NEW COMP QUERY

[ssk_the_gr8]

1st of all dont post in red it hurts the eye

Radeon 4850 will be good enough for you

i dont like AMD

why?could you plz elaborate.

you will be missing out on a good deal because of your illogical dislike for amd

 

[-=[DDS]=-]

1st of all dont post in red it hurts the eye

am sorry, wont do it again

Radeon 4850 will be good enough for you

THANKS, i will go for it only then.

why?could you plz elaborate.

you will be missing out on a good deal because of your illogical dislike for amd

its just becoz, i fell iNTEL HAS GR8 CPUS OVER AMD.
Moreover i coudnt find very good CPU in AMD compared with i5.
& AMD has very low CACHE as compared to intel.
intel i5 has 8MB L2 CACHE
whereas AMD has 512k*cores, or something like that.
& Currently i m having very bad experience with AMD.
i had purchased around 1.5 yrs ago.
i had AMD ATHLON 3000+
At that time i was getting intel C2D @ same price i purchased AMD, but my frnd told me that intel PROCESSORS get HEAT very quickly so i decided to buy AMD.
with AmD i had ASUS M2N-MX MOBO & it gave very WORST PERFOMANCE.
The pro & mobo both were very bad.
Currently my ASUS mobo is NOT WORKING & N UNREPAIRABLE FORMAT.
So with that i decided to SWITCH TO INTEL, even if i had to pay few bucks xtra.

 

[Krow]

its just becoz, i fell iNTEL HAS GR8 CPUS OVER AMD.
Moreover i coudnt find very good CPU in AMD compared with i5.

In fact, AMD gives much more bang for buck over most Intel offerings.

& AMD has very low CACHE as compared to intel.
intel i5 has 8MB L2 CACHE
whereas AMD has 512k*cores, or something like that.

Even the most advanced processor on the planet does not have more than 100 cores, from where did you hear that AMD has 512 cores and has very low cache? IfIntle is 8MB, then AMD is 6, which is by no means low.

& Currently i m having very bad experience with AMD.
i had purchased around 1.5 yrs ago.
i had AMD ATHLON 3000+
At that time i was getting intel C2D @ same price i purchased AMD, but my frnd told me that intel PROCESSORS get HEAT very quickly so i decided to buy AMD.
with AmD i had ASUS M2N-MX MOBO & it gave very WORST PERFOMANCE.
The pro & mobo both were very bad.
Currently my ASUS mobo is NOT WORKING & N UNREPAIRABLE FORMAT.
So with that i decided to SWITCH TO INTEL, even if i had to pay few bucks xtra.

So far, Ive noticed that you have taken advice from the wrong kind of people, those who told you that Intel motherboards are faster and that Intel overheats a lot. Instead of blaming any particular brand for it, you should blame the people whom you listen to.

Currently, AMD is just a pace off Intel. For your work, yes Intel Core i5 is suitable. Since you mentioned Premiere Pro, use CS4 version with badaboom plugin which helps suitably in rendering if you have GT200 series GPU, like GTX260 SONIC @ 10.5k, so go for it. Minimum GTS250 512MB @ 7k, which will not help as much, but still the GPU can be used for rendering. None of the ATI offerings will give you that much gain. The DX11 variants by ATI are overpriced, so they are out. The most VFM ones are the ones I mentioned.

Please don't post random statements which you have no proper knowledge about. If you make a claim, please support it with a link and not with what you think. Posts like I don't like AMD, without any reasons and that too in red fonts will only serve to irritate other forum members. We don't want that, do we? So, please from next time, be careful about your posts.

---------- Post added at 09:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 PM ----------

If you ask me, for the performance difference, AMD Phenom II X4 945 @ 8.5k is a much better buy than the i5. AMD is slower, yes, but not by a HUGE margin and its price tag is much more sensible than the i5.

 

[desiibond]

for your budget, AMD would be the best bet and if you can sacrifice on GPU, go for core i5.

