No, first in the newer cards is the GTX 1050 with Studio drivers, the older need the newest GR driver.
Studio drivers is not for GTX 970
As I said, "everyone with compatible cards". As such, this would not apply to the 9xx series and previous.
65 % more performance for RTX 2080ti versus AMD vega 64 I would not call nvidea lacking performance...
Yes, the $1000+ 2080ti is much faster when playing 4K games and some other apps but it currently does not provide a big-enough gain in Vegas to make it worth 3X more than my $350 liquid-cooled Vega 64... I primarily use Vegas for my paid editing work so I'm not as interested as others with how my GPU performs in other apps...
Well, check the Vegas Pro specific benchmarks I referenced above...
https://techgage.com/article/exploring-magix-vegas-pro-16-gpu-performance/
the Vega 64 are neck and neck with 2080, and in quite a few, Vega 64 is actually surpassing its performance. In gaming or other applications, 2080 certainly might be well outperforming, but on Vegas specific tasks, no.
And if you look at the benchmark posts on these forums you will see that my $350 liquid-cooled Vega 64 is performing nearly as well as much more expensive GPUs, including AMD's $700 Radeon 7... I only spent $1350 to upgrade an old Xeon workstation to a 9900K cpu, liquid cpu cooler, Asus workstation-class motherboard, DDR4, and liquid-cooled Vega 64... Some 2080TI cost $1350 depending on cooling... In business, money saved is money earned... My projects are getting sent-out just as fast with the Vega 64, so why spend more? If something much faster comes along I can always upgrade then... A GPU swap is one of the easiest upgrades...
Personnally, I think NVidia needs to create an adaptative drivers system, according to current use ; switching to a GameReady optimization when we running a game, and switching to Studio optimization when running a NLE, CAD/CAM softwares. Especially to this era where we capture our gaming sessions and next editing it.
If it can not do it automatically, a manual toggle may be enough. But reinstall full drivers packages between two uses is really boring!
Why to forcing us to one or other. Life is not all black or all white. We can play and work on same machine.
Personnally, I think NVidia needs to create an adaptative drivers system, according to current use ; switching to a GameReady optimization when we running a game, and switching to Studio optimization when running a NLE, CAD/CAM softwares. Especially to this era where we capture our gaming sessions and next editing it.
If it can not do it automatically, a manual toggle may be enough. But reinstall full drivers packages between two uses is really boring!Why to forcing us to one or other. Life is not all black or all white. We can play and work on same machine.
The name of the driver doesn't matter as much as its version number. If Studio and Game Ready drivers come out with the same version number, that means that both are the exact same driver, and have the exact same end result once installed. Studio includes gaming optimizations, and Game Ready includes Studio optimizations. It's all the same core driver.
The reason Studio exists is because it lets people know that that particular driver version has been validated for creator use, much in the same manner the Quadro drivers are validated.
Personnally, I think NVidia needs to create an adaptative drivers system, according to current use ; switching to a GameReady optimization when we running a game, and switching to Studio optimization when running a NLE, CAD/CAM softwares. Especially to this era where we capture our gaming sessions and next editing it.
If it can not do it automatically, a manual toggle may be enough. But reinstall full drivers packages between two uses is really boring!Why to forcing us to one or other. Life is not all black or all white. We can play and work on same machine.
Studio is basically nothing but a more conservative driver with optimizations for Creative Apps. The Creative App optimizations eventually make it over to the GameReady Drivers, and vice versa. The two merge as they move on, even though the game and studio optimizations are developed in separate branches. They just allow users to pick a branch, but eventually you get a build that is largely interchangeable.
Which is why I have never bothered with the Studio Drivers.
Thus far, I've never used an app (or rather, I don't own any) that is buggy with GameReady but works with Studio.
65 % more performance for RTX 2080ti versus AMD vega 64 I would not call nvidea lacking performance...
