Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

For Windows, Apple, displays, mouse pads etc.

Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby Chrismb103 on 02/6/2013, 4:58 am

Hi Guys,
I currently have a single GTX 670 with 4GB RAM driving 3 22" screens. I am considering adding a second 670 in SLI in hopes of speeding up rendering. I understand that E3D and other 3D software loads a lot of information into the GPU. Will adding another 4GB card benefit my performance? Is the additional 4GB cumulative (8GB total), or just mirrored? I understand that SLI is beneficial in many games, especially where multiple monitors are in play, but does that carry over to After Effects, E3D and C4D? Thanks for any assistance you can provide.

Chris
Chrismb103
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 02/6/2013, 4:47 am

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby LordEdington on 02/6/2013, 11:27 am

I heard that Element could one use one card at a time. I've only got one myself so I can't test it for you unfortunately. So yeah, your games will probably play better (they might even play at the elusive 240fps we've been hearing so much about lately!) but I can't see it boosting your Element performance.
LordEdington
 
Posts: 943
Joined: 05/24/2009, 10:24 am
Location: Derby, East Midlands, UK
Twitter: http://twitter.com/Stencil_Media

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby vfxproductions on 02/6/2013, 3:33 pm

In AE, the maximum usable memory from the GPU is 2GB (per card I think), so even though yours right now is 4GB, it's only using 2GB. Not sure about Element 3d though, the previous post might be correct
vfxproductions
 
Posts: 161
Joined: 06/11/2012, 3:30 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby Sasha dal Ponte on 02/7/2013, 1:21 am

Adobe and Element use only one GPU so buying second one would be a waste of money. Better get SSD or more RAM.
Sasha dal Ponte
graphic designer

.: MY VIMEO PORTFOLIO :.

http://www.mreza.tv
sasa.dalponte@gmail.com
Sasha dal Ponte
 
Posts: 1997
Joined: 05/22/2009, 5:14 am
Location: Kutina, Croatia
Twitter: sasadalponte

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby Vilandra on 02/8/2013, 4:24 pm

SLI is only for games. Trying to use it in C4D will cause display problems, and Adobe programs do not use it.
Vilandra
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 08/13/2008, 8:40 pm
Location: Augusta, GA

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby Rob Neal on 02/9/2013, 1:07 am

As other have said, it will make no difference.
If you really want to improve performance, ditch the gamers card and get a Quadro.
No serious video or graphics designer will use anything else.
"Experience is what you have after you've forgotten their name. - Milton Berle"


http://www.robneal.co.uk
Rob Neal
 
Posts: 7164
Joined: 09/30/2008, 4:29 am
Location: London, England

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby Vilandra on 02/9/2013, 5:21 pm

Rob Neal wrote:As other have said, it will make no difference.
If you really want to improve performance, ditch the gamers card and get a Quadro.
No serious video or graphics designer will use anything else.


As opposed to all the people using a GeForce card for years and being just fine with it? :lol:
Vilandra
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 08/13/2008, 8:40 pm
Location: Augusta, GA

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby Rob Neal on 02/9/2013, 5:59 pm

Vilandra wrote:As opposed to all the people using a GeForce card for years and being just fine with it? :lol:

Please don't throw straw man arguments around. You can get to the shops in a Prius, but a Ferrari will get you there faster.
"Experience is what you have after you've forgotten their name. - Milton Berle"


http://www.robneal.co.uk
Rob Neal
 
Posts: 7164
Joined: 09/30/2008, 4:29 am
Location: London, England

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby Vilandra on 02/9/2013, 6:53 pm

Rob Neal wrote:
Vilandra wrote:As opposed to all the people using a GeForce card for years and being just fine with it? :lol:

Please don't throw straw man arguments around. You can get to the shops in a Prius, but a Ferrari will get you there faster.


Did you really just compare a GPU to a car? :lol:

Did I mention that im one of those who have been using a GeForce cards for years now, and have no stability or performance issues with it? Matter of fact, my viewport fps rate went up when I switched from a Quadro to a GeForce. How many artist frequent this site, yet they use GeForce or Radeon cards? Are you saying you're making the judgment of "professionalism" based on their GPU, and not their work?

