GTX 980 or Quadro K2200?

P

Peat Moss

Gawd
Joined
Oct 6, 2009
Messages
543
I am piecing together a light workstation build. Looking for a graphics card for a AsRock X99 Extreme 4 mobo and a Fractal Define R5 case. Using it for light to medium video editing, light 3-D modeling, with two 1440p displays and a possible third 4K display. No gaming. Hoping to have it last 3-5 years.

I've been looking at either an entry Quadro like the K2200 or a relatively high end consumer GeForce card like a GTX 980. They each are 4GB, which I prefer.

The Quadro will have better drivers and lower thermals and probably be quieter at full load. I can't seem to find any clock speed specs for the Quadro.

The GTX 980 will be much more powerful and just as quiet at idle, but run a bit hotter. It's about $100 more than the Quadro, but the beefy specs might last me longer.

I can't decide. Any feedback or suggestions for other cards are welcome.
 
Peat Moss said:
I am piecing together a light workstation build. Looking for a graphics card for a AsRock X99 Extreme 4 mobo and a Fractal Define R5 case. Using it for light to medium video editing, light 3-D modeling, with two 1440p displays and a possible third 4K display. No gaming. Hoping to have it last 3-5 years.

I've been looking at either an entry Quadro like the K2200 or a relatively high end consumer GeForce card like a GTX 980. They each are 4GB, which I prefer.

The Quadro will have better drivers and lower thermals and probably be quieter at full load. I can't seem to find any clock speed specs for the Quadro.

The GTX 980 will be much more powerful and just as quiet at idle, but run a bit hotter. It's about $100 more than the Quadro, but the beefy specs might last me longer.

I can't decide. Any feedback or suggestions for other cards are welcome.
Click to expand...

They are for completely different applications. The 980 will not be necessarily more powerful if you are not gaming. Again, two different cards for two different purposes.

If your software supports the extra power and features specific to the Quattro, go that route. If not, you are wasting your money. Quadro cards are very application specific.
 
Last edited:
Do not get the Quadro 2200 or the 980 GTX.

For video editing, the 980 is overkill and the Quadro gives no real benefit over a 4GB 960 video card. People online tend to overestimate video cards in video editing. For video editing, get the best CPU you can afford, then the ram, then storage. The video card in the grand scheme comes after those 3 and even then it's purpose is limited. Note that there is a trade off with GPUs. The software renderer is what you go to for maximum quality (and compatibility.) (Adobe Premiere switches to the software renderer if you force it to render at maximum quality whether you have the mercury engine enabled or not.)


For the light 3D modeling work it depends on the type of work and application. For video graphics or any game related modeling stick to the 960 GTX. If it's CAD software and you want the best compatibility go with the developers recommendations. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 (or AMD FIrePro W5100) is a great budget choice.
 
martinmsj said:
Do not get the Quadro 2200 or the 980 GTX.

For video editing, the 980 is overkill and the Quadro gives no real benefit over a 4GB 960 video card. People online tend to overestimate video cards in video editing. For video editing, get the best CPU you can afford, then the ram, then storage. The video card in the grand scheme comes after those 3 and even then it's purpose is limited. Note that there is a trade off with GPUs. The software renderer is what you go to for maximum quality (and compatibility.) (Adobe Premiere switches to the software renderer if you force it to render at maximum quality whether you have the mercury engine enabled or not.)


For the light 3D modeling work it depends on the type of work and application. For video graphics or any game related modeling stick to the 960 GTX. If it's CAD software and you want the best compatibility go with the developers recommendations. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 (or AMD FIrePro W5100) is a great budget choice.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I'd even go as far as to tweak the build to allow for dual-xeons. Then get dual 10 core broadwells if possible. After that, you can consider the GPU.

That should last you a pretty long time.

There's no point in having a powerful GPU for the type of work OP wants to do AFAIK since GPU-assisted rendering is still not up to snuff compared to CPU-based rendering.
 
