Thinking about upgrading video card

[kaydawgy]

Just ordered a super fast Dell XPS 430. Here are some specs worth noting

Windows Vista 64 bit SP1
Intel Core 2 Quad, ( Intels new i7 processor)
6GB of DDR3 RAM ( I guess that's supposed to be SUPER fast now)
2.5 GHz processor speed
256 MB DEDICATED ATI RADEON HD 3650 ( I heard that this is pretty weak)

I'll be editing in Premiere Pro CS3 and AFter Effects CS3. Should I upgrade the the ATI RADEON HD 3650 card to something more beefy? What do ya'll suggest I get to be able to perform a better workflow of editing HD video? Also, this sounds dumb, but what does it mean to have a "256 MB dedicated" ?? Thanks for your expertise guys

[kaydawgy]

wait, I think I just found my answer. CycleWriter suggests that the "NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT". Does this sound correct?

[CycleWriter]

It depends. Generally, video editing does nto benefit noticeably from a hefty video card. My recommendation of the 8600 was specific to those whose computers do not have the power supply and/or internal space to accommodate many of the newer cards that either need a 450W power supply and/or a dual slot. Anytime you see "dedicated" in a PC description it usually means that the graphics subsystem is integrated on the motherboard and that "dedicated" video RAM is allocated from the system RAM. Not the ideal setup.

Ideally, a separate video card with its own RAM is best. I've heard that Premiere does benefit from graphics card acceleration. 256MB of video RAM is about the minimum for any system, but if you plan to run dual monitors or use a monitor at full HD resolution (1920x1080) you'll want at least 512MB. I am currently running a 1gb ATi 4670 with a 19" 1280x1024 and a 22" 1920x1080 monitors. This is the most video card you can get that doesn't require a power supply larger than 350W, a seperate power connector inside the case and two slots.

I paid less than $90 for this card a month ago, so I wouldn't sweat the on-board graphics too much. Just make sure you have at least a 300W power supply and a PCIex16 graphics slot on the motherboard so you can upgrade.

[DrDave]

I've tried a bunch of cards and don't see a big difference. Eugenia recommends 256 or better bandwidth so I got a card that has that, it certainly isn't slow but it didn't make a huge difference. However, if there is a bottleneck at that point, it makes sense to get the extra bandwidth. I think having two fast hard drives or an SSD definitely helps.

[Video Frank]

Just ordered a super fast Dell XPS 430. Here are some specs worth noting

Windows Vista 64 bit SP1
Intel Core 2 Quad, ( Intels new i7 processor)
6GB of DDR3 RAM ( I guess that's supposed to be SUPER fast now)
2.5 GHz processor speed
256 MB DEDICATED ATI RADEON HD 3650 ( I heard that this is pretty weak)

I'll be editing in Premiere Pro CS3 and AFter Effects CS3. Should I upgrade the the ATI RADEON HD 3650 card to something more beefy? What do ya'll suggest I get to be able to perform a better workflow of editing HD video? Also, this sounds dumb, but what does it mean to have a "256 MB dedicated" ?? Thanks for your expertise guys

I'm using an ATI Radeon HD 3850 (512) with an Intel E6750, XP and 4 gigs of ram. I'm running Vegas Pro and it's fine. I figure as long as it's not integrated and it has HD in its name (for ATI anyway) its ok. Make sure any card you buy is HDCP certified (future Bluray use). Like Cyclewriter, I'm using a 24" 1920x1200 and 22" monitor for editing. HTH.

[Rumpelgeist]

Anytime you see "dedicated" in a PC description it usually means that the graphics subsystem is integrated on the motherboard and that "dedicated" video RAM is allocated from the system RAM. Not the ideal setup.
Nah, that would be "shared". Dedicated is the RAM that is used for video only, does not matter whether the video controller is integrated or on a separate riser card. Dedicated == good, shared == not so. On the other hand, fast shared RAM may be better than slow dedicated RAM, it all depends.

[CycleWriter]

Nah, that would be "shared". Dedicated is the RAM that is used for video only, does not matter whether the video controller is integrated or on a separate riser card. Dedicated == good, shared == not so. On the other hand, fast shared RAM may be better than slow dedicated RAM, it all depends.