GTX 680 - 1536 CUDA cores
Quadro K5000 - 1536 CUDA cores

GTX 680 - 1006-1137 Mhz
Quadro K5000 - 706 Mhz

GTX 680 - $500
Quadro K5000 - $1800


So for $1300 more, I get a slower clock rate, but at least im now a pro, right?
Vilandra
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 08/13/2008, 8:40 pm
Location: Augusta, GA

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby LordEdington on 02/10/2013, 4:11 am

Rob Neal wrote:You can get to the shops in a Prius, but a Ferrari will get you there faster.


That only works if you live on a racetrack and the shops are also located on that racetrack. Back in the real world you have traffic lights, congestion, junctions and speed limits to contend with. So a car that has twice the top speed of a another car is very unlikely to get to the shops and back in half the time!
LordEdington
 
Posts: 943
Joined: 05/24/2009, 10:24 am
Location: Derby, East Midlands, UK
Twitter: http://twitter.com/Stencil_Media

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby Rob Neal on 02/10/2013, 8:46 am

Vilandra wrote:So for $1300 more, I get a slower clock rate, but at least im now a pro, right?

Do you seriously think people pay out all that extra just for a badge?
http://www.nyc3d.org/3dwp/PortfolioItems/geforce-gtx-580-vs-quadro-5000
"Experience is what you have after you've forgotten their name. - Milton Berle"


http://www.robneal.co.uk
Rob Neal
 
Posts: 7164
Joined: 09/30/2008, 4:29 am
Location: London, England

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby Vilandra on 02/10/2013, 1:37 pm

I can post links too... http://ppbm5.com/DB-PPBM5.php

I dont see any Quadro's in the top 50 ranks. I guess none of those guys are pro's? :=~
Vilandra
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 08/13/2008, 8:40 pm
Location: Augusta, GA

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby Andrew_DeLong on 02/11/2013, 9:47 am

My computer has the same specs as the Z-400's here at my college, except for the video card. The Z-400's have a Quadro 2000 1GB, and my computer has a GTX 570 1.5GB. Oddly, the Z-400's run Premiere and AE much better than my computer does.

Rare as it is, I'm siding with Rob on this one. Quadro's (even older ones like the 2000) are considered pro grade for a reason. GTX cards are just a really good and cheap substitute.
There are three people you meet in life.
The people you like.
The people you hate.
And the people that make you think, Oh dear sweet Buddha strike them down now.

This third group accounts for about 95% of the human species.
Andrew_DeLong
 
Posts: 1287
Joined: 01/22/2011, 10:14 pm
Location: Mooers Forks, NY.

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby Vilandra on 02/11/2013, 12:44 pm

Andrew_DeLong wrote:Rare as it is, I'm siding with Rob on this one.


So you're saying that you agree with his statement of, "No serious video or graphics designer will use anything else."?
Vilandra
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 08/13/2008, 8:40 pm
Location: Augusta, GA

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby Andrew_DeLong on 02/11/2013, 1:37 pm

Vilandra wrote:
Andrew_DeLong wrote:Rare as it is, I'm siding with Rob on this one.


So you're saying that you agree with his statement of, "No serious video or graphics designer will use anything else."?


If by serious we all agree that that means professional level editors/graphics designers....then yes, I agree. When you're doing pro-grade or broadcast quality commissions, you need to go with top-line equipment. Even my college teaches that much (which is also why they just spent $60k on lights and are going to spend another $5M on upgrades to our studio).

There's internet serious, and then there's industry serious. The day I decide to go industry, I'm outfitting with a minimum Quadro 4000. Preferably a Tesla setup.
There are three people you meet in life.
The people you like.
The people you hate.
And the people that make you think, Oh dear sweet Buddha strike them down now.

This third group accounts for about 95% of the human species.
Andrew_DeLong
 
Posts: 1287
Joined: 01/22/2011, 10:14 pm
Location: Mooers Forks, NY.

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby Vilandra on 02/11/2013, 3:16 pm

Andrew_DeLong wrote:If by serious we all agree that that means professional level editors/graphics designers....then yes, I agree. When you're doing pro-grade or broadcast quality commissions, you need to go with top-line equipment. Even my college teaches that much (which is also why they just spent $60k on lights and are going to spend another $5M on upgrades to our studio).

There's internet serious, and then there's industry serious. The day I decide to go industry, I'm outfitting with a minimum Quadro 4000. Preferably a Tesla setup.


So since you're using a GTX 570, then according to you, does that mean that you're not a serious editor/artist? And what about the people that frequent this site that use Radeon/Geforce GPU's? Are they not serious?

