New video card: Issues to consider other than raw performance and price

[MJinZ]

I am searching for a new graphics card and I am in doubt between NVIDIA and ATI. I've seen different benchmarks and, as tricky as benchmarks may be, they have given me a clue of which card is superior to the other in terms of performance. Numbers are easy to compare.

But perhaps there is more to a video card than just numbers. I've read in some places that there are not so trivial differences between ATI and NVIDIA. For instance: ATI drivers are more buggy; the image quality of NVIDIA is superior to the image quality of ATI (and vice-versa); ATI usually embraces the latest technology while NVIDIA often rebrands its old video cards; ATI is designed towards gaming and NVIDIA is designed towards general computing; ATI is slower at 2D graphics; one is faster in some kinds of applications than the other.

NVIDIA GeForce and ATI Radeon are really very different beasts, beginning with their architecture. Comparing raw numbers is a very simplistic approach and, at least to me, it doesn't seem to reveal all the truth behind these cards.

I am particularly interested in these non-trivial differences. I haven't owned a decent video card for quite a while right now (some years, in fact), so I cannot really tell the differences of the latest ATI and NVIDIA series.

I am looking for a high-end video card for general purposes, not just gaming (but also some gaming). I intend to use two 1920x1080 monitors to do quite a few demanding multimedia tasks. So, I would appreciate if someone told me which are the main differences between these two cards, apart from the ones I can easily see on traditional benchmarks. On which one the image quality is better? For which kind of applications is NVIDIA or ATI better? Which will probably better support GPGPU? Which offers better performance for dual monitors and high resolutions? And so on...

And you still won't.

 

[Outrage]

"Nvidia’s cuda GPU acceleration pays off

We’ve seen some videos of how much Cuda with Nvidia graphics card can speed up certain effects in Photoshop CS4 and Premiere CS4. This is all a part of newly announced Creative Suite 4 and support for Nvidia’s Cuda.

:snip:

CS4 have been out since october 2008, and you could only find a preview from someone who have seen a few promo videos ?

 

[Keysplayr]

Just keep in mind when reading what Keysplayr says that he is a ''Member of Nvidia Focus Group'' Hence his somewhat comical over the top defending of their products. Personally I choose to ignore everything that Focus group fanatics say.

Next time, you might try attacking the argument instead of my character.
Everyone knows me here dude. Like me or hate me, I'm out in the open, unlike many.

 

[Keysplayr]

CS4 have been out since october 2008, and you could only find a preview from someone who have seen a few promo videos ?

Yeah, that's it.

 

[Dark4ng3l]

Next time, you might try attacking the argument instead of my character.
Everyone knows me here dude. Like me or hate me, I'm out in the open, unlike many.

No need to attack your argument since it's obvious he won't need CUDA as everyone except you have clearly pointed out in this thread. If he was going to use CUDA he would have no problem buying an ultra expensive video card to power his even more expensive professional grade applications that require it.

And i'm not bashing you I just need to point that out since it's so small in your sig and IMO as an accountant I know that in nVidia has a ''Focus group program'' it's because in the end they think it's for their financial benefit (as in more money in than money out). Even if you aren't biased in the end you can expect the average focus group member to beat the nvidia drums harder than if he was not part of the focus group and I have to point that out.

 

[Outrage]

Yeah, that's it.

okies, i will tell you something that fuad missed in his preview, even intel integrated graphics will accelerate the gpu functions in photoshop.

 

[TheMeanestGuest]

In all honesty, for what OP is doing, I don't think it really matters what he gets as long as its 4850/GT2 250 level or higher (and I'm only saying that because of Street Fighter IV).

Just get something that fits your price range, and, if everything else is equal, get whatever you think looks cooler.

 

[1h4x4s3x]

Look, maybe you didn't know better, that's okey. But after I corrected you, you went on and quoted an entire fudzilla article to prove me wrong. To be honest, not only is it totally misleading and false, it also does smell quite a bit since you're a member of Nvidia's Focus Group.
But whatever, benefit of doubt.

Btw. I'm really looking forward to the mercury engine. Right now, gpu transcoding is rather useless because of the image quality and only useful for doing previews. I've seen a few clips of the mercury engine and its preview capabilities are awesome but a rendered gpu output has not been showed and I wonder why. Anyone knows more?

 

[Keysplayr]

Look, maybe you didn't know better, that's okey. But after I corrected you, you went on and quoted an entire fudzilla article to prove me wrong. To be honest, not only is it totally misleading and false, it also does smell quite a bit since you're a member of Nvidia's Focus Group.
But whatever, benefit of doubt.

Btw. I'm really looking forward to the mercury engine. Right now, gpu transcoding is rather useless because of the image quality and only useful for doing previews. I've seen a few clips of the mercury engine and its preview capabilities are awesome but a rendered gpu output has not been showed and I wonder why. Anyone knows more?

Anyway, said my piece.

 

[Lonyo]

Lonyo, the only one who is trying REALLY REALLY hard to spin here, and has been for the last week or so, is you.

