Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

New 2012 iMacs for editing


39 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

I've heard from Timescapes (Tom Lowe) that 3GB video ram on the card makes a large difference over 1.5GB or 2GB in editing Red Raw with CUDA. Could be a reason some consumer GTX cards are out performed by a Quadro card.

 

Just make sure you get a 3GB card, 580 or better, will be fine for the Blackmagic Cinema Camera. Budget option is a 560 Ti 1.5GB.

 

Yeah, that's what's pretty obvious as I've stated before. Similarly 4GB video ram makes large difference over 3GB ram and so on (assuming you need more than 3GB of video ram). In his case it's weird because 590 gtx has more RAM than quadro 2000 which I checked and has 1GB.

 

Also probably better to get 2 cards for SLI to get twice the amount of RAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

True it is all mobile hardware, not desktop like a Mac Pro or a PC.

 

GTX 680MX is still a nice card though and will run Resolve well enough for basic editing and grading with Blackmagic Cinema Camera footage.

 

That's a brilliant idea! Apple, I'm proud of you one more time! Make a Mac Book PRO which is worse (specs wise) and more expensive (I'm assuming) than iMac which is also laptop (hardware wise) and could be a laptop but instead is not a laptop (poratbility/oficially) which is still more expensive and slower than the most expensive PC-laptop. Genius. Not to mention PCs which are gonna kill iMac like BMCC is killing Canon in video department (yeah, yeah, I know they don't look as COOOOOOOL as iMACs and it's 2012 FOR GODS SAKE, everything should be 0.00001micron thick!!!!! ;))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

tomekk, Do you get paid to try and convince people to not buy Apple products? Because judging by the amount of energy you expend in doing so, you should be. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Tomekk -- If you had $3000 to spend, what CUDA-accelerated video editing workstation and monitor combination would you get?

 

This requires a bit of researching because I haven't been following workstation market for quite a bit (only laptops). If I have spare time or more ppl would like to see this - I'll look around. There are trade offs (6core vs 4core, SLI more memory older card vs faster card less memory etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

tomekk, Do you get paid to try and convince people to not buy Apple products? Because judging by the amount of energy you expend in doing so, you should be. ;-)

 

 

I wish =), looks like as of now I'm just doing it for nothing. Not the most EV+ approach for me, lol. Oh, I'm not trying to convince ppl. Just saying what I think, seriously. PPL can do WHATEVER they want. Including buying Apple's overpriced PC hardware ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Yes, I saw. Not sure why they are doing that. Definitely the 27".

 

something to do with keeping the size down, iirc. and i think it's safe to say the average person buying a 21.5" imac probably wouldn't be replacing the ram at any point anyways; so why not solder it in and safe a few millimeters

i'm pricing out a windows workstation right now. i had thought about the imacs, but for the price i'd rather build my own rig and have more options for later upgrades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Yeah, that's what's pretty obvious as I've stated before. Similarly 4GB video ram makes large difference over 3GB ram and so on (assuming you need more than 3GB of video ram). In his case it's weird because 590 gtx has more RAM than quadro 2000 which I checked and has 1GB.
 
Also probably better to get 2 cards for SLI to get twice the amount of RAM.


Just been looking into this a bit and apparently running SLI does not increase the amount of ram. The memory is instead mirrored. In a game it boosts the performance so much because it renders frames alternately so both cards are running the same game and so have the same data in their ram. So it looks for video editing that SLI is not worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Just been looking into this a bit and apparently running SLI does not increase the amount of ram. The memory is instead mirrored. In a game it boosts the performance so much because it renders frames alternately so both cards are running the same game and so have the same data in their ram. So it looks for video editing that SLI is not worth it.

 

Well, ok, but the rendering speed is still increased significantly. So it's worth it for performance increase. It's just when u exceed available RAM - performance decreases.