 

[asingh]

@OP:
Then if you really want Intel, the go for the i5 setup that has been suggested. It is a good buy. It is fast, and will suffice for your needs. For GPU go for the ATI 4850. It is mid-level GPU, and you will get to game well at the same time.

Regarding RAM, Corsair is a good brand too.

For PSU you can get the VX450 or any other 450W you prefer. 450W will keep you going well. Please do not get a cheap PSU, else al will go into the trash bin.



You can get that if you want. I think enough recommendations have been made here.

 

[-=[DDS]=-]

Even the most advanced processor on the planet does not have more than 100 cores, from where did you hear that AMD has 512 cores and has very low cache? IfIntle is 8MB, then AMD is 6, which is by no means low.

i m not talking about 512 cores.
it is 512k cache, per core.
i.e. 512k*core {talking in terms of cache
so thats if AMD PROCESSORS have 4 COREs then it would be 512*4 = 2mb L2 caChE.

Since you mentioned Premiere Pro, use CS4 version with badaboom plugin which helps suitably in rendering if you have GT200 series GPU, like GTX260 SONIC @ 10.5k, so go for it. Minimum GTS250 512MB @ 7k, which will not help as much, but still the GPU can be used for rendering. None of the ATI offerings will give you that much gain. The DX11 variants by ATI are overpriced, so they are out. The most VFM ones are the ones I mentioned.

i Just cant understand one thing.
Can anybody pls. explain to me, that:
There are 2 MAJOR GRAPHIC CARD COMPANIES i.e NVIDIA & ATI.
Mostof all cards are made by them only.
SO why is everybody putting other brand names in front of ther G card.eg. SONIC, MSI, PALIT, etc ????

krow in your suggestion also u mentioned GTX260 SONIC WHICH is mde by nvidia, but why does SONIC comes, why desnt nvidia ?????

PlS. can anybody xplain these to me ????

 

[Cilus]

@OP:
Then if you really want Intel, the go for the i5 setup that has been suggested. It is a good buy. It is fast, and will suffice for your needs. For GPU go for the ATI 4850. It is mid-level GPU, and you will get to game well at the same time.

Asigh, u r not getting the point. Surely HD 4850 is a great card for gaming, but it won't help DDS for the works he mentioned (Editing, animation etc). Thats why we are suggesting Nvidia cards over ATI cards.

And DDS go for GTS 250 512MB or 9800GT 1 GB. GTS 250 will give you better performance is gaming, but in the works you have mentioned there will hardly be any difference.
In Editing work Graphics card memory size matters a lot. That's why I've suggested the 1 GB version. Now its up to you.

 

[asingh]

^
Ok...

nVidia and ATI make the 'cores' of the cards. These cores are then handed over to OEMs (the companies you listed) -- XFX, BFG, EVGA, Sapphire, Powercolor, Palit, ASUS to name a view. These companies then fabricate the complete GPU (RAM,PCB, cooler, ICs) and we get the complete GPU.

Also at times nVidia and ATI make cards, but these are 'reference models', which are generally used for paper launches and handed over to various organizations for testing/marketing purposes.

---------- Post added at 09:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 AM ----------

Asigh, u r not getting the point. Surely HD 4850 is a great card for gaming, but it won't help DDS for the works he mentioned (Editing, animation etc). Thats why we are suggesting Nvidia cards over ATI cards.

And DDS go for GTS 250 512MB or 9800GT 1 GB. GTS 250 will give you better performance is gaming, but in the works you have mentioned there will hardly be any difference.
In Editing work Graphics card memory size matters a lot. That's why I've suggested the 1 GB version. Now its up to you.

Please could you tell me, where you read that nVidia gamer cards are better for editing compared to ATI gamer cards. Not talking about Quadro and FireGL..?

 

[Cilus]

Please could you tell me, where you read that nVidia gamer cards are better for editing compared to ATI gamer cards. Not talking about Quadro and FireGL..?