And are you saying that im not a serious editor/artist? Even though I work for a studio and do pro level work for Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Discovery Channel, Home Depot, BlackBerry, GA Pacific, Moxie Interactive, BBDO Atlanta, etc? Im not trying to be a jerk here, but when Rob said that any serious editor/designer would not choose anything other than a Quadro, I seriously laughed, as that comment was ridiculous. Thats right up there with the comments that come from Mac users, like, "Only creative people use Mac's".

Lets look at this from my standpoint. I use Cinema 4D, Premiere, After Effects, Photoshop, Syntheyes, RealFlow, and TFD, (a fire/smoke simulator plugin for C4D that uses CUDA).

Maxon (makes of Cinema 4D) recommend a GeForce or Radeon GPU for C4D, as the Quadro's offer no gain for C4D users. Even the quality assurance guy (that frequents the C4D online forums) says he recommends GeForce or Radeon's.

Adobe recommends Quadro's (obviously), but editing in Premiere is largely dependent on the memory bandwidth of the GPU. GTX 680 has higher bandwidth vs the Quadro K5000. The 680 also has a higher clock speed. The only thing the Quadro has going for it, is 10-bit out, and stereo out. But I dont have a 30-bit monitor, nor do I need stereo out. So for Adobe use, the Quadro is a waste.

So as of right now, theres absolutely no reason for me to buy a Quadro. Does that mean that im not serious about the pro work I do? ;)
Vilandra
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 08/13/2008, 8:40 pm
Location: Augusta, GA

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby Rob Neal on 02/11/2013, 4:38 pm

Vilandra wrote:Lets look at this from my standpoint. I use Cinema 4D, Premiere, After Effects, Photoshop, Syntheyes, RealFlow, and TFD, (a fire/smoke simulator plugin for C4D that uses CUDA).


I use much of that too, but that still isn't serious when it comes to professional work.
Try Maya, Avid, Nuke, DaVinci, Mocha Pro, Boujou, Thinking Particles running on multicore Xeons.
That is true pro end stuff, and you can bet your sweet bippy they ain't shoving that stuff through some gamer board.

I have two dual core Xeons both running Quadros (one around £5,000 the other double that.), and a backup running a GTX570, and in 80% of cases you don't see a lot of difference until the work starts getting complex, and then the costs justify themselves.
"Experience is what you have after you've forgotten their name. - Milton Berle"


http://www.robneal.co.uk
Rob Neal
 
Posts: 7164
Joined: 09/30/2008, 4:29 am
Location: London, England

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby LordEdington on 02/11/2013, 4:54 pm

I know virtually nothing about graphics cards and computers... I just buy the ones with the highest specs that I can afford. I may not have the fanciest setup, but it works pretty well for me. I did some work for Ubisoft when I had an integrated AMD card on a laptop. I started doing work for clients 'back in the day' with an Intel card!

In fact, what do graphics cards do?! I've no idea! Apart from the GPU action in Element and Ray Tracing that is. But before that all came along? When I take my cheap old PC, move the time indicator and it takes five seconds to update... and then I take my new PC, move the time indicator and it takes half a second to update... is that the graphics card? Or is it the RAM/Processor/Combination of the lot?

Although I prefer not to class myself as a 'professional' purely for humility reasons, seeing I do it full time and earn the majority of my money from it... then I guess by definition, I'm allowed to class myself as a professional motion graphics artist/animator/video producer/vfx artist etc etc . I'd say 70% of my work is for the web, 20% for TV and 10% for films. I don't have a Quadro by the way.

That's not to say I wouldn't want one. If I had the cash available then I'd be daft not to buy the best equipment I could (whatever that is!) but a litre of wine, 40 cigarettes and a poker tournament a day quickly diminishes my expendable income. Let the good times roll.
LordEdington
 
Posts: 943
Joined: 05/24/2009, 10:24 am
Location: Derby, East Midlands, UK
Twitter: http://twitter.com/Stencil_Media

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby LordEdington on 02/11/2013, 5:14 pm

Rob Neal wrote:I use much of that too, but that still isn't serious when it comes to professional work.
Try Maya, Avid, Nuke, DaVinci, Mocha Pro, Boujou, Thinking Particles running on multicore Xeons.
That is true pro end stuff, and you can bet your sweet bippy they ain't shoving that stuff through some gamer board.


