I'm building a system thats going to be using mainly Photoshop, Premier, and Quicktime. Lots of video rendering, etc. Should i be looking for a 2D or a 3D card?
2d or 3d video card for photoshop/video rendering?
- Thread starter PaperclipGod
- Start date
Originally posted by: EeyoreX
2d. Unless I am wrong. Then 3d.
I'm pretty sure it's 2d for this though.
\Dan
LOL
you put my thoughts into words. i wasnt sure either... so thats why i asked. :/
nowadays i don't think you have much choice in whether or not you want 3d since nearly all video cards do both
Right... but some do much better 2D than 3D, and vice versa. If all this stuff is 2D, ill get a Matrox card. If it's all 3D work, ill probably go with an ATI card.
Thanks.
But why recommend an ATI card for 2D work? Wouldnt the system be better suited with something from Matrox?
Any reason why you recommend ATI over Matrox?
Do you know where i can find some reviews or comparisons between different 2D cards?
Video editing and image editing generally only use the CPU for processing, so you should look for the card with the best 2D just to get a better idea of what your images actually look like. Your performance will be based on CPU speed/RAM speed amount and hard drive speed, while the graphics card is simply used for display. People seem to recommend Matrox and ATI above the other manufacturers for 2D quality.
I think there may be a few editing applications that use a 3D GPU for real-time effects and transition previews, but unless you specifically have one of these packages you don't need to worry about it. Besides, these days any card that gives you good 2D quality is bound to have a 3D GPU that will be more than enough for anything a video application would need.
I think there may be a few editing applications that use a 3D GPU for real-time effects and transition previews, but unless you specifically have one of these packages you don't need to worry about it. Besides, these days any card that gives you good 2D quality is bound to have a 3D GPU that will be more than enough for anything a video application would need.
Ahhh... ok. So even if i'm, say, rendering to MPEG4 in quicktime... its still my processor doing all the work?
If thats the case ill just grab a G550 or something. :/
If thats the case ill just grab a G550 or something. :/
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,156
- 1,804
- 126
In the old days I would recommend Matrox. But they are so far behind these days in terms of 3D that you may as well spend the money on say a cheapo Radeon 9200 and get not only great 2D and support, but also passable 3D as well, for the rare times you may want to game. Furthermore, Matrox cards cost a lot more. From what I've seen of ATI cards lately, the 2D on VGA is equal to that of the Matrox. Both are vastly superior for VGA quality to the average nVidia card. (nVidia per se isn't bad, but there are some nVidia cards which absolutely terrible 2D, thus bringing down the average).
But it does depend on what monitors you'll be using. If you want dual DVI, or three monitors, then Matrox might be the way to go. However, a dual DVI Matrox costs a heluvalot more than a cheap DVI/VGA Radeon.
Matrox did have some funky 2D features in the drivers that the others did not, but I could never test it out anyway, because when I bought my Matrox G450 for Win 2000, none of the gee-whiz features worked with that OS anyway.
I must admit however, I haven't tried the latest Matrox drivers and cards.
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
It's not even possible to get a pure 2d card anymore. They haven't been made in years. Video editing and compression is done complete on the CPU. It hardly matters what video card you get. Heck, you can even make do with onboard video.
But if you run at very high resolutions and experience a blurrier than desired image on your CRT, then you may need a video card with a higher quality output signals.
But if you run at very high resolutions and experience a blurrier than desired image on your CRT, then you may need a video card with a higher quality output signals.
Yes, you only need a 2D card -- I think your use of the term "rendering" somehow convinced people that you wanted to run Lightwave/Alias Wavefront/Maya and the like. What you want to do (editing and creating digital video) is called "encoding", not "rendering", and has very little to do with your video card (other than to display the results). 
Originally posted by: Matthias99
Yes, you only need a 2D card -- I think your use of the term "rendering" somehow convinced people that you wanted to run Lightwave/Alias Wavefront/Maya and the like. What you want to do (editing and creating digital video) is called "encoding", not "rendering", and has very little to do with your video card (other than to display the results).
oops :/
Sorry for the confusion.
So basically it doesnt really matter what kind of card i have, right? I'll just put the money towards a faster cpu.
Yes.
Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
So basically it doesnt really matter what kind of card i have, right? I'll just put the money towards a faster cpu.
Well, it won't affect your final output. If you're a real stickler for detail and accurate color/contrast, the quality of the card will make a difference when you are judging your work on your monitor. It'll also be easier on your eyes.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter