10-bit colour with/ without Quadro?

[ca4014]

Hello everyone, relative beginner here so please excuse my ignorance.

I'm drawing up a spec sheet for a custom-built computer, of which one of the main uses will be Photoshop. I've already bought my monitor, Benq GW2765HT. I had convinced myself it was a 10-bit panel but I now believe it's 8-bit with dithering/ frame rate control.

Either way, can any of you enlightened individuals tell me, first of all, if a 10-bit signal will be of benefit to me? (DisplayPort)

And if so, can anyone please run me through the options? I want to stick with Nvidia. Does it have to be a Quadro? I gather that many GT/ GTX cards support 10-bit colour but not in OpenGL, which is what Photoshop requires.

Photoshop isn't my only intended use for this computer; I was planning a bit of casual 3D rendering and maybe even the occasional game; that's why I've been considering the GTX 960. In an ideal world I'd get 10-bit colour from that, including in Photoshop.

If not, and a Quado is required, how would it fare with rendering/ basic gaming/ general use? If the answer is 'not that well', could I use a lower Quadro model for colour alongside a GTX for rendering? Would a GTX even be necessary? How would an i7 perform with just a low spec Quadro?

Can anyone shed light on this? I know that these questions have been asked before but I haven't managed to find any conclusive answers. And my head is spinning!

Thanks in advance.

 

[Ramlethal]

as a digital artist i actually use a Wacom cintiq 25HD so i can actually tell that it HAS a difference between normal monitors and extremly excigent monitors...
I do have a Dual Sli of Titan X pascal and they actually seem to support 10 bit BUT The options for higher than 8bpc may not mean that applying them will work as they should without all hardware/software supporting it. Cause now that i do also purchase a Quattro for my working studio (and let the titan X sli for gaming) i can tell there is a huge difference while using both the same Cintiq (that supports 10 bit).
So... if a titan X wich costs like maybe 10 times a 960 couldnt get quality 10 bit colour then... you already get your answer.

Any of the last generation processors even if its i3,i5 and i7 will get the fully potential of a low spec Quattro card.

And finally... as a conclusion:

You should definitly get a Quattro card even if its quite a waste of many in compare to any other card on the market IF you are gonna use the PC exclusivly for working and take out some juice of the Quattro... BUT if you are going for a mix up between gaming and working you have 2 choises wich are Or you spend a ridiculous ammount of money for the latest quattro card or you stay on 8 bits on a gtx 960...

 

[ca4014]

Thanks for your reply Ramlethal.

As I see it, Quadro for best colour IF my monitor will show the difference. I'm not sure if it will or not; otherwise, GTX.

I have been considering GTX960 or K620.

If anyone else would like to weigh in, please do.

 

[ca4014]

Maybe the Quadro would be a better choice anyway?.. I don't play games and would only be dabbling 'because I can'. Am I right in saying that the Quadro would be better for rendering than a GTX?

 

[Ramlethal]

if you dont play games the quadro is definitly the way to go in therms of performance and quality. There is no doubt about it. Graphics cards these days have come to a design level that can cover other areas that are not design for, ex: a gaming graphic card can cover what a designer's graphic card will do BUT it will do slighly worse and with much lower quality.
So, for the ones who use it to work, Quadro is a specifically designed card for people who work with it and dont use it as a "toy".
Go for that quattro, you wont regret it.

 

[ca4014]

Thanks for your input guys.

My thinking now is that the display is 8-bit with built-in software giving pseudo 10-bit colour. No matter how nice the displayed image is, it's not derived from a 10-bit signal. In that respect the Quadro card would be redundant.

I have no real aspiration to change monitor any time soon, so I don't think there's much value in choosing the Quadro for 'later'.

So, I think both would serve Photoshop perfectly adequately, the choice boils down to which would be more versatile. I'm not a gamer although I'd maybe dabble. I'll probably get more amusement from 3D rendering, which I suspect would be better served by the Quadro.

So, on balance, I'm leaning towards the Quadro.

.. Unless anyone would like to weigh in with a counter-argument? ;-)

 

[ca4014]

I spotted this:

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-960-vs-Nvidia-Quadro-K620/3165vs2840

and now I wonder. I realise the website is probably massively biased towards game-playing, but the 960 romps home in every single category. Am I missing something? To be clear, I don't think the benefit of 10-bit colour will be an advantage for my monitor; as far as I can now tell it takes an 8-bit signal and produces a 'psuedo' 10-bit image.

(And then I spotted the GTX1060 which offers another sizeable increase in performance for a very modest price increase..)

 

[Novell SysOp fire phasers 5 time]

Only Quadro can output 10-bit in Adobe. Titan is a Geforce and uses Geforce drivers. They are locked out by the hardware and drivers. You need a pro card to do pro work. Titan and Geforce are game cards, not pro cards.