You seem to know your stuff Rob, but it appears that your description of a pro is based on them being a 'jack of all trades'. What if somebody uses purely Cinema 4D? That's the only program they use and in fact... they're so good at it that they are widely regarded as the number one C4D user in the world. There's nothing they can't do in that program.

Would they not be 'serious when it comes to professional work'? Would they have to have all those other programs you mentioned running in the background before they were classed as a professional? They don't have to use them of course... just the fact that they'll run comfortably on their workstations makes them a pro?

Sorry for getting all sarcastic, but my definition of a pro is based on their skill, experience, ability and whether they do that kind of thing full time or not. Not what specs they have and what software their computer can run.
LordEdington
 
Posts: 943
Joined: 05/24/2009, 10:24 am
Location: Derby, East Midlands, UK
Twitter: http://twitter.com/Stencil_Media

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby Vilandra on 02/11/2013, 5:14 pm

Rob Neal wrote:
Vilandra wrote:I use much of that too, but that still isn't serious when it comes to professional work.
Try Maya, Avid, Nuke, DaVinci, Mocha Pro, Boujou, Thinking Particles running on multicore Xeons.
That is true pro end stuff, and you can bet your sweet bippy they ain't shoving that stuff through some gamer board.

I have two dual core Xeons both running Quadros (one around £5,000 the other double that.), and a backup running a GTX570, and in 80% of cases you don't see a lot of difference until the work starts getting complex, and then the costs justify themselves.


Im running a dual CPU system myself, (two quad cores). And how are you gonna say that what I use isnt serious? Ive used Boujou, but I gave it up years ago after Boujou 4 was released. Why? Because im not gonna pay $10,000 for conflicting software. I used Boujou 3 all the time when PixelCorp was selling it to members for $300. Syntheyes is only $300 and connects flawlessly with C4D. You really think im stupid, dont you? LOL Like im really gonna use Boujou just so I can scream and yell that im a pro, yet have to deal with pipeline issues. :lol:

I have Maya, dont really use it, but I have it. (PLE) Why do I need Avid when I have Premiere? I have no need for DaVinci or Nuke, as C4D and AE play very well together. I also have Mocha Pro as well. Dont use it a lot, but I have it. It all runs just fine through my "gamer" board. You also listed Thinking Particles, which is 3DS Max. I dont use Max, but C4D has its own Thinking Particles module, and although it may be outdated, it runs just fine with my system.

You've yet to provide me with anything that would suggest I need to buy a Quadro.
Vilandra
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 08/13/2008, 8:40 pm
Location: Augusta, GA

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby Rob Neal on 02/12/2013, 6:43 pm

LordEdington wrote:You seem to know your stuff Rob, but it appears that your description of a pro is based on them being a 'jack of all trades'. What if somebody uses purely Cinema 4D? That's the only program they use and in fact... they're so good at it that they are widely regarded as the number one C4D user in the world. There's nothing they can't do in that program.

I am not denigrating other software; check the recent interview with AK where he points out he used AE on big feature movies - (http://adobe.ly/Wjy2NA) but if you work for any large VFX/Graphics house, you will not find things like C4D or Premiere in their workflow. Most of the software is dominated by AutoDesk and Avid, and Adobe hardly get a look in. (Although that is slowly changing).

As for what graphics cards do: basically in years gone by they were simply a way of getting the data out of the computer and up on the screen, and it was simply a matter of resolution (number of pixels) and scan rate (how often those pixels were refreshed) - Then companies such as NVidia started developing GPUs to try and offload a lot of the drudge work carried out by the CPU - things like 3D modelling, lighting, shading and crude raytracing. Most of this was targeted at the games market so everything had to be calculated in real time. This has since expanded so that now a great deal of the visual side of the process is GPU driven. VCP's Element 3D is a typical example of what a GPU can do and essentially exploits this gaming functionality; It has its limitations and is never going to fully compete with a non real-time render engine such as VRay, but what it does do it does incredibly fast because there is little or no CPU overhead.

A good graphics workstation needs all-round capability, from raw CPU number crunching, GPU visuals and plenty of RAM and fast hard drives for all this data to be thrown around in. If you skimp in any one area, your whole system will be degraded.

Oh, and as for 40 fags a day mate, pack it in. I was a 40 Marlboro 100 Reds guy for 40 years and I've been on e-cigs for 6 months now and not looked back. Taste nicer, cheaper, you can vape in the pub and best of all they don't harm you. :) PM me if you want more info.

