FORUMS: list search recent posts

Matrox RT.X2 or faster graphics card?

COW Forums : Videoguys.com Tech Talk

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
simon ellis
Matrox RT.X2 or faster graphics card?
on May 2, 2009 at 3:30:56 pm

hello!

can anyone help me here - i am building a diy7 machine and i cannot decide whether to invest in a quadro fx1700 or fx3700 graphics card.

as well as editing, i will be compositing in after effects with full 1920x1080 targa sequences, and i know that diy7 suggests the fx3700 for compositing.

if i invest in the 3700 can i get away without purchasing the matrox for editing? perhaps the fx1700 and the matrox together would suffice? or am i confusing two different technologies here? i'm trying to find the most cost-effective solution without compromising the results.

any help here would be much appreciated!

many thanks,

simon


Return to posts index

Jcschild
Re: Matrox RT.X2 or faster graphics card?
on May 2, 2009 at 5:39:08 pm

HI,
1) the cards you listed are garbage (way too old)
a nvidia 260/285 are way faster or even a quadro 580.
quadros are very overrated unless doing autocad/real animation.

for editing an high end nvidia card is better and less.
quadro's are nvidia cards with a slightly changed firmware. plus they are usually 1 gen older than the gaming cards. the 1700 is 3 gens old

unless you are going for a Quadro CX dont bother.

you buy a RTX 2 only for 1 reason. your final output is to DVD.
RTX2 captures in Mpeg 4 saving you time and money.

while the included effects are nice so is whats included with your editor.

Scott
ADK


Return to posts index

simon ellis
Re: Matrox RT.X2 or faster graphics card?
on May 3, 2009 at 10:49:11 am

hi scott, thanks for your fast reply Smile

i didn't expect that answer! i cannot help wondering why these cards were used in diy7 if they are so bad...? so the gtx285 is better? what about the 295, which has twice as many cores (1792MB XFX GTX 295, PCI-E 2.0 (x16), 2000MHz GDDR3, GPU 576MHz, 480 Cores, HDMI/ 2x DL DVI-I, HDCP) - i'm just concerned that they won't be fully compatible with the diy7 recipe.

if the system could run fast enough without the need for an rtx2 that would be great, but it seems like i might need one to edit smoothly with real time effects, etc...?

thanks again for your help on this!

simon


Return to posts index


Jcschild
Re: Matrox RT.X2 or faster graphics card?
on May 4, 2009 at 2:33:49 pm

HI,
dont get me wrong i love the RTX2, well worth the money just for the Mpeg 4 capture.
but i have issues with people buying it for the effects, especially if you dont need to go to mpeg 4.

as to the 295 video card too much card unless doing alot of animation.
and yes while Adobe is Cuda enabled i dont see where it makes that much of a diff to warrant the 295 cost. vs the 260/285. of course its only what $100 still way less than the quadros you mentioned.

as someone who builds NLEs for a living trust me they are 100% compatible. the 285 is our default video card other than the animation system.

Scott
ADK


Return to posts index

simon ellis
Re: Matrox RT.X2 or faster graphics card?
on May 4, 2009 at 6:34:37 pm

brilliant, thanks. i wonder why they recommended the quadros in the diy7 recipe then? i will probably go for the 295 on the assumption that it's a step up from the 285 and will still be perfectly compatible.

i also assume that when you say 'animation' you mean intensive 3D animation in maya or similar? i won't be doing any of that, but i WILL be using the system for hd editing and plenty of hd compositing, requiring after effects to play ram previews of 1920x1080 targa sequences. if the 295 will be good enough for that then great. the only reason i even considered the matrox is because the diy7 article suggested that it was essential for fast, real time hd editing.

if you can confirm that the 295 is the way to go then that's what i shall do. and thanks for all your help on this, it is much, much appreciated!

cheers!

simon


Return to posts index

Gary Bettan
Re: Matrox RT.X2 or faster graphics card?
on May 4, 2009 at 8:17:53 pm

we spec in the QuadroFX because of 3 issues:

1) Avid approved. This is the biggie for us. While non QuadroFX cards can and will work with Media Composer, QuadroFX cards ALWAYS work. One of our top tech fixes for Meda Composer, has been and continues to be having the custoemr upgrade to a QuadroFX card.

2) After Effects. If you get into composting with AE, QuadroFX OpenGL delivers extra performance. Once again, non QuadroFX card can and will work great for many customers. QuadroFX cards ALWAYS deliver outstanding performance with After Effects.

3) Longer life cycles. New gaming cards come out every few months. QuadroFX cards have a longer life cycle. Our recommendations are for stability and performance. When we spec in QuadroFX, we know it will be that way. Unfortunately with gaming cards, you don't always get the best drivers for our software out of the gate, and sometimes they do stuff in driver updates that create issues.

