Split from "Test to Compare Nvidia Cards for CS5" thread at DVinfo.net

Paul Cook · May 14th, 2010, 06:59 AM

MOD NOTE: The first 12 posts in this thread are either copied or moved from the original thread at the request of those posting in the original thread:
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/adobe-cr...cards-cs5.html
Pete

Thats bad news Steve, hope you get it all sorted out. Amazing speed boost in the render by the way

Yes Nik my conspiracy theory is that Adobe made it far too easy for us to find a work around and make any cuda enabled card to work. That way we get used to the power and speed but before too long hit the wall when we need more than 3 layers. Then it seems the only option will be to fork out for a Quadro

Unless some friendly hacker finds out what Adobe did in their code and writes a workaround. I know their used to be ways to both softmod and hardmod geforce cards to flash the bios and make them appear as Quadro's

Guess we wait and see...

Tim Kolb · May 14th, 2010, 08:50 AM

Well, a good conspiracy theory is always fun, but there are some other perspectives to look at this GPU situation with Adobe and NVIDIA...

I am a Quadro card user...I have two in my workstation and one in my production-use laptop. (I only have a Mercury-certified card in my workstation...a 4800).

I use them because I can reach a human if I have a configuration problem...and with two dual-head cards and four displays to light, my recent upgrade to Windows 7 involved a BIOS upgrade and a Fibre Channel card upgrade, and various other alterations in the basic configuration...and I am NOT an IT guy by any stretch of the imagination.

What I do find interesting in the ten years since I moved to Premiere on a PC from my beloved Media 100s on Macs, is that Premiere, and now Premiere Pro users really do complain about their system stability a lot. Some of it is justified without a doubt. I've had my share of issues over the years. However, I do find that many Premiere Pro users tend to run configurations that deviate from proven best practices, or are under configured based on common knowledge, in ways that no professional using FCP or Avid would ever do...but then when the system is quirky, it's always Adobe's fault.

So this time, Adobe develops this flagship feature and certifies hardware that is professional and has a proven support infrastructure, and users are hacking the code to use gamer display cards... What happens when a problem comes up? I don;'t know how many video post production application engineers the GeForce or GTX product division has sitting by the phone waiting for your call...but i know that PNY has some pretty sharp folks available for me to talk to in person to support the Quadro product line.

I think it's time for PPro users to come to the realization that if you want a video post production application that is as stable and robust as Avid or FCP users claim theirs to be (and with some legitimacy I would say)...it's time to start treating a Premiere Pro workstation as you would a big iron Avid or anything else. Put the thing together cleanly, within manufacturer spec, pack all the performance components into it you can (...a 64 bit OS with a huge RAM allocation made a significant and well-known stability difference way back in CS3 folks...)

...and go to work.

If the system is stable, you can invoice out enough extra work to pay for a professional graphics card, a serious throughput storage array, and adequate RAM to give yourself a performance margin so that the software isn't struggling.

It really doesn't matter what effort Adobe puts into stabilizing the application by thoroughly testing and certifying components if users will continue to simply avoid the verified configurations...

Oh well...at least FCP users will be able to continue laughing at Premiere Pro users and our odd little application that we have trouble running on our crazy bazaar of concocted configurations.

...I've been listening to (or reading on web fora) Adobe users whine about their video editing software for a full freakin' decade, constantly implying that Adobe wasn't making the app 'professional' enough or whatever else.... Now Adobe finally seems to pull it together for CS5...and now they've certified particular hardware for stability, and now the same users say Adobe is conspiring against their customers and the Adobe fora all over the web are a buzz about how to thwart it.

Look...I know that nobody has an extra money right now...BELIEVE me I know. But ask yourself what FCP or Avid user would be going out of their way to work around the certified configurations?

Sometimes I think that the impression that FCP and Avid are more stable systems than PPro is something Adobe won't ever be able to really fix...because their customers are the biggest obstruction.

-rant off-

Paul Cook · May 14th, 2010, 10:43 PM

Sorry Tim your just spouting utter rubbish! If it makes you sleep better at night spending the many thousands of dollars more than you need to on the off chance you get a problem that a simple google search or forum post would likely fix then knock yourself out.