So for video editing, the GPU is not that important? Didn't know that. Thanks. (I knew it wasn't that important for photo editing, but didn't know that applies to video editing as well).

My CPU is going to be a Xeon E5-1630 V3 3.7 Ghz. (single socket).

My video editing software will be Cyberlink Power Director, and maybe adding Adobe After Effects later. Might go full Premiere Pro in a few years.

For 3-D modeling, I will be using AutoCad and Navisworks, but mostly just for adding or deleting certain elements, not building complete models from scratch.
 
Peat Moss said:
So for video editing, the GPU is not that important? Didn't know that. Thanks. (I knew it wasn't that important for photo editing, but didn't know that applies to video editing as well).

My CPU is going to be a Xeon E5-1630 V3 3.7 Ghz. (single socket).

My video editing software will be Cyberlink Power Director, and maybe adding Adobe After Effects later. Might go full Premiere Pro in a few years.

For 3-D modeling, I will be using AutoCad and Navisworks, but mostly just for adding or deleting certain elements, not building complete models from scratch.
Click to expand...

AFAIK for video editing the GPU is useful, but not as much as the CPU. Mostly will be used to accelerate preview and/or filters AFAIK. But once you get down to the time consuming task (render), you'd want the highest quality for production stuff and right now CPU rendering is still king quality-wise.
 
Peat Moss said:
So could I get by with a GTX 970 ?
Click to expand...

For sure. If you want to use the hardware accelerated scrub etc, just make sure the card you pick is supported in your software package.

Our editing WS have K4000 cards, nothing fancy, but helps in the editing process with some acceleration. They do have 64GB RAM and Dual 6 core CPU's. As stated before that is where the real work is done. They guy that initially did the spec for them had a single Quad core Xeon and a K5000 or k6000 (something absurd). I had to practically beat him into realizing the GPU had a very minimal role in the whole scheme of things. He was under the impression that the GPU did the rendering, it doesn't. More cores and faster cores is where it is at.
 
schizrade said:
For sure. If you want to use the hardware accelerated scrub etc, just make sure the card you pick is supported in your software package.

Our editing WS have K4000 cards, nothing fancy, but helps in the editing process with some acceleration. They do have 64GB RAM and Dual 6 core CPU's. As stated before that is where the real work is done. They guy that initially did the spec for them had a single Quad core Xeon and a K5000 or k6000 (something absurd). I had to practically beat him into realizing the GPU had a very minimal role in the whole scheme of things. He was under the impression that the GPU did the rendering, it doesn't. More cores and faster cores is where it is at.
Click to expand...

Does video editing software still not use CUDA or OpenCL to speed up the editing? That seems like a task that a GPU would be well suited to.
 
I have a K2000 and it performs pretty well for Premiere and Audacity. Rending could be a bit faster but it's good with me. For what you plan on using it for I imagine the K2200 might even be overkill.
 
RazorWind said:
Does video editing software still not use CUDA or OpenCL to speed up the editing? That seems like a task that a GPU would be well suited to.
Click to expand...

The edit process uses CUDA enabled GPU to provide realtime edits, effects etc, but the final rendering is all CPU. From what I have read (written by people far more versed than me on the topic) GPU rendering is faster, but far too inaccurate for final video rendering.
 
If your software can truly benefit from a stout GPU and make use of a non-Quadro GTX, then you may be better off ditching the Maxwell-based K2200 (GM107 - same as the 750ti) or GTX 900 series and opt for a Kepler-based 780, 780ti, Titan, Titan Black, or Titan Z for the Double Precision capability...if your software can benefit from it, again.
 
How do I tell if the video editing software benefits more from certain kinds of GPU processes? It doesn't actually say that on the software box does it? And what if I don't have the box and just download it? Is that information listed in the system requirements?

All I've ever seen in most video editing requirements is minimum VRAM. Adobe also lists some compatible cards, but not anything more specific.
 