That's why I said usually. The problem is that many resellers use these terms in different ways. There's absolutely no standardization, so what Dell calls dedicated may actually be shared. HP lists whether the video is on a standalone card or integrated to the mobo. Others may list nVidia graphics in such a way that it looks like a separate card, but is actually an embedded chipset on the mobo and therefore qualifies as integrated. Purchasers really need to do their homework to avoid getting fooled by shady marketing.

For all but an internet/word processing node you will want a dedicated, separate video card.

[Video Frank]

For all but an internet/word processing node you will want a dedicated, separate video card.

...and they're so cheap, why not?

[kaydawgy]

I now have two computer monitors. Both are 22" 1920x1080. Since I have (1) 256 MB DEDICATED ATI RADEON HD 3650 card already installed, can I just get another one like this and install right underneath this one on the back of my computer. Or do I have to completly scrap this video card, and get one Like CycleWriters that supports dual monitor outs?

I looked at the back and it appears that I have (1) DVI out and (1) HDMI out. Could I use the DVI out for the first monitor, and use the HDMI out for the second? The monitors have not been mailed to me yet.

[Video Frank]

I now have two computer monitors. Both are 22" 1920x1080. Since I have (1) 256 MB DEDICATED ATI RADEON HD 3650 card already installed, can I just get another one like this and install right underneath this one on the back of my computer. Or do I have to completly scrap this video card, and get one Like CycleWriters that supports dual monitor outs?

I looked at the back and it appears that I have (1) DVI out and (1) HDMI out. Could I use the DVI out for the first monitor, and use the HDMI out for the second? The monitors have not been mailed to me yet.

Yes. I have the 512 mb 3650 and I am running two monitors - a 24" 1920x1200 and a 22" something (1680 x 1050). With Vegas Pro I can edit on the smaller one and preview in the larger one.

http://support.amd.com/us/GPU_TechDocs/ati_radeon_hd_3600_series.pdf

This pdf shows how you can connect 2 monitors. One will be HDMI, the other DVI. It works. You do not need another video card.

[CycleWriter]

You can also get an HDMI to DVI cable in the event both of your monitors only have DVI inputs.

[BarteS]

I've heard that Premiere does benefit from graphics card acceleration.If you have a Nvidia Quadro it does and such a card doesn't come cheap. It is possible to modify a regular Nividia to make it pretends to be a Quadro. Possibly this will trick Premiere (CS4!) to accelerate footage. ATI cards don't accelerate at all (yet).
On the other hand there are some effects and transitions that are accelerated by the graphic card, regardless of the card. If the effects are interesting or recommendable at all leaves room for doubt. (The fade transisitions isn't hardware accelerated)

[kaydawgy]

If you have a Nvidia Quadro it does and such a card doesn't come cheap. It is possible to modify a regular Nividia to make it pretends to be a Quadro. Possibly this will trick Premiere (CS4!) to accelerate footage. ATI cards don't accelerate at all (yet).
On the other hand there are some effects and transitions that are accelerated by the graphic card, regardless of the card. If the effects are interesting or recommendable at all leaves room for doubt. (The fade transisitions isn't hardware accelerated)

Does "accelerate" footage mean that when your scrubbing through the timeline, it will flow with ease without any studder? If that's the case, the card I have in my machine seems to be okay when editing HD stuff. Or maybe it's the 6 gigs of DDR3 RAM.

[BarteS]

Scrubbing can trick you by pre-loading the footage, or simply because your cpu already took care of it.
Accelerating means (1.) you can play HD footage with minimum cpu usage. Even cheaper cards like your 3650 are able to accelerate HD footage. The problem is the software. For example if you playback h.264 footage on most videoplayers will stress your cpu. In case you're using (for example) MediaPlayer Classic or PowerDVD with the right settings you'll notice your cpu is barely doing a thing. (Believe me, if your gpu takes care of playing HD footage you will notice a drop in cpu usage.)
Since you're using an ATI card HD footage is unfortunately not yet accelerated in Adobe Premiere Pro 4 (this is the most recent version and the first to accelerate footage). Adobe Photoshop 4 on the other hand is accelerated, which you'll notice in case your zooming into large pictures. It will be without stuttering, instant zooming.

