Opinions ATI or Nvidia for 12

bigrock wrote on 11/1/2012, 7:03 PM
One of my old ATI cards a 2900 finally gave up the ghost so I going to buy a new top end card for my main machine (and push the remaining cards down the chain of command in handme down fashion). So my question what do people feel is better for V12 - an ATI 7970 or an nVidia GTX 680? I think the nVidia is better on Abode Premiere, correct?

Comments

Christian Danvill (DK) wrote on 11/1/2012, 7:26 PM
Just bought an MSI 680 Lightning (N680GTX)
Vegas 12 supported it for general timeline playback, tests of FX starburst default on Best / Full preview on a 1440x1080 AVC clips showed 10 frames sec - grafikkortettet GPU showed only 50% load.

Render a movie does not work with GPU for me, so there is a conflict between what sony write on the website for GTX 6xx and reality as sony vegas 12 Build 367 softwaree not working right with these new cards:

CORREDIOM TO MY OWN POST:

I just found out something I wrote - Vegas 12 with GPU acceleration
and MSI GTX 680 graphics card could not render a video, it works but only where there is a plug-in effects using GPU instance FX Starburst that is, if the video clip is clean, use sony vegas no GPU acceleration. but only CPU to render the video clip, I will I tell to Sony vegas support it.

TEST;
PC: intel core 2 qued CPU Q8300 2.50GHz (slow)
Graphics MSI 680 Lightning (N689GTX)
Graphics Driver Nvidia 301.10 and Nidia 310.33
Video Format AVCHD 1400x1080 - 30.sek
Render Code Sony AVC / MVC profile High, CABAC, frame 25 pal, bit rate 10000.00, Encode fashion GPU

ON PC CPU - without any effects 1.15 min
On Graphics Card GPU - without any effects 1.10 min

ON PC CPU - FX starburst over 60 minutes (1 hour)
ON Graphice card GPU with FX Starburst 1.20 min


Ryadia wrote on 11/1/2012, 7:50 PM
I've got both Nvida and Radeon cards (in different PCs). There isn't much difference between the two except when you play back your movie. The Gforce card gives you better reproduction -- as in equal to a 16:9 TV.

If I had to use computer monitors for editing, I definitely go for the Nvidia card. If you get one with HDMI outlet you can hook a TV into the system and see what you are getting as you edit..

My workstation has 2, 24" wide screen Samsung LED backlit monitors and a Sony 60" TV. Being able to watch what I've done on the TV lets me see little errors I'd miss on the monitors.

Don't over look the low priced GX660 Gforce.
ushere wrote on 11/1/2012, 8:24 PM
+1 nvidia
videoITguy wrote on 11/1/2012, 9:09 PM
If you scan all the recent posts about Videocards and drivers from ATI and NVidia - well there is no consistent pattern at all to discern any potential for any difference. Some people are using cheap stuff and getting away with it, some are using the most expensive and getting killed.

You try and decide!
ritsmer wrote on 11/2/2012, 4:13 AM
@Christian: The possible gain from GPU assisted rendering depends -among other things- on the codec used.

For some codecs you may have to switch it on in the codec settings.

Einar
DK
mikkie wrote on 11/2/2012, 12:10 PM
***YMMV***

I've run ATI for a decade+ & likely switching to Nvidia next year when prices drop.

AMD/ATI is cutting back, driver development has slowed, the last couple of driver releases broke mpg2 in VP 11. ATI's also removed some of their video processing code from their driver set, I suspect rather than adapt that code to work in win8 -- there have been reports of several video apps not working with ATI assist any longer. To say ATI drivers can have install issues would be an understatement. Many more video-related apps have GPU assist for Nvidia than ATI, e.g. P/Pro.

That said, with a 6870 [as & because recommended by Sony] I've had very good results.