Peat Moss said:
Should I also consider any AMD cards?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't. there are some programs that utilize cuda cores, and therefore, nvidia obviously makes more sense. I loved my 7970 but it wasn't supported in any of my software to do acceleration.
 
Peat Moss said:
How do I tell if the video editing software benefits more from certain kinds of GPU processes? It doesn't actually say that on the software box does it? And what if I don't have the box and just download it? Is that information listed in the system requirements?

All I've ever seen in most video editing requirements is minimum VRAM. Adobe also lists some compatible cards, but not anything more specific.
Click to expand...

Minimum VRAM only allows you to open more complex projects. I think 4GB would be sufficient, since you're not going anything serious.

I'd say budget for the max CPU power you can get, dual socket if possible. After that, with the leftover budget, figure out what you can get by with as a GPU.
 
martinmsj said:
Do not get the Quadro 2200 or the 980 GTX.

For video editing, the 980 is overkill and the Quadro gives no real benefit over a 4GB 960 video card. People online tend to overestimate video cards in video editing. For video editing, get the best CPU you can afford, then the ram, then storage. The video card in the grand scheme comes after those 3 and even then it's purpose is limited. Note that there is a trade off with GPUs. The software renderer is what you go to for maximum quality (and compatibility.) (Adobe Premiere switches to the software renderer if you force it to render at maximum quality whether you have the mercury engine enabled or not.)


For the light 3D modeling work it depends on the type of work and application. For video graphics or any game related modeling stick to the 960 GTX. If it's CAD software and you want the best compatibility go with the developers recommendations. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 (or AMD FIrePro W5100) is a great budget choice.
Click to expand...

This.
 
In the end it depends on quality vs speed.

For amateur and semi-pro video, GPU is best as its faster and with good IQ, but for professional video CPU will give you the best quality albeit at a longer rendering time.

The same applies to 3d modelling and rendering.

Now, before you spend big bucks on dual 10 core xeons, try the 980. Its a great card for 3d modelling and very capable for video editing You'll be the judge if the quality is good enough for your needs.
 
DejaWiz said:
What software (and versions) are you using using/plan to use?
Click to expand...

Already mentioned in post #5.

You never answered my question about how I tell if the video editing software benefits more from certain kinds of GPU processes.
 
Peat Moss said:
Already mentioned in post #5.

You never answered my question about how I tell if the video editing software benefits more from certain kinds of GPU processes.
Click to expand...

Sorry..I missed that in post #5 for some reason, which is why I haven't yet answered your question. My bad!
 
Peat Moss said:
So for video editing, the GPU is not that important? Didn't know that. Thanks. (I knew it wasn't that important for photo editing, but didn't know that applies to video editing as well).

My CPU is going to be a Xeon E5-1630 V3 3.7 Ghz. (single socket).


My video editing software will be...

Cyberlink Power Director
* uses any GPU with at least 128MB, but 1GB and OpenCL are recommended.
Adobe After Effects...might go full Premiere Pro in a few years.
* Adobe certified NVidia cards are Kepler-based Quadros...no confirmation when Maxwell-based Quadros will be added. Unsure if it will fully utilize Kepler-based GTX.


For 3-D modeling, I will be using...

AutoCAD
* Fermi and Kepler Quadros are certified
Navisworks
* pretty lenient...Direct3D and OpenGL with SM2.0
Click to expand...

Did some checking on the software you listed. :)

Lots of great threads with tidbits of useful info over at forums.autodesk.com, like this one that talks about the importance of multiple cores and ample RAM to feed each core adequately.

There's also this comment I found here:
"I use Revit, AutoCAD, 3ds max - runs better of Geforce than Quadro - at least current 2014 and 2015 ... only old version up to 2011 has accelerated Quadro drivers"

...lots of potentially great info about using a Kepler based GTX (e.g.- 780/780ti) in place of a Fermi or Kepler based Quadro.
 