There is one other reason you might become happy in the future (!) with a faster card: it accelerates (2) encoding of HD footage (!) Unfortunately it's not yet available on 64 bit operating systems and it's not stable yet.
So, if you want to have acceleration (decoding) in Premiere right now you'll have to get yourself a Nvidia Quadro. Getting a regular Nvidia might deliver acceleration in Premiere too in case you perform a hack. And with an Nvidia card you'll be able to encode HD footage. (It's called badaboom, vs Avivo of ATI)

By the way, you're talking about your i7 at 2.5 GHz, but at stock all i7's run at least at 2.66 GHz.

[chico_stang]

I do not think a dedicated graphics card is mandatory at all for video editing.

I am using an integrated Intel GMA3100 on my machine and I edit HD video with no problems. Remember that most NLE (and other software) do not use the GPU at all. Having said that, its not a bad thing to have a dedicated video card, because an integrated one will use system RAM.

I do not have problems with my video card at the moment, therefore I do not need to upgrade it now. A dedicated video card may be useful when you are working with programs that use it (like After Effects?) so if you are into effects and whatnot then absolutely, a dedicated video card is a must. :hv20-smilie77:

[Video Frank]

I do not think a dedicated graphics card is mandatory at all for video editing.

I am using an integrated Intel GMA3100 on my machine and I edit HD video with no problems.

I don't find it helps me editing - but on playback. Two things:

- my dedicated card (which is probably about $50 now) allows me to run two monitors.

- my non-HD carded computer will not play back any h.264 encoded material smoothly. Since I convert all of my hockey team projects to .MP4 in Vegas Pro for uploading to Vimeo, I need to be able to properly preview these.

With your integrated graphics, can you watch 1080p Apple trailers (.mov) smoothly?

[CycleWriter]

I do not think a dedicated graphics card is mandatory at all for video editing.
:hv20-smilie77:

Mandatory, no, but newer software will be making use of GPU features video card makers are utilizing. I'm currently beta testing a new editing software (I'm under an NDA so don't ask) that makes use of nVidia's CUDA technology to accelerate playback and rendering. More software in the coming future will make use of this.

[BarteS]

(I'm under an NDA so don't ask) I must try to get a bit more info... :D
-New editing software of a new vendor or a new release of an existing (large) vendor.
-And will it be accelerated by all cards that support Cuda?
(As I said before, although there are loads of Nvidia Cuda cards, but just a portion of it really accelerates Premiere Pro 4)

[CycleWriter]

You can try...:hv20-smilie68:

[chico_stang]

I don't find it helps me editing - but on playback. Two things:

- my dedicated card (which is probably about $50 now) allows me to run two monitors.

- my non-HD carded computer will not play back any h.264 encoded material smoothly. Since I convert all of my hockey team projects to .MP4 in Vegas Pro for uploading to Vimeo, I need to be able to properly preview these.

With your integrated graphics, can you watch 1080p Apple trailers (.mov) smoothly?

Yes. I can watch full HD 1080p video smoothly (yes, .mov Apple trailers). And I do not have problems watching H.264 encoded videos either. By the way, I use VLC to play most of my media files (since Windows Media Player does not support most codecs natively unless you install a codec pack).

[Video Frank]

Thanks for the info. What's strange is that my vid card benchmarks higher than your integrated chipset but I can't watch anything that is h.264. Maybe it's because my CPU is about 5 years old. I'm looking for a laptop so I'm glad for the info you passed along.

[BarteS]

The fact whether you're able to play HD footage doesn't mean
-your cpu is fast enough and/or
-your gpu is fast enough
It (just) means one, or a combination, of them is fast enough.

I couldn't find out which cpu chico_stang but the fact he's able to play HD on an integrated gpu could be because his cpu is fast enough to handle HD:

1. An AMD Athlon 64 X2 at 2.5 GHz without using gpu to decode the movie. This might lead to a maximum load of around 90%.
2. On the other hand you can easily play the same scene on a 2.1 GHz in case you're using a gpu which is able to decode HD footage. Video_Frank your HD3650 is an example of such a card. Take a look at this (http://mpc-hc.sourceforge.net/DXVASupport.html) page. Although your gpu isn't the most recent or expensive one, it will be able to decode the most hefty scenes*. I tried it myself with an HD3450.
3. In between you can find onboard cards, some of them are able to accelerate HD footage, but you're cpu still has to work hard.

*An example of a very demanding scene is the bird scene of Planet Earth - From Pole to Pole. It's often used to test htpc's.

