Puget Systems print logo

https://www.pugetsystems.com

Read this article at https://www.pugetsystems.com/guides/162
Article Thumbnail

Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 GPU Acceleration

Written on September 28, 2012 by Matt Bach
Share:

Introduction


Edit 10/3/2013: Interested in how workstation cards perform in Premiere Pro CC? Check out our follow-up article: Adobe Premiere Pro CC Professional GPU Acceleration


With Premiere Pro CS6, Adobe utilizes the Mercury Playback Engine which uses the video card to vastly improve the performance of certain features. This is a great way to easily improve performance, but it adds more complexity to the question of "what hardware do I need" since until now the video card was not a major factor in the performance equation.

Default config file showing which cards can utilize MPE GPU Acceleration

Adobe has a list of video cards that are compatible with the Mercury Playback Engine (MPE), but - as is often the case with compatibility lists - it is at times slightly outdated as new products are continuously being released. In fact, the official list does not include any of the current generation NVIDIA 600-series cards at the moment, yet if you look in the actual configuration file the GeForce GTX 680 and GeForce GT 650M are both listed. One thing to note is that even if Premiere is not able to use the GPU for MPE acceleration, it can always utilize software-level support. This allows all the effects that require MPE to still function, but you will not receive any of the performance advantages present by using a compatible video card.

Warning: Many of the cards we test below are not on Adobe's official list of compatible cards.  To use them will require that you manually edit your Premiere Pro CS6 configuration file.  While we did not see any problems in our testing with these 'incompatible' cards, technically these are unsupported configurations and our expectation is that Adobe Support would treat them as such if you ever needed their help.

A very important fact about the Mercury Playback Engine is that it exclusively uses CUDA on the Windows OS, which is a NVIDIA proprietary technology. Adobe has been adding OpenCL (and thus AMD) support on Mac OS, but has not yet done so on Windows. So for now, NVIDIA cards are the only ones that can take advantage of the huge performance gains available by using GPU acceleration in Premiere.

In this article, we want to explore the performance differences between a wide range of different video cards. In order to do so, we will be using the not-yet finalized Premiere Pro Benchmark (PPBM6) for Adobe Premiere CS6. While this benchmark is not yet released, our testing showed that it is very good at accurately showing the differences between video cards. This is basically a beta of the PPBM6 benchmark, so our results may not line up 100% with the final version. For the purpose of showing the performance difference between our test cards, however, we found that it does a terrific job.

Test Setup

Since some of the cards that we are testing are not natively supported by the Mercury Playback Engine, we will be editing the configuration file to allow us to enable MPE GPU acceleration. Full instructions for doing so can be found here. After making the edit for the cards that needed it, we ensured that MPE GPU acceleration was enabled then followed the benchmarking instructions for the PPMB6 benchmark. Since the disk test will not utilize the GPU very much, we will only be reporting on the MPEG2-DVD, H.264 and MPE results. For more information on each section, we recommend reading the background information for PPBM6.

MPE GPU Acceleration setting Media Encoder Setup

To make sure that the chipset and CPU did not affect our results, we used two separate testing platforms consisting of the following hardware:


To test a wide spectrum of GPUs, we tested the following cards (video driver version listed in parentheses):

NVIDIA GeForce NVIDIA Quadro
GTX 580 1.5GB (306.23) Quadro 4000 2GB (305.93)
GTX 680 2GB (306.23) Quadro 2000 1GB (305.93)
GTX 670 2GB (306.23)*  
GTX 660 Ti 2GB (306.23)*  
GTX 660 2GB (306.23)*  
GTX 650 1GB (306.23)*  
GT 610 (306.23)*  

*Required editing "cuda_supported_cards.txt" in order to enable MPE GPU acceleration

Results

Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 GPU Benchmark

Totaling the time it took to complete the three sections of the benchmark gives us results that are strikingly similar to our Adobe Photoshop CS6 GPU Acceleration results. Namely that until you get to the GeForce GTX 650, the GTX line of cards all perform at nearly the same level. The GT 610 was at the bottom of our results by a pretty large margin, so we can say for sure that using a GTX 650/Quadro 2000 or above is certainly worth the monetary cost.

