Is AGP Dead? Buy now?!

[rhegedus]

Other parts of video editing do require more GPU power and as such the statement that a graphics card has little influence upon video editing is incorrect. In some cases, perhaps, but as you've posted it as being the endall / beall on the subject that is false.

Please tell me you're not going to use the 'you need a graphics card to see what you've edited on your monitor' argument.

My 6 year old 32Mb ATI PCI (before AGP) could do that!

[ROF]

Of course that's the arguement. Use Adobe Premiere to create some video file. Use your ATI card to display DVD video(you might have to bog down your processor to display this video if your card is incapable), now add some accelerated effects, import some AVI video and splice to DVD video, now add some closing effects and again more DVD video.

Which card is going to have more influence on your time spent working on this project, your PCI card or my 7800 GT PCI-Express?

The biggest part of video editing is gathering all your pieces, making sure they work together, fixing and altering them to just the desired effect. If you have to spend inexorbitant amount of time waiting for a card to catch up or not see a true representation due to a GPU not being able to keep up with your 2D/3D video editing process you will either not have the proper end result or be visiting a store to upgrade your 32MB PCI card.

And I'll say it again, even if it is off topic to the OP question, saying that a video card has limited influence upon video editing is not only misleading, but in most cases it's entirely false.

[rhegedus]

Of course that's the arguement. Use Adobe Premiere to create some video file. Use your ATI card to display DVD video(you might have to bog down your processor to display this video if your card is incapable), now add some accelerated effects, import some AVI video and splice to DVD video, now add some closing effects and again more DVD video.

Ermmmm..... I've been doing that ever since Vegas 3.0.

If you render your project to whatever output format you want, it will be the CPU that calls the shots. If you want real-time playback of several simultaneous timelines with effects, having a top notch graphics card won't make up for lack of CPU grunt.

The only thing that changing graphics cards has allowed me to do is run higher resolutions (on a larger monitor) so that I can see more of the timeline when I'm editing.

[ROF]

How about the time it takes to edit, how about the time it takes to display your edits? How the CPU load it takes to work with multiple pieces? How about 3D effects? How about . . . well . . . just about everything in the process? I'm not saying CPU isn't involved. As a matter of fact, someone quoted me earlier in this thread to try and use my own statement against me. The CPU/GPU work together to provide a more stable and faster editing process. Upgrading one and neglecting the other will render(no pun intended) the editing process to be a daunting task.

Neglecting the GPU is denial at best. Once you begin working with intense 3D effects, HD imagery/video, and so forth the GPU begins to have a tremendous influence on the time spent in the editing process. I'm not speaking of the final packaging since it doesn't matter at that point. But to say the GPU has little influence on the editing process either means you are dealing strictly with 2D video or not doing much editing at all.

It's a false statement to say the GPU has little influence on the editing process.

[rhegedus]

How about the time it takes to edit, how about the time it takes to display your edits? How the CPU load it takes to work with multiple pieces? How about 3D effects?

Please!

Dragging, cutting, pasting and adding effects to files across the timeline is a function of hand/finger and mouse, not your graphics card.

Are you saying that display of video projects to PAL or NTSC spec (a whopping 720x576 25fps max) is what separates graphics cards?

[ROF]

I give up, it is obvious you agree to disagree with facts, so if you believe you 32MB PCI card is all the graphics processing power you need for the entire video editing, so be it. The rest of us will upgrade and enjoy better functionality in the 2D/3D video editing process.

Back on topic, is AGP dead? Not yet, but it is on it's way out. I highly recommend if you are upgrading your system you look at PCI-Express options no matter what your level of graphical needs are.

[rhegedus]

I give up, it is obvious you agree to disagree with facts.

So far, you're in a minority of one.

he said very little, not completely non existant!! if you use ANY reasonable video card...even an onboard 32mb or 64mb video.....it oughtta be enough for editing.........reguarding the video cards though, it wont make any SIGNIFICANT impact if your using anything reasonable (by that i mean, anything made within the last say 4 or 5 years)

There is no need to have an expensive graphics display card at the present time.

Still unanswered:

Can you explain where this advantage kicks in? Editors only talk to the graphics card for playback or non-realtime for hardware assist.

[ROF]

Still unanswered:

Can you explain where this advantage kicks in? Editors only talk to the graphics card for playback or non-realtime for hardware assist.

and there it is, but is this whole discussion really on topic or are you merely trolling so you can say I argued with ROF? non-realtime hardware assists are a tremendous amount of time spent in the editing process. To say the graphics card has little influence upon such actions is false.

Remember, you chose the quote, I didn't. Just because you couldn't understand it's content doesn't mean it isn't true. I'm not just minority of one. You quoted someone else who partially agrees. Again I'm not saying that the CPU isn't involved. It has tremendous influence as well, but to say the graphics card has little to do with it is quite frankly false.

I really have no idea why I keep saying this. It's obvious you don't know a whole lot about the hardware side of things if you honestly believe your 32MB PCI graphics card is going to work just as good as a 512MB GeForce 7800GT in the video editing process.

