Intel HD4000 - to Geforce or not ?

[g1981c]

I just put together a computer with Ivy Bridge 3770K cpu, in fact here it is:

http://youtu.be/AdRuTjcT_uw

And as part of my original plan i also bought Geforce EVGA 670 FTW from newegg, which i think i need to return for refund ASAP because i'm running out of time to return it ! ! !

And the reason to return it is simply because i think i don't need it ? I don't play games AT ALL, but i do edit video.

What happened is i was away from computer building for a while ( temporarily switched to Macs ) and back when i last built computers even dedicated graphics were too slow. So i automatically assumed i needed a fast graphics card and got the 670.

But now i realize HD400 is not the joke that i thought it was, and it's my last opportunity to send the 670 back BUT i can't really "test out" the HD400 beyond windows experience index ( which on it is quite abysmal, everything else on my computer is 7.7 to 7.9 ) because i don't know where i may need the graphics power.

all i really want is to be able to edit high bitrate HD videos ( think 1080p @ 60 fps @ 28 mbps ) and i want google earth with 3D buildings to work smoothly.

i am going to be using a 47" Vizio HDTV as as a screen ( the one in the video ).

so what's the verdict - should i send the Geforce 670 back ? i didn't even open the box on the geforce.

given that i don't need the horsepower ( although i use Sony Vegas to edit video, and CUDA can accelerate Vegas 11 ) i guess my main concern is whether i will run into incompatibility issues with the HD4000 ? i already had to return a Radeon recently because it was occasionally giving me a black screen. Geforce is the only card i can really trust at this point.

the only time i had a graphics card incompatibility so far is when i tried isntalling Autodesk Revit on a 13" macbook pro and it wouldn't run on the integrated 9400M graphics ( gave graphics error ) - but i was able to run it without problems on all my other computers. i would like to make sure i don't have to deal with such nonsense if i go with HD4000 graphics ?

 

[nenforcer]

That's the top of the line GTX 670 with the GTX 680 PCB so it's tough to recommend you return it but for your needs I think it makes sense.

The HD 4000 can easily handle Google Earth (OpenGL / DirectX) and also includes QuickSync which is the fastest video transcoding solution available right now (dedicated hardware transcoder). I don't know if your video editing software (Premier / Vegas?) can make use of it so just make sure you buy a lot of RAM so you can dedicate a huge portion (1GB) to the framebuffer of the HD 4000.

 

[g1981c]

That's the top of the line GTX 670 with the GTX 680 PCB so it's tough to recommend you return it but for your needs I think it makes sense.

in my research i went with the method of elimination - i eliminated all the other cards from consideration based on some form of logic or another.

* i eliminated Radeons based on reports of bad drivers, and my own experience with the black screen on 7870 HIS IceQ ( which i already RMAd )

* i eliminated non-Kepler Geforces as being not power efficient with an outdated manfuacturing process ( my old computer is a furnace burning 270 watts at idle and i wanted to avoid this. the new computer so far pulls only 50 watts at idle but that is without any graphics card installed ).

* i eliminated non-FTW version of 670 for having a compromised physical construction ( too much plastic, not enough metal ) with a poor noisy fan.

basically i went for the only card that at the time made sense to me - i liked the thoughtful physical design with the cast aluminum chassis spanning the entire card to provide support, cooling and resist vibration. and i liked the efficiency of 28nm and latest architecture.

but it was all based on a flawed assumption that i *need* a graphics card in the first place.

The HD 4000 can easily handle Google Earth (OpenGL / DirectX) and also includes QuickSync which is the fastest video transcoding solution available right now (dedicated hardware transcoder). I don't know if your video editing software (Premier / Vegas?) can make use of it so just make sure you buy a lot of RAM so you can dedicate a huge portion (1GB) to the framebuffer of the HD 4000.

i know QuickSync is the fastest, but as you said, i have a concern about compatibility. CUDA has been around since forever and Sony Vegas 11 ( i currently use Sony Vegas 10 on the old computer, but plan to use Vegas 11 on the new one ) anyway Vegas 11 proudly states it uses CUDA to get 3X the performance ( when used with a 570 card, so with 670 i guess it can't be worse ).