Vilandra wrote:You really think im stupid, dont you? LOL Like im really gonna use Boujou just so I can scream and yell that im a pro, yet have to deal with pipeline issues. :lol:

I have Maya, dont really use it, but I have it. (PLE) Why do I need Avid when I have Premiere? I have no need for DaVinci or Nuke, as C4D and AE play very well together. I also have Mocha Pro as well. Dont use it a lot, but I have it.

Read the above. I am not knocking you for your personal choice of software, but you are like myself, a one-man-band that just comes up with the goods. If you worked in the industry as an employee of a larger company, you would find that none of what you or I use is really touched. That is what I mean by "pro".

Vilandra wrote:You've yet to provide me with anything that would suggest I need to buy a Quadro.

All I can suggest is try it, and you will see why. I certainly can't afford to go splashing out on a two grand board just for "go faster stripes" - I bought them because they give me results, and when time is money, one has to weigh up the value, and I can genuinely say they have saved my arse on numerous occasions.
"Experience is what you have after you've forgotten their name. - Milton Berle"


http://www.robneal.co.uk
Rob Neal
 
Posts: 7164
Joined: 09/30/2008, 4:29 am
Location: London, England

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby Andrew_DeLong on 02/13/2013, 12:25 am

Vilandra wrote:
Why do I need Avid when I have Premiere?


I'm going to take focus on this, as Rob seems to have covered the rest to a greater degree than I am capable of.

First off, you'll never hear me knock Pr. Pro. I live, love, and abide by it as an EXCELLENT single machine NLE. It's simple, intuitive, and has a learning curve that's all but flat (which is good). But it is by no means a truly professional program. Semi-pro, prosumer, but not professional.

I've had the luxury of conversing with industry insiders who run legitimate editing houses, some for channels like G4, others for the WWE, and more still for ESPN. One of the many advantages of being in a broadcasting degree with professors who have amazing contacts. And in every one of those conversations, these people, these industry editors...they swear by Avid and only mildly endorse FCP. To them, Premiere isn't even on the radar.

Most commonly, I hear them tout the networking capabilities of Avid and to a much lesser extent, FCP. In either case, its something I've yet to hear bragged about by Adobe or its users. Maybe there's some third party ad-hoc network for Premiere out there, but nothing I've seen or heard of (or that these industry professionals have seen/heard of) that meets pro-grade.

Make no mistake, I've used all three NLE's, and I can say that I pretty well despise Avid for its needless complexity. But I fully understand why its considered "pro" whereas Premiere is Pro in name only.

And to mirror one of Rob's earlier points, good luck running Avid on a GTX card.


Beyond that, you need to redefine what you see as "serious." Not to belittle what you do Vilandra, but you're basically a really good freelance artist with your own setups which is fine. But you go to VFX houses, to Hollywood or large market broadcast edit house, and look for GTX cards. in those machines you work with. Tell me, any of those rigs that they provide you with have such cards? Doubtful.

To put it simply, you do work for Verizon (kudos by the way, that's no small feat). You also have to do work for large broadcasters. I have to edit for a live college sports broadcast with a potential viewing audience of at least 17,000 people (more than half of those non-college viewers)....and where I go sports is a big thing. In either case, you have a large scale delivery, and I have one too (albeit, smaller in relative terms). There's a reason my school only uses Avid officially with Quadros outfitted on all of the machines. Because they work, with (in the two years I've been on the program) nearly zero failure rate.

Honestly, as someone who works in such a field, I'm surprised that you're touting GTX cards as if they actually stand up to professional muster.

Tell me, why can I run Premiere Pro on a Quadro/Tesla combo, but I can't touch it with SLI? Why can't I run as something as high grade as Avid on a GTX card? Why is it that even FCP gets fussy with anything below a Quadro (or to a lesser extent, a "pro" ATI card)?

I find it kind of amazing that someone with your level of industry experience would (a) tout Premiere Pro over Avid and (b) try to legitimately compare GTX cards to Quadros on anything more than the most basic of terms.

Oi vay. :roll: :lol:
There are three people you meet in life.
The people you like.
The people you hate.
And the people that make you think, Oh dear sweet Buddha strike them down now.

This third group accounts for about 95% of the human species.
Andrew_DeLong
 
Posts: 1287
Joined: 01/22/2011, 10:14 pm
Location: Mooers Forks, NY.