Yes, the $1000+ 2080ti is much faster when playing 4K games and some other apps but it currently does not provide a big-enough gain in Vegas to make it worth 3X more than my $350 liquid-cooled Vega 64... I primarily use Vegas for my paid editing work so I'm not as interested as others with how my GPU performs in other apps...
Well, check the Vegas Pro specific benchmarks I referenced above...
https://techgage.com/article/exploring-magix-vegas-pro-16-gpu-performance/
the Vega 64 are neck and neck with 2080, and in quite a few, Vega 64 is actually surpassing its performance. In gaming or other applications, 2080 certainly might be well outperforming, but on Vegas specific tasks, no.And if you look at the benchmark posts on these forums you will see that my $350 liquid-cooled Vega 64 is performing nearly as well as much more expensive GPUs, including AMD's $700 Radeon 7... I only spent $1350 to upgrade an old Xeon workstation to a 9900K cpu, liquid cpu cooler, Asus workstation-class motherboard, DDR4, and liquid-cooled Vega 64... Some 2080TI cost $1350 depending on cooling... In business, money saved is money earned... My projects are getting sent-out just as fast with the Vega 64, so why spend more? If something much faster comes along I can always upgrade then... A GPU swap is one of the easiest upgrades...
Do you only use VEGAS on your PC? Cause there are a lot of other Pro Apps with CUDA optimizations targeting Nvidia graphics cards, and they routinely perform better than AMD in those apps - in some cases, with sizeable margins.
It's the VEGAS Pro forum, but when we make these purchasing decisions... VEGAS Pro is definitely not the only thing that should be taken into account...
If all you use is VEGAS Pro and barely anything else, then sure... Save the money :-P
Money saved is money earned, but TCO is actually a thing in business, as well. A lot of people buy the expensive Nvidia cards because they will be viable a bit longer than the AMD card..
If you have to upgrade the AMD earlier than the Nvidia, then the disparity in pricing actually goes down. You just don't see it when you make the purchase.
This was actually a big problem with AMD's pre-Ryzen CPUs. They gave lots of "cores" at a low price, but they started feeling slow a lot faster than Intel's, so you'd end up upgrading them earlier/more... which significantly ate away at the money you "saved" going with them over Intel in the first place.
Do you only use VEGAS on your PC? Cause there are a lot of other Pro Apps with CUDA optimizations targeting Nvidia graphics cards, and they routinely perform better than AMD in those apps - in some cases, with sizeable margins... Money saved is money earned, but TCO is actually a thing in business, as well. A lot of people buy the expensive Nvidia cards because they will be viable a bit longer than the AMD card...
Vegas & Photoshop are the apps I use the most & they both perform better/same on my 9900K/Vega64 than much pricier options... I have (3) workstations that are often all performing tasks at once which maximizes my production better than having just a single extremely fast system... IMO it is better to choose best bang/buck components & keep all relatively fast vs. spending 2X the funds just to make one 10%-20% faster... In my case, if a new GPU seriously increases render speeds, etc. I can just move my $350 Vega64 to another workstation where it will still make money for me... IMO it won't be long before another $350 GPU choice performs as well as a $1000+ Nvidia 2080 ti, so I'll consider upgrading again at that time...
This was actually a big problem with AMD's pre-Ryzen CPUs. They gave lots of "cores" at a low price, but they started feeling slow a lot faster than Intel's, so you'd end up upgrading them earlier/more... which significantly ate away at the money you "saved" going with them over Intel in the first place.
About a year ago the Threadripper 1950x cost nearly $1000 but now it can be found for $425 due to the release of the $450 9900K or $500 Zen2 which perform similarly. However, Threadripper still requires a more expensive motherboard, 4 vs. 2 sticks of faster DDR4, high-end cooling, etc. to overclock & perform well. IMO the best choices now are the 9900K or wait for the Zen2 3950X...
IMO the best choices now are the 9900K or wait for the Zen2 3950X...
Keep in mind that the 9900k has only 16PCIE lanes, by far less then a 1950x.