No, I'm not talking about FireGL or Quadro basedcards. They are specially designed card for supporting editing and server activities in Hardware level.
Here I'm talking about normal graphics cards which can be used
for editing and other creative works by using software. Nvidia CUDA and ATI stream are actually two software libraries or API designed to a sole purpose: Converting the Graphics cards to a more CPU like thing which will help you to assist in
your day to day work, not only gaming.

Now CUDA is much mature than ATI stream. As a result most of the editing and designing softwares are having CUDA support whereas very few have ATI stream support.
For example Adobe flash, photoshop, 3D studio MAX, Maya, TMPGENC (for editing and converting), Cyberlink software all having CUDA supprt. So while running all of thyem, you will get a performance boost if using Nvidia Card.

That's why I've suggested Nvidia based cards.

 

[asingh]

No, I'm not talking about FireGL or Quadro basedcards. They are specially designed card for supporting editing and server activities in Hardware level.
Here I'm talking about normal graphics cards which can be used
for editing and other creative works by using software. Nvidia CUDA and ATI stream are actually two software libraries or API designed to a sole purpose: Converting the Graphics cards to a more CPU like thing which will help you to assist in
your day to day work, not only gaming.

Now CUDA is much mature than ATI stream. As a result most of the editing and designing softwares are having CUDA support whereas very few have ATI stream support.
For example Adobe flash, photoshop, 3D studio MAX, Maya, TMPGENC (for editing and converting), Cyberlink software all having CUDA supprt. So while running all of thyem, you will get a performance boost if using Nvidia Card.

That's why I've suggested Nvidia based cards.

Even I did not say you are talking about the FireGL and Quadro cards. Stop coming in here, and making blanket statements, and stuff like.."you do not see the point". When you show the point, that is when users will see it right.

So let me show you my point:
Yes you are right, that CUDA is more mature. But even CUDA was not invented by nVidia. It is technology shared from Elemental Badaboom. Post 8.12 CCC Drivers (last year December), ATI Stream has grown by leaps and bounds. It is not a complete looser in this field. Here are some performance reviews of Stream vs CUDA. You will clearly see that ATI Stream is fairing just as well, and at times even beating CUDA.

It successfully offloads the task to the GPU.

You will also read in the same reviews, that ATI is offering support for most 3D applications.

1. *www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=745&type=expert&pid=6
2. *www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3475&p=1

And personally I feel, if the OP really wants a card for 3D work (professional level), then gamer cards will never cut the ice. Rest is upto the OP to decide.

 

[desiibond]

No, I'm not talking about FireGL or Quadro basedcards. They are specially designed card for supporting editing and server activities in Hardware level.
For example Adobe flash, photoshop, 3D studio MAX, Maya, TMPGENC (for editing and converting), Cyberlink software all having CUDA supprt. So while running all of thyem, you will get a performance boost if using Nvidia Card.

Dude. What the hell is a Quadro card doing in my office workstation? They are not just for editing and server activities at hardware level.

You will find huge difference in AV editing performance even when you compare a 5k workstation card (firegl/quadro) with a 10k gamer card (gtx260/HD5870). This is because these workstation cards are optimized for 3D work and editing.

And FYI, the latest FireGL are damn good especially at under 10k price point.

 

[asingh]

No, I'm not talking about FireGL or Quadro basedcards. They are specially designed card for supporting editing and server activities in Hardware level.

No card is used for server level activities. At least I have not seen any GPU, assisting servers specially at hardware levels.

Nvidia CUDA and ATI stream are actually two software libraries or API designed to a sole purpose: Converting the Graphics cards to a more CPU like thing which will help you to assist in
your day to day work, not only gaming.

Do you know what an API even is..? And what you mean by "CPU like thing"

For example Adobe flash, photoshop, 3D studio MAX, Maya, TMPGENC (for editing and converting), Cyberlink software all having CUDA supprt. So while running all of thyem, you will get a performance boost if using Nvidia Card.

If the OP plans to run the above on a gamer card...then may God help him. It will never work. I have a ATI FireGL on my office workstation, and it whips the 3D work. At home I have HD4890 Xfire, and it whips the games. But I cannot 'ever' interchange them for my work and games. PERIOD.

