Quadro fx 4500

Mark Harmer · June 30th, 2007, 04:51 AM

Hi - just blown a fairly big amount of money on the above in the hope that it improves my render times particularly when using the Magic Bullet plugin suite.

Seriously, will this help or should I have saved my money and used it on, say, food for my children? At present I'm using the supplied card in my Compaq dual-core 3 GHz machine, which renders quite quickly in DV/HDV but struggles as soon as I use any plugins, particularly the Magic Bullet ones. I'm currently doing a render of an HDV piece in vegas, which is taking 36 seconds per frame because it has quite a few effects on it.

Oh - and off-topic, but I also use premiere pro, particularly in a current project involving 35 separate videos which we're halfway thorough editing (therefore will finish this project off in premiere pro). There's a lot of level-correcting and other plugin work involved in these too. Hoping the card might help there, too???!! Please tell me I haven't done something silly!!

Jeff Harper · June 30th, 2007, 08:15 AM

Mark, you now know the answer to this question regarding Vegas (hopefully). Check with the folks at the Premier forum as the card might help with that product. Premier is a totally different animal, as you know. At least that is my understanding. Also try Googling a phrase such as video card + Premier. good luck

By the way, you will find with even quad core that the Magic Bullet HD still renders painfully slow even in SD projects.

Talk about a disappoinment!

Mark Harmer · June 30th, 2007, 08:19 AM

Thanks very much, Jeff. I was particularly hoping it might help with the longer render times when I use the Magic Bullet plugins. They do recommend these cards - but I think from the reading I've now done, and your response, that the card will make no difference to Vegas except that it might - I hope - help a bit with the Magic Bullet renders.

Anyway ordered it now so no going back. I wish I'd asked first!!! Still, quad-core / 8-core machine might be next on the shopping list!

Jeff Harper · June 30th, 2007, 08:44 AM

Don't know where you buy, but any place I purchase from (Newegg, Tiger Direct, etc etc.) does allow returns, especially on unopened items. Unless you have a terribly bad card, you won't even see the difference in the quality of video, most likely, unless it help with Premier somehow.

I purchased my new system for exactly $2300 including the same card you are talking about.

Again, good luck.

Mark Harmer · July 1st, 2007, 03:34 AM

Jeff, thanks again. I've asked for a refund as I bought online and the card hasn't shipped yet. Your advice was spot-on about getting a quad-core. I've done a bit more research into Magic Bullet, which is the particular plugin that's slowing things down, and for that plugin a graphics card is detected by Vegas and used for the processing in the Look Suite only. A more modest card will help with that particular plugin. Otherwise, of course, you're right, the quad core machine is the way to go.

I've been using a domestic pc up to now and have quite a few projects on the go - so it's probably time to get something purely for editing. I guess that's one of those rites of passage things!!

Thank you again for your help with this.

Mark

Ian Stark · July 1st, 2007, 06:55 AM

Just picking up on the point about MB/quad core still being slow.

Certainly MB is one of the slowest rendering plugins in existence but I have just finished editing a ten minute piece with an instance of MB on almost every clip (around 300 clips of SD) and found the difference made by the quad core to be astonishing.

I rendered it on my 3.4GHz, 2Gb pc first and it took 6 hours. A few days later I re-rendered it (with an additional six tracks of titles and lower thirds) on my newly self-built quad core (qx6700), 2Gb pc - it took 35 minutes.

The only other significant differences between the two machines were 1) the quad core was pretty much virgin territory - ie absolutely no fragmentation on the disks, very little other software installed at that point; 2) the system drive on the quad core is a 10,000rpm Raptor (all render drives were 7200rpm) but the system drive on the other pc was only 7200; and 3) the memory is highest spec poss versus entry level on the 3.4GHz machine.

Basically, what I'm saying is that (in my personal experience at least) quad core isn't going to turn MB into a speed demon but it certainly does stop it being painfully slow. I now don't hesitate to use it almost as a matter of course on any and every short project. Even on a corporate case study about an engine assembly plant! It looks gorgeous!

Ian . . .

Jeff Harper · July 1st, 2007, 12:28 PM

I agree Ian. I do like being able to make minor adjustments and re-render a project knowing it will process faster...whereas before I might have let something minor slide because I didn't want to wait for 2 hours for a re-render.

Mark Harmer · July 6th, 2007, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Stark

Just picking up on the point about MB/quad core still being slow

I did in the end buy a secondhand nVidia 7800GTX as I couldn't justify getting a new quad-core machine - at least not for now. I'll stick with my dual-core.

I decided it was worth a try - and guess what? The graphics card DOES make a difference - in my case, a huge difference. Before changing the old card, I did a render of 53 frames using one of the stock MB "Look Suite" plugins and it took 1m23s to render those 53 frames in SD.

After installing the graphics card, I got prepared to time it rendering the same thing again, only it did it in under two seconds - before I got the chance to time it properly!

So now I can add to the information that's flying around on this forum!:

Quad-core may very well speed up vegas / prempro etc, just as my own dual-core is faster than my single-core machine. But if you have a run-of-the-mill graphics card, replacing it with an nVidia 7800 card will speed up anything which can use OpenGL acceleration - MB look suite plugins, 2d3 Steadymove plugin. I can preview the slider changes and full-speed video when using the MB look suite - which was just painful before my new graphics card. So now you know!