Please don't take it out on those who poses the computer and IT intelligence or even the willingness to explore and find solutions that save them thousands because you think its all too hard. Adobe themselves have certified the so called 'gamer card' to work with CS5 and given the 285 is more powerful than your 4800 and heck even the 260 is more powerful than your 4800...doesnt take a genius to think their may be some corporate chicanery at work.

End of the day you may well be justified in your approach but its not like we started a thread spouting what a bunch of fools all the quadro buyers are for spending way more than they should. It just seems cheap for you to do it to us.

Steve Kalle · May 14th, 2010, 11:45 PM

I think the basis of Tim's post is many Adobe users who use underpowered computers and then complain that they are having stability issues. I also am sick and tired of people complaining about their computer problems, but that is more due to the fact that I do some IT work on the side, and I am ALWAYS the first person someone calls to fix their computer.

Paul, I used to think the same way in that I can spend a little time and save a good amount of money. I couldn't believe the cost of some video equipment in addition to pre-built raid arrays. However, when it comes to me being able to call someone to get something fixed or me trying myself, I now spend the extra money for better support, which is something Quadro users get. Do I need the FX 3800, no, but I will be running high end software on a single PC (CS5, C4D, Nuke, PFTrack), and that support can come in handy.

Adobe chicanery? Look at it this way: Adobe needs help from nvidia to make their cards work properly with hardware acceleration. Either Adobe pays for this R&D and pass the cost on to the consumer or they make a deal with nvidia.

Furthermore, Autodesk and BlackMagic Davinci Resolve use only Quadros. For Autodesk's $200,000 Flame, they use the 4800 (or it can be upgraded to 5800). If a $300 video card is more powerful that the 4800, don't you think Autodesk would prefer to save that money.

This is my thread that I started in order to help people find a quick answer (and to stop asking the same question a million times in every other thread). I'd appreciate if we get back on topic.

Tim, this thread was not the best choice to unleash your rant. (although I agree with a majority of what you said)

Thanks

Tim Kolb · May 15th, 2010, 12:46 AM

OK...too much...this morning I happened in to the forum while i was in a foul mood.

My apologies for the tone...

You guys weren't calling Quadro users stupid, but you're implying Adobe and NVIDIA are somehow trying to undermine the user by not certifying more cards. If you were Adobe and you were leaning that hard on another company's hardware to achieve one of your most compelling features, just maybe you would decide that the Quadros have the support infrastructure and the models/configurations move far less often, so this way customers are easy to support and the few configurations can be rigorously tested.

I think that everyone is expecting that the whole Quadro line is supposed to be physically configured upscale from the GeForce line...the 285 is closer to the 5800, it has more throughput but less RAM than a Q4800... Nobody ever considers the support after the sale as a feature just as much as the RAM, number of GPU cores and the memory bandwidth. Support like that costs something to provide...

Plus I can use all of a Q3800...which is $300.00 USD more than a 285...the 4800 is in the 1300-1400.00 USD range near as I can tell at the moment...just barely a thousand more than what I can find for a 285. The 5800 is very expensive, and there you would save thousands on a purchase, yes... However, I doubt many people will find themselves on a fence in between the Quadro 5800 and the GTX285...so did you really save thousands? If you would have bought a 3800 or 4800, you saved about 300-1000 USD to go with a 285 or some non-certified card.

As far as googling answers, I've had a few pretty obscure things lately with having to change Fibre Channel cards and changing out I/O cards and whatever...not really google "my Dell Precision" sorts of issues. But...that's why I have the system I do. It isn't too hard to Google for tech support...it's too costly. In the time I'd spend switching cards and testing them like it seems is being done here, I can work and invoice out more than the purchase price difference instead of eating the downtime. About the time I'd hack that code and put a GeForce card in, it will conflict with some component I have in the system that people don't have on general purpose computers...and I'd go back to the drawing board.

I guess I'd still like to leave this out there for consideration...