 

[Cilus]

But even CUDA was not invented by nVidia. It is technology shared from Elemental Badaboom.

From where did u get that piece of information? CUDA is develped by Nvidia and Nvidia only. Badaboom is the 1st company to create a video encoder based on CUDA. Please check with your source 1st, then write.

2ndly the links you have provided only shows video encoding performance. I know AMD based cards are better in video encoding. But do you think editing and animation only means video encoding?
Even the AnandTech links you provided showing that ATI avivo is not performing well compared to Badaboom. But now Avivo is much more stable.

3rdly what do u think CUDA is? Its a software library. Using this library you can develope your product in different programming language like C++
. And probably you are the only person in the world who knows what API is.

If the OP plans to run the above on a gamer card...then may God help him. It will never work. I have a ATI FireGL on my office workstation, and it whips the 3D work. At home I have HD4890 Xfire, and it whips the games. But I cannot 'ever' interchange them for my work and games. PERIOD.

That's why CUDA is here. So that u don't need separate type of card for different applications. Sure for editing work it won't perform better than Quadro or FireGL, but in game it is.

And you didn't understand the term "CPU like thing". go and search for the keyword "GPGPU" in Google.

And Desi, u r right. Actually I mistakenly write server like activity. I actually wanted to say what u mentioned already.

 

[asingh]

^^
If you would have read my links, you would have understood the CUDA uses Badaboom to do the 3D stuff. YES, I misquoted about the invention. I accept that.

The OP never specified what exactly he is going to do for 3d, that is why I mentioned. And no ways, can you straight say, that CUDA is beating ATI Stream (now) for 3D. Still asking, show some proof. I will be more than happy, apart from reading your blanket statement.

Am I supposed to dream up, have ESP, or look inside your head to relate that you meant "CPU like thing" = GPGPU...?

And when a 3D animator is using CUDA he is directly not using the API. To directly use the API, you need to be a developer with programing background. Of course I am not the only person in the world who know what an 'API' is. But certainly you are not in the group.

If you still want / and feel that the nVidia recommendation will suffice the 3D needs of the OP, go ahead. I am washing my hands off this. I do not want the OP to come back later, and pull my head off. Never will the gamer GPUs provide professional level of 3D support for the application listed initially.

 

[desiibond]

dude. here is what tomshardware says about gaming vs workstation cards:

Transforming a gaming card like the GeForce GTX 280 into an equivalent workstation model is something that Nvidia quite naturally wants to forestall. Attempts to use workstation drivers in gaming cards by consumers just to see "if they work" are inevitable because the hardware is only minimally different. Since Nvidia inserts special values into its video BIOSes to prevent dissimulation, such attempts are doomed to failure.

Technically, Nvidia offers significantly different drivers for its workstation cards as compared to gaming models. After the sale, Nvidia also offers significantly better product support for workstation models as well. Higher prices for the Quadro models also commanded from a lower number of products sold, higher support costs, and a longer warranty period. In return, buyers can expect swift responses when hardware defects are uncovered. In most cases an exchange will be made ASAP (in no more than 24 hours). Gaming card buyers, on the other hand, don't enjoy this level of service or support (but then, they don't pay for it, either).

As one might expect, the gaming card is carefully impeded and is largely unable to exercise its performance potential when running workstation applications. Our benchmarks show this phenomenon at work clearly and unmistakably.


A Quadro FX 4800 moves up to 10 times faster when running workstation applications than the GeForce GTX 280. This leads swiftly to a clear and inescapable conclusion: there's no good reason to use a GeForce graphics card for workstation applications. It just doesn't pay.