Sometimes these types of graphs can be hard to translate into real-world situations. To help with that, we also formatted the data in three other ways including the benchmark time compared to the fastest card and how many more/less minutes a one hour render/encode would take. To help give a sense of scale as to how much better using GPU acceleration is compared to using the CPUs only for rendering, we also included results with the MPE running in software mode (no GPU acceleration).

First of all, it is very, very clear that using a supported GPU makes a huge difference in terms of performance. While a GTX 650 1GB would add an extra 3.5 minutes to a one hour render/encode, and a GT 610 would add 40-60 minutes, using just software only would add roughly four additional hours. What this shows is that even if you are on the tightest budget, getting at least an NVIDIA GT 610 1GB is well worth the monetary cost. 

If you would like to see the results for any individual test for either chipset, feel free to click on any of the thumbnails below. We left off the software only results since adding them would have completely removed any visual nuances between the results.

Z77 Chipset      
X79 Chipset      

 

Geforce vs. Quadro

NVIDIA Quadro line may not be as fast as similarly priced GeForce cards, but what many do not realize is that Quadro cards are not primarily about speed. The main feature of Quadro is their double precision performance which allows the card to be many times more precise. As a roughly comparison, consider the difference you would get if you were to compute the area of a circle with pi being just 3.14 versus 3.14159. The difference is small, but it can easily compound over time. In addition, some of the higher end Quadro card (the 5000 and 6000) also use ECC memory for their video RAM which greatly increases reliability.

Most of the time, double precision computing is not really needed since there is nothing in the code that needs results that precise. So the question of GeForce vs. Quadro is really about whether or not the program is designed to need double precision from the GPU or not. In most situations, a GeForce card will likely work great for you. If you use some unusual GPU accelerated software that actually needs high double precision performance, however, you will definitely want a Quadro video card.

In the case of Premiere, it is really more about driver support than anything else. At the time of this article, Adobe has primarily certified only Quadro cards for GPU acceleration in Premiere. This may change in the future (and you can make GeForce cards work fairly easily), but for now if you want 100% support from Adobe for Premiere Pro CS6 you will want a Quadro card. If you are fine not being completely covered, however, a GeForce card is going to give you much more "bang for the buck".

Conclusion

If you decide that a GeForce card is suitable for your needs, the GeForce GTX 650 does a very reasonable job and is almost able to match the other GTX cards. Although if you did decide to go with a GTX 650, we would highly recommend using a 2GB version. For the best possible speeds, the GeForce GTX 660 Ti, GTX 670, GTX 680, and GTX 580 all have essentially identical performance, which makes the GTX 660 Ti a very strong candidate as it is much cheaper than the other cards. From a native support standpoint, the GTX 680 is a great choice simply because you do not need to manually edit any configuration files in order for MPE GPU acceleration to function.

The Quadro 4000 does very well, matching the speed of even the fastest GeForce GTX cards we tested. The Quadro 2000 has a bit of a performance drop, but considering that it is half the price of the Quadro 4000 does fairly well.

One aspect that this type of benchmarking does not touch on is video RAM. If you are working with very high resolution stills or have a very complex timeline, you need a video card that has enough video RAM to keep everything in said vRAM or else the MPE acceleration is handed off to the CPU. The exact amount of vRAM needed is very difficult to determine ahead of time, but one formula from Adobe is available for amount of vRAM needed for still frames. This formula is (width x height)/16,384 megabytes. The example from Adobe in the post maximum dimensions in Adobe Premiere Pro CS5, CS5.5, and CS6 is:
For example, one image size from a Canon T2i is 5184×3456. Doing the math, this requires 1,094MB, which just exceeds the 1GB available on the Quadro FX 3800, but is still within the 1.5GB of the Quadro FX 4800.
This is not very intuitive, so for the majority of users the general consensus among professionals using Premiere is that you want a video card with at least 1.5GB of vRAM. Most cards today use RAM in increments of 1GB, so when shopping for a video card you want to look for one with at least 2GB of vRAM. Once you have that sorted out, you can make use of our benchmark results to determine which video card is right for you to use with Adobe Premiere Pro CS6.

