Adobe CS5: 64-bit, CUDA-Accelerated, And Threaded Performance

[kg2010]

[citation][nom]rrr[/nom]Maybe because Prime95 is CPU load (and not so full on top of that). Try Furmark. :E :E :eAnyways, nVidia has AMD covered here. A bit niche, but still.[/citation]

yea I know - Prime95 was not a good example since that's for the CPU, I type faster than I think sometimes.

When I ran Unigine & Kombustor benchmarks, or when I am using Premiere and Encoding, I've yet to see it go past 40 C.

As soon as Premiere loads, the card runs between 37 - 40C.

I'll pass on Furmark.

 

[randomhardware]

When using cuda, the amount of time saved when applying effects in Premiere cs5 is AMAZING! There is nothing like changing the contrast, then seeing the results in real time without having to render. Great Job Guys ^_^

 

[kg2010]

[citation][nom]liemfukliang[/nom]Please benchmark which one is better if I buy more expensive prossesor vs more expensive GPU (give a same balance, with many combination spec of proccesor and GPU).Why Adobe choose CUDA, because Adobe CS5 is target for professional. In Proffesional Quadro is the King, so that why Adobe support CUDA. CMIIW.[/citation]

This depends on your needs and uses.

1. What are going to be your every day uses?

2. What programs will you use, and how will you use them most often?

3. What is your budget?

4. Are you going to be using Premiere most? ( that's where this article shined )

I think there's always a sweet spot and balance with everything

This article did a good job in showing the difference in the CPU's performance between 2 - 12 cores with and without HT enabled, and it showed where CUDA really shines.

I think the Premiere benchmarks really show the benefits of CUDA and really back up Adobe's claims of 10x increased performance, WHEN Rendering, adding effects to the timeline, in this case CUDA really shines.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/adobe-cs5-cuda-64-bit,2770-10.html

I think you should read the Premiere benchmarks and conclusions carefully as they tell you how and when you will benefit from CUDA, and when and where you will benefit from the CPU.

It all boils down to how you will use Premiere, and where the benefits make sense for you.

One thing is clear, you'll want a minimum Quad Core CPU and in my opinion, nothing less than a GTX 460, the more CUDA cores, the better, and if you're using Premiere CS5 you must have a 64 bit Operating system, I'm sure you already knew that.

The more memory the better, ( I'll be getting another 6 GB soon )

In my experience 6 GB hasn't been enough on several occasions, and I really don't like using the paging file on my SSD, yes, the paging file can reside on another drive, but it isn't always the case with Windows 7, if there's an error, it always defaults to the C drive ( Off topic, I know )

Here's my system that I built for about $2k

i7 930, P6X58D-E, 6 GB RAM ( Getting another 6GB ), 80GB SSD ( x-25m ) for the OS W7 Ultimate - 1 TB Samsung F1, GTX 460 MSI Cyclone, HX750 Watt PSU, NH-D14 cooler

btw - the 930 is very easy to overclock, and it's almost a must!

This system handles premiere CS5 very smoothly, and I'm very happy with it, use it as reference.
If you really wanted to, you can improve it further by going with the 980x, and a GTX 480, that will add another $1000 approximately. Look at the benchmarks carefully though, a Quad Core CPU is more than plenty, the GPU in this case is very important.

 

[kg2010]

Someone [citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]What about CUDA and SLI?[/citation]

SLI does not matter and has no effect at all, only 1 video card is used and recognized in the workflow ( whether editing, rendering, exporting, etc )

 

[dennisburke]

I suspect the reason Adobe provides native support for the GTX 285 and GTX 470 is because the last two generations of Quadro are designed around these two chips.

My new GTX 470 (vanilla) idles around 45C...5C lower than my past GTX 260 and about 7C higher (82C) under full benchmark load (OC Scanner) with about 92% fan (manual). It is loud, but under normal heavy workload, temps rarely exceed 80C at 80% fan...and the fan is not that noticable over my case fans set to medium (Antec 902). I have installed the card addon Backplate and High-Flow Bracket which really helped to lower the heat. With the GTX 470 now available for around $250.00 I would think it would make a great card for taking advantage of the new Mercury Playback Engine.

 

[kg2010]

That's crazy how much the price has dropped in just 2 months!

Yeah, the 470 is definitely the way to go at that price! $250 is a steal for a 470, as I actually paid $244 Canadian for my 460 just 2 months ago.

Rumourmille claims that the prices are going back up in 2 - 3 weeks or so... not sure if that's true or not, but for only $250 right now, you really can't go wrong with the 470.

With 448 CUDA cores, I'm sure there will be an increased performance vs my 336 CUDA cores in the 460.

