Mobile nvidia vs ati

[Guest]

Hi guys
I am buying my next laptop. I am heavy user of graphic - I do videos, I like to play a games. Making videos means majorly editing, but also FX - trick and of course usage of photographic programmes.
I would need some advices.
I can imagine this configuration
X64 Win 7
Intel 9... - propably T9700, 2,53Ghz, 6MB L2 cache
4-8 gigs of RAM DDR2, 800Mhz- depends on vallet
HD soundcard
Bluray would be nice
but I can not decide with GPU
I have recomendation for ATI HD 4850, but I do not know at all new generation of nVidia GT 260/280. I do videos and effects sometimes on them. I can end up from time to time with 36 GB of datas in avi to edit and to at least basic effects. I need to have it in sync with sound, eventually in real time, so I do not wait for frames of some of video.
I was thinking of MSI GT 725 with configuration above - they are with ATI 4850 512DDR3.
However, I can only effort cca 1500 euros. (If someone has a idea of laptop in price range which can be better idea, pls let me know)
I would also have questions about the CPU is generation quads and i7 with 6MB cache clocked on 1,6 - 2 GHZ if they are really faster than T9700, 6 MB cache and really improving performance so much. Or it is a selling trick.
Does DDR3 with this configuration has a sense or its just gonna sleep and give me performance of DDR2.
Thanks a lot. Looking forward for your suggestions.
Emptyx

 

[frozenlead]

These GPUs will only accelerate playback, not video rendering (unless you've got a program that can use GPGPU, which I'm not aware of any). That being said, you only need a midrange-entry level card. Almost any dedicated card will suffice.

You would benefit from an i7, though. It's not really about the clockspeed, it's about the 4 cores versus 2, which does provide a significant performance increase.

 

[PsyKhiqZero]

I've noticed tha the gt130 in my laptop only outputs 2.1 sound through the hdmi cable. I would assume that the ati 4xxx cards could do 5.1 as the sound is part of the chip.

 

[Guest]

These GPUs will only accelerate playback, not video rendering (unless you've got a program that can use GPGPU, which I'm not aware of any). That being said, you only need a midrange-entry level card. Almost any dedicated card will suffice.

You would benefit from an i7, though. It's not really about the clockspeed, it's about the 4 cores versus 2, which does provide a significant performance increase.

Thanks man a lot.
Thing is, that when you apply effect on video (or simple work with) in software, preview n output monitor is a work of card - bigger it is and stronger, better especialy when they are 2-3 videos so they go together and effects are applied. If I need it to do it precise card has to sync all datas and effects on preview monitor in high detail- which is like prerenedered sample of final version of what you do. I need effective power.
I had nVidia 7600 GT and bigger files or complicated soft for effects was not able to execute. It froze or got delays.
I am not sure if video applications are optimised for quads, i7 and 2 video cards. Thats what I wonder - my question is also about cache, because I am on laptop.

Thank you if you have any advise.

 

[Guest]

I've noticed tha the gt130 in my laptop only outputs 2.1 sound through the hdmi cable. I would assume that the ati 4xxx cards could do 5.1 as the sound is part of the chip.

Thanks. That imortant info.

 

[frozenlead]

Like I said (and that you confirmed) - the cards don't help with rendering work (unless your software is GPGPU capable, but that's unlikely, because the 7600 is not GPGPU capable), they simply aid in output in the same fashion that anyone watching a blu-ray movie would have. A midrange card from today is far more powerful than the 7600 anyway. Your 7600 lagging could also be a function of your current CPU power, too. A midrange card is more than enough.

If the software you're using is worth $10, it should make use of quad-core CPUs. If it doesn't, I highly suggest you find a new software suite. You need to look that up on whatever software you're using. It won't, though, make use of 2 graphics cards, if it even makes use of 1.

I'm not sure why you're worried about cache. It really won't affect your performance greatly, and the two processors you've selected here have the same amount.

 

[Guest]

Like I said (and that you confirmed) - the cards don't help with rendering work (unless your software is GPGPU capable, but that's unlikely, because the 7600 is not GPGPU capable), they simply aid in output in the same fashion that anyone watching a blu-ray movie would have. A midrange card from today is far more powerful than the 7600 anyway. Your 7600 lagging could also be a function of your current CPU power, too. A midrange card is more than enough.