Gary


Return to posts index


Jcschild
Re: Matrox RT.X2 or faster graphics card?
on May 4, 2009 at 11:00:32 pm

sorry Gary i have to answer


1) the issues i have had with our clients and Avid had nothing to do with Video cards (of course thats on our systems you have to deal with others systems) i will say 1 thing Xpress pro 5.5....
MC has been behaving however Very Happy

2) i benchmark systems all day long. (every system that goes outta here is benchmarked)
take that CX you have and benchmark it against a 285. the CX is an nVidia 260 with more ram and with a minor firmware change.

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=649

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/affordablehd/newsletter/test_drive_nvidia...

also
"""That's right, though NVIDIA's Quadro CX card is obviously more than capable of powering the OpenGL-based Photoshop CS4 acceleration, I was able to run these same tests using an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 reference card as well as an AMD Radeon HD 4870 512MB card. The fact these enhancements to the Photoshop app were done in OpenGL necessitates that they are cross-platform and GPU independent. Great news for consumers, not so great news for NVIDIA's Quadro line of GPUs. And yes, even the PixelBender-based filters will run on just about any modern OpenGL-supporting GPU.""""

now dont get me wrong for Maya, Lightwave and some others the CX is better and the new H264 encoding help is awesome.
for the average videographer heck no. you will also notice that Adobe certified the nvidia 260 for AE. for people who do real animation the CX would be way too underpowered.

3) same drivers for the most part. nvidia is nvidia the quadro CX is a 260.
again just some added tweaks for certain open GL calcs. found in rendering programs

FYI i have 2 of these CX in stock i would love to get rid of. if i wasnt so honest with my clients they would be gone by now
Very Happy Very Happy

Scott


Return to posts index

Gary Bettan
Re: Matrox RT.X2 or faster graphics card?
on May 5, 2009 at 1:37:25 am

Scott,

Keep in mind that you are an expert and build NLE workstations all the time. I have no doubt your success and benchmarks are spot on. But that doesn't mean the average DIY customer will get the same results.

Heck, I know lots of over-clocker wizards who buy an nVidia card, then hack in the QuadroFX drivers. I know it works, but we are not comfortable recommending this. Doing it wrong can be disasterous.

Gary


Return to posts index

Ben Blakewood
Graphics Cards
on May 5, 2009 at 1:53:30 am

Scott,
Thanks for your honest comments and links to these excellent articles.
This is exactly what makes forums like this one so valuable.

Can you list some websites where we can find more information along these lines?

Thanks again,
Ben


Return to posts index


simon ellis
Re: Matrox RT.X2 or faster graphics card?
on May 5, 2009 at 10:37:27 am

wow, this is getting lively! some fantastic feedback guys, if not a little confusing for me.

i thought i had better say something about what i do. i have been making short films for over ten years now, either personal or commissioned, plus a bunch of music videos and i'm about to make my second feature film. i also occasionally work as an editor.

i completed a wealth of compositing on my last feature at a post-production house in berlin, meaning i was away from home for eight weeks. as much as i love berlin, i want a machine powerful enough, and future-proof enough, to allow me to undertake such tasks from home (or at least my own country!). i am only too aware that with the rate technology is advancing, nothing is future-proof, but i want to give it the best shot.

i have so far installed the diy7 system with everything except the blu-ray drive and the graphics card, so once i take the plunge i will be ready to install the OS and go. this is assuming that i don't discover i also need to buy the matrox card for smooth hd editing (something i'd also like to avoid if buying a more powerful graphics card helps, but i may be getting two technologies confused here).

so, as far as the graphics card goes, it sounds like i'm down to the 295, the fx1700, or the fx3700. perhaps for peace of mind i should go with the 1700 and then invest in the matrox later if editing becomes slow...?

thanks guys!

simon


Return to posts index

simon ellis
Re: Matrox RT.X2 or faster graphics card?
on May 5, 2009 at 10:41:02 am

sorry, i forgot to add that the cx cards are way out of my price range...


Return to posts index

Jcschild
Re: Matrox RT.X2 or faster graphics card?
on May 5, 2009 at 1:37:34 pm

videoguy: Scott,

Keep in mind that you are an expert and build NLE workstations all the time. I have no doubt your success and benchmarks are spot on. But that doesn't mean the average DIY customer will get the same results.

Heck, I know lots of over-clocker wizards who buy an nVidia card, then hack in the QuadroFX drivers. I know it works, but we are not comfortable recommending this. Doing it wrong can be disasterous.