Many Premiere Pro users have felt like they were not seeing progress with Adobe post production software for several revisions now, and it's always been pretty dependable to wander into any Adobe Premiere Pro web forum, and you'll find people complaining what a crappy product Adobe put out, etc... Then you start to ask these people questions and find out what their configuration is...and you realize they're underpowered and have several things installed in their system that a "simple google search" would have flagged as conflicts immediately...

I looked at what Adobe did this time...much more Apple and Avid-like in their approach, which allows them to really intensely test a small group of cards...and certify them. It seemed smart to me...the term "chicanery" never entered my mind (not that it does very often anyway...great word).

I'm sorry but my frustration remains as Adobe users just don't treat their editing workstations the same as FCP or Avid guys...yet I'll bet we'll be hearing how somebody's system with 4 GB of RAM and a non-certified GeForce card is unstable and how Adobe has "done it again" in less than 3 weeks...and yet users will also continue to talk about Adobe's plotting.

I don't experiment because I don't enjoy it and when I'm tinkering, I'm not working. 3 or 4 days of tech issues can cost me far more money than the difference we're discussing here...as would testing out a long list of consumer cards to try to pick one.

Most FCP users who also install CS5 will likely have the ONE Quadro card Apple has allowed them to use purchased, installed and working before many PC users will have made the decision which consumer card they want and how to hack it, and the FCP user will likely have billed out the revenue to pay for the card before the invoice for it comes due.

...don't read this as if I'm yelling. I'm not. I'm sort of shaking my head and shrugging my shoulders here. We all want PPro to be a more robust competitor in this space...for all our sakes and our own credibility.

Good luck with your testing. I also noticed that Adobe did not seem to make any effort to hide the code that is being changed...which begs the question as to who is executing their "chicanery" so poorly?

Tim Kolb · May 15th, 2010, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Kalle

This is my thread that I started in order to help people find a quick answer (and to stop asking the same question a million times in every other thread). I'd appreciate if we get back on topic.

Tim, this thread was not the best choice to unleash your rant. (although I agree with a majority of what you said)

Thanks

Understood. Apologies for the hijack...my mea culpa and your follow up passed in the mail...

Paul Cook · May 15th, 2010, 01:36 AM

lol Tim, no fouler than mine it would seem, apologies for taking it personally.

Look I do get what your saying with the 'you get what you pay for' and my reference to adobe chicanery was slightly tongue in cheek. There is indeed an RnD price to be paid for this awesome new technology we have been given so if a 3 track limit and no support versus more tracks and phone support is it then so be it.

Im a gambler at heart so Id like to roll the dice, grab a 250 or 260 and see how it goes. But if it doesnt work or 3 tracks is indeed the limit and inhibits my work then Ill happily (well begrudging with a smile) go out and purchase a suitable quadro.

At this point I have a lot of love for both Adobe AND Nvidia so Im happy to pay my dues!

Nik Skjoth · May 15th, 2010, 04:54 AM

I think both of you have good points, and I would assume the reason for Adobe having such a "foul" user base is due to that it tries to be the "microsoft" of creative software. When one developer goes out and tries to accomondate everyone, high and low, they will get a mix of users they cant possibly satisfy.

On the other hand.. Many professionals would never even considder using premiere pro, even if they have all the stable hardware at hand. Why? If it's suppose to be as good as AVID with the right system.

Oh and please dont put Mac/FCP users on a plateau here claiming they have all the right gear and expertice. In many cases you are correct about mac users having the "right" tools, but only because there is no way around it.

About expertice. hmm thats a whole nother discussion.. As the numbers of mac users increases, so does the number of "foul" users. I have met some who definitely fit that description.

Back on topic...

Marty Baggen · May 15th, 2010, 10:12 AM

The frustration I have experienced with Premiere has always been with an up-to-spec machine and has been both stability and functionality issues.

Tim, I agree that a share of the criticism leveled at Adobe is unfair. However, when you look at the larger picture.... say CS2 to the present, you would have to say that CS5 is a direct result of Adobe knowing that had to get this one right as evidenced by those among us whom have been so frustrated.

To make my case I present "Exhibit A", CS4.

