Is it better to go with Nvidia or AMD for photoshop?

[minitron]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4832/the-apple-thunderbolt-display-review/5

It's in the middle of the road.

Did anyone ever tell you that you're unbearably annoying? You also can't even read the own reviews you link.

Again, that's the Thunderbolt display review, not the iMac review which Anand's states is better than the 2011 TB display.

You obviously didn't read the conclusion from that review:
[QUOTE]Overall I'm just as much a fan of the 27-inch iMac display as I was of the 27-inch Cinema Display. The iMac is obviously bulkier but overall desk footprint is similar and you get a Sandy Bridge system as a part of the deal.[/QUOTE]

and

The display quality of the 27-inch iMac is excellent. Apple went with a different panel resulting in a better monitor than the standalone 27-inch Cinema Display we reviewed last year. Although this one comes with a computer attached to it, you still retain the relatively small footprint of the 27-inch display. I still believe that a 27-inch diagonal is the best overall balance of resolution and screen size available today if you need something beyond 1920 x 1200.

Again, you haven't actually linked a superior display and corresponding review.

 

[nsavop]

Not really. CUDA is still more widely supported.


What can Premiere Pro CS6 process with OpenCL?
Everything that Premiere Pro CS6 can process with CUDA, with four exceptions:

• Fast Blur effect
• Gaussion Blur effect
• Directional Blur effect
• Basic 3D effect

Not to mention that only 2 AMD gpus are supported, or that you NEED Mac OS for OpenCL acc.

http://blogs.adobe.com/premiereprotraining/2012/05/opencl-and-premiere-pro-cs6.html

Thanks for posting this. Also the reason Adobe added OpenCL to CS6 was to get support to macbooks which previously used AMD graphics.

 

[Homeles]

Again, that's the Thunderbolt display review, not the iMac review which Anand's states is better than the 2011 TB display.

You obviously didn't read the conclusion from that review:


Again, you haven't actually linked a superior display and corresponding review.

Hey kid, you need to go back to school. That quote absolutely does not say that is the best panel on the market. The charts in the reviews that have been tossed around here clearly show that the iMac display, Thunderbolt display -- any damn display from Apple -- are not as good as high end offerings from Dell and HP.

Stop using bold print. We can read. You're clearly new to the internet, because your online etiquette needs some major improvement.

 

[minitron]

Hey kid, you need to go back to school. That quote absolutely does not say that is the best panel on the market. The charts in the reviews that have been tossed around here clearly show that the iMac display, Thunderbolt display -- any damn display from Apple -- are not as good as high end offerings from Dell and HP.

Stop using bold print. We can read. You're clearly new to the internet, because your online etiquette needs some major improvement.

Both the Dell and HP displays have disadvantages compared to the iMac. You're trading whites for blacks....

Please find me a review that states a Dell display is better than the iMac display. I have to bold because you can't do this simple task.

You're making a very clear assertion that the HP and Dell displays are better but you have yet to link one review that says so.

 

[moriz]

Why do you even say you "might as well" when you obviously have knowledge of a better display.

Please provide a link with said display and a review that states it's better than iMac display.

You also failed to read the review on Anand's that points out the iMac actually has a better display than the stand-alone Cinema Display.

You've suggested and contributed nothing and obviously never actually looked at reviews. Apparently that's hard when you're already on the site forums.:whiste:

It's easy to state things off the hip without any sources.

Link to said display? Link to review that says whatever you're talking about is better than iMac display?

better display? try the dell u2711. higher color gamut, CCFL backlighting, matte finish, more input options, adjustable stand.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2711.htm

much more indepth review than anandtech's.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4340/27inch-apple-imac-review-2011/7

the cinema display and 27" imac are both shown here. they have the same panel. the u2711 shows up as well, and has the benefits listed above.

as i've mentioned already, the apple displays are hardly the best. the fact that they are glossy effectively kills them for professional users. might want to brush up on your english comprehension, as well as technical knowledge. try harder.

and at the end of the day, the 27" LED cinema display is indeed better than the 27" iMac, since you can use it on any computer that has a displayport/miniDP output, whereas the iMac you are saddled with one computer.

Both the Dell and HP displays have disadvantages compared to the iMac. You're trading whites for blacks....