Gary


LOL i remember that...i used to do that (use the firmware hack and turn geforce into quadro) years ago... then one series you had to solder and i said forget it have not done the hack in a long while can you still do it?
Very Happy
again i sell alot of Quadro cards (well i used to this go round it seems far less)
and yes if i were in your shoes i would recommend the same. you compatibility comments rang more true several gens back.
and the last thing you want is someone going out and poking an older geforce or ATI card in there that was problematic.
or thinking with a 7 or8 series even some 9 series that are not CUDA enabed... and then say hey Gary this Core i7 system aint all that and a bag o chips.... or worse not so hot at open GL...

as far as expert lol i just play one at my day job...
my wife has to program my cell phone Shocked
besides dont we have to call you with a support ? every now and then?

now the Specview perf benchmarks the quadro cards will outperform the gaming cards.
and dont forget the CX has 1.5Gb ram vs 896mb for the 260.
for complex renders or even some instantces where using multiple overlays that ram could come in handy.
on the other hand a 285 has 1792MB Very Happy

Scott
ADK


Return to posts index


Jcschild
Re: Matrox RT.X2 or faster graphics card?
on May 5, 2009 at 1:45:34 pm

Simon,
if you are not doing the CX then dont do Quadro at all.

when you say HD editing (way too broad a word) and most people are not doing it when they think they are...

how do you ingest? firewire? if so you are not doing HD. you are doing hDV with the emphesis on DV. highly compressed

or are you using P2 etc.

Scott


Return to posts index

simon ellis
Re: Matrox RT.X2 or faster graphics card?
on May 5, 2009 at 4:12:15 pm

hi scott,

i will be using p2 for sure, but when i say HD i am mostly referring to the clips that i will be compositing in after effects, which are full 1920x1080 targa (or tiff) sequences. these sequence would be supplied to me uncompressed from HDcam (not HDV) by a post-production facility, and i would then import them into my own machine for compositing. in an upcoming project, almost every scene is such a composite.

in an ideal world i would be capturing fully uncompressed via component from a proper HD deck but, well, i can't afford that just yet Wink

i am a director by profession and i'm aiming for a system with enough "oooomph" to allow me to do as much from my own system as possible, without having to rely on post-houses. years ago i purchased a canopus raptor system when DV was the revolution. i edited many films on it before slowly becoming involved with more and more work that involved post-houses as part of a production's budget (if we shot on 35mm, for example). now i am sort of going back to the independent route and i need my kit to allow as much independence as possible. this also means smooth editing in p2 format as i recently won a p2 camera and am keen to use it.

so you say i shouldn't go quadro unless it is cx, which is beyond my budget at the moment, but then i read that the quadro fx will benefit from openGL in after effects, and i'm nowhere near qualified enough to understand what it all means Shocked

regards,

simon


Return to posts index

Jcschild
Re: Matrox RT.X2 or faster graphics card?
on May 5, 2009 at 6:51:03 pm

HI Simon,
AE is more effected by memory than anything, they way CS4 is programed. it will
use all cores and each core is assigned ram so ideally 12 gig would be minimum on Vista 64.
add to that Cuda....
now on final render outs the vid card will play a roll again CS4 will offload some of this to the GPU.

but AE is not like Maya, Lightwave, Combustion etc in pologon, lights, shadders etc.

and lastly the thing CX is best known for is it H264 renders. more so than its animation renders

so again 285!

Scott
ADK


Return to posts index


simon ellis
Re: Matrox RT.X2 or faster graphics card?
on May 5, 2009 at 9:35:49 pm

...


Return to posts index

simon ellis
Re: Matrox RT.X2 or faster graphics card?
on May 5, 2009 at 9:37:42 pm

...


Return to posts index

simon ellis
Re: Matrox RT.X2 or faster graphics card?
on May 7, 2009 at 11:22:32 am

after becoming even more confused by all this talk of openGL support on the quadro cards, i realised i must make my decision so i am going with your recommendation of the gtx285 and hopefully i'm not missing out on something essential (the openGL issue).

i have found two different brands of the 285 card at the same retailer (where i shall be buying it) but i don't know which would be the better for video editing, or if their differences are negligible. xfx or gainward? the gainward seems to have two fans on it instead of one.

thanks in advance! i am so close to buying this now so if anybody has any last advice on gtx-or-quadro (or even ati, which i haven't considered so far) then now is the time! i will primarily be using premiere, after effects and avid.

thanks Very Happy

simon


Return to posts index


Jcschild
Re: Matrox RT.X2 or faster graphics card?
on May 7, 2009 at 2:10:39 pm

they are all the same for the most part.
most of the 200 series use the reference design.
with a few selling slightly overclocked.

Zotac is my fav, BFG and XFX would be next. several of these have lifetime warranty.
but really any would do.

Scott
ADK


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]