DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Nov 2009 - Current video card recommendations?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 13 of 13, (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/07/2009 11:38:16 PM · #1
Been looking into a new computer REALLY SOON.

First thing up - there seem to be three main types.

Nvidia Gaming
Ati Gaming
Nvidia Quadros

From what I can see, Quadros are highly priced, feature little actual RAM and are specific to 3D design programs rather than PS or other 2D programs.

I have read that the primary difference between a quadro and a gaming card is that if it is being pushed, the gaming card will make a decision to approximate certain calculations rather than finish them to keep the frame rate high. On the other hand, a Quadro design type card will tend to render each frame accurately and will skip a frame if it gets taxed.

This makes the card jerky and not smooth in high FPS gaming in things like Crysis (mostly important here for benchmarking, not playing).

The problem for me is that this does not relate to my needs. That's not to say I won't some day try some of these funky and wild new games, but I just don't care if I have to turn it down from the highest setting. I mean, I still enjoy playing Need for Speed Porsche 2000... heh.

I have no need whatsoever for 3D work. I am not interested in CAD. Programs like Maya and Bryce have no place on my computer because it's just a whole different world.

So I'm looking now at the gaming video cards.

The benchmark and review sites often put a very low priority on the PS benchmarks, but to be honest, I question whether or not they really push the processors with real demands like dealing in 16 bit color spaces, working with RAW and TIFF instead of JPG and really big files, applying heavy filters and such.. I don't know...

The bottom line though is that it seems that the primary benefit from using the 3D card is just when working on it. I don't know how much it helps for things like batches...

So that brings us down to claimed differences.

From what I've heard, ATI apparently works better with OpenGL which is what PS uses.

However, benchmarks tend to favor Nvidia cards for general processing power.

So what's the word on the street?

From what I can see, the two cards that claim top honors here without breaking the bank would be the ATI 5870 and the Nvidia 260GTX.

Which is a better choice for a PS heavy machine? I will also be using Vegas Pro 9, but that's a few months off I think.
11/08/2009 04:36:06 AM · #2
RULE #1
Never, ever, rely on benchmarks such as 3D mark or similar.

You won't need too get a Quadro they are designed for CAD and 3D apps.

I think Nvidia has the upper hand over all, not just the cards but the drivers seem a lot more stable. I can't comment on which modal to look for at the moment. But stay away from the brand PNY.

BTW, I do play video games too, currently Killing Floor.

Message edited by author 2009-11-08 04:36:46.
11/08/2009 04:43:28 AM · #3
I am interested in answers to eschelar's questions also. I too will be building a new machine fairly soon and I want it to be a Photo and Video Powerhouse. Would like to add to the Video Card Question. What is the best processor route to take? Will be running Windows 7 Photoshop and Vegas 9 along with a few other editing programs. The new machine is not going to be for anything but the purpose of editing. I have 2 notebooks for surfing email etc... Opinions on LCD monitors would be good as well. I ask that you send me info via PM because I do not want to totally hi-jack this thread with a bunch of info that eschelar may not care about or need.
11/08/2009 05:35:07 AM · #4
I have no problem with you adding to this discussion since it is meant to be open.

I also built 3 other computers for the office where I work.

We had different uses for each. There was one machine running heavy 3D apps, my work photoshop machine (no vegas and almost all for web or simple TIFF editing) and a standard office computer.

They have shown themselves to be fairly decent even with a low spec (dual cores, integrated ati 3200 video cards, probably DDR2 RAM). They hold up reasonably well in simple 3D work on my boss's comp. They do OK in Photoshop, although there is more lag than I would have expected in navigating around the image. I suspect that this may be because PS is shipping graphical draws to the GPU which is crap. On my home computer, I get a tiny bit of slowdown doing similar things with the same files, and I have no GPU and a 6 year old laptop. I feel that it's pretty pathetic that the PC at work doesn't do all that much better than my laptop and it's pretty admirable that my laptop can still do fairly well in comparison. However, in practical terms, the slowness on that computer is not all that significant. *shrug*

With the budget I had, we used AMD MB's, but I recommended the i5. It wouldn't work out as an upgradable machine due to the pinouts/motherboard configuration, but for the usage, it wouldn't really need to be upgraded. Also, I suspect that the new 1156 pin motherboards will still stay a useful standard for at least a few years yet.