Tags: Advice, Technology, Premiere, Performance
Twillert

The Adobe Photoshop CS6 article also included the Intel HD4000. I presume that the reason is the CUDA as the AMD cards are also missing. I would also like to see the difference with a processor only system.

Posted on 2012-09-29 12:16:22

For Photoshop CS6, the GPU accelleration is done via OpenCL - which means that any modern video card (NVIDIA, AMD, or Intel) will work... just to varying degrees.  

With Premiere Pro, though, CUDA is used - so only NVIDIA cards will work.  We did run a comparison without the GPU accelleration enabled, though, so that folks could see the impact that having *any* compatible GPU would bring.  You can see that comparison in the article above: look for the three small graphs a little below the big one, and enlarge them (click on them) to see that info.

Posted on 2012-10-02 17:24:55

The only thing I would add to this is that Adobe is in the process of adding OpenCL support to the Mac version of Premier. So while it may not happen for a while, at some point in the future OpenCL (and thus Intel/AMD) support for Premiere should happen. But that is very likely to be years out, so it is likely not worth planning for at this moment.

Posted on 2012-10-02 17:41:46
willy

hi! first of all, forgive my english; it's not good even as second language. after reading your article, i'm ready to purchase a nvidia gtx 650 to take advantage of mpe on premiere cs6... but have to questions: 1) my mobo is an "old" intel dp45sg, which has two PCI-E 2.0 slots, and this card is PCI-E 3.0. will i have any trouble (incompatibility, performance loss) because of this? 2) i'd buy the 2 GB gtx 650 version; in fact, there are vendors that offer the zotac gtx 650 with 2 gb ddr5 in my country, but i looked in the official nvidia site and there it only appears a 1 gb version of the gtx 650... i wonder why? thanks in advance!

Posted on 2012-11-22 06:52:39
Rosa Gorgatti

hi. after reading your article i'm almost ready to upgrade my nvidia 9800gt (512 mb vram) to a gtx 650 with 2 gb vram. just got one question: my mobo is an intel dp45sg, with pci-e 2.0, and the gtx 650 is pci-e 3.0... will i have any performance or compatibility issues? thank you very much in advance!

Posted on 2012-11-23 04:56:56

PCI Express is designed to be backward (and forward) compatible.  You should not have any problem running that card in your motherboard.  Technically you will only get PCI-E 2.0 levels of bandwidth between the card and motherboard, but that is not generally a performance limitation for these types of applications... so I wouldn't worry about it!

Posted on 2012-11-23 06:11:56
leonard

how izit with a 650 is a equal with 680? 

Posted on 2012-12-14 01:12:46

The 680 is still faster, but by a very narrow margin. What this basically means is that the video card is not the limiting factor for Photoshop once you get above the GTX 650. We used pretty high-end hardware in our test systems, so even if it was the CPU or RAM that is the limiting factor, there isn't much you can do about that with today's technology. Most likely it is a simple matter of the software not being able to effectively use all the power available with the higher-end video cards. 

Posted on 2012-12-14 01:20:44
Muhammed Ahmed

i have installed a quadro 4000 recently, and see no improvement in premiere pro cs6 performance.

Posted on 2013-01-08 09:37:27

What video card did you have before? Are you working with the right video type to utilize the Mercury Playback Engine (which is what benefits from GPU acceleration)? If so, have you made sure that it is enabled properly? See this post for some more info: http://www.pugetsystems.com...

Posted on 2013-01-08 17:14:02
Kostya

Hello. I woild like to know how can i make my laptop run the MPE with geforce gt 650m? in that article you show text file that have this card in the list, but when i check same text file on my system it's did't written there.

thanks.