To be honest, I'd say just grab a cheap 750Ti and see how it holds up. If you find performance lacking, then go from there.
 
Peat Moss said:
So for video editing, the GPU is not that important? Didn't know that. Thanks. (I knew it wasn't that important for photo editing, but didn't know that applies to video editing as well).

My CPU is going to be a Xeon E5-1630 V3 3.7 Ghz. (single socket).

My video editing software will be Cyberlink Power Director, and maybe adding Adobe After Effects later. Might go full Premiere Pro in a few years.

For 3-D modeling, I will be using AutoCad and Navisworks, but mostly just for adding or deleting certain elements, not building complete models from scratch.
Click to expand...

There are editors like Adobe Premier that can leverage technologies like CUDA to accelerate video editing, so if you're using such an editor, it can help. It's still secondary to having a strong CPU though.
 
look as cheap as nvidia 960's already go for....i don't see a reason to grab an older 750 series. get a cpu with as many cores as possible for your budget.
 
DejaWiz said:
Did some checking on the software you listed. :)

Lots of great threads with tidbits of useful info over at forums.autodesk.com, like this one that talks about the importance of multiple cores and ample RAM to feed each core adequately.

There's also this comment I found here:
"I use Revit, AutoCAD, 3ds max - runs better of Geforce than Quadro - at least current 2014 and 2015 ... only old version up to 2011 has accelerated Quadro drivers"

...lots of potentially great info about using a Kepler based GTX (e.g.- 780/780ti) in place of a Fermi or Kepler based Quadro.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dejawiz. I know the Quadro K2200 is using (first generation) Maxwell architecture. So if I'm reading the references in your post right, Adobe hasn't even configured their AutoCad or video editing software for Maxwell yet? AutoCad and Premiere are still Kepler based?

I found this list on Adobe for Premiere:

"Recommended AMD and NVIDIA video adapters for GPU acceleration

Windows CUDA:

NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 775M
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M
NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN
NVIDIA Quadro K1100M
NVIDIA Quadro K2000
NVIDIA Quadro K2100M
NVIDIA Quadro K2200
NVIDIA Quadro K2000M
NVIDIA Quadro K3000M
NVIDIA Quadro K4000
NVIDIA Quadro K4000M
NVIDIA Quadro K4100M
NVIDIA Quadro K4200
NVIDIA Quadro K5000
NVIDIA Quadro K5000M
NVIDIA Quadro K5200
NVIDIA Quadro K6000
NVIDIA Quadro M4000
NVIDIA Quadro M5000
NVIDIA Quadro M6000
NVIDIA Tesla K10"

https://helpx.adobe.com/premiere-pro/system-requirements.html

In other words, all the way from a GTX 650 to a Tesla K10. But Adobe doesn't say why, or what it is about these particular cards that make them best suited for Premiere Pro.

​
 
They probably just haven't updated their documentation. I haven't come across any program that can use CUDA on an older GPU but not a newer one.
 
Sigh...

There is no point getting a quad core Xeon. At this point, you should of just built an i7 6700K rid, bought your 980 GTX and saved some money. In other words, just built yourself a gaming rig and called it a day. You'd even get better rendering times because the CPU is still where the majority of the work is done GPU contribution or not. Notice I'm not saying "the GPU may blah blah". I'm being imperative here.

If you can return the XEON and have a motherboard that can take 5XXX i7 cpus, get the hex core. You're wasting you money on that quad core xeon.

Good Luck with your build.


RamonGTP said:
They probably just haven't updated their documentation. I haven't come across any program that can use CUDA on an older GPU but not a newer one.
Click to expand...

OP mentioned Adobe After Effects. The 2015 and beyond dumped the NVIDIA Ray Tracer. It was very limited and seldom updated because it was NVIDIAs IP and code (Good Riddance.) Hence the limited list. AE now uses Cinema 4D that works with AMD or NVIDIA. Regardless, AE also like Premier will be spending most of its time on the CPU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top