[edDV]

In the interest of moving the discussion forward I'll try to look at all the good things a graphics card does while running a program like Premiere Pro or Vegas.

I'm no expert in GPU cards and like all of you, I look at all the video processing claims for those boards and try to isolate those features that are not just about game rendering. I hope others can help with this.

The useful graphics card functions that are clear -

1. The graphics card gpu creates and acelerates the display of the user interface including the sizing and moving of windows (2D features),

2. The graphics card manages the sizing and overlay of video into the user display (more 2D features). Dual head cards allow separate overlay settings on the second display. S-Video out, when present is scaled from the full primary screen or or a selected window to a low res NTSC or PAL S-Video out.

3. The graphics card usually supports MPeg2 decoding in hardware and display into the overlay. The overlay can be displayed to either monitor output (VGA, DVI, S-Video)

As far as I can tell, all of the above is supported on even motherboard graphics gpu processors. Some cheap cards may may have limitations how many of these functions can be used simultaneously. Most low end display cards now handle at least one HDTV resolution overlay intended for HDTV tuner display, MPeg2 playback or HDTV game display on the primary computer display

When I said

Higher end cards (ATI 9550 up) add higher performance HDTV scaling and filtering.

That mainly means HDTV scaling and filtering for output at 480p, 720p or 1080i over the 2nd monitor output using VGA or DVI-I directly or in combination with the ATI Analog Component Adapter to Y, Pb, Pr.

This again is only used for monitoring a tuner or playback of an MPeg file. I've noticed that when the ATI Analog Component Adapter to Y, Pb, Pr. is in use, many other functions are reduced on the primary display.

All of the above is only about monitoring a file playback. There is movement in the DirectX API circles to make certain hardware scaling, filtering and compositing functions available to software (like Premire) for non-realtime processing. These cards can't necessarily display at the same time this is going on unless redundancy is built into the card. This will mostly apply to future cards.

The newest ATI x1000 series cards are including some acceleration for MPeg4 (targeted at h.264). Future ATI x1000 series cards targeted for MCE will have full MPeg4 (h.264) hardware decoding and encoding to facilitate PVR functions in a MCE HTPC.

Hopefully when this happens, the hardware decoder and encoder will become available to editing programs like Premiere for realtime SD and HD MPeg2/4 input decompression and realtime SD and HD MPeg2/4 output encoding. That is the holly grail for making this useful for editing.

That is why I say wait. Their is no reason to buy a high end card today except for gaming.

How about the time it takes to edit, how about the time it takes to display your edits? How the CPU load it takes to work with multiple pieces? How about 3D effects? How about . . . well . . . just about everything in the process? I'm not saying CPU isn't involved. As a matter of fact, someone quoted me earlier in this thread to try and use my own statement against me. The CPU/GPU work together to provide a more stable and faster editing process. Upgrading one and neglecting the other will render(no pun intended) the editing process to be a daunting task.

This is all true but all this is pretty much standard on all graphics cards since Y2000. Some 3D user interface functions are used (Vegas FX previews come to mind) but the actual video rendering is all done in software by the CPU.

Neglecting the GPU is denial at best. Once you begin working with intense 3D effects, HD imagery/video, and so forth the GPU begins to have a tremendous influence on the time spent in the editing process. I'm not speaking of the final packaging since it doesn't matter at that point. But to say the GPU has little influence on the editing process either means you are dealing strictly with 2D video or not doing much editing at all.

Graphics card functions to support all this are fairly standard (current generation). It isn't clear a high end card offers much if any benefit since all this is done at user interface speeds.

I hope we can get some graphics card experts to add to this.

[ROF]

Might this shed some light:

http://www.edn.com/article/CA6262535.html

[rhegedus]

are you merely trolling so you can say I argued with ROF?

Don't flatter yourself....

I really have no idea why I keep saying this.

Neither do I.

It's obvious you don't know a whole lot about the hardware side of things if you honestly believe your 32MB PCI graphics card is going to work just as good as a 512MB GeForce 7800GT in the video editing process.

As edDV eloquently pointed out, the things which you think are helped by a high-end card are standard on even the most basic of graphics cards.

So much for your hardware knowledge.

[ROF]

@rhegedus

You speak alot yet you say very little. Admittedly and as usual you chose to ignore when EdDV said he was no expert on GPU cards. You quote alot, yet you back nothing you say up with facts. Check out the link provided. I believe this might shed some light on quite a few subjects. You have to read alot so be prepared for it. There is some that is unrelated to our current discussion and even some which supports both sides of it, but in the end the GPU wins in the category of relieving the CPU of plenty of tasks. This is growing more and more apparent with each newer GPU being available.

Without quoting anyone or anything can you show me or anyone proof positive that the GPU has little influence upon the entire video editing process? Facts only please. No conjecture or quotes or snide comments. The facts are that in the ever increasing power of the GPU video editing tasks are being relegated to the GPU away from the CPU. It's becoming more and more relevant and will only increase with the high definition demand of most video editing projects today and tomorrow.

I still chuckle though when I read your statement about how your 32MB PCI card performs on par with a 512MB Geforce 7800GT PCI-Expressx16 card in any graphical task. But again, facts only please, no more quoting of others.