I've mentioned on another thread that Adobe's biggest misstep with CS5 is allowing the impression during pre-release that a very expensive hardware setup was required for entry level CS5 specs, when in fact, a modest hardware spec (as per Adobe), and upgrade to 64-bit opens the door to quite excellent performance.

The bottom line for Adobe and the rest of us is its stability. Speed is nice, work flow is essential.... but if the program locks or crashes on an up-to-spec machine, nothing else matters. CS5 has not crashed on me in weeks.

Adobe has done well..... they had to, and they stepped up and came through.

Tim Kolb · May 15th, 2010, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marty Baggen

I've mentioned on another thread that Adobe's biggest misstep with CS5 is allowing the impression during pre-release that a very expensive hardware setup was required for entry level CS5 specs, when in fact, a modest hardware spec (as per Adobe), and upgrade to 64-bit opens the door to quite excellent performance.

The bottom line for Adobe and the rest of us is its stability. Speed is nice, work flow is essential.... but if the program locks or crashes on an up-to-spec machine, nothing else matters. CS5 has not crashed on me in weeks.

Adobe has done well..... they had to, and they stepped up and came through.

Couldn't agree more....but now I'll apologize again for hijacking this thread...sorry.

(I wonder if a board mod could slice off the thread starting with my ranty bit and make it a separate thread so this one can get back to it and i can avoid hate mail?)

Pete Bauer · May 15th, 2010, 11:30 AM

FWIW, just a comment from a Wrangler...

Since Tim was responding directly to the Adobe conspiracy comment already made -- and IMO he made excellent points -- I didn't and don't consider his posts a hijack of the thread. Rather, it was the fairly rude response that caught my attention.

Adobe have repeatedly stated that they devoted a certain amount of time/money/effort during CS5 development to certifying a limited number of cards and that they will continue to test and certify more cards in the future. For those who don't wish to wait, have the time and inclination, nobody is going to stop you. Y'all have fun hacking software and firmware, while not forgetting that it is almost universally a violation of EULAs to do so and usually voids a warranty if identified by the manufacturer. Anyone following suit, please remember that.

Glad to see everyone backed off their hind legs and made nice -- no need to denigrate anyone, including those who don't choose to hack. Thanks.

Tim Kolb · May 15th, 2010, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Kalle

Avid: releases features Premiere already has but Avid MC users celebrate as though Avid is sooo great for giving them these features. Avid users treat their workstations with a lot of respect and don't install a bunch of crap software.

FCP: Apple adds a few features Premiere already has but then slows down the software, especially Compressor and FCP users flock to the upgrade. FCP users are inherently limited to the amount of crap software that can be installed since not much is made for OSX.

Adobe: innovates and adds NEW features far before anyone else does. Adobe does try to be everything to everyone, which does hurt its reputation.

While I would stand in agreement with this statement, my comments really did derail this thread...

Pete or Chris or...? Does it make sense to create a dedicated thread so those who browse the thread topic lines don't get a "bait and switch" sort of feeling when they come into this thread and those who wish to weigh in on this interjected topic can find it?

...just askin'