Posted on 2013-01-22 00:23:35

Make sure that Premier Pro has been updated to the latest version since that file changes as Adobe adds more cards to their supported list. If it isn't there, you can add it manually which should allow it to work. If you have to edit the file though, it is technically unsupported by Adobe so don't expect to get any support from them if something goes wrong.

Posted on 2013-01-22 00:34:46
Vlad

My 9800GT 512mb just fried and I'm in the process of finding a replacement that is also able to use the MPE. I'm osculating between the 650 2GB and the 650 Ti 1GB.

Since the 650 Ti was not launched yet when this article was written, I was wondering if the 2GB recommendation still stands for it. Does the doubling of CUDA cores offset the lack of 1GB of RAM? Or the lack of ram still affect the total size of the frame but the doubling of CUDA cores allow for a more complex sequence?

So, is it the 650 with 2GB or the 650 Ti with 1GB? I know there is a 650 Ti with 2GB but that gets way out of budget at $215 in my market.

Posted on 2013-03-10 21:33:49

It depends on how much video RAM you need. If you are only doing light video editing, I would go with the 650 Ti 1GB. You don't get extra performance out of having extra video memory, so in that case it is better to get the card with more cores. Plus, it will be better in almost every other application as well (either gaming or anything with video acceleration)

If you do need more than 1GB of video RAM, then the 650 2GB card will be faster than the 650 Ti 1GB. The hard part is figuring out how much RAM you actually do need. Since you cannot use MPE with your current card, you unfortunately can't just use a program like GPU-Z to see how much video RAM you are currently using. If you are only using one or two sources and don't apply a ton of effects, the 1GB card is likely more than enough. If you do very heavy editing, you might want to go with the 2GB card to be on the safe side. It will be slightly slower if you do not use more than 1GB of video RAM, but in the cases that you do it will be much faster overall.

Posted on 2013-03-11 17:01:03
Andreas Lindhé

Can someone link me a guide on how to configure MPE GPU acceleration to work with 660? I don't feel so sure on how to do this...

Posted on 2013-04-24 21:38:37

There is a little more info about this in a blog we posted when the MPE first debuted (CS5):

http://www.pugetsystems.com...

Specifically, the direct link to another source with specific instructions is here:

http://blog.krama.tv/hackin...

Posted on 2013-04-24 21:52:27
Andreas Lindhé

Thank you sir! :)

Posted on 2013-04-25 08:47:58
Dilemma

How would the X79 stack up against the haswell chipset?

Posted on 2013-07-16 11:56:30

In most benchmarks, Haswell is about 10-15% faster than Ivy Bridge (Z77). So based on that, X79 should still be better than Haswell, but only by something like 15-20%. We are starting to get ready for another round of these GPU acceleration articles with newer hardware, so if you can wait a few months, we should have actual Premiere Pro benchmark results for Haswell .

Posted on 2013-07-16 18:31:59
Dilemma

Would be interesting to see some bench results for After Effects CS6 if possible. As I understand it with AE its all about the processor.

Posted on 2013-09-02 18:46:35

Great article!

Any plans to update this with the newer GTX700, ATI 7900 series of cards?

Posted on 2013-09-10 17:02:11

Not at the moment, although we are getting ready to do this with the newer Quadro and FirePro cards. After that round, we will evaluate whether or not we should do an updated round with the newer desktop cards.

Posted on 2013-09-10 19:24:47
Jaydi

Hello, I have two AMD Radeon HD 7870, according to the Adove list my GPUs are compatible with Premiere Pro CS6 acelleration settings, but I can't get it to work, any help please!!!

Posted on 2013-09-11 03:47:09

No AMD video cards work with the GPU acceleration in CS5 / CS6, unfortunately. Those versions only had CUDA support, which is exclusively a NVIDIA technology.

If you want to use your AMD cards, you will need to upgrade to CC (Creative Cloud) - the latest version from Adobe. It added OpenGL acceleration, which works on AMD cards.

Posted on 2013-09-11 04:38:15
Jaydi

I understand, Thank you so much for the info!