 

hmmm looks like only advantage of quadro is their RAM amount and that's what NVIDIA is limiting on gamers cards. GTX 590 has 3GB. It should easily beat quadro 5000 with 2GB of video RAM IMHO. Quadro 6000 has 6GB so it'll be clear winner once someone needs more than 3GB of video ram. Before it's probably a loser. For anyone interested. You should be checking how much vram you need for your work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Also probably better to get 2 cards for SLI to get twice the amount of RAM.

 

Resolve doesn't yet use two cards in SLI for CUDA I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I think high performance video cards are more dynamic in structure than to just theorize that memory makes one better than the other.  for instance a high class 1GB video card supplied with different chips not found on commercial 2gb+ gaming cards have significant roles for editing multi codecs, resolutions, modeling etc...  I can say that I have a workhorse station and Adobe had recommended a Quadro card over the GTX.  I don't care much for the specified science behind it.  I just want to drive and test.  Which I did, so I ditched the GTX 590 for the Quadro 2000 and everything was much sweeter.  CS6 runs beautiful as always.  I can have Colorista II and Magic Bullet (2 plugins) on one clip in Full resolution playback running smooth on the Quadro 2000.  I couldn't get that with the 590.  Aside from the plugins the 590 was a sweet card for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

WTF? The GTX 680MX is a mobile GPU. These imacs aren't desktops, they are high end laptops on a fancy stand.

 

I've heard this before but I am not sure that I understand it. So this is a piece of hardware that has been watered down in size (and thus performance) to fit into a smaller device? That's disconcerting. How much of a performance hit could I expect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I've heard this before but I am not sure that I understand it. So this is a piece of hardware that has been watered down in size (and thus performance) to fit into a smaller device? That's disconcerting. How much of a performance hit could I expect?

 

This "mobile card" is only slightly slower than their high end desktop cards. The 680MX absolutely destroys a 560 Ti 1.5GB.

2GB will be plenty to edit BMC footage. Remember, there's a big difference between 2K RAW and 4K RED RAW.

 

Nvidia locks out some "pro" features on their desktop and mobile cards. Some of these features are used for 3D rendering. The non Quadro cards will send these tasks to the CPU.  I don't think any of these tasks have anything to do with editing video, but they might.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

This "mobile card" is only slightly slower than their high end desktop cards. The 680MX absolutely destroys a 560 Ti 1.5GB.

2GB will be plenty to edit BMC footage. Remember, there's a big difference between 2K RAW and 4K RED RAW.

 

Nvidia locks out some "pro" features on their desktop and mobile cards. Some of these features are used for 3D rendering. The non Quadro cards will send these tasks to the CPU.  I don't think any of these tasks have anything to do with editing video, but they might.

 

 

I think high performance video cards are more dynamic in structure than to just theorize that memory makes one better than the other.  for instance a high class 1GB video card supplied with different chips not found on commercial 2gb+ gaming cards have significant roles for editing multi codecs, resolutions, modeling etc...  I can say that I have a workhorse station and Adobe had recommended a Quadro card over the GTX.  I don't care much for the specified science behind it.  I just want to drive and test.  Which I did, so I ditched the GTX 590 for the Quadro 2000 and everything was much sweeter.  CS6 runs beautiful as always.  I can have Colorista II and Magic Bullet (2 plugins) on one clip in Full resolution playback running smooth on the Quadro 2000.  I couldn't get that with the 590.  Aside from the plugins the 590 was a sweet card for sure.

 

[url="http://www.reduser.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-77102.html"]http://www.reduser.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-77102.html[/url] - here is a little bit of discussion about it. For best choice you need to know what's happening behind the scenes. On average though,  most are probably better off buying GF cards.

As for mobile and desktop version: according to this: [url="http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-680mx/specifications"]http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-680mx/specifications[/url] and [url="http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-680/specifications"]http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-680/specifications[/url] looks like 680mx is underclocked version of the desktop card by about 25%...Obviously it doesn't mean you'll notice 25% increase in performance between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites