PDA

View Full Version : should i buy gtx 670 4gb superclocked?


carlsden
11-06-2012, 08:00 AM
Hi guys, im thinking of buying a gtx 670 for my 3D work/animation.
The main applications i use are
MAYA, ZBRUSH, AFTER EFFECTS and PHOTOSHOP. I'm using the latest versions of these softwares.

Please let me know if im heading in the right way or if its the wrong card to buy for my purposes.

My pc is a Boxx tech pc with 2 xeon processors, 10GB ram, 600W PSU

many thanks

AJ1
11-06-2012, 09:08 AM
Do you feel constrained by your current GPU? Do you do a lot of animation?

Ive got a $60 GPU, and because its so cheap, I feel as though I should upgrade. But the reality is that it does everything I need, and Ill probably have it for several more years.

The Quadro drivers are really nice for Maya, but you still typically pay about the same on a price/performance basis in the under $500 bracket. The Quadro cards are great if you want to spend $500 or more.

-AJ

carlsden
11-06-2012, 01:00 PM
I can't afford the quadro cards and ive heard that they are overpriced anyway. My current card is the 6540. However I want something faster

AJ1
11-06-2012, 01:20 PM
If you want it, and you can afford it, go for it.

I'm not sure if you'll need it or not based on your limited description on what you plan to do with it.

If you're spending under $500, just go for a gamer card.

I used to have a workstation that had about 6K in quadro cards in it. When you plan on having a computer for many years, and your paying someone top dollar to do work on it, the performance advantage is worth it. If you expect an artist to produce 60K of content per year over 5 years, that workstation would've produced 300K in content. If having 2 3K graphics cards allows that artist to work 3% faster, the cards more than pay for themselves.

-AJ

tswalk
11-07-2012, 01:54 AM
I agree with AJ.. and there are good reasons why they cost more.

1). hardware architecture is designed specifically for desktop/workstation performance
2). drivers are designed and tested by the manufacturer to leverage those differences
3). both software and hardware companies are at least a guarantee of quality and support

you actually do get what you pay for

its' like someone asking me for a hammer to strike a nail, and i say to them.. "you can take some string, a rock, and stick and fasten your own hammer... works just as good and doesn't cost nearly as much!"

i know there are many consumer grade cards that work just fine for starting out, or learning.. hell, i'm using a GTX 560 right now!, but the moment i begin leaning towards professional work. i'll get professional equipment to do the job.

carlsden
11-07-2012, 08:54 AM
sorry, the card i'm using is the Radeon hd 6450.
Previews in after effects are real slow even with simple scenes. i was hoping upgrading would help but not sure if i should go the nvidia or amd way.... however i'm not looking into the quadro or fireGL cards... just the geforce or HD cards...

AJ1
11-07-2012, 10:08 AM
Hey man,

Check this out and see if you've maybe got problems with your openGL.

http://helpx.adobe.com/after-effects/kb/troubleshoot-opengl-problems-effects-cs4.html

That card will certainly make things faster, but It might not be the dramatic speed boost your looking for.

Also, your dual xeon setup is not ideal for AE. Most of the effects run single threaded (I think). Try going into your BIOS and disable hyperthreading if you have it on your xeons. Apparently having 2GB of RAM per thread is ideal. Also try turning on multi threaded rendering.

Also, upgrading your hard drive to a solid state drive will give a massive performance advantage when pre-caching.

AMD and Nvidia are direct competitors on a price/performance basis. Either one is fine.

-AJ

sentry66
11-07-2012, 05:24 PM
Has AE fixed their trashy multithreading?

I'm on CS5 still and multithreading will randomly hang AE even if I don't touch the machine and I give obnoxious amounts of ram to each thread (I have 64 gigs). On my 6 core i7 multithreading offers roughly 2x the rendering performance over having it off - it's unreliable though so I don't use it - not to mention certain effects are not supported by it.

Instead, if I launch 6 instances of AE, break the frame ranges up for each version and render each instance at the same time I get 6x the rendering performance and it's reliable.

tswalk
11-08-2012, 06:23 AM
have you tried disabling hyperthreading in BIOS?

sentry66
11-08-2012, 06:40 AM
have you tried disabling hyperthreading in BIOS?


Yes. This has been consistently happening on 3 different machines - with and without hyperthreading. The hyperthreading issue I think you're hinting at was fixed in CS5 anyway though. Now having it enabled doesn't make AE suck.

It doesn't matter. In AE's own documentation, they give a list of effects that are not supported for multiprocessing. It's half-baked at best.

I think it has more to do with every other frame going to a different core vs having a whole chunk of frames going to each core. Effects that depend on the previous or next frames (or more - take the time echo effect for example) are severely hindered when those frames are not cached for each core's process, thus you end up doing a lot of redundant processing of frames that other cores are also meanwhile processing.

My method makes full utilization of the CPU pegging it at around 95% usage and gives me roughly a perfect scaling of performance for the amount of cores I have when running frames off of an SSD. It doesn't have any of the severe caching limitations.

I couldn't ask for anything more other than it to not require setting it up and simply just working with smarter caching.


This may have been fixed with CS6, I just don't know since I'm using CS5

tswalk
11-08-2012, 07:05 AM
...It doesn't matter. In AE's own documentation, they give a list of effects that are not supported for multiprocessing. It's half-baked at best....



looks like you got a workaround (kinda)... i'm not that familar with AE, but i seem to remember it has the ability to utilize Pixel Bender plugins (i think that's what it was called) that can do certain effects... i wonder if that could be a part of the problem.

tswalk
11-08-2012, 07:20 AM
wow, i just read a rather long thread on the removal of Pixel Bender support from CS6... that's ashame.

AJ1
11-08-2012, 07:36 AM
What sorts of video types are you rendering to?

AE isn't meant to render final output highly compressed video. I've had lots of problems trying to get H264 video out of it.

It also helps to tell AE to purge the RAM every so often. You might need to set it to every 5-10 frames for a heavy scene.

Its best to use prores422 on Mac, and run the video through Compressor. On Windows, you can run your uncompressed output through Media Encoder.

Sorry to hijack your thread carlsden, I guess the moral of the story is there's a lot more to getting good performance out of AE than just upgrading your GPU.

-AJ

sentry66
11-08-2012, 09:42 PM
a fast SSD will allow AE to update composites roughly twice as fast as a conventional drive.

Getting a lot more memory IMO is also way better for AE than a faster graphics card.



I only ever render out tif sequences out of composites

The only time I render compressed video files is when reading in the final composited frames

CGTalk Moderation
11-08-2012, 09:42 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.