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegaspro/gpuacceleration

On the other hand VLC player for example can't even use Radeon cards to accelerate decoding, and Radeon has been around for far longer than QuickSync. With GeForce i am most confident about compatibility.

Also - if i keep the GeForce - won't the computer automatically switch between GeForce and HD4000 as needed ? That is will it use QuickSync when that's supported and CUDA or PureVision at other times ?

Finally Wikipedia claims "Quick Sync, like other hardware accelerated video encoding technologies, gives lower quality results than with CPU only encoders. Rapidity has the priority on quality.[5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quick_Sync

Also as i'm sure you know Apple just released new MacBook Pros and both the Retina and regular ones have Geforce 650M ON TOP OF an HD4000 graphics. now i would understand this on the Retina model - it has a LOT of pixels to push, but on the regular ones ? What could possibly be their logic ? People don't buy MacBooks to play shooter games do they ?

make sure you buy a lot of RAM so you can dedicate a huge portion (1GB) to the framebuffer of the HD 4000.

i built it so far with 2 sticks of 4 GB each. there's still two slots left. you think 8 gigs is enough ? on my old windows 7 computer it uses about 20% of the 8 gigs.

 

[jacktesterson]

in my research i went with the method of elimination - i eliminated all the other cards from consideration based on some form of logic or another.

* i eliminated Radeons based on reports of bad drivers, and my own experience with the black screen on 7870 HIS IceQ ( which i already RMAd )

* i eliminated non-Kepler Geforces as being not power efficient with an outdated manfuacturing process ( my old computer is a furnace burning 270 watts at idle and i wanted to avoid this. the new computer so far pulls only 50 watts at idle but that is without any graphics card installed ).

* i eliminated non-FTW version of 670 for having a compromised physical construction ( too much plastic, not enough metal ) with a poor noisy fan.

basically i went for the only card that at the time made sense to me - i liked the thoughtful physical design with the cast aluminum chassis spanning the entire card to provide support, cooling and resist vibration. and i liked the efficiency of 28nm and latest architecture.

but it was all based on a flawed assumption that i *need* a graphics card in the first place.



i know QuickSync is the fastest, but as you said, i have a concern about compatibility. CUDA has been around since forever and Sony Vegas 11 ( i currently use Sony Vegas 10 on the old computer, but plan to use Vegas 11 on the new one ) anyway Vegas 11 proudly states it uses CUDA to get 3X the performance ( when used with a 570 card, so with 670 i guess it can't be worse ).

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegaspro/gpuacceleration

On the other hand VLC player for example can't even use Radeon cards to accelerate decoding, and Radeon has been around for far longer than QuickSync. With GeForce i am most confident about compatibility.

Also - if i keep the GeForce - won't the computer automatically switch between GeForce and HD4000 as needed ? That is will it use QuickSync when that's supported and CUDA or PureVision at other times ?

Finally Wikipedia claims "Quick Sync, like other hardware accelerated video encoding technologies, gives lower quality results than with CPU only encoders. Rapidity has the priority on quality.[5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quick_Sync

Also as i'm sure you know Apple just released new MacBook Pros and both the Retina and regular ones have Geforce 650M ON TOP OF an HD4000 graphics. now i would understand this on the Retina model - it has a LOT of pixels to push, but on the regular ones ? What could possibly be their logic ? People don't buy MacBooks to play shooter games do they ?



i built it so far with 2 sticks of 4 GB each. there's still two slots left. you think 8 gigs is enough ? on my old windows 7 computer it uses about 20% of the 8 gigs.

I think the HD4000 is all you need.