Posted on 2013-09-11 05:54:24
Fronkle

Hi there, I have a graphics card question. I'm wanting to update my graphics card to one supported in adobe's GPU accelerated list. I'm currently working on a Dell Precision T3500 (Couple years old, I know) and I have downloaded Adobe CC. If I'm in the $200-250 range for cards, which NVIDIA card would be my best bet to purchase? Ofcourse, anything cheaper than that range would be even better! I do a lot of heavy editing through work, utilizing premiere and after effects frequently.

Posted on 2013-09-23 18:16:19

Adobe doesn't do a good job of keeping their GPU lists updated - and none of the cards currently shown on their list are in that price range. However, the GeForce GTX 660 should do well - it did great in our tests above, if you want to check them out. Further, I *think* that the latest CC version no longer checks to see if the card is on their list... my understanding is that anything with CUDA or OpenCL support should just work. If not, though, the work-around used in CS5 and CS6 is pretty easy.

Posted on 2013-09-23 18:25:36
Fronkle

Thank you for the quick reply :)

Posted on 2013-09-23 18:35:24

Just a quick note about this since I've been working with Premiere Pro CC this last week. CC does check if the card is on their supported list, but all that happens if the card is not on the list is you get a one-time pop-up saying something along the lines of "this card is not officially supported" when you first enable GPU acceleration. So you don't have to mess with any text files, but Adobe is still making it clear when you are using a card that is not officially supported.

Posted on 2013-09-23 19:20:48
Logan

I have amd fx 8350 cpu with 8gb of ram & 1gb nvidia fx 2000 gpu still I'm facing trouble with video editing in premiere pro cs6 while playback it is getting stuck even in pal (16:9, 25fps) video when I'm applying cross dissolve it is not even playing the video for past 2 months I'm using the same system to edit HD videos I cant figure out what the actual problem is? I'm using rovi codec pack to import mpeg 2 video format.

Posted on 2013-09-25 02:23:14

Are you sure you are using the NVIDIA Quadro FX 2000? If so, that is a very old card... and that is likely the problem. Can you double-check that?

My guess, whatever your video card is, is that it may not be set up to be used by Premiere correctly. Even then, though, it should fall back on the CPU alone... and while AMD chips aren't as powerful as Intel in most respects, the FX 8350 should be giving you at least decent results.

You might also want to look at your drive setup. What sort of drive are the files you are working with on? Is it fast enough, and connected to the computer via a fast connection (SATA, USB 3.0 - rather than Firewire or USB 2.0)?

Posted on 2013-09-25 05:42:06
Jim *

Hello I have no experience working with computers that have a GPU so I have no frame of reference for a new purchase. I'm buying a new laptop and would appreciate a recommendation on which GPU to buy: Quadro K1000M or K2000M. It is for a Lenovo W530 laptop.

I will be doing heavy photo editing, and some video editing (possibly a good amount I'm not sure yet).

Is the Quadro K2000M worth the additional cost?
Do any photo editing programs utilize CUDA? If not, then the K1000M is fine because the only difference between the two GPU's is the CUDA core amount, correct?
For video editing programs, will the CUDA core amount difference between the two GPU's make a dramatic enough difference for video editing to be worth the additional cost?

Thank you, I greatly appreciate any feedback. This decision has been making me crazy.

Posted on 2013-10-03 20:18:16

For photo editing, you usually don't need a very powerful GPU. There are some effects that can use GPU acceleration (see our Photoshop GPU article for more information: http://www.pugetsystems.com... ) but the CPU tends to have a much bigger impact than the GPU. So unless you consistently use effects that are GPU accelerated, I would recommend the K1000M over the K2000M and use the difference in price to get a faster CPU and an SSD.

For video editing, the specific software you are using and the size/complexity of the video itself is going to affect whether the K2000M is worth it. If you are doing light video editing (couple of clips, only a few effects and transitions) then the K2000M probably won't be any faster than the K1000M. We just did a follow-up to this article where we focused on workstation graphics ( http://www.pugetsystems.com... ) and we found that in Premiere Pro, you tend to hit a performance wall at some point where the CPU becomes the bottleneck. We didn't do any testing with laptops, but I would suspect that this "wall" will happen even sooner with mobile CPUs since they are less powerful than their desktop counterparts.

