580 or 680

[Jacky60]

A friend just bought a 580 for £380 ($500), he games but also needs it for editing -mostly Adobe CS5 Premier Pro and After effects. He's on a 920 i7 at stock but insists 580 is only card 'certified' to Run CS5 -which I suspect means tested on rather than will/can run. I think he should go 680 gtx (he can return 580 and buy 680 for almost same price within a few days) but don't know about 680 and Adobe CS5/Pro/After effects. Is 680 just not certified like most newer hardware isn't because the software is old (like how a Titan isn't 'certified' for BF2 because it's 'new' or is there another reason? Should he send the 580 and replace it with the 680.

 

[tarmc]

save the coin and go with a 670 instead? should work just as well.


Posted from Anandtech.com App for Android

 

[nanaki333]

save the coin and go with a 670 instead? should work just as well.


Posted from Anandtech.com App for Android

yeah. a 670 is about the same performance as the 580, but lower power consumption.

 

[tarmc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarmc

save the coin and go with a 670 instead? should work just as well.


Posted from Anandtech.com App for Android

yeah. a 670 is about the same performance as the 580, but lower power consumption.

performs close to 680 but alot cheaper



Posted from Anandtech.com App for Android

 

[waldoh]

Seems like he got ripped on the 580 price.

Also he is using an old version of Adobe, CS6 is the newest. Here are the certified gpu's (http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/tech-specs.html).

I find it hard to believe the 680 nor Titan won't support GPU acceleration. Chances are its nVidia's way of saying "you must buy a professional grade card which costs multiple thousands".

Here is nVidia's tech page (http://www.nvidia.com/object/premiere-pro-cs6.html)

A little more digging, seems like the 680 would need a CUDA hack to work with CS6 premiere pro (http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1011523).

Also here is a benchmark showing there is little to no performance gain going from the officially supported 580 to the 680 (http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Premiere-Pro-CS6-GPU-Acceleration-162/).

 

[aaksheytalwar]

In most recent games, assuming all stock

7970ghz ~ 2 570s, twice the performance fps, not sli, more like 90% faster realistically
680 = 90%+ of 7970ghz ,
670 ~ 90% of 680
So, 670 ~ 75-80% of 7970ghz so let us assume around 80%
580 ~ 120% of 570
So 670 ~ 180/120 ~ 40-50% faster than 580 assuming both stock

The estimates you have are probably with old games and old drivers.

With the latest games and latest drivers, especially with demanding games even at 1080p without AA the above is valid in most cases where a single 7970ghz struggles to avg 60 fps at 1080p sometimes without AA.

This is valid for games like Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider, Crisis 3, Far Cry 3 andnot with last games games like BF3 or Crysis 1 which don't even come close to next games of 2013.

So long story short a 670 is at least 40% faster than a 580 assuming both are at stock. In modern situations of course. Sometimes it may end up being just 20% faster or less but other times it might exceed 50% additional performance, perhaps in the months to come than now.

 

[Jacky60]

Seems like he got ripped on the 580 price.

Also he is using an old version of Adobe, CS6 is the newest. Here are the certified gpu's (http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/tech-specs.html).

I find it hard to believe the 680 nor Titan won't support GPU acceleration. Chances are its nVidia's way of saying "you must buy a professional grade card which costs multiple thousands".

Here is nVidia's tech page (http://www.nvidia.com/object/premiere-pro-cs6.html)

A little more digging, seems like the 680 would need a CUDA hack to work with CS6 premiere pro (http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1011523).

Also here is a benchmark showing there is little to no performance gain going from the officially supported 580 to the 680 (http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Premiere-Pro-CS6-GPU-Acceleration-162/).

Thanks dude I think you and he are correct-seems Nvidia are milking this market -I would be annoyed if I had to buy 3rd old card to use for video editing or spend $2k. It's lose lose for him-last generation gaming performance

 

[Dark Shroud]

I find it hard to believe the 680 nor Titan won't support GPU acceleration. Chances are its nVidia's way of saying "you must buy a professional grade card which costs multiple thousands".

Titan supports it, but that's a $1k+ card.

The GTX 600 series cards can run CUDA but they're just not good at it. Something had to go for Nvidia to get that lower power usage.

Adobe is now switching over to OpenCL so most of those few plug-ins work on AMD cards now. By the time Adobe's 7 gen software everything should work fully on OpenCL.

If he really has an i7 he would have just been better off using the CPU to render and getting a gaming card. There isn't much benefit to using the GPU especially when you have to limit yourself to an old card.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Something had to go for Nvidia to get that lower power usage.

That explains why Titan is better perf/w than the 680 :thumbsup:

 

[fixbsod]

580 will outperform 680 in certain adobe things as it has a much faster (actually just not as crippled) double precision something something can't remember the exact acronym. gaming the 680 will rip it all day long, but certain editing / video stuff could definitely be much faster (30-50%) on the 580.

 

[Jacky60]

580 will outperform 680 in certain adobe things as it has a much faster (actually just not as crippled) double precision something something can't remember the exact acronym. gaming the 680 will rip it all day long, but certain editing / video stuff could definitely be much faster (30-50%) on the 580.

This does seem to be the case, I obviously know the 680 is much quicker for gaming just couldn't quite believe the 580 would be so much better for video editing but you learn something every day!

 

[Dark Shroud]

That explains why Titan is better perf/w than the 680 :thumbsup:

What exactly are you trying to say here? I'd like you to try and explain yourself.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

What exactly are you trying to say here? I'd like you to try and explain yourself.

I'm saying that Titan has better perf/w than the 680 by a considerable amount and still has a lot of it's compute/CUDA capabilities as well as 1/3 DP.

The belief was born of GF100 vs GF104, where Nvidia produced a much more efficient chip that was cut. However in practice GF110 was on equal ground with GK114 in this area, despite having more compute/CUDA capabilities and GK104 got destroyed by the compute/CUDA heavy GK110.


So it would seem GK104 was trimmed to lower cost and cripple performance, not to increase perf/w as some may still believe.