 

[KompuKare]

i know QuickSync is the fastest, but as you said, i have a concern about compatibility. CUDA has been around since forever and Sony Vegas 11 ( i currently use Sony Vegas 10 on the old computer, but plan to use Vegas 11 on the new one ) anyway Vegas 11 proudly states it uses CUDA to get 3X the performance ( when used with a 570 card, so with 670 i guess it can't be worse ).

Would not be that sure about that. I don't do video editing but GK104 Kepler has been seriously gCompute neutered and in lots compute things is slower than 570/580. This round is AMD is the one who used lots of die space for compute and double precisions maths.

Also as i'm sure you know Apple just released new MacBook Pros and both the Retina and regular ones have Geforce 650M ON TOP OF an HD4000 graphics. now i would understand this on the Retina model - it has a LOT of pixels to push, but on the regular ones ? What could possibly be their logic ? People don't buy MacBooks to play shooter games do they ?

I'm fairly sure the main reason Apple went for 650Ms is marketing of the old 'checkbox' feature list. HD4000 is probably fast enough for those MacBook Pros. I doubt Apple is a huge fan of Nvidia after Nvidia sold them tons of bad parts (8400M /8600M): Apple were probably the only company which did good by their customers and fixed the affected laptops (sometimes multiple times since the replacement parts were often faulty too). So I was surprised that after a few years of Radeon-only, Apple is using Nvidia again.

 

[Don Karnage]

Return the 670.

 

[Jaydip]

Op rerun the 670 and get this
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814133354

 

[Turbonium]

Just return the card. The HD 4000 is adequate for what you're going to be using it for.

 

[beginner99]

I would return it. while certain effects might benefit from a dedicated GPU/CUDA most of the stuff won't. Also the 3x improvement is often used with encoding ignoring the fact of worse quality.

Video editing requires:
- tons of RAM
- fast disk system (speak: raid0 and/or ssd)
- fast CPU

And if you realize you do need it you can still buy it again later but IMHO you will get better performance investing that money in RAM and disk system.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

You can get the same benefits of having a nvidia card but get one significantly cheaper since it won't be used for gaming.

 

[g1981c]

I would return it. while certain effects might benefit from a dedicated GPU/CUDA most of the stuff won't. Also the 3x improvement is often used with encoding ignoring the fact of worse quality.

Video editing requires:
- tons of RAM
- fast disk system (speak: raid0 and/or ssd)
- fast CPU

And if you realize you do need it you can still buy it again later but IMHO you will get better performance investing that money in RAM and disk system.

do u think i would benefit from more than 8 gigs of ram ? when i was using Final Cut Pro X on my iMac it would eat all of my 12 gigs of ram easily but my windows 7 box doesn't seem to have much appetite for RAM at all !

 

[g1981c]

Op rerun the 670 and get this
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814133354

i like this idea. i need to research Quadro though.

 

[Insomniator]

How can you put together a $2000 and not understand what you need or don't need?

 

[Magic Carpet]

Op rerun the 670 and get this
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814133354

Can't you re-flash a generic Geforce to a Quadro? Seems like it's a waste of dough, if the only difference is "specialized" drivers.

 

[g1981c]

ok screw it i'm gonna return it. i can always buy something else later.

 

[Jaydip]

Can't you re-flash a generic Geforce to a Quadro? Seems like it's a waste of dough, if the only difference is "specialized" drivers.

Even if u mod the inf files and install the quadro drivers the performance would be lacking.

 

[g1981c]

How can you put together a $2000 and not understand what you need or don't need?

what, you didn't know that people sometimes do stupid things ?

 

[beginner99]

do u think i would benefit from more than 8 gigs of ram ? when i was using Final Cut Pro X on my iMac it would eat all of my 12 gigs of ram easily but my windows 7 box doesn't seem to have much appetite for RAM at all !

I'm no expert but it depends on your project. For HD (1080p) I guess you can go with 16 GB. Nothing wrong with too much and RAM is very cheap now.