The one thing I did notice is that the Lenovo W530 is a generation behind on the chipset and CPU. It shouldn't cause much of a performance difference, but you might want to check our Traverse Pro line which is using the latest hardware revisions - http://www.pugetsystems.com... . I can guarantee you'll get better support from us and our sales reps can really help you tailor the entire laptop to exactly match your needs. Our Wide Gamut screens in particular might interest you since you are doing heavy photo editing.

Posted on 2013-10-03 21:24:47
Jim *

Thank you for the reply I appreciate it. I didn't even realize I was posting in your company's forum until you replied. I just came across the forum topic in google. Ha I feel silly asking about Lenovo in a different company's forum sorry. I would love to support any other company than Lenovo I have no love for them. Buuut, I cannot work without a pointing stick because I'm so used to it and cannot use a touchpad or even a mouse anymore without stress. But I will be sure to recommend your company to my friends your customer service is clearly excellent.

Posted on 2013-10-03 21:51:20

Don't worry about it, we often help out people who don't own or for whatever reason can't purchase one of our systems. In fact, some of the biggest traffic from articles like this is from people who build their own computers. We've always felt that there simply is no reason to alienate people who don't own our products. It doesn't do any good, and often the questions asked are ones that our own customers might benefit from in the future. Plus, you are the perfect example of how it often also earns us word of mouth recommendations!

Off topic, thats really interesting about the pointing stick. I've never given that any thought, but I completely understand how long term use of a trackpad or mouse could cause issues. Too bad theres no other convenient input options for laptops beyond touchpads and mice.

Posted on 2013-10-03 22:50:48

I liked those ThinkPad style sticks too! I had one on a Toshiba back in high school, and it was way better for gaming than a trackpad. Sadly the only folks still using them are Lenovo at this point, and not even on all their models.

A free-standing mouse is my preference now, though, as you can use one with a desktop or laptop. I like the full-size ones, that fit your hand really well, rather than the small / ultra-portable ones.

Sorry, took you a bit further off the topic at hand :)

Posted on 2013-10-03 22:58:19
Jim *

Yes I wish companies like yours could offer pointing sticks on their keyboards because once you learn to use one they are great because your fingers never have to leave the keyboard. With a touchpad or mouse you have an extra step in your movements when you go between typing and moving the cursor. With a pointing stick your fingers are always in the position to type and you seamlessly move between typing and cursor movement. I think there are a lot of people who do not like Lenovo for a variety of reasons but still use Thinkpads only because it is so frustrating to switch to a mouse or touchpad after using a pointing stick.

Posted on 2013-10-04 00:02:15
Jim *

Can you tell me more about your Wide Gamut Screens?

Posted on 2013-10-04 00:20:50

The wide gamut screens provide a richer color spectrum -- most useful for photographers who calibrate their screens and want to be able to see the best visual representation of their work. For an application that doesn't support that calibration, your colors will appear over-saturated. Unless you're a photographer or the like, I would stick with a standard screen.

Posted on 2013-10-04 00:49:53
Jim *

How much of the color spectrum does your screen cover?

Posted on 2013-10-04 00:51:54

95% NTSC on our 15 inch, 90% NTSC on our 17 inch. I'm told the matte finish diminishes the effect a bit, but I'm also told by most of our photographer customers that they prefer the matte finish.

Posted on 2013-10-04 00:54:51
Jim *

Is it an IPS or TN screen?

Posted on 2013-10-04 01:10:47

TN. Our B460i does feature an IPS screen, but not wide gamut.

Posted on 2013-10-04 01:23:29
Nev

With the massive price drops in used GTX 580 GPU's... What would you recommend as the better buy?

A used GTX 580 or a new GTX 650ti ... both are now within the same price range

Posted on 2014-03-09 03:41:27

Can you afford the new GTX 750 Ti? If so, that would be my recommendation currently for budget (sub-$200) video cards. It bests the 650 Ti, and I have seen some recent game tests (like Titanfall) where both appeared to beat the aging 580.