I think Nvidia dropped the prices to match the 6870's launch, but sticking on topic and speaking strictly for Premiere's performance, the 470 is a great buy right now.

I might pick one up and see how loud it truly is, and see how much better it performs, and if I decide to keep it, someone is going to get a great deal on my 460. I see this guy in the near future - lol
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130549&cm_re=gtx_470-_-14-130-549-_-Product

$250 for a 470 is too good of a deal to pass up, considering they were $350+ just 2 months ago.

 

[dennisburke]

If I had a mb that better supported SLI I would snatch another one up. The rumored 580, and possibly a 570 later, will have to be kick butt cards for me to step up now. Those stress test numbers I listed above were with the 470 clocked at 788/1576/1778, with running OC Scanner for one hour, and no artifacts.

 

[dragonsqrrl]

Interesting news for the upcoming GTX580...

"NVIDIA sacrificed the high-performance computing (HPC) functionality of Fermi to make the GeForce GTX 580 a smaller, more efficient card that's more suitable for the retail market. If the rumors are right, the card uses a 40nm GF110 GPU with 512 CUDA cores but has 300 million transistors less than the GeForce GTX 480 due to the canning of the HPC part. GPU clockspeed is said to be 775MHz, with 1544MHz shaders and 1536MB GDDR5 clocked at 4008MHz... The GeForce GTX 580 is expected to be announced somewhere next week, which is before the launch of AMD's Radeon HD 6900 series." The card supposedly performs on average 20% better then the GTX480, and comes with a less elaborate cooling solution, as you'll notice from the leaked pictures in the link below.

http://guru3d.com/news/geforce-gtx-580-rears-its-head/

Looks like there could be some hardcore competition with the upcoming DX11 hardware revisions. It's unfortunate however that Nvidia decided to remove a lot of the GPGPU specific hardware in their gf110 revision. I know a lot of the people here would disagree with me, as many of you use your graphics cards strictly for gaming, but you have to understand that many people also use their GPU's outside of gaming, and a Fermi based Geforce is a much cheaper option for these users then a Fermi based Quadro.

So it looks like removing this 'compute beneficial' hardware does make it a more efficient gaming GPU, but of course it also makes it a less efficient GPGPU. We saw the first example of this scaling back of GPGPU functionality with the introduction of gf104. I'm guessing it won't be a huge problem, as the gf104 still performs very well in compute tasks, but it just isn't as efficient as gf100. For example, the GTX465 often outperforms the GTX460, sometimes by a wide margin, in many OpenCL and CUDA based benchmarks I've seen. I know Nvidia's ultimate goal is a GPU that can excel at both gaming and GPGPU tasks efficiently, but gf100 wasn't it, and it's beginning to look like gf110 won't be either. I suppose there really wasn't enough time to do a thorough revision of the Fermi architecture to take another step in this direction. It's only been 7 months since the debut of the GTX400 series, so I'm guessing a sacrifice had to be made in favor of gaming efficiency in order to remain performance competitive with AMD's upcoming HD6900 series.

For more information you can read the complete leak below...

http://guru3d.com/news/geforce-gtx-580-might-sacrifice-hpc-functionality/

 

[dennisburke]

I think you hit the nail on the head dragonsqrrl...the new 40nm revisions are for the gaming crowd, and will more than likely be great gaming cards ment to compete with AMD's upcoming releases. Next year (hopefully) the 28nm process will be up and running, and I don't doubt that AMD already has a head start

 

[dragonsqrrl]

[citation][nom]kg2010[/nom]I totally agree with you, but... My needs are rather unique... For people who don't care about noise and heat levels, and want sheer performance, of course the 470 is a better card with 448 CUDA cores vs 336 CUDA cores for the 460... Point well taken though, and I hear what you're saying.[/citation]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure you fully understood the point panz3r was trying to make. The GTX470 isn't a faster GPGPU card and doesn't have better compute performance solely because of its higher core count. The internal architecture of gf104 was tweaked in several ways to benefit gaming performance, but not necessarily compute performance.

"For GF104, NVIDIA removed FP64 from only 2 of the 3 blocks of CUDA cores. As a result 1 block of 16 CUDA cores is FP64 capable, while the other 2 are not. This gives NVIDIA the advantage of being able to employ smaller CUDA cores for 32 of the 48 CUDA cores in each SM while not removing FP64 entirely. Because only 1 block of CUDA cores has FP64 capabilities and in turn executes FP64 instructions at 1/4 FP32 performance (handicapped from a native 1/2), GF104 will not be a FP64 monster."

In other words double precision performance took a rather severe hit with gf104, in comparison to gf100. Nvidia also switched to a superscalar execution process with gf104, which is a method of extracting instruction level parallelism (ILP) from a thread, as opposed to thread level parallelism (TLP) implemented in gf100. Again, this tends to benefit gaming efficiency/performance more so then compute performance. You can read more about these architectural tweaks in the linked article below:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3809/nvidias-geforce-gtx-460-the-200-king/3

I understand your heat and noise argument, but you should also keep these other factors in mind. Again, it isn't the higher core count alone that makes the GTX470 a faster GPGPU card.

 

[kg2010]

Hey dragonsqrrl you are right, I didn't fully understand that point, and after reading that article further. I can see why the 470 is a faster GPGPU card, and because of this, perhaps I am willing to overlook the heat and noise levels for the sheer compute performance added, seems to be like it would be noticeable.

I know the 470 was built to withstand a lot of heat, and I will have to experience the card first hand to see how loud it truly is.

I'm definitely going to purchase a 470 now and do some renders, and AME exports and see how much better it is.

With these points that you and Panzr made, this article would greatly benefit from 470 & 460 benchmarks - Hint Hint

Thanks for this info, greatly appreciated.

 

[kg2010]

Hey Dragonsqrrl, thanks for sharing that leaked info.

It's a shame that Nvidia took that route because not everyone looks at Fermi cards for gaming strictly - I'm one of those people who looked at it for its compute performance, and now it's making even more sense to get a 470.

I understand where Nvidia is coming from as the Gaming crowd is quite big, and they need to keep up and remain competitive especially with the 6970 just around the corner. I hope for their sake, the 580 runs cooler - Anywho...

I personally could care less for gaming, that's not what I built my computer for. Wish I had known all this, and I would've just gotten a 470 from the get go - do you think there will be a big difference in performance between the 470 and 480?

The cheapest 480 is $458.99 vs $269 ( free shipping ) for this 470.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130549&cm_re=470-_-14-130-549-_-Product

or

$299 for the MSI N470GTX Twin Frozr II:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127513&cm_re=470-_-14-127-513-_-Product

Thoughts?

( Great I'm back to shopping again, I thought I was done! )

I'm not quite ready to make the jump to Quadro, and the 470 is making more sense now.

Thanks again for sharing this info

 

[kg2010]

Ok - I think it's clear that for me the MSI N470GTX Twin Frozr II is the way to go.

Check out this comment:

Pros: I own both MSI reference 470 & Twin Frozr, and I must say hands down its worth the extra $30 without a doubt.

Kombuster temps (ambient 77F):
Reference

Idle- 44c (%50 fan speed) / Load- 80c (%75 fan speed)

Twin Frozr
Idle- 37c(%50 fan speed) / Load- 60c (%65 fan speed)

Under full load @ 60c /w %65 fan speed is barely audible
above my case fans set to medium in my antec 1200.

.....

Card stays idle normally around 38 degrees. I've not seen it above 67 on a load. Everything I've thrown at it so far, I can play on max and the card stays quiet and cool.

.....

My case has excellent airflow and will have no issues with Exhausting it.

I will run some benchmarks and will try to follow what they did in this article to see what I can come up with!

 

[dragonsqrrl]

[citation][nom]kg2010[/nom]Hey Dragonsqrrl, thanks for sharing that leaked info. It's a shame that Nvidia took that route because not everyone looks at Fermi cards for gaming strictly - I'm one of those people who looked at it for its compute performance, and now it's making even more sense to get a 470. I understand where Nvidia is coming from as the Gaming crowd is quite big, and they need to keep up and remain competitive especially with the 6970 just around the corner. I hope for their sake, the 580 runs cooler - Anywho...I personally could care less for gaming, that's not what I built my computer for. Wish I had known all this, and I would've just gotten a 470 from the get go - do you think there will be a big difference in performance between the 470 and 480?The cheapest 480 is $458.99 vs $269 ( free shipping ) for this 470. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] -_-Productor $299 for the MSI N470GTX Twin Frozr II:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] -_-ProductThoughts?( Great I'm back to shopping again, I thought I was done! )I'm not quite ready to make the jump to Quadro, and the 470 is making more sense now. Thanks again for sharing this info[/citation]
Please don't take the leaked information I posted for fact, it's nothing more then a rumor until official information is either released by Nvidia or reviews are posted of the actual hardware. Although given the short amount of time until release, and the history of accuracy from these sites, I would say that the information is probably pretty reliable. However, I'd personally wait for official performance numbers, reviews, and possible price adjustments before I dismiss the compute performance of the upcoming 500 series cards.