And here, the author compares a FX1800 that costs less than 20k with GTX285 which costs lot more:

*bricktech.blogspot.com/2009/09/leadtek-quadro-fx-1800-review-part-1.html

Memory Advantage

As you can see, Quadro does a very fine job (literally) to render accurate and precise 2D lines when you manipulate a 3D object in a 3D program, giving you exactly what you need, something which GeForce cannot deliver with its blurry and jagged 2D lines. This is also due to the faster memory the Quadro has which the GeForce lacks, as seen in these below shots of CPU-Z

Believe me, a workstation graphics card can't be a gaming graphics card and a gaming graphics card can't be a workstation graphics card, whether it has CUDA or Stream.

 

[Cilus]

Listen Asigh, here we are in a noble purpose, helping others and sharing knowledge. We are not here to hurt others
or fighting against each other. You said something and I said something and both felt sorry for each others comment.
If I hurt your feeling, sorry for that.
Now cool down.

And I didin't try to say CUDA is superior than Stream. I just said there are more software applications that support CUDA.Obviously in common fields (where CUDA and stream both are supported), ATI has slightly better performance with their 5000 series cards. In fact ATI FireGL cards are better than Nvdia Quadro. Checked in Tom's Hardware.

And other thing is PhysX support. Now 3D Studioo Max and Maya both have their PhysX plugin. So using Nvdia GPU you can actually design object based on Physx engine.
Source: *www.geeks3d.com/20081207/physx-plugins-for-3d-studio-max-and-maya-available/
And there are lot of other softwares like
TMPGENC Video Editor 4.6. It is an excellent editing and converting software for both the novice and advance users. But it only support CUDA.

From your posts it looks like you are a die-hard fan of AMD/ATI. Then you will be happy to know that ATI stream is much promising due to the architecture of ATI gpus. 1 ATI stream processor is consisiting of cluster of 5 pus. So actual SP count of ATI card is total/5 (4870 is having 800/5=160). These 5 pus can process only one thread at a time. But their architecture is much closer to CPU architecture, ie. open architecture. So it is easier to develope general processing architecture for ATI gpus.

And again we r not fighting here, just cool down

And Desi, thanks for your clarification. Yes a gaming card never become equivalent to a dedicated work station card. But at least you will get some benefit from it. For normal home users who are actually working in home I think CUDA will be helpful. At least we can get a performance boost (may be not as big as for the workstation card). That's why I recommended the Nvidia card.

 

[-=[DDS]=-]

Hey CILUS & ASIGH pls. dont argue

& Pls. now Can anybody Tell me which GPU to buy nVIDIA or ATI.

As i m totally confused between both, due to the arguments asigh & cilus had.

So pls. tell me which one.

My sole purpose is for RENDERING & USING HIGH-SOFTS MAYA & 3DS MAX, etc.

& pls. dont tell it from GAMING POINT.
as i wont play that high-end games.

My budget for GPU is around 7k

So pls. suggest a good one.
i dont care whether nVIDIA or ATI

 

[Cilus]

Sorry DDS, for making your post a war zone.
I don't have much idea about work station cards, so I think Desibond will be better person for suggestion a Workstation based card.

At 7k budget my choice is MSI 9800GT GDDR3 1 GB@6.7k or galaxy 9800 GT 1GB @ 6.3k
For ATI front you can go for PowerColor HD4850 1GB GDDR3 @ 7.2k.

But then u won't be having Physx and CUDA (In Maya and 3d studio MAX)I mentioned in my previous post.

Now it entirely depends on you.

 

[asingh]

Listen Asigh, here we are in a noble purpose, helping others and sharing knowledge. We are not here to hurt others
or fighting against each other. You said something and I said something and both felt sorry for each others comment.
If I hurt your feeling, sorry for that.
Now cool down.

And I didin't try to say CUDA is superior than Stream. I just said there are more software applications that support CUDA.Obviously in common fields (where CUDA and stream both are supported), ATI has slightly better performance with their 5000 series cards. In fact ATI FireGL cards are better than Nvdia Quadro. Checked in Tom's Hardware.

And other thing is PhysX support. Now 3D Studioo Max and Maya both have their PhysX plugin. So using Nvdia GPU you can actually design object based on Physx engine.
Source: *www.geeks3d.com/20081207/physx-plugins-for-3d-studio-max-and-maya-available/
And there are lot of other softwares like
TMPGENC Video Editor 4.6. It is an excellent editing and converting software for both the novice and advance users. But it only support CUDA.