[chico_stang]

Thanks for the info. What's strange is that my vid card benchmarks higher than your integrated chipset but I can't watch anything that is h.264. Maybe it's because my CPU is about 5 years old. I'm looking for a laptop so I'm glad for the info you passed along.

Oh I see, maybe that's the reason. I have an Intel Core 2 Quad 8300 @ 2.5 GHz so I suppose the processor helps too.

[Video Frank]

Well, right now I'm looking at buying a Toshiba laptop - T6400 and ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3650. However, I can't actually lay my hands on one so I'd have to buy it sight-unseen from OnHop (CDN store).

Having said that, I need to be damn sure that it's going to run 1080p Apple trailers or my kids will string me up by my nut sac.

That's why I'm quite interested in threads relating to video cards. I'm hoping to load Vegas Pro and Adobe Elements onto this laptop, as I'm pretty sure the licence allows installation on a home computer & laptop as long as they're not running at the same time.

I had bought an ATI 8x AGP card for my older computer for about $60 hoping it would allow me to run those h.264 apple trailers but it wouldn't, despite respectable 3DMark 05 scores. But, the card was not an ATI HD and the processor is an older AMD Barton.

Oh well, i just filed for my tax refund & the Mrs has green-lighted a laptop so it's all good.

[CycleWriter]

I don't think anything AGP can run HD acceptably. One of the main reasons for the move to PCIe was for bandwidth concerns.

[Video Frank]

I don't think anything AGP can run HD acceptably. One of the main reasons for the move to PCIe was for bandwidth concerns.

Yup - I've got living proof of that sitting beside me. Anyone need a paperweight?

[kaydawgy]

You can also get an HDMI to DVI cable in the event both of your monitors only have DVI inputs.

I googled some "HDMI to DVI" cables. Some on Amazon appear to be dirt cheap! However, some came up as HDMI to DVI-I, and others HDMI to DVI-D?? Do the pins look different on both of these in order to differentiate? I just don't want to order the wrong one and have it not fit the back of my new monitor or video card.

[CycleWriter]

For what you're using it for it shouldn't matter. DVI-I will work with more devices than DVI-D.

[Video Frank]

I googled some "HDMI to DVI" cables. Some on Amazon appear to be dirt cheap! However, some came up as HDMI to DVI-I, and others HDMI to DVI-D?? Do the pins look different on both of these in order to differentiate? I just don't want to order the wrong one and have it not fit the back of my new monitor or video card.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVI-I

The DVI connector on a device is therefore given one of four names, depending on which signals it implements:

* DVI-D (digital only)
* DVI-A (analog only)
* DVI-I (integrated, digital & analog)
* M1-DA (integrated, digital, analog & USB)

The "I" integrates sound & image, the "D" is only image. FWIW you can also buy a dongle. Any cable should be $20 or less.

[kaydawgy]

For what you're using it for it shouldn't matter. DVI-I will work with more devices than DVI-D.

Right on. After more research, I think I am gonna go with the dedicated Diamond 4670PE31GDT ATI Radeon HD 4670 GDDR3 1GB PCI-Express Dual DVI Video Card that yer using. (that's the right one right?:hv20-smilie03:) I looked at the specs and it looks as if this card will even be a bigger help in working with After Effects because of it's Open Gl support. You stated that this was the most card you can get with a standard 350 watt power supply? That's exactly what I have but I did see something on the box that says that it required a 400 watt or better. I'm assuming this won't be too much of a big deal.

[CycleWriter]

A 350W PSU is fine for that card since it doesn't require a secondary power tap. That is an excellent card and the 1gb of VRAM makes running dual monitors that much better, especially if you have two different monitors with different max resolutions like I do. My 2D and 3D scores with the 4670 blew the 8800 away.:hv20-smilie77:

[fishops]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVI-I

The DVI connector on a device is therefore given one of four names, depending on which signals it implements:

* DVI-D (digital only)
* DVI-A (analog only)
* DVI-I (integrated, digital & analog)
* M1-DA (integrated, digital, analog & USB)

The "I" integrates sound & image, the "D" is only image. FWIW you can also buy a dongle. Any cable should be $20 or less.

Nope. DVI is just video. "Integrated" means it sends an analog video signal along with the digital. The main reason for this was legacy support, it means you can use a cheap pin adapter to connect a VGA monitor instead of an expensive D/A converter.

