Graphics Card Advice for a friend ?

Hi
A friend asked which GPU should he get.
Basically his work is editing 5D3 files in photoshop and would like the ability to edit small videos ( not much of this at the moment) - he is using a 4K monitor at 3840 x2160 at 60 Hz.
He has bought a Desktop with the new Skylake i7- 6007K 4 core, 4 GHz in Turbo mode 4.2 GHz processor with 32GB DDR4 2400 MHz ram.

The choice is between :-

1. Asus GeForce GTX 980 DirectCU II OC Strix 4096MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card for £430
2048 cores
Or

2. Asus GeForce GTX 970 DirectCU II OC Strix 4096MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card for £282
1664 cores

I havent a clue, but said I would ask the forum for advice .
Naturally he doesnt want to spend money and get a negligible return. But if it would make a big difference then he will spend the extra cash.
Any thoughts much appreciated as although we do the same sort of photography I havent a clue about this stuff.

Both of those cards, for the purpose of photography and video, are very overkill. I am unaware of how much faster exactly a higher-end GPU would accelerate Premiere Pro's mercury engine (assuming that is what he's using), but unless he's working on 4K video, it won't matter either way. It's like deciding between dynamite and TNT to blow down a wooden wall.

Pretty much any GPU made in the last couple years will be more than enough, and it doesn't have to be new, it doesn't even have to be more than 100 buckaroos. If it weren't a 4K display, I'd even trust the Intel integrated graphics to do the job, which they technically can, but I doubt the experience would be 100% smooth.

I often recommend the GTX 750 ti since it's small and low-power, regularly discounts to $100, and can even push 3D graphics decently well. Note that certain designs of the 750 ti do not feature a Displayport, so look for a version that specifically has one, otherwise 4K is a no go. In practice, any GPU with Displayport 1.2 and preferably 2GB RAM will drive a 4K display just fine.

The best advise I can offer is to take a look at the software your friend is using for editing and
check that the Video card selected is ABLE to use the GPU. The recent release of Photoshop and Lightroom CC make some older graphics cards problematic.

https://helpx.adobe.co​m …ot-gpu-graphics-card.html

I recently had two first gen I7 machines with AMD Radeon HD 5700 graphics cards I built lock up when using Lightroom or Photoshop while editing. The problem was the video card, and the fact that it was trying to use the GPU. Once I modified the preferences so that it did not attempt to use the GPU, everything was back to normal.

Regards,

110yd

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #17698346
Both of those cards, for the purpose of photography and video, are very overkill. I am unaware of how much faster exactly a higher-end GPU would accelerate Premiere Pro's mercury engine (assuming that is what he's using), but unless he's working on 4K video, it won't matter either way. It's like deciding between dynamite and TNT to blow down a wooden wall.

Pretty much any GPU made in the last couple years will be more than enough, and it doesn't have to be new, it doesn't even have to be more than 100 buckaroos. If it weren't a 4K display, I'd even trust the Intel integrated graphics to do the job, which they technically can, but I doubt the experience would be 100% smooth.

I often recommend the GTX 750 ti since it's small and low-power, regularly discounts to $100, and can even push 3D graphics decently well. Note that certain designs of the 750 ti do not feature a Displayport, so look for a version that specifically has one, otherwise 4K is a no go. In practice, any GPU with Displayport 1.2 and preferably 2GB RAM will drive a 4K display just fine.

This.

Since the rest of his rig is pretty high end I would invest in the best gpu I could afford to match capabilities. Generally speaking, more cores is better so I would get the 2048 core card. I run the AMD version and its a good card. I would assume he is running one or more ssd's, if not he should be.

Thanks for all the advice. very Much Appreciated,

As he was over his budget, but wanted to invest in the Skylake technology. That meant a 1151 socket CPU, and asso. MB, and Ram.
I think he said he was going Samsung EVO SSDs - that I said were brilliant.

My initial reaction was my Quadro K2200 only has 640 cores and I have been told by HP technical it will be fine, editing Photos and 4K video; so I guesed that the GTX 970 with the same amount of RAM and 1, 660 Cores should blitz it!

But as I warned him, as I am waiting for Win 10 to be shipped before my server is ordered, that I havent physically, personally tried it. :-/
- so all your help is very much appreciated. I just thought, at nearly 2x the price was it worth it? IMO ... No.

I do see his point in investing in quality core stuff ; like a decent / fast CPU and MB. As you dont want to be upgrading the guts of the machine too quickly. But add on stuff only has to be able to do the job.

He uses Photoshop CC and Lightroom CC - I assume its not disimilar in load to say my Photoshop Elements 12?

daverator wrote in post #17698424
Since the rest of his rig is pretty high end I would invest in the best gpu I could afford to match capabilities. Generally speaking, more cores is better so I would get the 2048 core card. I run the AMD version and its a good card. I would assume he is running one or more ssd's, if not he should be.