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby Vilandra on 02/13/2013, 12:46 pm

Andrew_DeLong wrote:First off, you'll never hear me knock Pr. Pro. I live, love, and abide by it as an EXCELLENT single machine NLE. It's simple, intuitive, and has a learning curve that's all but flat (which is good). But it is by no means a truly professional program. Semi-pro, prosumer, but not professional.

I've had the luxury of conversing with industry insiders who run legitimate editing houses, some for channels like G4, others for the WWE, and more still for ESPN. One of the many advantages of being in a broadcasting degree with professors who have amazing contacts. And in every one of those conversations, these people, these industry editors...they swear by Avid and only mildly endorse FCP. To them, Premiere isn't even on the radar.

Most commonly, I hear them tout the networking capabilities of Avid and to a much lesser extent, FCP. In either case, its something I've yet to hear bragged about by Adobe or its users. Maybe there's some third party ad-hoc network for Premiere out there, but nothing I've seen or heard of (or that these industry professionals have seen/heard of) that meets pro-grade.

Make no mistake, I've used all three NLE's, and I can say that I pretty well despise Avid for its needless complexity. But I fully understand why its considered "pro" whereas Premiere is Pro in name only.

And to mirror one of Rob's earlier points, good luck running Avid on a GTX card.


Thats great, and im happy for you... But my main job is not that of an editor. My main field of work is 3D/VFX/Animation. Ive never used Avid, as the Adobe Suite contains everything I need for editing and compositing.


Andrew_DeLong wrote:Beyond that, you need to redefine what you see as "serious." Not to belittle what you do Vilandra, but you're basically a really good freelance artist with your own setups which is fine. But you go to VFX houses, to Hollywood or large market broadcast edit house, and look for GTX cards. in those machines you work with. Tell me, any of those rigs that they provide you with have such cards? Doubtful.


The studio I work for mainly uses Mac Pro's. For the longest time, they were using Radeon cards. Its only been in the last year that they upgraded one of those Mac Pro's with a Quadro (Mac Edition) so they could enable the CUDA features of CS6, and use the GPU function of one of the plugins we use for C4D.

Andrew_DeLong wrote:Honestly, as someone who works in such a field, I'm surprised that you're touting GTX cards as if they actually stand up to professional muster.


As ive said before, ive been running a GTX 560 and it has done just fine with everything ive put it through. Modeling, animation, particle simulation, compositing, editing, and rendering. Granted it only has 1 GB of RAM, it has most certainly withstood the tests I have thrown at it. It has never shown any sign of failing, or not being able to run what I use.

Andrew_DeLong wrote:Tell me, why can I run Premiere Pro on a Quadro/Tesla combo, but I can't touch it with SLI?


Im surprised someone in your field doesnt know the answer to this.... :[p SLI, and the Quadro/Tesla combo (otherwise known as Maximus) are not the same thing.

The Maximus setup uses the two GPU's, not together, but rather splits off certain tasks to each GPU. What that means is that the Tesla GPU would be responsible for anything that uses CUDA, and the Quadro would drive the display/OpenGL stuff. The CUDA rendering/acceleration would be sent to the Tesla.

The Maximus setup, at least by Adobe, is an utter waste of money, because it requires a very expensive Quadro card plus a Tesla C2075 card, that is even slower than a simple two generations old GTX 470, for the simple reason that it lacks CUDA cores and memory bandwidth to make it faster. The only thing impressive about a Maximus solution is the price. The only reason to opt for a Maximus solution, despite the cost, is if you absolutely need 10 bit output to your very expensive 10 bit monitors, and then you only get quality, not performance.

Andrew_DeLong wrote:Why can't I run as something as high grade as Avid on a GTX card?


After taking a few moments to browse the Avid community, it appears as though many Avid users are running GTX cards. Some of them say they were having some minor problems, while others said everything worked just fine.. even the GPU features. So apparently, you can run GTX card, but its technically not supported. This is the same identical scenario that Maya users have. Autodesk does not "officially" support the use of a GeForce card with Maya, however I know many Maya users that use GTX cards. Some of them have reported display trouble, other have reported certain features not working, while others have not had any problems at all.

Andrew_DeLong wrote:Why is it that even FCP gets fussy with anything below a Quadro (or to a lesser extent, a "pro" ATI card)?