Posted on 2014-03-09 05:34:54
Giacomo Fratini

I didn't undestand very well .. Can someone explain me, for example, why Gtx 760 is in the supported list of gpu acceleration and ray-tracing in after effects cc, but NOT in the supported list of Premiere pro cc??! I would like to buy this card, but i need to use it with both programs.

Posted on 2014-05-14 15:39:38

I'm afraid the only folks who could explain that would be Adobe. These supported lists are compiled by them, and it is their decision which cards to test with which software.

The latest version - Creative Cloud - is more inclusive in terms of video cards than the past Creative Suite versions. There are also work-arounds for Premiere Pro CS5 and CS6 to allow some video cards that aren't officially supported to work anyway.

Posted on 2014-05-14 15:47:17
Giacomo Fratini

Thanks for your reply. Adobe should be more specific, but i Think that if gtx 760 is supported in After effects CC for gpu acceleration, I may use it with no problem in Premiere Pro.... do you think it will work fine? Furthermore, I read somewhere that in the new version of Premiere Pro you can use your gpu (if it has the minimum requirements) simply skipping the warning advise.(Adobe says that can't test every single Gpu).

Posted on 2014-05-14 18:50:15

I would not expect support in one application to translate to another, in CS6 and earlier versions. In CC my understanding is that any card that meets the hardware requirements should work, even if not officially tested / approved by Adobe.

Posted on 2014-05-14 20:10:53
Robert N.

Sorry to say that but the part with double vs single precision is totally nonsense.
Double precision float is only important for scientific purposes like calculating fluid dynamics, modeling the weather and other simulations.
Premiere Pro won't render images any more precise with FP64 than with FP32.

Posted on 2014-06-30 14:14:09
simon sabir

Hello every one
well i am using this video card Gigabyte HD 7850 4GB Graphics Card GV-R785OC-1GD in my system . but it is not doing good work . I think I did not configure it with Adobe Premiere Pro CS6. whenever i export or render video it export damage video. and many spot . I used only one light curves as effect. only. but Video is not exporting good. it is damage. from many spots . please help me if any one like to my email address is simon.sabir1@gmail.com

Posted on 2015-07-06 07:03:24
godisafairytale

This is coming pretty late but maybe it can also help folks who find this article. I've heard that consumer grade GPUs like the Geforce cards - while faster than CPU (software) alone or Quadro cards, typically produce poorer results, like artifacting, etc. Any truth to this?
Also, from the choice of Geforce cards, Adobe has typically recommended/certified only those that end in -70 or -80 - the most expensive cards (not counting mobile GPUs). Your data seems to suggest that lower cards like the GTX 660 are actually superior or at least on par. Why are they certifying only the more expensive ones?

Posted on 2015-12-29 03:55:16

As far as I know, the whole artifacting or poor results thing is completely a myth. Maybe it was true 10 years ago, but I've never actually seen any evidence supporting it. Really, when you get down to the actual GPU core, GeForce and Quadro cards are really not all that different. The main differences are that Quadro cards have better double precision performance (completely not needed outside of some engineering and scientific applications), the higher end cards have ECC memory (again, not needed except for some engineering and scientific programs), and the firmware is optimized a bit differently. Usually the firmware doesn't make enough of a difference to matter in most applications so the GeForce cards are much better per dollar, although some applications like Solidworks ( https://www.pugetsystems.co... ) really needs a Quadro card.

As for Adobe only certifying higher end cards, I think it is really just a matter of them not having enough time dedicated to qualifying specific models. In fact, their list of recommended GPUs is really outdated now for GeForce cards. For Quadro they have the latest cards, but the latest GeForce card I can see are the GTX 7XX series which are a generation old. On our recommended systems for Premiere (https://www.pugetsystems.co... we are currently recommending a GTX 970 for 1080p timelines or a GTX 980 Ti for 4K. Quadro is really only necessary if you use a 10-bit display since GeForce doesn't support that.

