Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

AMD and NVIDIA GPU combo?


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 ben79k

ben79k

  • Members
  • 92 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:10:58 AM

Posted 10 May 2014 - 09:48 PM

Hey all,

I recently realized (sadly) that my radeon 6870 isnt contributing to video rendering, since Adobe Premiere Pro CS5.5 only supports CUDA which lead me to go find my only old NVIDIA graphics card, an 8800GT. Would I be able to have both in my system, the 8800GT solely for cuda in premiere pro? is this worth it versus CPU+Software rendering w/ AMD FX 4100? i have slots and power (ASUS M5A99X EVO)

 

thank you :)


Main Rig: FX4100@4.2Ghz, 16GB DDR3 1866, ASUS M5A99X EVO, 2x Radeon 6870, 128GB Vertex4 SSD, 1TB HDD, Thermaltake Chaser MK-2
 


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 55,900 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:01:58 PM

Posted 11 May 2014 - 03:27 PM

IMO...since rendering is only a time issue...a miniscule one at that...and has no impact on quality of the process...I think far too many persons attribute  importance to it and the alleged time differentials.

 

If I was a user whose microseconds of time on the system mattered...I might pay attention to the rendering time differences...but if the quality of rendering isn't the most important consideration...I fail to see why some make this an important question.

 

If the real consideration is just personal preference...then treat it like all other "personal preferences" and go that route if it pleases you and don't worry about logical justification for such.

 

Louis



#3 mjd420nova

mjd420nova

  • Members
  • 1,807 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:11:58 AM

Posted 11 May 2014 - 05:07 PM

Many times this has erupted on some users home builds.  The ATI is attractive but with the Intel family, a patch that is model and version specific and adds a couple processes and hooks to the OS is needed from ATI.  Almost the same process inhabits the AMD CPU family with the Nvidia cards. 



#4 ben79k

ben79k
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 92 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:10:58 AM

Posted 11 May 2014 - 08:45 PM

Thank you for the prompt reply Louis, i appreciate the insight :) with the older specs on the 8800GT, do you think it's inclusion would speed up rendering by any noticable margin? Im not in it for quality, simply time, as i do a TON of rendering work, I have considered replacing my main card with an nvidia one for this, but i'm looking into the 8800GT no-cost solution first.

 

I mainly posted for the logistics, though, like is it possible to run an AMD and nvidia card in the same system at the same time, and dedicate the nvidia one for exclusively CUDA processing?

 

I greatly appreciate your time!

--Ben


Main Rig: FX4100@4.2Ghz, 16GB DDR3 1866, ASUS M5A99X EVO, 2x Radeon 6870, 128GB Vertex4 SSD, 1TB HDD, Thermaltake Chaser MK-2
 


#5 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 55,900 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:01:58 PM

Posted 12 May 2014 - 08:12 AM

Sorry, but I can't answer your questions because I render using onboard graphics and have never really been interested in the idea of installing a physical video card for rendering purposes.  For me, the software that I use (Pinnacle, Corel) seems to work fine with my setup and, as stated, rendering time is not a concern for me.

 

Seems To Depend On Program Used

 

I don't use Adobe products (although I have a couple), so the best thing I could suggest would be to check the forum of fellow Adobe software users and see what they say works for them...rather than rely on the hype of someone who has definitive opinions about CPU vs GPU (which may not hold water).

 

Louis



#6 zingo156

zingo156

  • BC Advisor
  • 3,333 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:01:58 PM

Posted 12 May 2014 - 09:57 AM

I have adobe cs5.5, I have used both nvidia and amd cards (currently use amd 7970). There was not much time difference if any in rendering between an nvidia card and the new amd card. The biggest difference in time to render I have seen is going from my previous amd 955BE cpu to my new 4770k. Rendering times were roughly cut in half. The new bottle neck I have appears to be hard drive read/writes. My cpu is no longer maxed out by adobe. The old 955be was used at 100% during rendering. Gpu to my knowledge is really only used while editing and viewing effects playback etc. Maybe I didn't enable a setting to allow gpu assisted rendering? I am not certain there...

 

A good raid 5 would likely help out my current redering times but I really don't care if I have to wait a few seconds/minutes more.

 

In my experience render times are affected by cpu > ram(speed and size) > gpu.

 

You would likely see a far bigger improvment by going to an amd 8 core cpu over an upgrade to nvidia video card.

 

I could be wrong though, it would make sense that a gpu would be significantly better at rendering 3d content. I have heard the newer versions of adobe support openGL and amd...


Edited by zingo156, 12 May 2014 - 10:16 AM.

If I am helping you with a problem and I have not responded within 48 hours please send me a PM.

#7 ben79k

ben79k
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 92 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:10:58 AM

Posted 13 May 2014 - 12:38 AM

Im gonna close this topic up, thank you all for contributions. Side note for Zingo, CS5.5 only supports nvidia cards for the mercury playback engine (gpu acceleration) so right now it is only using your processor hence the big change. 

 

I'm happy with my fx4100 and 32GB of RAM for editing, and i'll buy a proper nvidia card for the CS5.5 acceleration. this 8800GT seems to either be confusing for people or simply impossible lol but it was worth the venture! 

 

thank you again for your time and contributions, i learned a bit :)


Main Rig: FX4100@4.2Ghz, 16GB DDR3 1866, ASUS M5A99X EVO, 2x Radeon 6870, 128GB Vertex4 SSD, 1TB HDD, Thermaltake Chaser MK-2
 


#8 Datcoolguy

Datcoolguy

  • Members
  • 303 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:58 PM

Posted 24 May 2014 - 11:46 PM

I had actually read a couple of articles pointing out that some main fuctions of Nvidia video cards would not work on AMD systems.

 

Back on topic, i really doubt you could be able to run an AMD card and a Nvidia card at the same time. You'd probably find tons of incompatibility issues. Plus i doubt you'd see a good perfomance increase from an old 8800GT over your FX 4100.

 

Maybe you'd do if you jumped into a 780ti or a Titan black, but i doubt it.

 

If you are really planning on reducing bottlenecks where possible and this is your work computer (Wich means you can pour money in it) it'd do you some good finding those bottlenecks and seeing what you can do to reduce them.


"If you don't understand how your computer works, you shouldn't be messing with it!"





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users