Please find me a review that states a Dell display is better than the iMac display. I have to bold because you can't do this simple task.

You're making a very clear assertion that the HP and Dell displays are better but you have yet to link one review that says so.

he did, and i just did as well. your english comprehension is failing you again. try harder.

 

[Homeles]

Both the Dell and HP displays have disadvantages compared to the iMac. You're trading whites for blacks....

Please find me a review that states a Dell display is better than the iMac display. I have to bold because you can't do this simple task.

You're making a very clear assertion that the HP and Dell displays are better but you have yet to link one review that says so.

You aren't worth the energy. I don't engage in battles of wit with unarmed opponents.

 

[minitron]

better display? try the dell u2711. higher color gamut, CCFL backlighting, matte finish, more input options, adjustable stand.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2711.htm

much more indepth review than anandtech's.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4340/27inch-apple-imac-review-2011/7

the cinema display and 27" imac are both shown here. they have the same panel. the u2711 shows up as well, and has the benefits listed above.

as i've mentioned already, the apple displays are hardly the best. the fact that they are glossy effectively kills them for professional users. might want to brush up on your english comprehension, as well as technical knowledge. try harder.

and at the end of the day, the 27" LED cinema display is indeed better than the 27" iMac, since you can use it on any computer that has a displayport/miniDP output, whereas the iMac you are saddled with one computer.



he did, and i just did as well. your english comprehension is failing you again. try harder.

This review was done in 2010, the newest iMac came out in Q3 2011.

Unless time travel is possible they couldn't have possibly reviewed the iMac display.

In addition, both glossy and matte finishes have their advantages and disadvantages.

You aren't worth the energy. I don't engage in battles of wit with unarmed opponents.

AKA you can't find one. Got it.

 

[Homeles]

AKA you can't find one. Got it.

I don't want to find one. I'd rather sit here and laugh at your complete inability to read charts.

 

[Dark Shroud]

Not really. CUDA is still more widely supported.


What can Premiere Pro CS6 process with OpenCL?
Everything that Premiere Pro CS6 can process with CUDA, with four exceptions:

• Fast Blur effect
• Gaussion Blur effect
• Directional Blur effect
• Basic 3D effect

Not to mention that only 2 AMD gpus are supported, or that you NEED Mac OS for OpenCL acc.

http://blogs.adobe.com/premiereprotraining/2012/05/opencl-and-premiere-pro-cs6.html

Cuda is widely supported in what? There are members of this forum using HD 7000 cards with AutoCAD.

You need to go back and read the first couple of pages of this thread with the various links. Tom's Hardware has run several tests with Adobe and talked with other companies. Tom's do have it running with 7970s & AMD APUs. Other software suits are following Adobe in adding OpenCL support. Gimp & Corel support OpenCL as well.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/photoshop-cs6-gimp-aftershot-pro,3208-13.html

Here is another link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPDGIcNi4gI

 

[minitron]

I don't want to find one. I'd rather sit here and laugh at your complete inability to read charts.

AKA you can't fine one.

Also please don't link a super display that we can't even purchase.

 

[f1sherman]

Cuda is widely supported in what?
There are members of this forum using HD 7000 cards with AutoCAD.

[...]

Other software suits are following Adobe in adding OpenCL support.
Gimp & Corel support OpenCL as well.

In CS6 ofc. As seen in part you quoted.

 

[moriz]

AKA you can't fine one.

Also please don't link a super display that we can't even purchase.

he found one, but your poor english comprehension renders you incapable of reading it apparently. BTW, the cinema display, TB display, imac display, and the U2711 show up in the same anandtech charts. the one you linked, hilariously enough.

glossy displays are not favourable for professionals because they tend to have excessive glare. the apple displays are fancy toys and are surprisingly good for gaming, but most photoshop professionals won't even touch them with a 10 foot pool.

try harder.

 

[nismotigerwvu]

cuda is the code that unlocks the power of programing directly on nvidia GPUs. It is much stronger as it is more specific to their hardware. OpenCL is a universal language that can be ran accross platforms but on nvidia cards it runs through CUDA. CUDA is a much more direct and powerful way to completely utilize the full program-ability of their hardware. Nvidia is actually much further along in this field. Tesla markets that are supercomputers for so many fields needed more direct and powerful tools to optimize the hardware for very important precise task. CUDA allows nvidia to do be able to do things on a level that is unmatched. People saying nvidia should drop cuda have absolutely no understanding at all and shouldnt really be speaking on the matter.