I'm definitely not an expert on this stuff, but if you "could care less for gaming", and you're willing to accept the higher power consumption, heat, and noise, then I would say the GTX470 is probably a good choice for you, especially given the recent price drop to $260. The GTX480 simply isn't worth it anymore. Unless you have the spare cash, it's difficult to recommend a card that can cost 60% more while offering ~15-20% more performance.

Your best bet is to read, review benchmarks, get a basic understanding of the hardware and its capabilities, and make an informed decision based off of this information and your computing needs. Don't take my word for it...

 

[kg2010]

I agree - and those who know me know that I don't take one's word for it - I am already researching everything you've stated and comparing different cards.

I do have at least a week or so before the prices go back up on the 470's, and I am leaning towards the MSI N470GTX Twin Frozr II for $299, due to its lower noise and heat levels. ( Big plus for me )

Besides, I'm not really willing to shell out close to $500 for a much louder, and hotter card for 10% - 20% gains - from what I've read so far, it seems like the 470 will suit my needs.

Thanks for your feedback though, and I will wait and see what other information comes out - so far, several sites do back up the claim that HPC has been cut out, and Nvidia chose to focus on the gaming market with the 580 release - they know the 6970's are just around the corner, and didn't want AMD having all the glory.

According to our sources the higher clock frequencies and the increased number of CUDA cores enable NVIDIA not just to increase performance compared to its own flagship, but also be enough to keep AMD Radeon HD 6970 in second place.

http://www.nordichardware.com/news/71-graphics/41570-the-geforce-gtx-580-mystery-is-clearing.html

This only makes the 470 choice that much clearer for me.

 

[Guest]

I'm a professional video contractor, and apparently....I need to raise my rates. The rent is just too damn high!

 

[dennisburke]

Also, don't forget that Adobe provides support for the 470 and not the 480. Another thing to remember is that the 470's bios controlled auto fan settings are designed to keep the noise level down, and as a result the temps can ramp up rather quickly. EVGA's Precision now includes the ability to set up your own auto fan speed scaling graph. I set up the step scaling method, which better controls temperatures, while not really increasing fan noise.

 

[kmodeler]

It's nice to see efforts from scientiific computing making their way into more common uses. But the top of the line hardware ($1K processor, +$500 graphics cards, 12 GB of RAM, SDD drives, etc.) is a barrier to broader adoption. It would be nice to see another cost/benefit evaluation with a "home" configuration, especially cheaper GPU since, I suspect, GPU communication is a potential bottleneck.

 

[dennisburke]

[citation][nom]kmodeler[/nom]It's nice to see efforts from scientiific computing making their way into more common uses. But the top of the line hardware ($1K processor, +$500 graphics cards, 12 GB of RAM, SDD drives, etc.) is a barrier to broader adoption. It would be nice to see another cost/benefit evaluation with a "home" configuration, especially cheaper GPU since, I suspect, GPU communication is a potential bottleneck.[/citation]


A GTX 470 works great on a P55 platform with the i7-870. You'll have multithreading x 8, and up to 16GB of memory space. The GTX 470, i7-870, P55 motherboard, and 8GB's of memory can be had for around: $820.00


GTX 470 $259.99

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130550


i7-870 $279.99

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115213


P55 Motherboard $109.99 (after rebate)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813188054


2 x 4GB Memory $169.99

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145324

 

[henydiah]

i Hope ATI HD6000 series easy take ADOBE CS5 64 ilove Adobe Audition& AECS5 so Andrew kramer

 

[kg2010]

[citation][nom]henydiah[/nom]i Hope ATI HD6000 series easy take ADOBE CS5 64 ilove Adobe Audition& AECS5 so Andrew kramer[/citation]

I think you need to read this review again and understand what CUDA really is.

Short answer - HD6000 series will not have CUDA or any ATI card for that matter, as it's proprietary by NVIDIA

 

[henydiah]

yes I know ATI not CUDA but ATI use STREAM....(maybe SUPERCUDA)

 

[kg2010]

I won't get into this debate.

 

[dalta centauri]

I won't get into this debate.

You know, the supercuda?!
The extra special feature in every Radeon card that's been locked far away in a vault beneath the cooling fan, where you open it and a magical golden chip pops out that lets you solder it onto the card anywhere and give it Super rendering/gaming powers...oh yea and it lets you fly.

 

[dalta centauri]

It's nice to see efforts from scientiific computing making their way into more common uses. But the top of the line hardware ($1K processor, +$500 graphics cards, 12 GB of RAM, SDD drives, etc.) is a barrier to broader adoption. It would be nice to see another cost/benefit evaluation with a "home" configuration, especially cheaper GPU since, I suspect, GPU communication is a potential bottleneck.

Ram has become incredibly cheap though, before it would cost a furtune where you can now get 4gb for under 100$.