However, I decided to recommend to cheap out on the video card since I don't think it contributes very much to batches and rendering. There is not much screen drawing in PS in batch mode, so I don't see the video card being used much.

The card I recommended was the ATI 4670. MaximumPC.com recommended Sapphire, but there's another brand here in Taiwan that makes them for the same price but with much improved cooling. I think it is called HIS. Ask around though at a few local stores. Cooler running probably lends itself to improved longevity. The price was around $80 bucks US.

Why recommend something like that?

Well you can save $250 bucks on the video card that way and put it towards a better CPU/MB and monitor. I believe quite firmly that the bulk of what will be done between PS and Vegas will be CPU and RAM intensive much more than video card intensive.

When I was looking at specs for my own machine, I decided that the best powerhouse processor would probably be the i7 920 (1366 pin) with an X58 MotherBoard. Both of these standards will likely be carried forwards for the next several years. i7 920 benchmarks weren't as good as some of the other i7 CPU's in gaming, but they were very strong with heavy crunching in PS batch processing, so I suspect this is a good way to go.

It's up to you whether you want to spend the cash on the CPU. From what I have read, those little i5's are PHENOMENAL bang for the buck where speed is concerned. If you don't want to fork out for the 1366, they are HIGHLY recommended.

I base this information on a bunch of review sites, but primarily maximumpc.com

For Hard drives, I looked into SSD as well, but from what I can tell, this technology is still way too green for real world use. It's probably fine for gamers. I wouldn't want to do anything professionally on it. 2 year warranties and the guy at the tuner shop I was at told me that he had a lot of complaints on losing data. His own tests found that a simple 10GB transfer would get corrupted within about 30 copies and rewrites. That's pretty bad. SSD technology is used widely in very high end business storage, but I don't think it's quite as robust as that at the consumer level.

I have a friend who does enterprise level flash management here in TW and he doesn't recommend consumer level stuff.

As to monitors, I've been checking the Dell stuff around here and the prices are stooooopid. I'm getting a Samsung. I know, the dynamic contrast ratio is not real contrast, but it does make the screen look great. The new matte screens are phenomenal.

If I need to later, I'll run a second monitor for super-accurate color space photoediting, but I've learned a lot about the value (or lack of) in extremely accurate monitors. In most cases, very close is good enough. (NOTE: Close isn't good enough, but VERY close is) Therefore, I'm guessing that won't happen.

A few people recommended to me to make sure that I got a 1920x1200 monitor for editing instead of a 1080p 1920x1080. HOWEVER, my current budget (not to mention desk space) does not allow me to have two 24" monitors, and I've been working on a 1680x1050 for a few days and I find the wideness to be quite sufficient. Wider wouldn't be worse. I've got a friend who has a 1080p standard monitor and it's pretty nice for working. I'd probably go for 2 monitors in Vegas, but I'm almost thinking about having a small 4:3 monitor on the side just for tool palettes and such rather than full size screens. I'm not going to be jumping into major Vegas projects for a while yet.

I'm still looking for more info on video cards within photo editing realms.

It's a useful comment about the drivers. I've read this as well.

Message edited by author 2009-11-08 05:43:26.
11/08/2009 11:13:54 AM · #5
I read this article the other day which is very informative and up to date!
11/11/2009 01:47:26 AM · #6
good to know although not terribly specific and with no information pertaining to Photoshop and OpenGL.

Especially regarding the $50 cards. It was odd that they recommended the 4870 at ~$100 while they had previously mentioned that card for $49.