You can plainly see that I had a disclaimer in saying "depending on application" and the source I linked to as well as yourself, shows in plain english for everyone to read for themselves. Anything I posted was in direct counter of your posts. Provided quotes from the very article you linked to.

I am also certain you knew SLI didn't scale yet felt free to show 5870 vs. GTX295 results in media show espresso. This has been brought up before in this forum and I'm sure you were a part of the conversation. Hows that for cherry picking?

Just go ahead and read that AT article I linked to in full. And while you're at it, go and read the article you linked to in full. I suggest the OP does the exact same thing.

Actually I said that "here's a not very helpful article because it compares two irrelevant cards" being that both cards cost more than the CPU he is looking at and he stated that he doesn't want that sort of card, and invited people to find reviews of relevant cards (those more in the $135~$150 range) using some applications.


In my original post, I believe I tried to point out that GPU accelerated programs aren't really something to be currently concerned by because while they may give greater speeds, they are not ready for the prime time user who wants the best output from their video.

Then I said finding a comparison of $150 or so cards in some media application would be an advisable solution, to see the relative performance of said cards. Here's a link to a relatively irrelevant article on two cards the OP wouldn't buy, which highlights the problems of (a) GPU accelerated transcoder (it being crap and not very controlled or consistent).

If you want to turn this into ATI vs NV, fine. But that doesn't change the fact that these GPU accelerated transcoding programs are pretty much all rubbish compared to the sorts of things which power users use and run only on CPU and give better and more controlled output.

 

[skaertus]

Thank you, you've been of great help. It seems like a medium range video card will do for me. I've still got some doubts, though.

1. Will ATI's Eyefinity make any difference if using just 2 monitors? If not, wouldn't ATI 4850/4870/4890 be a better choice than AT 5770?

2. According to your posts (and also to information I gathered on the Internet), it seems like that next versions of both Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox will implement GPU acceleration, but I'm yet to find out if it will use CUDA, OpenCL, DirectCompute, or whatever. As GPGPU technologies evolve, it seems to me video cards will become more and more important to general computing. However, I'm yet to find out how NVIDIA GeForce and ATI Radeon handle those GPGPU applications, as I haven't seen any test so far. GeForce will be the obvious choice for CUDA applications, but DirectCompute and OpenCL will work with both cards. And I still don't know how much power those GPGPU applications will actually use; will a Radeon 5970 be so much faster than a 5750, for instance, in these kinds of applications? Does anybody have any clue on this?

 

[Dark4ng3l]

A web browser only uses like 5% of your cpu power. Unless you plan on having hundreds or thousands of browser windows open then don't worry about that. Keep in mind that 95% of all computers have extremely weak video devices. If you are worried about your computer being too slow because your video card can't do compute stuff fast enough then no worries.

We are going to see the beginning of real GPGPU software taking over the marketplace once both Intel and AMD have introduced CPUs with integrated video processing that can do compute tasks at a decent speed. The first fusion processors are going to be released late this year or next year so this kind of thing will not be seen in the mainstream for probably the nest 5+ years.

 

[skaertus]

A web browser only uses like 5% of your cpu power. Unless you plan on having hundreds or thousands of browser windows open then don't worry about that. Keep in mind that 95% of all computers have extremely weak video devices. If you are worried about your computer being too slow because your video card can't do compute stuff fast enough then no worries.

We are going to see the beginning of real GPGPU software taking over the marketplace once both Intel and AMD have introduced CPUs with integrated video processing that can do compute tasks at a decent speed. The first fusion processors are going to be released late this year or next year so this kind of thing will not be seen in the mainstream for probably the nest 5+ years.

I also thought that GPGPU software would take a little time to be developed. However, there are plenty of news saying that IE 9 will make use of GPU acceleration to render webpages. There is also an alpha version of Firefox 3.7 using GPU acceleration. So, it seems like GPGPU may be far nearer than I previously thought.

 

[solofly]

Just keep in mind when reading what Keysplayr says that he is a ''Member of Nvidia Focus Group'' Hence his somewhat comical over the top defending of their products. Personally I choose to ignore everything that Focus group fanatics say.

Too bad I can't put him on my ignore list...(not that I would waste any of my time on any of them to begin with, rollo and the rest)

This place feels like a market not a forum...

 

[Anarchist420]

Well, here's why I have a 9800 GT and 5770 Xvapor in my machine:
9800 gt because shadowman doesn't run with 24 bit z-buffer on ATi; ATi seems to have worse depth precision; nvidia's color is a little bit better IMO, and nvidia has PhysX.

However, ATi's advantages are RGSS AA, EDAA (works with all games), and DX 10.1 and 11 support.

Compatibility is about the same.

I also need to get something to replace my soundcard and blow 5Ds because I need that PCI slot for a Geforce FX for older games.

 

[Outrage]

I also thought that GPGPU software would take a little time to be developed. However, there are plenty of news saying that IE 9 will make use of GPU acceleration to render webpages. There is also an alpha version of Firefox 3.7 using GPU acceleration. So, it seems like GPGPU may be far nearer than I previously thought.