Im not sure what world you're living in, but the studio I work for has been using FCP for the last 5 or so years, and none.. I repeat... NONE, of their machines had Quadro's. If what you say is true, then why does Apple recommend the use of a Radeon (OpenCL) GPU for use with FCP?? I know many Mac users that use FCP for their editing, and they are still using the Radeon HD that came with their Mac Pro.

Andrew_DeLong wrote:I find it kind of amazing that someone with your level of industry experience would (a) tout Premiere Pro over Avid and (b) try to legitimately compare GTX cards to Quadros on anything more than the most basic of terms.

Oi vay. :roll: :lol:


And I find it amusing that someone as yourself would,....

1. Put words in my mouth. I never made any such claim about Premiere being better, or the same as Avid. As I said, ive never used Avid, so how could I make such comparison. Premiere works just fine for me. None of the clients I have done work for have ever asked what I use, nor have they any concern. They care more about the finished work, rather than what hardware, or software im running.

2. The only difference between GTX and Quadro's is the additional hardware that Quadro's have (Stereo-out, 10-bit out) and more time was spent on driver development. If I do not own a 30-bit monitor, and if I do not need stereo-out, and if the software I use does not require the use of a Quadro, then why would I want to spend a ton of money on one?

You sound as if you're judging the "professionalism" of one's work to the hardware they use, vs actually viewing their work, then making the call of pro, or amateur.

In the future, if I make a switch to Mari, Maya, or any other software that requires the use of a Quadro, then I can assure you, I will switch to one.

LordEdington wrote:Sorry for getting all sarcastic, but my definition of a pro is based on their skill, experience, ability and whether they do that kind of thing full time or not. Not what specs they have and what software their computer can run.


Finally! Someone else that views professionalism by the end result (skill), and not the tools that were used.
Vilandra
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 08/13/2008, 8:40 pm
Location: Augusta, GA

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby Andrew_DeLong on 02/13/2013, 11:54 pm

Vilandra wrote:Ive never used Avid, as the Adobe Suite contains everything I need for editing and compositing.


Again, for a single machine setup, sure, Premiere is fine. But try working in tandem with other editors on the same video, scenes, show, or movie. At that point you'll be begging for Avid. Again, that's the difference between true professionalism, and a really good freelance artist. Not necessarily the skill level of the person, but the ability to work in complex setups across multiple machines in a group of equally skilled people, all for the same end goal of the project.

You don't need Avid because the work you do is professional only in the strictest sense of the word, in that you're paid for your services. I know for a fact that FCP has some type of networking capability to it, so you might consider any experience you've had there as being a lower grade of Avid work. If not, then I highly suggest you look for that experience, as it will give you a greater insight as to what Rob and I are talking about.


The studio I work for mainly uses Mac Pro's. For the longest time, they were using Radeon cards. Its only been in the last year that they upgraded one of those Mac Pro's with a Quadro (Mac Edition) so they could enable the CUDA features of CS6, and use the GPU function of one of the plugins we use for C4D.


which makes sense. ATI is really falling short these days in terms of specs and performance (at least as I see it). Hell, only their top level cards even begin to compete with mere GTX cards from Nvidia. Good on that studio for noticing the tides of progress.


As ive said before, ive been running a GTX 560 and it has done just fine with everything ive put it through. Modeling, animation, particle simulation, compositing, editing, and rendering. Granted it only has 1 GB of RAM, it has most certainly withstood the tests I have thrown at it. It has never shown any sign of failing, or not being able to run what I use.


Funny, because I've done god-awfully simple renders with 3DS Max, and my GTX card gives me trouble roughly half the time I use it. GTX 570 1.5Gb, constantly updated with drivers.


After taking a few moments to browse the Avid community, it appears as though many Avid users are running GTX cards. Some of them say they were having some minor problems, while others said everything worked just fine.. even the GPU features. So apparently, you can run GTX card, but its technically not supported. This is the same identical scenario that Maya users have. Autodesk does not "officially" support the use of a GeForce card with Maya, however I know many Maya users that use GTX cards. Some of them have reported display trouble, other have reported certain features not working, while others have not had any problems at all.