[kaydawgy]

A 350W PSU is fine for that card since it doesn't require a secondary power tap. That is an excellent card and the 1gb of VRAM makes running dual monitors that much better, especially if you have two different monitors with different max resolutions like I do. My 2D and 3D scores with the 4670 blew the 8800 away.:hv20-smilie77:

Sounds Good CycleWriter. I appreciate all the info you've given me on this subject. I'm still trying to get up to speed to keep up with all you pros.

[kaydawgy]

Oh by the way CycleWriter, which one of these two video cards is the one you have:

http://www.amazon.com/Sapphire-Radeon-HD4670-PCI-Express-Graphics/dp/tech-data/B001JP1D5Q/ref=de_a_smtd

http://www.amazon.com/Diamond-4670PE31GDT-Radeon-GDDR3-PCI-Express/dp/B001NYUZ1G/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_1

I was a little confused seeing as how they BOTH are ATI Radeon 4670 cards

[Video Frank]

Nope. DVI is just video.

I am so smart , S-M-R-T. d'oh.

You'd think if I'd provided a link and then quoted from it, I'd at least bother reading it. Oh well, there goes my credibility...

BTW, both of my ATI cards are Sapphire and the only difference I can see is price. But I have no credibility.

[BarteS]

...BOTH are ATI Radeon 4670 cardsThere are even more :D
Basically what ATI does is come up with a hardware design, the reference model. Other, partner, companies than start to create cards based on the initial design. Companies that produce ATI cards are Asus, Sapphire, HIS, Powercolor, .. If you're after the 4670 I recommend the HIS HD 4670 IceQ Turbo.
-It's a little bit more expensive
+Little bit overclocked compared to the reference model
+Uses less power than most of the other 4670 (the reference model is very special, at idle it uses just 3 Watts, the commercial versions use more power. (And the 4670 in general already is, compared to other cards, very power efficient.)
+Is very silent (mind you: it does occupy two slot spaces)

[kaydawgy]

There are even more :D
Basically what ATI does is come up with a hardware design, the reference model. Other, partner, companies than start to create cards based on the initial design. Companies that produce ATI cards are Asus, Sapphire, HIS, Powercolor, .. If you're after the 4670 I recommend the HIS HD 4670 IceQ Turbo.
-It's a little bit more expensive
+Little bit overclocked compared to the reference model
+Uses less power than most of the other 4670 (the reference model is very special, at idle it uses just 3 Watts, the commercial versions use more power. (And the 4670 in general already is, compared to other cards, very power efficient.)
+Is very silent (mind you: it does occupy two slot spaces)

So there really isn't much difference between the two cards I mentioned up above except that one is about 30 dollars cheaper. I wonder why they do this?

[BarteS]

This is an extreme example. In this case I think it just has to do with bad pricing of the Diamond (it seems like the Diamond is a rare card). Usually the cards have some clear differences in cooling, memorysize, memorytype, clockspeed, connectors or power usage.
For example Sapphire also has passive cool edition of the 4670 (told you there are more :)), the Sapphire RADEON HD 4670 Ultimate Edition. On the active side they have 4670s with 512MB and 1024MB Memory in GDDR3 and GDDR4.
Therefore, to decide which 4670 you should get you have to define a list of requirements:
-What kind of displays do I use? The ones with d-sub (vga) plugs?
-How many of those displays do I have?
-Do I want (and can I use) a passive or active cooled version? (Do I have space for a two slot card, doesn't it block a, to me, essential slot).
Probably by then you have some cards left and by then it's best to take a look at benchmarks of the cards. (Especially the difference faster memory vs clock speeds vs memory size can be tricky.)

[CycleWriter]

Oh by the way CycleWriter, which one of these two video cards is the one you have:

http://www.amazon.com/Sapphire-Radeon-HD4670-PCI-Express-Graphics/dp/tech-data/B001JP1D5Q/ref=de_a_smtd

http://www.amazon.com/Diamond-4670PE31GDT-Radeon-GDDR3-PCI-Express/dp/B001NYUZ1G/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_1

I was a little confused seeing as how they BOTH are ATI Radeon 4670 cards

Neither, I have the MSI. It really doesn't matter, the card architecture is basically the same and they all use the same ATi-certified driver. I like that Diamond card because it has such a small fan and heatsink. Important if you have a tight case. Either would be a good choice, IMO. There's not enough difference in clock speeds between the two to make one a better choice than the other.