They will be using direct2d, you dont have to worry about gpgpu capabilitys of the cards when rendering a webpage.

 

[brybir]

Thank you, you've been of great help. It seems like a medium range video card will do for me. I've still got some doubts, though.

....

2. According to your posts (and also to information I gathered on the Internet), it seems like that next versions of both Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox will implement GPU acceleration, but I'm yet to find out if it will use CUDA, OpenCL, DirectCompute, or whatever.

You can be sure that by the time IE9 is publicly released it will support some sort of widely used acceleration format or multiple formats. IE9 is a public release going to millions of people. Most of these people have Intel graphics, and following that a decent chunk also have nVidia and ATI graphics as well. So, if they adopt CUDA only, they are basically shafting MOST of the graphics market, same as if they adopted an ATI or Intel only implementation.

As programs and technologies improve, MS will get behind its horse (probably some sort of directcompute future iteration) and it will become the standard and we will look back and think "CUDA" or "Stream"....what they hell were those?


Also to note, as others have said, Photoshop without professional plugins works fine on either ATI or Nvidia hardware. For you, you are correct to spend money on a great processor and get something like a 5770 for around $150. I think that is absolutely the correct decision for your type of use.

 

[Will Robinson]

The Radeon HD 5870 is the fastest GPU on the planet, with the best visual output, and the most compelling set of features. Yet it's still a mid-sized chip by GPU standards. As a result, the 5870's power draw, noise levels, and GPU temperatures are all admirably low.

The Tech Report.

Somehow I just knew the Focus Group would miss this quote...

 

[Voo]

I also thought that GPGPU software would take a little time to be developed. However, there are plenty of news saying that IE 9 will make use of GPU acceleration to render webpages. There is also an alpha version of Firefox 3.7 using GPU acceleration. So, it seems like GPGPU may be far nearer than I previously thought.

I'm sure it'll be great if the page renders in ns instead of µs because the GPU is so much faster than the core i7 on it

GPGPU acceleration may be nice for people with atoms and similar stuff, but with modern state of the art CPUs? It's not as if you'd ever notice the difference..

 

[Keysplayr]

Too bad I can't put him on my ignore list...(not that I would waste any of my time on any of them to begin with, rollo and the rest)

This place feels like a market not a forum...

Yeah pretty much. Everytime I see your avatar, I think I'm looking at an ATI advert.
And I probably am. And it's good to see your not wasting any time on any of us.
Wut?

 

[Keysplayr]

I'm sure it'll be great if the page renders in ns instead of µs because the GPU is so much faster than the core i7 on it

GPGPU acceleration may be nice for people with atoms and similar stuff, but with modern state of the art CPUs? It's not as if you'd ever notice the difference..

Have you read up on any of this stuff, Voo? MS seems stoked about it, and I doubt it's because of a web page loading in ns instead of µs. I'm sure many more functions of the CPU will eventually move to the GPU as time goes on and gens pass.

 

[Dark4ng3l]

Yeah pretty much. Everytime I see your avatar, I think I'm looking at an ATI advert.
And I probably am. And it's good to see your not wasting any time on any of us.
Wut?

Hey at least he never claimed to be unbiased and decides to show everyone his undying love for ATi products unlike the GUTB types around here....

 

[Keysplayr]

Hey at least he never claimed to be unbiased and decides to show everyone his undying love for ATi products unlike the GUTB types around here....

Don't be so hard on yourself. I've got your back!

 

[Keysplayr]

I also thought that GPGPU software would take a little time to be developed. However, there are plenty of news saying that IE 9 will make use of GPU acceleration to render webpages. There is also an alpha version of Firefox 3.7 using GPU acceleration. So, it seems like GPGPU may be far nearer than I previously thought.

That doesn't go on to say that it will be magnificent in it's infant stages. It's just a bunch of little things that add up. IE9, Firefox 3.7, Media show espresso, Photoshop, etc.
If you search around the web a bit, you'll find what you want to know. Obviously you can see that it is quite difficult to find unconflicting information here. Try googling for GPU acceleration for your encoder, version of Photoshop, etc. and see what you come up with.

 

[Voo]

Have you read up on any of this stuff, Voo? MS seems stoked about it, and I doubt it's because of a web page loading in ns instead of µs. I'm sure many more functions of the CPU will eventually move to the GPU as time goes on and gens pass.

Not specially about IE9 development, but if they want to use GPGPU stuff then rendering seems to be the first candidate for it, right?

Don't get me wrong I think GPGPU development is absolutely interesting and as a matter of fact I've already progged some small test programs in CUDA, but for me it's more about HPC, like CILK (though after Intel bought them it's probably only a question of time till we see it for desktop applications as well..). For a browser it may be interesting for JavaScript performance, rendering,.. but I'd say their target is more people with netbooks or even standard notebooks, because I'm really hard pressed imagining that the difference between GPU accelerated rendering and a corei7 would be noticeable. For mobile solutions the energy savings could also be interesting.