May 14th, 2010, 08:50 AM	#2
Tim Kolb Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Neenah, WI Posts: 547	Split from "Test to Compare Nvidia Cards for CS5" thread Well, a good conspiracy theory is always fun, but there are some other perspectives to look at this GPU situation with Adobe and NVIDIA... I am a Quadro card user...I have two in my workstation and one in my production-use laptop. (I only have a Mercury-certified card in my workstation...a 4800). I use them because I can reach a human if I have a configuration problem...and with two dual-head cards and four displays to light, my recent upgrade to Windows 7 involved a BIOS upgrade and a Fibre Channel card upgrade, and various other alterations in the basic configuration...and I am NOT an IT guy by any stretch of the imagination. What I do find interesting in the ten years since I moved to Premiere on a PC from my beloved Media 100s on Macs, is that Premiere, and now Premiere Pro users really do complain about their system stability a lot. Some of it is justified without a doubt. I've had my share of issues over the years. However, I do find that many Premiere Pro users tend to run configurations that deviate from proven best practices, or are under configured based on common knowledge, in ways that no professional using FCP or Avid would ever do...but then when the system is quirky, it's always Adobe's fault. So this time, Adobe develops this flagship feature and certifies hardware that is professional and has a proven support infrastructure, and users are hacking the code to use gamer display cards... What happens when a problem comes up? I don;'t know how many video post production application engineers the GeForce or GTX product division has sitting by the phone waiting for your call...but i know that PNY has some pretty sharp folks available for me to talk to in person to support the Quadro product line. I think it's time for PPro users to come to the realization that if you want a video post production application that is as stable and robust as Avid or FCP users claim theirs to be (and with some legitimacy I would say)...it's time to start treating a Premiere Pro workstation as you would a big iron Avid or anything else. Put the thing together cleanly, within manufacturer spec, pack all the performance components into it you can (...a 64 bit OS with a huge RAM allocation made a significant and well-known stability difference way back in CS3 folks...) ...and go to work. If the system is stable, you can invoice out enough extra work to pay for a professional graphics card, a serious throughput storage array, and adequate RAM to give yourself a performance margin so that the software isn't struggling. It really doesn't matter what effort Adobe puts into stabilizing the application by thoroughly testing and certifying components if users will continue to simply avoid the verified configurations... Oh well...at least FCP users will be able to continue laughing at Premiere Pro users and our odd little application that we have trouble running on our crazy bazaar of concocted configurations. ...I've been listening to (or reading on web fora) Adobe users whine about their video editing software for a full freakin' decade, constantly implying that Adobe wasn't making the app 'professional' enough or whatever else.... Now Adobe finally seems to pull it together for CS5...and now they've certified particular hardware for stability, and now the same users say Adobe is conspiring against their customers and the Adobe fora all over the web are a buzz about how to thwart it. Look...I know that nobody has an extra money right now...BELIEVE me I know. But ask yourself what FCP or Avid user would be going out of their way to work around the certified configurations? Sometimes I think that the impression that FCP and Avid are more stable systems than PPro is something Adobe won't ever be able to really fix...because their customers are the biggest obstruction. -rant off- __________________ TimK Kolb Productions

May 15th, 2010, 12:46 AM	#5
Tim Kolb Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Neenah, WI Posts: 547	OK...too much...this morning I happened in to the forum while i was in a foul mood. My apologies for the tone... You guys weren't calling Quadro users stupid, but you're implying Adobe and NVIDIA are somehow trying to undermine the user by not certifying more cards. If you were Adobe and you were leaning that hard on another company's hardware to achieve one of your most compelling features, just maybe you would decide that the Quadros have the support infrastructure and the models/configurations move far less often, so this way customers are easy to support and the few configurations can be rigorously tested. I think that everyone is expecting that the whole Quadro line is supposed to be physically configured upscale from the GeForce line...the 285 is closer to the 5800, it has more throughput but less RAM than a Q4800... Nobody ever considers the support after the sale as a feature just as much as the RAM, number of GPU cores and the memory bandwidth. Support like that costs something to provide... Plus I can use all of a Q3800...which is $300.00 USD more than a 285...the 4800 is in the 1300-1400.00 USD range near as I can tell at the moment...just barely a thousand more than what I can find for a 285. The 5800 is very expensive, and there you would save thousands on a purchase, yes... However, I doubt many people will find themselves on a fence in between the Quadro 5800 and the GTX285...so did you really save thousands? If you would have bought a 3800 or 4800, you saved about 300-1000 USD to go with a 285 or some non-certified card. As far as googling answers, I've had a few pretty obscure things lately with having to change Fibre Channel cards and changing out I/O cards and whatever...not really google "my Dell Precision" sorts of issues. But...that's why I have the system I do. It isn't too hard to Google for tech support...it's too costly. In the time I'd spend switching cards and testing them like it seems is being done here, I can work and invoice out more than the purchase price difference instead of eating the downtime. About the time I'd hack that code and put a GeForce card in, it will conflict with some component I have in the system that people don't have on general purpose computers...and I'd go back to the drawing board. I guess I'd still like to leave this out there for consideration... Many Premiere Pro users have felt like they were not seeing progress with Adobe post production software for several revisions now, and it's always been pretty dependable to wander into any Adobe Premiere Pro web forum, and you'll find people complaining what a crappy product Adobe put out, etc... Then you start to ask these people questions and find out what their configuration is...and you realize they're underpowered and have several things installed in their system that a "simple google search" would have flagged as conflicts immediately... I looked at what Adobe did this time...much more Apple and Avid-like in their approach, which allows them to really intensely test a small group of cards...and certify them. It seemed smart to me...the term "chicanery" never entered my mind (not that it does very often anyway...great word). I'm sorry but my frustration remains as Adobe users just don't treat their editing workstations the same as FCP or Avid guys...yet I'll bet we'll be hearing how somebody's system with 4 GB of RAM and a non-certified GeForce card is unstable and how Adobe has "done it again" in less than 3 weeks...and yet users will also continue to talk about Adobe's plotting. I don't experiment because I don't enjoy it and when I'm tinkering, I'm not working. 3 or 4 days of tech issues can cost me far more money than the difference we're discussing here...as would testing out a long list of consumer cards to try to pick one. Most FCP users who also install CS5 will likely have the ONE Quadro card Apple has allowed them to use purchased, installed and working before many PC users will have made the decision which consumer card they want and how to hack it, and the FCP user will likely have billed out the revenue to pay for the card before the invoice for it comes due. ...don't read this as if I'm yelling. I'm not. I'm sort of shaking my head and shrugging my shoulders here. We all want PPro to be a more robust competitor in this space...for all our sakes and our own credibility. Good luck with your testing. I also noticed that Adobe did not seem to make any effort to hide the code that is being changed...which begs the question as to who is executing their "chicanery" so poorly? __________________ TimK Kolb Productions Last edited by Tim Kolb; May 15th, 2010 at 10:03 AM. Reason: model # typo