Jeff Harper · July 6th, 2007, 07:57 AM

I've replaced video cards with dramatic upgrades and found absolutely no improvement, but then I always had decent cards to begin with.

June 30th, 2007, 04:51 AM	#1
Mark Harmer Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Moreton in Marsh, United Kingdom Posts: 96	Quadro fx 4500 - a good card for Vegas? Hi - just blown a fairly big amount of money on the above in the hope that it improves my render times particularly when using the Magic Bullet plugin suite. Seriously, will this help or should I have saved my money and used it on, say, food for my children? At present I'm using the supplied card in my Compaq dual-core 3 GHz machine, which renders quite quickly in DV/HDV but struggles as soon as I use any plugins, particularly the Magic Bullet ones. I'm currently doing a render of an HDV piece in vegas, which is taking 36 seconds per frame because it has quite a few effects on it. Oh - and off-topic, but I also use premiere pro, particularly in a current project involving 35 separate videos which we're halfway thorough editing (therefore will finish this project off in premiere pro). There's a lot of level-correcting and other plugin work involved in these too. Hoping the card might help there, too???!! Please tell me I haven't done something silly!!

June 30th, 2007, 08:15 AM	#2
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Mark, you now know the answer to this question regarding Vegas (hopefully). Check with the folks at the Premier forum as the card might help with that product. Premier is a totally different animal, as you know. At least that is my understanding. Also try Googling a phrase such as video card + Premier. good luck By the way, you will find with even quad core that the Magic Bullet HD still renders painfully slow even in SD projects. Talk about a disappoinment! Last edited by Jeff Harper; June 30th, 2007 at 08:18 AM. Reason: addition

July 1st, 2007, 06:55 AM	#6
Ian Stark Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 2,237	Just picking up on the point about MB/quad core still being slow. Certainly MB is one of the slowest rendering plugins in existence but I have just finished editing a ten minute piece with an instance of MB on almost every clip (around 300 clips of SD) and found the difference made by the quad core to be astonishing. I rendered it on my 3.4GHz, 2Gb pc first and it took 6 hours. A few days later I re-rendered it (with an additional six tracks of titles and lower thirds) on my newly self-built quad core (qx6700), 2Gb pc - it took 35 minutes. The only other significant differences between the two machines were 1) the quad core was pretty much virgin territory - ie absolutely no fragmentation on the disks, very little other software installed at that point; 2) the system drive on the quad core is a 10,000rpm Raptor (all render drives were 7200rpm) but the system drive on the other pc was only 7200; and 3) the memory is highest spec poss versus entry level on the 3.4GHz machine. Basically, what I'm saying is that (in my personal experience at least) quad core isn't going to turn MB into a speed demon but it certainly does stop it being painfully slow. I now don't hesitate to use it almost as a matter of course on any and every short project. Even on a corporate case study about an engine assembly plant! It looks gorgeous! Ian . . . __________________ www.vit-media.com www.classicmachinefilms.co.uk

June 30th, 2007, 08:19 AM	#3
Mark Harmer Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Moreton in Marsh, United Kingdom Posts: 96	Thanks very much, Jeff. I was particularly hoping it might help with the longer render times when I use the Magic Bullet plugins. They do recommend these cards - but I think from the reading I've now done, and your response, that the card will make no difference to Vegas except that it might - I hope - help a bit with the Magic Bullet renders. Anyway ordered it now so no going back. I wish I'd asked first!!! Still, quad-core / 8-core machine might be next on the shopping list!

June 30th, 2007, 08:44 AM	#4
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Don't know where you buy, but any place I purchase from (Newegg, Tiger Direct, etc etc.) does allow returns, especially on unopened items. Unless you have a terribly bad card, you won't even see the difference in the quality of video, most likely, unless it help with Premier somehow. I purchased my new system for exactly $2300 including the same card you are talking about. Again, good luck.

July 1st, 2007, 03:34 AM	#5
Mark Harmer Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Moreton in Marsh, United Kingdom Posts: 96	Jeff, thanks again. I've asked for a refund as I bought online and the card hasn't shipped yet. Your advice was spot-on about getting a quad-core. I've done a bit more research into Magic Bullet, which is the particular plugin that's slowing things down, and for that plugin a graphics card is detected by Vegas and used for the processing in the Look Suite only. A more modest card will help with that particular plugin. Otherwise, of course, you're right, the quad core machine is the way to go. I've been using a domestic pc up to now and have quite a few projects on the go - so it's probably time to get something purely for editing. I guess that's one of those rites of passage things!! Thank you again for your help with this. Mark

July 1st, 2007, 12:28 PM	#7
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I agree Ian. I do like being able to make minor adjustments and re-render a project knowing it will process faster...whereas before I might have let something minor slide because I didn't want to wait for 2 hours for a re-render.

July 6th, 2007, 07:57 AM	#9
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I've replaced video cards with dramatic upgrades and found absolutely no improvement, but then I always had decent cards to begin with.