Non-Gamer; High quality video GPU for HD

[philipma1957]

Thats a slight exageration.
You can get a 6670 for 49$ (brand new) thats alot faster than the HD4000 (IGP) in intel Sandy Brigdes.

The fact that Sandy Brigde can give something like a Geforce 520 a run for its money, makes low-end cards like the 520 useless though. That however doesnt mean there arnt sub 100$ video cards that cant kick the HD4000 (IGP)'s arse in terms of performance.

I mean there are 7750's going for less than 100$, and their many many times faster than the HD4000.

I could not agree more with you. He should get a hd7750.

In fact he should get the sapphire fanless or the powercolor fanless model.



http://www.amazon.com/PowerColor-128.../dp/B007V9UF3K






http://www.amazon.com/Sapphire-Ultim...radeon+hd+7750



I have a sapphire hd7750 ultimate in a case with good cooling and it smacks the hd4000 igp silly.


I use an i7 3770t cpu and I can compare the hd7750 with the hd4000 with just a few clicks of my mouse. I like the hd7750 as it is fanless with 0 noise. It does not run that hot. You just need a case with good air circulation.

 

[snoylekim]

Is the HD4000 adequate for HD video editing or do I need a discrete video card? I won't be playing any games.

I understand that some editing software such as Sony Movie Studio can benefit from a discrete video card for rendering, but does that only apply to the final render (rather than previewing during editing)? If I've spent a few hours filming and editing, I don't mind waiting 15 minutes rather than 10 for the final output to render.

I'm thinking of getting an i7 3770k overclocked to 4.2ghz (along with 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD). Initially I had thought that I would need a video card such as a GTX 660ti, but these forums seem to be suggesting that a powerful video card is needed only for gaming, and that the HD4000 on an i7 should be adequate for HD video editing.

Sony Movie Studio will leverage OpenCL on a video card for some codecs ( mostly the Sony versions) which does reduce rendering time around 15-20% measured with my a reference 7970 ..it also shows an option to use Intel Quick Sync if available, but since I have discrete graphics I haven't seen this in action ..the CPU choice provides the most bang for the buck if you're looking to optimize video or photo work .

 

[Ben90]

Well, many people were bashing non-Intel GPUs. This is one test to show, that not everything's rosy in Intel's backyard.

Oh god! The IGP needs a whole 15% processor power to run a movie! The whole computer is going to be locked up and probably catch on fire. Someone get the op SLI 690's stat! DOOM TO INTEL!

 

[2is]

Oh god! The IGP needs a whole 15% processor power to run a movie! The whole computer is going to be locked up and probably catch on fire. Someone get the op SLI 690's stat! DOOM TO INTEL!

Agreed, and it'd probably not even a real 15% figure either as Speed Step would probably still have the CPU down clocked.

 

[jhansman]

but a guy in IT at work swears by discrete cards in all cases

Yeah, don't listen to these guys. I have yet to meet one that was a system builder or really knew hardware (and I've know a few).

Funny how these threads almost always turn into pi**ing contests. Sigh...

trclac- I just upgraded from an HD4600, and what little video editing I did went smoothly. That said, were I to start using a program like Adobe Premier (or even it's Elements counterpart), I'd get something with a bit more muscle.

 

[trclac]

Thank you for the advice. I really appreciate it.

 

[dguy6789]

I wouldn't give up massive CPU performance for a small bump in IGP.. IB > Trinity

For gaming assuming you only use the IGP, Trinity is faster than Ivy Bridge in every game on the market and not by a small amount.

 

[2is]

For gaming assuming you only use the IGP, Trinity is faster than Ivy Bridge in every game on the market and not by a small amount.

The title of this thread starts with "non-gamer" though.

 

[jkauff]

A late update to this thread. I had asked a similar question on this board a couple of months ago, and the consensus was that my HD4000 was all I needed for video encoding and playback. However, I also I hang out on the doom9 forum, and the developer of madVR, the best video renderer available, recommends a discrete GPU for best playback. Some of his algorithms take advantage of the extra GPU processing power, although madVR works fine without the advanced settings.

I had an extra couple hundred dollars sitting in the bank, so I invested in a GTX 660 board from Asus. I also have an Asus mb that supports Lucid MVP, so I installed that too so I could use the HD4000 Quick Sync. It also has native support for PowerDVD.

The difference is quite obvious. Both Blu-rays and DVDs look much better, and the H.264 encoding support on the Kepler part is just as good as Quick Sync (but not better--I still prefer software encoding if I have the time to do it). All in all, I'm very pleased, and I think the OP would find the same benefits I have.

 

[2is]

Interesting, I've played Blu-Ray's on my HD4000 and GTX 680 and I can't tell the difference.