May 15th, 2010, 11:30 AM	#11
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	FWIW, just a comment from a Wrangler... Since Tim was responding directly to the Adobe conspiracy comment already made -- and IMO he made excellent points -- I didn't and don't consider his posts a hijack of the thread. Rather, it was the fairly rude response that caught my attention. Adobe have repeatedly stated that they devoted a certain amount of time/money/effort during CS5 development to certifying a limited number of cards and that they will continue to test and certify more cards in the future. For those who don't wish to wait, have the time and inclination, nobody is going to stop you. Y'all have fun hacking software and firmware, while not forgetting that it is almost universally a violation of EULAs to do so and usually voids a warranty if identified by the manufacturer. Anyone following suit, please remember that. Glad to see everyone backed off their hind legs and made nice -- no need to denigrate anyone, including those who don't choose to hack. Thanks. __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress!

May 14th, 2010, 06:59 AM	#1
Paul Cook Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 174	MOD NOTE: The first 12 posts in this thread are either copied or moved from the original thread at the request of those posting in the original thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/adobe-cr...cards-cs5.html Pete Thats bad news Steve, hope you get it all sorted out. Amazing speed boost in the render by the way Yes Nik my conspiracy theory is that Adobe made it far too easy for us to find a work around and make any cuda enabled card to work. That way we get used to the power and speed but before too long hit the wall when we need more than 3 layers. Then it seems the only option will be to fork out for a Quadro Unless some friendly hacker finds out what Adobe did in their code and writes a workaround. I know their used to be ways to both softmod and hardmod geforce cards to flash the bios and make them appear as Quadro's Guess we wait and see...

May 14th, 2010, 10:43 PM	#3
Paul Cook Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 174	Sorry Tim your just spouting utter rubbish! If it makes you sleep better at night spending the many thousands of dollars more than you need to on the off chance you get a problem that a simple google search or forum post would likely fix then knock yourself out. Please don't take it out on those who poses the computer and IT intelligence or even the willingness to explore and find solutions that save them thousands because you think its all too hard. Adobe themselves have certified the so called 'gamer card' to work with CS5 and given the 285 is more powerful than your 4800 and heck even the 260 is more powerful than your 4800...doesnt take a genius to think their may be some corporate chicanery at work. End of the day you may well be justified in your approach but its not like we started a thread spouting what a bunch of fools all the quadro buyers are for spending way more than they should. It just seems cheap for you to do it to us.