Posted on 2015-12-29 18:06:59
godisafairytale

Thank you so much, Matt! Incredibly instructive. I'm building a rig now and was on the fence about the GTX 970 but now I'm decided. What's your opinion on AMD's offerings? I've heard the R9 line is compelling, like the 290x or 390x.

Posted on 2016-01-07 14:31:04

We've had a pretty big issue with AMD's reliability in the past so we tend to avoid their cards unless there is a very clear reason to use them. In addition, they tend to run hotter and have more driver issues than NVIDIA cards. I just pulled a quick reliability report from our sales and since Jan 2014 GeForce cards have a 2.5% failure rate, Radeon cards have a 18.8% failure rate. One caveat I will say is that I believe AMD moved to a fully automated assembly line with the 300-series cards, so reliability should be better with that series. It simply hasn't been long enough (and we haven't sold enough) for us to determine if that is true. Initial failure reports are looking much better for the 300 series, however, so if you are really considering a 290x or 390x, definitely go with the 390x.

Overall, we just don't feel that Radeon cards are a good idea for a workstation - whether it be for video editing, photo editing, engineering, HPC, etc.

Posted on 2016-01-07 18:25:01
godisafairytale

How do you feel about the GTX 780 or 780 Ti vs. the 970? It is a previous generation but the 780 has a 384-bit memory bus vs. only 256-bit on the 970 (actually, 224-bit for the first 3.5gb vram and 32-bit for the last 512mb), more CUDA cores (2304 vs 1664), greater double precision processing, and greater memory bandwidth (288GB/s vs 224). As I understand, those things matter greatly with video editing. At the same time, the 970 has Maxwell architecture which is more efficient (145W TDP vs 250 on the gtx 780!), faster clock, more VRAM, is faster for some tasks, and adds partial H.265 support for decoding (at least might help in monitoring); all this makes it not exactly apples to apples. Thoughts?

Posted on 2016-01-15 16:00:55

That's a really hard question to answer without testing it in Premiere (which unfortunately I cannot do at the moment). I did find a couple of comparisons online that are not gaming oriented (http://gpu.userbenchmark.co... and http://gpu.userbenchmark.co.... These are user-submitted, but they include some decent GPU compute benchmarks. Assuming they are accurate, I would estimate that a GTX 970 should be right in between the performance of a GTX 780 and a GTX 780 Ti.

Overall, I probably wouldn't worry about upgrading if you already have a GTX 780 or 780 Ti, but if you are looking for a new card I would go with the GTX 970 - especially since it is often half the cost of a GTX 780Ti.

Posted on 2016-01-15 19:15:56
Jay-ar Geronimo

Hi, how does a Skylake 6700k system relate to this? (Does it mean that it only falls on "half-decent") Status?

Posted on 2016-06-10 19:26:09

This testing greatly pre-dates the i7 6700K. I would recommend looking at some of our more recent Premiere Pro articles, especially those focusing on CPU performance... like this one:

https://www.pugetsystems.co...

Posted on 2016-06-10 19:27:55

A 6700K system would likely be just fine if you are exporting to just 1080p. You could get a little bit better performance out of a CPU like a Core i7 6850K, but it wouldn't be anything huge I think.

The biggest limitation to using a 6700K is if you are exporting to 4K, or plan to at some point in the future. In that case, you would start to really see a difference using a CPU with more cores (like the 6850K, 6900K, or 6950X). In addition, at 4K you may run into a problem with having enough RAM since the 6700K only supports 64GB max.

So for 1080p a 6700K is pretty good (but not best), but for 4K+ it will start to lag behind other CPU options.

Posted on 2016-06-10 20:06:13

I wold like to see a 2016 edition to this post

Posted on 2016-12-10 06:24:15

Ask and ye shall receive!

https://www.pugetsystems.co...

Oh, and for CPU and storage info as well:

https://www.pugetsystems.co...

https://www.pugetsystems.co...

Posted on 2016-12-10 07:20:05