Certain graphics cards overkill?

GordyHinky wrote on 5/25/2004, 10:33 PM

I want to be running dual monitors. I was just wondering if having a really expensive high end graphics card makes a difference with Vegas or Premiere Pro? Something like the ATI Fire or Nvidia Quadro. If so, why does it make a difference? If not, what is decent card, and why is it the one you would choose?

Does using something like the Matrox P650 or P750 or Parhelia make a big difference? Or are there better cards for less money that might be a better all-around card?

Comments

Spot|DSE wrote on 5/26/2004, 12:13 AM

Doesn't make a big difference. We use Parhelia, Millenium 650 (triple head) and the G550 on our machines.
Other than the OGL bennies for the Red plug, not much there to take advantage of.

GordyHinky wrote on 5/26/2004, 12:47 AM

What about OpenGL? Won't that be beneficial to Premiere Pro?

How does the P650 triple head work?

TheHappyFriar wrote on 5/26/2004, 6:33 AM

The ATI AIw's all have duel support (i think. I have the AIW 9600 Pro, it does).

ATI AIW cards can be bought cheap (an AIW 7500 or 8500). Check out their specs to see if they all support duel head (www.ati.com).

farss wrote on 5/26/2004, 7:11 AM

One thing to watch with the cheap dual head cards, none of them have dual DVI which is a bit of a pain if you want to run dual LCDs.

FuTz wrote on 5/26/2004, 8:29 AM

I **think** OpenGL is usefull with 3D apps and does nothing to 2D/ "normal" video stuff. But since V5 has got new 3D features, it would be a plus to have it. Also if you use Satish's Wax too (with V5 or V4)...

Chienworks wrote on 5/26/2004, 9:17 AM

<total guess mode>
Considering what i know of how Vegas works (and that's not much at all), i wouldn't think that OpenGL would help even when using the 3D track motion modes. Vegas' primary duty is to produce video output frames, not to display 3D space on the screen. Even if Vegas did use OpenGL to render the 3D frame, it would then have to somehow read that information from the graphics card back into it's own memory space to create the video frame for it. This might possibly be more effort than simply rendering the 3D internally to a 2D frame and displaying it. Add on top of that that any number of processor intensive 2D effects may be added to the frame even after the 3D rendering is done, and using the graphics card's 3D processor just doesn't seem to make sense.
</total guess mode>

GordyHinky wrote on 5/26/2004, 10:49 AM

So what card do you (or anyone) suggest?

Spot|DSE wrote on 5/26/2004, 11:00 AM

I suggested 3 multi-head cards above. Any of the Matrox, any of the Nvidia without all the fancies, any of the ATI without all the fancies.
If you are also playing games, then you'll want the fancies.

roger_74 wrote on 5/26/2004, 11:15 AM

Sorry for hijacking the thread...

For triplehead, is Matrox the only alternative?