I've got a friend who will sell me his 260GTX for a good price. I'm glad since I was hoping to get an Nvidia. I'd rather have better driver support than a tiny speed improvement.
11/11/2009 02:12:18 AM · #7
Anything that works good for games is going to be more than good enough for Photoshop or other uses.
Tom's Hardware Best of List: //www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-card,2464.html
11/11/2009 09:38:12 PM · #8
I picked up a new Monitor today. I have been doing all my editing on my laptop screen the past few months so this is a really nice change.
11/11/2009 10:24:28 PM · #9
What's on sale at Fry's this week is the best one.

I tend to prefer ATI. No real reason, however. They regularly flip flop with NVidia as to who has the bragging rights at the top end.

11/17/2009 09:35:06 AM · #10
agreed jeffrey.

I got my machine up and running yesterday. It's rather phenomenally lovely.

The 24 inch screen is breathtaking and a delight. I am quite surprised as well at how I have been able to eliminate a lot of clutter with the simple addition of a wireless keyboard and mouse (ultraslim eeepc setup) and putting the monitor up on a shelf.

I got the NVidia GTX 260 for around $105 US. A very decent price.

However, my experience with it hasn't been all cherries and apple pie.

It doesn't like my monitor very much. Adding the drivers slowed my boot down by around 8 seconds (50% slower) AND the addition of the driver has brought up a problem where I cannot use DVI for a single monitor setup. I may be able to work around with a second monitor, but that's a good ways off budget wise. (although I will probably get a small 17 inch or something with 1024x768 for checking web content and maybe for palettes in PS)

I will be taking the card in to Gigabyte's service center to see if they can find and fix the problem.

I will be without my new computer then for a WEEK or so. TERRIBLE. I have PROJECTS to do... *sigh*. Good thing I didn't sell my tablet yet...

According to the web, hundreds of people have had similar problems, and it is a frequent problem with new drivers for Nvidia cards. The supposed fix is to update the BIOS... Of course, when I tried, it said that my ID did not match, so that didn't work... gotta take it in... Funny because I actually wanted the NVidia because they had a better reputation for driver compatibility. Dangit.

My experience with the monitor was a bit disappointing as well (although just a bit). It's a Samsung P2450.

Because I have my monitors raised up a fair bit (the center of my laptop screen is directly level with my eyes - I like this for posture reasons), the Samsung is quite high. Now that wouldn't be a problem really if I could just tilt the screen down just a tiny bit more. A friend of mine has a very similar setup and has his screen mounted on an adjustable swingarm attached to his wall. He can tilt it as much as he likes. I have concrete walls, so that's a bit less of an option for me. The Samsung base allows only a 5 degree forward tilt. This puts the screen at the most disadvantaged angle (looking up). If I had a chance to do it again, I'd have looked for a better base. Otherwise, the monitor is phenomenal.

It is so large that it actually makes some things look distorted as I move back and forth, almost like looking through a super wide angle lens. Very cool.

PS, I'm quite happy having saved a good chunk of cash on the motherboard by going with a lower end MSI board. It was about 65 bucks US less than the ASUS equivalent. I sacrificed the ability to do SLI and I think it went from 8 sata ports to 7 sata ports as well as losing some compatibility with older standard sound cards... The quality of the capacitors is identical and the Asus MB has a tiny bit better board side cooling with some extra copper heat conductors.

I took that 65 bucks and had the guy upgrade my fan. That cost $15 US. The temperature is so far very cool. The coolest of any computer I've ever used. And the quietest. It's amazing.

Anyhow, fun stuff for me. Hope it's helpful to someone.
11/17/2009 09:53:29 AM · #11
Originally posted by eschelar:


From what I've heard, ATI apparently works better with OpenGL which is what PS uses.


This jumped out at me--as some one who doesn't use Adobe PhotoShop, I'm curious for what it uses OpenGL. Most 2D (or temporally 3-D) programs shouldn't have a need for OpenGL or any other 3D rendering language.

(It sounds like you already made a decision on a card, so congratulations!)