May 14th, 2010, 11:45 PM	#4
Steve Kalle Trustee Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,554	I think the basis of Tim's post is many Adobe users who use underpowered computers and then complain that they are having stability issues. I also am sick and tired of people complaining about their computer problems, but that is more due to the fact that I do some IT work on the side, and I am ALWAYS the first person someone calls to fix their computer. Paul, I used to think the same way in that I can spend a little time and save a good amount of money. I couldn't believe the cost of some video equipment in addition to pre-built raid arrays. However, when it comes to me being able to call someone to get something fixed or me trying myself, I now spend the extra money for better support, which is something Quadro users get. Do I need the FX 3800, no, but I will be running high end software on a single PC (CS5, C4D, Nuke, PFTrack), and that support can come in handy. Adobe chicanery? Look at it this way: Adobe needs help from nvidia to make their cards work properly with hardware acceleration. Either Adobe pays for this R&D and pass the cost on to the consumer or they make a deal with nvidia. Furthermore, Autodesk and BlackMagic Davinci Resolve use only Quadros. For Autodesk's $200,000 Flame, they use the 4800 (or it can be upgraded to 5800). If a $300 video card is more powerful that the 4800, don't you think Autodesk would prefer to save that money. This is my thread that I started in order to help people find a quick answer (and to stop asking the same question a million times in every other thread). I'd appreciate if we get back on topic. Tim, this thread was not the best choice to unleash your rant. (although I agree with a majority of what you said) Thanks

May 15th, 2010, 01:36 AM	#7
Paul Cook Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 174	lol Tim, no fouler than mine it would seem, apologies for taking it personally. Look I do get what your saying with the 'you get what you pay for' and my reference to adobe chicanery was slightly tongue in cheek. There is indeed an RnD price to be paid for this awesome new technology we have been given so if a 3 track limit and no support versus more tracks and phone support is it then so be it. Im a gambler at heart so Id like to roll the dice, grab a 250 or 260 and see how it goes. But if it doesnt work or 3 tracks is indeed the limit and inhibits my work then Ill happily (well begrudging with a smile) go out and purchase a suitable quadro. At this point I have a lot of love for both Adobe AND Nvidia so Im happy to pay my dues!

May 15th, 2010, 04:54 AM	#8
Nik Skjoth Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cph Denmark Posts: 136	I think both of you have good points, and I would assume the reason for Adobe having such a "foul" user base is due to that it tries to be the "microsoft" of creative software. When one developer goes out and tries to accomondate everyone, high and low, they will get a mix of users they cant possibly satisfy. On the other hand.. Many professionals would never even considder using premiere pro, even if they have all the stable hardware at hand. Why? If it's suppose to be as good as AVID with the right system. Oh and please dont put Mac/FCP users on a plateau here claiming they have all the right gear and expertice. In many cases you are correct about mac users having the "right" tools, but only because there is no way around it. About expertice. hmm thats a whole nother discussion.. As the numbers of mac users increases, so does the number of "foul" users. I have met some who definitely fit that description. Back on topic...

May 15th, 2010, 10:12 AM	#9
Marty Baggen Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: monroe, or Posts: 572	The frustration I have experienced with Premiere has always been with an up-to-spec machine and has been both stability and functionality issues. Tim, I agree that a share of the criticism leveled at Adobe is unfair. However, when you look at the larger picture.... say CS2 to the present, you would have to say that CS5 is a direct result of Adobe knowing that had to get this one right as evidenced by those among us whom have been so frustrated. To make my case I present "Exhibit A", CS4. I've mentioned on another thread that Adobe's biggest misstep with CS5 is allowing the impression during pre-release that a very expensive hardware setup was required for entry level CS5 specs, when in fact, a modest hardware spec (as per Adobe), and upgrade to 64-bit opens the door to quite excellent performance. The bottom line for Adobe and the rest of us is its stability. Speed is nice, work flow is essential.... but if the program locks or crashes on an up-to-spec machine, nothing else matters. CS5 has not crashed on me in weeks. Adobe has done well..... they had to, and they stepped up and came through.