While there are productivity applications that benefit from more GPU cores, I think that anything fairly high-end is aimed squarely at gaming. More often than not, just having hardware acceleration is better than not having any at all, but whether one solution is faster than another is far more situational.

This is compounded by the fact that GPUs get exponentially more expensive for less and less performance. The 980 is 5x more expensive than the 750 Ti, but only an average of 3x faster, and that's in applications actually designed to stress GPU performance.

Edit:

Submariner wrote in post #17698521
He uses Photoshop CC and Lightroom CC - I assume its not disimilar in load to say my Photoshop Elements 12?

Very different, the elements software doesn't have hardware acceleration, whereas many Adobe CC applications use GPU power and multi-threading for many aspects of GUI and effect handling where applicable. These applications are also harder to run, so it balances out somewhat.

I would look for a GTX950 or GTX750 Ti with a display port 1.2 connector.

-dave-m- wrote in post #17698594
I would look for a GTX950 or GTX750 Ti with a display port 1.2 connector.

Hi Dave
Is That to save money or do they have any other advantages.?

Slightly off tangent, I Was surprised that the Skylake CPU he chose wasnt much faster and in some cases scored a lower PassMark
Than i7 4970K type processors. Er I thought this was a real boost in performance.

He seems to think its because it is only 4 cores, sure its enough to do this job but he thinks if they bring out a new 1151 socket cpu say with 6 cores then he could upgrade in the future to those.
My question is , just by getting the right 1151 MB can you just upgrade the processor, i.e. Would the later cpus work in his MB.?

Submariner wrote in post #17698626
Hi Dave
Is That to save money or do they have any other advantages.?

That's the low end for a GPU that I would consider for driving a 4k 60 Hz panel + some low level video editing. Decent performance, not gonna break the bank.

Submariner wrote in post #17698642
Slightly off tangent, I Was surprised that the Skylake CPU he chose wasnt much faster and in some cases scored a lower PassMark
Than i7 4970K type processors. Er I thought this was a real boost in performance.

He seems to think its because it is only 4 cores, sure its enough to do this job but he thinks if they bring out a new 1151 socket cpu say with 6 cores then he could upgrade in the future to those.
My question is , just by getting the right 1151 MB can you just upgrade the processor, i.e. Would the later cpus work in his MB.?

Intel has been holding steady at about a 10-20% performance boost with each new generation of CPU since the Core 2 days. AMD just isn't pushing them to release anything better, so why would they.

Unless AMD comes out with something to really push Intel in the mainstream market I just don't see Socket 1151 getting a six core CPU. Higher than four cores will remain on the Socket 2011 platform with a premium price.

Any CPU Intel releases on Socket 1151 should work fine in any Socket 1151 motherboard. For the most part it just requires updating the BIOS so it will recognize the new CPU. I'm just guessing that a motherboard could be limited in number of cores if it wasn't designed to handle more, so in order to handle six core CPU's the Z170/H170/B150 chipset would need to natively support it now.

Submariner wrote in post #17698642
Slightly off tangent, I Was surprised that the Skylake CPU he chose wasnt much faster and in some cases scored a lower PassMark
Than i7 4970K type processors. Er I thought this was a real boost in performance.

He seems to think its because it is only 4 cores, sure its enough to do this job but he thinks if they bring out a new 1151 socket cpu say with 6 cores then he could upgrade in the future to those.
My question is , just by getting the right 1151 MB can you just upgrade the processor, i.e. Would the later cpus work in his MB.?

Right, as Dave says Skylake is isn't an especially significant upgrade to Haswell, more than anything you're getting more modern features than actual raw performance. This is what the future will be like for a while.

Usually Intel keeps a socket around for two generations, but this time around only Haswell used 1150 because Broadwell was basically obsoleted 2 months after it was announced, on the other hand, it's very likely that 1151 will stick for three generations as CPUs are hitting the limits of miniaturization.

Since a new Z170 system costs about the same as an X99 with a 5820K, it's a viable alternative for those for whom more cores could benefit performance. Key word here being "could" because after all these years most applications still don't make use of many cores.

Gone are the days when CPUs would double in speed every year.

-dave-m- wrote in post #17698653
That's the low end for a GPU that I would consider for driving a 4k 60 Hz panel + some low level video editing. Decent performance, not gonna break the bank.

Thanks.

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #17699075
Right, as Dave says Skylake is isn't an especially significant upgrade to Haswell, more than anything you're getting more modern features than actual raw performance. This is what the future will be like for a while.

Usually Intel keeps a socket around for two generations, but this time around only Haswell used 1150 because Broadwell was basically obsoleted 2 months after it was announced, on the other hand, it's very likely that 1151 will stick for three generations as CPUs are hitting the limits of miniaturization.

Since a new Z170 system costs about the same as an X99 with a 5820K, it's a viable alternative for those for whom more cores could benefit performance. Key word here being "could" because after all these years most applications still don't make use of many cores.

Gone are the days when CPUs would double in speed every year.

Thanks - seems logical