If the software you're using is worth $10, it should make use of quad-core CPUs. If it doesn't, I highly suggest you find a new software suite. You need to look that up on whatever software you're using. It won't, though, make use of 2 graphics cards, if it even makes use of 1.

I'm not sure why you're worried about cache. It really won't affect your performance greatly, and the two processors you've selected here have the same amount.

Editing and effects softs works like players, where datas are instantly aligned, cutted - but still loaded - and covered with effects (where each frame of video has to be created anew) with capability of search forward and backward as you need and immiadiatelly displayed on 1 of 2 preview monitors where underline you have sound control. Second monitor checs the file in state without chages you made at any time you decide - even simultaniously. And thats instant pretty heavy use of GPU by my opinion. (Every move of timeline to HD to preview file cost time and sync of another part of same timeline on output monitor)

Old card can do 1 video with up till 10 GB of material without slowing if motherboard and RAM allows it.

I need effective CPU only for rendering.

Adobe CS3 is very expensive - couple of thousands , as well as Sony Vegas pro 8 - only 800 and they are only 32 bits. CS 4 is partially X64. Even I use Winx64 and X64 rendering soft of CS4 lot of times it doesnt exceed my dual fully - thats why I wonder about cache and if quad or i7 with 6MB is really more usable than much faster dual.

I am limitted with money, but buying average graphic card will waist whole investment and I am interested what can get wi

 

[Guest]

Editing and effects softs works like "players", where datas are instantly aligned, cutted - but still loaded, changed - and covered with effects (where each frame of video has to be created anew) with capability of search forward and backward as you need and immiadiatelly displayed on 1 of 2 preview monitors where underline you have sound control. Second monitor checs the file in state without chages you made at any time you decide - even simultaniously. And thats instant pretty heavy use of GPU by my opinion. (Every move of timeline to HD to preview file cost time and sync of another part of same timeline on output monitor)

Old card can do 1 video with up till 10 GB of material without slowing if motherboard and RAM allows it.

I need effective CPU only for rendering.

Adobe CS3 is very expensive - couple of thousands , as well as Sony Vegas pro 8 - only 800 and they are only 32 bits. CS 4 is partially X64. Even I use Winx64 and X64 rendering soft of CS4 lot of times it doesnt exceed my dual fully - thats why I wonder about cache and if quad or i7 with 6MB is really more usable than much faster dual.

I am limitted with money, but buying average graphic card will waist whole investment and I am interested what can get with 1500€ and if GT 280 is more powerfull than 4850.
I hope we understand each other now. I know the theory, I am interested in reality.

Thank you.

 

[frozenlead]

Editing and effects softs works like players, where datas are instantly aligned, cutted - but still loaded - and covered with effects (where each frame of video has to be created anew) with capability of search forward and backward as you need and immiadiatelly displayed on 1 of 2 preview monitors where underline you have sound control. Second monitor checs the file in state without chages you made at any time you decide - even simultaniously. And thats instant pretty heavy use of GPU by my opinion. (Every move of timeline to HD to preview file cost time and sync of another part of same timeline on output monitor)

Which is, essentially, outputting SD/HD content. This isn't much more intensive (on a GPU) than playing a blu-ray movie. My point is the GPU is not used for rendering. Your CPU is still doing most of the work in both cases. There's no opinion to this...it's just how it works. Timelines, syncing, all that stuff is CPU work. The GPU is mainly used in actually putting the picture together. It doesn't do much else.

I don't know why you're comparing 64-bit software, it really doesn't have much to do with this. Any program, whether 32 or 64-bit will run on a 64-bit processor, and there's a marginal performance difference between the two. The only real effect 64 vs 32-bit plays is in memory addressing.
http/msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778%28VS.85%29.aspx

That being said, a quad core is (theoretically) twice as fast as a given dual core (when they are clock-for-clock the same performance). In reality, it will probably be >1.5x as fast, and you should see a very significant performance boost, especially in rendering. Cache, as I said before, doesn't have a whole lot to do with it.

You should be fine with any midrange card. Notebooks with them aren't that expensive - I believe there's an HP with a quad core floating around for ~$800 or so.

Edit:The GT280 is better than the 4850, but you can really save some money by buying a midrange card. You just don't need the gaming class card. With the budget you have, though, you might not be able to get a machine without one. If you're not really interested in having a "portable" notebook, the Clevo D900F seems to be a winner for you.