One word. Drivers. GTX cards' drivers are geared towards games, not professional rendering programs. Those "minor issues" you mentioned people talking about with Avid? Not once have I seen that happen with a Quadro setup. Nor would I expect to. Why? Because, as with any good Workstation, we keep them offline. Therefore, we only update the programs and card drivers as we need to...which is usually when a new release of Avid comes out, or the school gets new cameras that we don't have the proper codecs for. Otherwise, we leave both the drivers and Avid as is, which means no unplanned changes, and no driver issues.

People with GTX cards are probably doing more than just editing or rendering. Chances are, they're gaming as well, which means constant driver updates, not all of which fit so nicely with Maya or Avid.

Again, professionalism is more than you're making it out to be. In this case, it's having a proper and ready setup that's not riddled or even laced with "some issues." GTX cards have proven issues. Quadro cards are FAR LESS LIKELY to have those same issues. Certainly none that I've yet seen.


Im not sure what world you're living in, but the studio I work for has been using FCP for the last 5 or so years, and none.. I repeat... NONE, of their machines had Quadro's. If what you say is true, then why does Apple recommend the use of a Radeon (OpenCL) GPU for use with FCP??


My guess is because Apple has (or at least had) contracts out with ATI. Much like Adobe does with Nvidia. Kind of a mutual benefit there.

I know many Mac users that use FCP for their editing, and they are still using the Radeon HD that came with their Mac Pro.


Yeah. Because the only other non-ATI card that Apple will officially condone happens to be a Quadro card. or were you not aware of that? Those users wont switch cards because it would be too expensive for them to do so. But then, if what you're touting is true, then a GTX card should work fine in FCP. Right? :roll:



And I find it amusing that someone as yourself would,....

1. Put words in my mouth. I never made any such claim about Premiere being better, or the same as Avid. As I said, ive never used Avid, so how could I make such comparison. Premiere works just fine for me. None of the clients I have done work for have ever asked what I use, nor have they any concern. They care more about the finished work, rather than what hardware, or software im running.

2. The only difference between GTX and Quadro's is the additional hardware that Quadro's have (Stereo-out, 10-bit out) and more time was spent on driver development. If I do not own a 30-bit monitor, and if I do not need stereo-out, and if the software I use does not require the use of a Quadro, then why would I want to spend a ton of money on one?


Regarding Avid...see my above remarks in this post. :lol:

On Quadros...note the drivers my friend. There's a difference between game-oriented drivers which just happen to work for a few 3D programs, and professional drivers that are geared towards the heaviest of programs. It's not just hardware (though that is obviously a factor).


You sound as if you're judging the "professionalism" of one's work to the hardware they use, vs actually viewing their work, then making the call of pro, or amateur.


Lets be clear here. I view this subject in four grades. From lowest to highest they are as follows:
1) Enthusiast/Hobbyist
2) Amateur
3) Freelance-paid
4) Professional.

Regarding the last two, the difference is the capability (both with skill and hardware) to work in the highest settings, such as editing and VFX houses.... versus the ability to work solo. Being paid is a given in both instances, so I don't count that into the "professional metric." I look at one's ability to work in settings that have the highest demands.

In your case, anything you do in an edit house I see as truly professional, as you have to use what is given to you, which is usually top-line as seen by your employer. When you're doing your freelance work, I see you as highly skilled, but not an industry pro. If I sound like an a$$ by saying this, I apologize. But I have a clear view of what I see as professional.

In the future, if I make a switch to Mari, Maya, or any other software that requires the use of a Quadro, then I can assure you, I will switch to one.


I have the distinct feeling that you'll probably avoid those programs if at all possible :P
There are three people you meet in life.
The people you like.
The people you hate.
And the people that make you think, Oh dear sweet Buddha strike them down now.

This third group accounts for about 95% of the human species.
Andrew_DeLong
 
Posts: 1287
Joined: 01/22/2011, 10:14 pm
Location: Mooers Forks, NY.

Re: Better rendering performance with dual 670's?

Postby jmisfit2013 on 02/16/2013, 7:03 am

>-|| @ This ENTIRE thread.


I run a 680, LOVE it. You guys have certainly made some valid points even if you're biased for one brand or another.

I think we're all serious about what we do so let's leave that out of this discussion as well as elementary spec bashing. What compelled me to read this entire thread is beyond me but I was captivated by everyone's "Know it all" points and actual knowledge.

Carry on Dear fellow designers!
jmisfit2013
 
Posts: 27
Joined: 01/28/2013, 4:39 pm
Location: Austin TX.

Next

Return to Computer Hardware & Technology