From your posts it looks like you are a die-hard fan of AMD/ATI. Then you will be happy to know that ATI stream is much promising due to the architecture of ATI gpus. 1 ATI stream processor is consisiting of cluster of 5 pus. So actual SP count of ATI card is total/5 (4870 is having 800/5=160). These 5 pus can process only one thread at a time. But their architecture is much closer to CPU architecture, ie. open architecture. So it is easier to develope general processing architecture for ATI gpus.

And again we r not fighting here, just cool down

And Desi, thanks for your clarification. Yes a gaming card never become equivalent to a dedicated work station card. But at least you will get some benefit from it. For normal home users who are actually working in home I think CUDA will be helpful. At least we can get a performance boost (may be not as big as for the workstation card). That's why I recommended the Nvidia card.

I know we are not here to fight with each. We are here for the noble cause. Of course...! Was never fighting with you, was putting my point across.

The reason I was sticking to my point was -- we cannot make generic statements in here (and believe me I have too), about certain hardware. I guess it is misconception that today's consumer marketing has bought us to. nVidia and ATI are trying to sell their cards as multi-functional, that they can render games as well as 3D work. But it just does not work that way. 3-4 posts back I had mentioned that the Quadro/FireGL and GeForce/Catalyst cards are not interchangeable at all.

One of the primary reasons that the professional cards are expensive:
They have drivers which have been officially and tested as per company standards. The driver pack is certified, and the user can honestly claim, that they are using a set company standards. Artifacting and pixelating should be less of an issue with professional cards as compared to gaming cards.

And since these drivers (pro series), are officially licensed, certified, and am sure have proprietary patents, the pro cards cost a bomb.

Also all of use did not read the OPs requirements correctly, or understood them in a different flavor. Hell..even I recommended a HD4850 to him...!

Nopes, I am no AMD/ATI fanboy. Infact my last card was a GeForce, and my current processor is an Intel. If you read my other posts (just kidding of course you do not need to), I am never bent or biased towards a specific product. I just show "both sides of the coin" and love to play the devil's advocate. Till date I have no stand on ATI vs nVidia, Corsair vs CM, Intel vs AMD, Physics vs non-Physics.

The OP can look at these cards, I am using a RV7200 (though not listed here) and it is pretty good.
Sapphire FireGL V3600 256 MB @ 7035
Leadtek Quadro NVS 285 64MBDDR @ 4200
Leadtek Quadro FX370 256MB DDR2 @ 6468

There are other Quadro cards too available here.

 

[desiibond]

And Desi, thanks for your clarification. Yes a gaming card never become equivalent to a dedicated work station card. But at least you will get some benefit from it. For normal home users who are actually working in home I think CUDA will be helpful. At least we can get a performance boost (may be not as big as for the workstation card). That's why I recommended the Nvidia card.

welcome dude

I think Quadro too supports CUDA and PhysX. check Quadro NVS 295 and give me your input on this card.

list of CUDA supported cards available here: *en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA

NVS295 costs 100$ approx.

in the end it all comes to whether the user want to do more of gaming or more of 3D work. if balance tilts towards gaming, better get gaming class GPU else go for 3D workstation card.

---------- Post added at 06:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ----------

@DDS

check for these cards:

nvidia Quadro FX380 (not the low profile edition): around 7k


if you can increase budget for GPU to 9.5k, Quadro FX580 should be a superb card.

on the ATI side, FireGL V3600 costs less than 8k and should compete FX580 and also is lot lot faster than FX380.

V3600 review: *www.tomshardware.com/reviews/FireGL-Quadro-Workstation,1995-9.html

one thing that is good with FX580 is that it comes with 512MB GDDR3 memory which makes it pretty fast. But am not sure whether it is faster than V3600 in real world apps.

Though, at the top, for now, it's nVidia.