CUDA is much more than most realize. Nvidia was thinking really really big when they came up with CUDA. Photoshop acceleration doesnt define CUDA at all. For the average general application like this openCL would be great. It will accelerate the tasks and be good at it. But cuda is way more fine tuned to specific hardware for much more critical task than this generalized consumer product.

To give you a really rough idea of how it works I will try to explain. lets look at the old days of PC. We had DOS which windows 3.1 ran on. for nvidia we have CUDA which openCL runs through. This is real generic but its sort of a way to help you understand what it means when keys says openCL runs through CUDA for nvidia cards. OpenCL is great for us, it can serve a great purpose. CUDA is serving one too, one that really is wide spread. It has its purpose and its ignorant to act as if its a bad thing. They coexist and will for sometime to come. As far as consumer products, developers using openCL makes more sense doesnt it?

DOS is not an API, in fact, it stands for Disc Operating System. The APIs that you were thinking about for this point are WIN16 and WIN32 (and well, WIN32s as well, but that's being even more anal that I usually am). If you go back through the thread, you'll see a lot of us actually agree with you. Like I said before, dropping CUDA ALL TOGETHER is a HORRID idea. It's actually quite useful in academia and industry settings, which is targeted with the high margin (and well supported) Tesla line. However, this is the realm of Heidi, OpenGL (it's original intention) and other professional use APIs (granted my exmaples were for graphics, but you can understand the point that I'm making here) and where CUDA can really succeed. Trying to push CUDA on the desktop is just not a winning (or desirable margin wise) proposition.

TLDR: CUDA is great for science/industry and Nvidia should let MS or someone else handle the desktop.

 

[minitron]

he found one, but your poor english comprehension renders you incapable of reading it apparently. BTW, the cinema display, TB display, imac display, and the U2711 show up in the same anandtech charts. the one you linked, hilariously enough.

glossy displays are not favourable for professionals because they tend to have excessive glare. the apple displays are fancy toys and are surprisingly good for gaming, but most photoshop professionals won't even touch them with a 10 foot pool.

try harder.

Nowhere does it show the U2711 actually being better than the Mac display. We're not talking about the 2707WFP which you can't even get anymore.

You're wrong about professional use which can favors glossy finish for brighter color. It depends on the environment but I guess that's too hard to understand.

Do some imaging work, maybe you'll finally understand then.

 

[moriz]

Nowhere does it show the U2711 actually being better than the Mac display. We're not talking about the 2707WFP which you can't even get anymore.

You're wrong about professional use which can favors glossy finish for brighter color. It depends on the environment but I guess that's too hard to understand.

Do some imaging work, maybe you'll finally understand then.

The u2711 has more input options, wider color gamut, fully adjustable stand, and a surface that doesn't induce headaches after prolonged use. All that amounts to the fact that the u2711 is a better display than the cinema display, and by extension, the iMac.

Photo professionals do not want "brighter" colors, they want ACCURATE colors. As such, glossy displays do nothing for them. How about you do some real imaging work, so you actually know what you are yapping about?

Try harder.

 

[minitron]

The u2711 has more input options, wider color gamut, fully adjustable stand, and a surface that doesn't induce headaches after prolonged use. All that amounts to the fact that the u2711 is a better display than the cinema display, and by extension, the iMac.

Photo professionals do not want "brighter" colors, they want ACCURATE colors. As such, glossy displays do nothing for them. How about you do some real imaging work, so you actually know what you are yapping about?

Try harder.

Input options is okay but more computers are coming with TB. The iMac has a really small footprint so it's a moot point. Color gamut is overrated after a certain point, both of these displays will look great after Spyder adjustment.

Please explain this crap you're making up about headaches?

I'd like to know what real imaging work you've done. Bright colors matter when you're looking for contrast between layers on the screen, so you actually know what you are yapping about?

Try harder.

 

[nsavop]

I'm the furthest thing from apple fan but I have to admit one thing that's always great on there products is there displays. They have done more recently to introduce better displays into phones, tablets and notebooks then anyone else. Hopefully other companies follow and we get out of the 1080p stagnation that were in.