Originally posted by eschelar:


The benchmark and review sites often put a very low priority on the PS benchmarks, but to be honest, I question whether or not they really push the processors with real demands like dealing in 16 bit color spaces, working with RAW and TIFF instead of JPG and really big files, applying heavy filters and such.. I don't know...


Those would all tax the CPU, RAM, and memory subsystems instead (the video card should have a negligible difference here). The CPU selection in the PC market also is much more condensed than it was ten years ago, so there's really little difference here (it just matters where in Intel/AMD's line you buy); RAM and the motherboard will make more difference, but might not be worth the investigation. Just make sure you have a lot of RAM, preferably all bought at once from the same place (or otherwise is the same type).
11/17/2009 12:39:06 PM · #12
I have the FX 3800 and it runs circles around my previous GTX 260 in Photoshop and Lightroom.

I really thought my 260 was it and I would never need another card until I when to a local Photoshop group meet and someone brought in thier PC with the 3800 in it.

If you work in RAW and like Layers it is as fast as you can think it. There is zero wait time for anything I can throw at it. Plugins are instant on, like flipping a switch, you don't even see the refresh. Click the preview checkbox on/off.

Places you wouldn't expect it to help - Microsoft Word/Excel/Powepoint - but it does as these too can use the GPU.

I also do 3D and can take advantage of this card in that area, but not the point here.

I paid just over a G$ from a local computer store and run on Vista 64bit with 32GB on a 2.2 GHz Core2 CPU. Now I know I will never need another card. BTW, I have it connected to a 46" Sony XBR 1920x1080 HD LCD :)

11/18/2009 09:36:31 AM · #13
Originally posted by m:

Originally posted by eschelar:


From what I've heard, ATI apparently works better with OpenGL which is what PS uses.


This jumped out at me--as some one who doesn't use Adobe PhotoShop, I'm curious for what it uses OpenGL. Most 2D (or temporally 3-D) programs shouldn't have a need for OpenGL or any other 3D rendering language.
<snip>
Those would all tax the CPU, RAM, and memory subsystems instead (the video card should have a negligible difference here). The CPU selection in the PC market also is much more condensed than it was ten years ago, so there's really little difference here (it just matters where in Intel/AMD's line you buy); RAM and the motherboard will make more difference, but might not be worth the investigation. Just make sure you have a lot of RAM, preferably all bought at once from the same place (or otherwise is the same type).


I believe you are quite correct. Although I do understand that the new i5 and i7 cpu's do hold a significant advantage over older standards and AMD chips. My motherboard supports up to 24gb of DDR III. I am currently running 4gb and I can upgrade to 6GB if I find it too little for around 40 bucks. Easy peasy. Also, thanks to hyperthreading, my performance monitor now shows an equivalent of 8 cores. That's ridiculous.

Regarding OpenGL, note that in PS, under preferences, you will see that it does specify that it uses OpenGL.

This is probably largely relegated to screen draws, with virtually nothing to do with heavy batch work, but there are indeed times when working on large files that screen draws take up a rather significant time. I was at almost 5 minutes for screen redraws on my last single photo project.

I divide my work into a couple of types. Large batches (ie a performance or a wedding) where it's a case of setting up a couple of batch setups, then putting all the images through it by starting and walking away to let the computer take care of business. Single image tweaks, which usually follow the large batch with simple things like crops and whatnot. And Single Image major edits.

This last type can see working image size go WAY up and my older laptop bogs down HARD. For everything else, I'm not too concerned with speed. My laptop performs admirably. Of course, sometimes it takes a few days for it to slog through all the pics... That's frustrating. I'm looking forward to seeing how this new machine performs with that. ;) I have a small 1-200 photo batch that I need to do probably next week some time. After midterms though. I have one at 8 am tomorrow morning.

Oh, and stewz. yikes man. a grand? my whole computer cost me almost exactly $1000 US. Please note that I'm still working on a student's budget. Sounds nice though. Especially for doing 3d stuff.

Message edited by author 2009-11-18 09:38:44.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/18/2024 10:21:52 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/18/2024 10:21:52 PM EDT.