CyberLink Community Forum
where the experts meet
| Advanced Search >
Video card for 3D video - performance and 3D TV support
Reply to this topic
david445 [Avatar]
Member Private Message Joined: Oct 30, 2012 05:28 Messages: 129 Offline
[Post New]
Want to start 3D video editing and rendering, ans also doing other 3D design work with a different sw, so I need to balance encoding capability with 3D support. Currently using PD10 Ultra but can update to PD11 obviously.

For about the same cost I can have GeForce GTX 660/Radeon 7870

Does make sense? Thes cards really accelerate editing?
Can be better invest less in GPU (maybe GTX 650 Ti or Radeon 7850) and have a hybrid drive?

There are any specific reason to prefer Nividia/ATI? Especially for 3D TV compatibility?

I read the list of supported TV sets and appear Nvidia it's far more extended than ATI

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at Mar 27. 2013 10:56

Reply
david445 [Avatar]
Member Private Message Joined: Oct 30, 2012 05:28 Messages: 129 Offline
[Post New]
Reading and reading appear that the situation it's not to easy to define.

OpenCL support sure can boost certain performance, but also Intel Quick Sync can be really fast.

Please can someone give me a feedback if CPU it's definitely more important than GPU into PowerDirector?
Reply
James Dotson
Senior Contributor Private Message Location: Tennessee Joined: Aug 24, 2009 20:40 Messages: 3063 Offline
[Post New]
If I understand it correctly, the real improvement in hardware encoding will come only if the GPU supports the format to which you are encoding. I do not know if that effects 3D so much, but it probably needs to encode to AVCHD or MPEG 2, whichever you choose. Then, to play back 3D it would have to be 3D compatible. Software can accomplish the same thing, at a cost to the CPU.

I guess what I am saying is to look at the specs for the GPU and see if it supports the codec to which you wish to encode. If not, it does not matter how fast it is because the CPU(s) will be doing the work. 3D is really only important for decoding/playback.

Nvidia or ATI? Both are good. I prefer ATI just because I have used them for years with no trouble. __________________________________
CORNBLOSSOM
Reply
david445 [Avatar]
Member Private Message Joined: Oct 30, 2012 05:28 Messages: 129 Offline
[Post New]
Checked, appear that AMD GPU are good for video.

What GPU does you have?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Mar 28. 2013 03:50

Reply
ruffhouse1 [Avatar]
Newbie Private Message Joined: Oct 25, 2011 16:12 Messages: 12 Offline
[Post New]
I'm just about to ship back my GTX 650Ti, which I just paid $150 for. It simply made no difference over my 9600GT, which I just re-installed.

I'm capturing VHS tapes into .mp4 with h.264, and burning to Blu-ray. The 650Ti did nothing for me to speed up capturing, editing or producing the final content.

Jaime-esque must be right, because others have said on this forum that the 650Ti does wonders for them... it must really depend on your workflow.
Reply
david445 [Avatar]
Member Private Message Joined: Oct 30, 2012 05:28 Messages: 129 Offline
[Post New]
In fact after reading many posts I think need to have a balanced GPU/CPU/RAM/HDD conf that can support many tasks.

I will adopt AMD GPU since appear they give better support for video editing, but also go for a 6-core CPU to speed other activities.

I was also was considering a eGPU solution, that I finally discarded since it's not balanced, used with my wake (for AV) laptop solution.

So my current candidate setup its this

CPU AMD FX-6300 6-Core Vishera 3.5GHz Socket AM3+ 14MB 95W Boxed
VGA Club 3D Ati AMD Radeon HD 7850 RoyalQueen 2GB
RAM DDR3 Corsair Vengeance Blue Low Profile CML8GX3M2A1600C9B 1600MHz 8GB (2x4GB) CL9
WLAN Pci-e Wireless TP-Link TL-WN781ND 150MBs Wireless N
HDD 3.5" Western Digital Caviar Blu 1TB 7200RPM 64MB SATA3
Mobo Asrock 960GM/U3S3 FX Socket AM3+ AMD 760G DDR3 SATA3 USB3 MicroATX
Case Mini Cooler Master Elite 342 mATX with PSU 500W Black
Keyboard Power X KB618B Multimedia USB Black
MS Windows 8 Pro 64 bit

That cost me 743 USD.

If someone have comments about that I will be interested to know.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Apr 03. 2013 15:22

Reply
Carl312
Senior Contributor Private Message Location: Texas, USA Joined: Mar 16, 2010 20:11 Messages: 9055 Offline
[Post New]
david445,
Why not increase your RAM to 16 GB, you have a 6 Core 64 Bit CPU, you could use more that 8 GB to good purpose.
Windows 7 64-bit 8 GB RAM,AMD Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz,ATI Radeon HD 5770 1 GB,256GB SSD,1TB HD.
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
Not responsible for any harm that may come to your wallet
Reply
david445 [Avatar]
Member Private Message Joined: Oct 30, 2012 05:28 Messages: 129 Offline
[Post New]
Will cost me around 60 USD more and I'm already pushing my budget.
If I can afford it sure I will do it.

Other considerations about the other parts?
Reply
Reply to this topic
Powered by JForum 2.1.8 © JForum Team