 

[Shmee]

cool it guys, or there may be infractions handed out...

I personally think you cant go wrong with the Dell U3011 or HP ZR30W for gaming, they would be my first choices so far.

 

[m1ch4L]

openCL performance benchmarked with both AMD and nVidia cards: http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CS6-GPU-Acceleration-161

 

[AnandThenMan]

OpenCL+CS6 is such a great experience, nice to see it performs well on just about any GPU. Open standards :thumbsup:

 

[sontin]

Wow - a 7970 is slower than a 7870...

And Kepler is always faster than the 7970. So much for the better "GPGPU" architecture.

 

[3DVagabond]

Wow - a 7970 is slower than a 7870...

And Kepler is always faster than the 7970. So much for the better "GPGPU" architecture.

How are you attributing this to the architecture? Especially if you consider that the 7870 is often faster than the 7970. That tells me that there are still optimizations that need to be made.

 

[gorobei]

people are missing the point of the puget article,

From a budget standpoint, the NVIDIA Geforce GTX 650 1GB and AMD Radeon HD 7750 both did great for their price points, performing just a few seconds slower than the fastest cards we tested.

given that the differences in the PS filter tests have a spread of 1sec or .1sec on most of the tests, it means that even the lowest end modern card with openCL does fine for the average PS user(with the exception of the intel hd4000 and the gt610).

it would be more interesting to see how some of the amd apus performed against the 7750 or 650. if laptop users can get by without a dedicated card and the power drain, that could seriously affect some buying decisions for consumer notebook/laptops.

given that puget systems are vendors trying to upsell you a video card, it is unlikely they will test to see if PS users can get by on a lower end llano or trinity.

 

[moriz]

Input options is okay but more computers are coming with TB. The iMac has a really small footprint so it's a moot point. Color gamut is overrated after a certain point, both of these displays will look great after Spyder adjustment.

Please explain this crap you're making up about headaches?

I'd like to know what real imaging work you've done. Bright colors matter when you're looking for contrast between layers on the screen, so you actually know what you are yapping about?

Try harder.

Contrast between layers on the screen? Lol. Sounds like I'm being trolled. You can't possibly be this moronic.

I'm a game development student, and graphics creation and manipulation is one of the many aspects of my job. I'm no Photoshop pro, but I can get the job done. Your comment about layers is pure idiocy, since most programs like Photoshop have layer tools. Not to mention, color contrast won't be able to reveal different layers in an image anyway.

As for glossy screens and eye strain, be a big boy and Google it. It's not too hard for you, right?

 

[ocre]

openCL performance benchmarked with both AMD and nVidia cards: http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Photoshop-CS6-GPU-Acceleration-161

this thread actually need this. Thanx for the link.

It appears not much difference at all no matter what card is used from either AMD or Nvidia. The slightest of edge goes to nvidia hardware but you get great results with just about any hardware.

But wasnt this already brought up early on in the thread? Didnt someone say that there is little difference between any card in Photoshop? I am pretty sure it is in this thread.

Basically, what we can take from all this.......
You dont need a powerhouse GPU to have great Photoshop acceleration. All the cards perform very similar, AMD or Nvidia. Now if your doing it all day long for a living, perhaps those few seconds a faster card would give you is worth the extra investment. But for the average joe that extra speed isnt gonna get noticed.

This is my opinion based on the real data provided. Someone did bring up some more information-

What can Premiere Pro CS6 process with OpenCL?
Everything that Premiere Pro CS6 can process with CUDA, with four exceptions:

• Fast Blur effect
• Gaussion Blur effect
• Directional Blur effect
• Basic 3D effect

Not to mention that only 2 AMD gpus are supported, or that you NEED Mac OS for OpenCL acc.

http://blogs.adobe.com/premiereprotr...e-pro-cs6.html

The link seems to support this so if those effects are important to you then Nvidia may be the choice.

Also i am not sure about a couple things and i think i see some of the confusion. What are all the difference is between Premiere Pro CS6 and Photoshop CS6. The nvidia exclusive effects may be limited to the Premiere edition which cost hundreds more.

Regardless, for the most part it is surprising to see the results in the linked benchmarks above. All the cards from both companies perform very well. What it says to me, if your buying a GPU for only HW acceleration in Photoshop there is no need to spend a lot of cash.