine.


----------



## DFM (Jun 23, 2013)

Harm has just posted a new table of suggested GTX cards for each type of processor/memory/HDD, which shows you what would be overkill 

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1238382


----------