[edDV]

Might this shed some light:

http://www.edn.com/article/CA6262535.html

That is a very excellent article on the current state of affairs. More than enough to trigger speculation on the future CPU-GPU alternate futures.

A must read!

Most surprising to me so far was this:

"Finally, look at graphics. Remember that, before the advent in 1996 of 3dfx's Voodoo 1 chip and the all-important Quake game that took advantage of it , 3-D-graphics acceleration was limited to a narrow niche of high-end workstations, along with specialized visualization applications, such as flight simulators. In the small amount of mainstream 3-D software that existed at the time, software running on the CPU fully rendered graphics primitives to pixels before their subsequent hand-off to the 2-D-graphics chip or, if the CPU also handled 2-D rendering, the RAMDAC. Now consider that, whereas the graphics core in Intel's current 945G chip set is shader-based, it hardware-accelerates only pixel-shader operations. (Engineers also sometimes refer to these operation as fragment-shader operations.) Vertex-shader code is software-emulated on the CPU. If 3-D doesn't expand beyond its rabid but minuscule gaming niche and if Kirk's predictions of slowing pixel, vertex, and triangle growth in that niche come to pass, will the processing burden shift back to the CPU, fueled by unrelenting bill-of-materials cost-reduction pressure?

This forecast may seem outlandish at first glance. But consider that, although neither Nvidia nor Sony comments on the rumor, industry insiders believe that including Nvidia's GPU (likely, a kissing cousin of the GeForce 7800 GTX) to Sony's Playstation 3 was a late-stage-development decision. According to industry gossip, as Sony originally structured the Playstation 3, it would completely handle graphics operations with its Cell processor. If the tales are true, then Sony's engineers were too optimistic this time around. But the fact that they even seriously considered a CPU-only approach to graphics says a lot about how the CPU-versus-GPU tug of war may evolve over the next few years."

Sony was near to doing it all in the CPU.

[edDV]

Without quoting anyone or anything can you show me or anyone proof positive that the GPU has little influence upon the entire video editing process? Facts only please. No conjecture or quotes or snide comments. The facts are that in the ever increasing power of the GPU video editing tasks are being relegated to the GPU away from the CPU. It's becoming more and more relevant and will only increase with the high definition demand of most video editing projects today and tomorrow.

Now I just went through what I thought was your side of the argument above. The burden is now on you to show where current production high end graphics cards have any benefit with Premiere Pro or Vegas over say, a $40-50 ATI 9550 clone with $28 HDTV adapter. I see that as one reference point and the Intel 945G motherboard based graphics chipset another comparison point.

Why would anyone need more except for games?

Lets get this discussion focused on facts and stop the insults.

[draganong]

a $40-50 ATI 9550 clone with $28 HDTV adapter. I see that as one reference point and the Intel 945G motherboard based graphics chipset another comparison point.

Why would anyone need more except for games?

Lets get this discussion focused on facts and stop the insults.

Agreed. My Libretto 100 can edit DivX on it's built in graphics card almost as good as on my desktop that has a nVidia 4600. I believe your statement to be true form an empirical point of view that seems to be shared by many others here.

[thecoalman]

I'm suprised no one mentioned why get a gaming card at all. At the prices they are going for now you can get a real-time video editing card...

[edDV]

I'm suprised no one mentioned why get a gaming card at all. At the prices they are going for now you can get a real-time video editing card...

Exactly, but I thought that was implied.

Realtime cards are good if you also happen to have a SDI video server, but I think hardware MPeg4 decoders and MPeg4 hardware encoders are what we need at the consumer level and nobody is going to do that for only Premiere Pro / Vegas users cheaply. We should encourage Intel/AMD/ATI/NVida to do this for the MCE and HTPC PVR market and reap the benefits for video production.

[rhegedus]

You speak a lot yet you say very little. Admittedly and as usual you chose to ignore when EdDV said he was no expert on GPU cards. You quote alot, yet you back nothing you say up with facts. Check out the link provided. I believe this might shed some light on quite a few subjects. You have to read a lot so be prepared for it. There is some that is unrelated to our current discussion and even some which supports both sides of it, but in the end the GPU wins in the category of relieving the CPU of plenty of tasks. This is growing more and more apparent with each newer GPU being available.

Yep. I read the link and it is quite interesting, but it focuses more on the future potential of the GPU rather than proven benefits of current graphics cards. Of particular note is the following:

"In Adobe Premiere Pro [and Premiere Elements], we use the GPU directly to provide a number of accelerated effects that are available only if you have a capable graphics card," says Baker. Fortunately, he adds, most cards available today support these effects, so most people benefit from the features.

There is mention of newer Radeon cards to assist with encoding, but no mention of specific software that utilizes the capabilities or and real world benefits that this would provide. Without such support, they may well go the way of the Creative Labs Graphics Blaster Picture Perfect – nowhere fast.

So, as yet, there is nothing to recommend the purchase of a new, high-end card.

Without quoting anyone or anything can you show me or anyone proof positive that the GPU has little influence upon the entire video editing process? Facts only please. No conjecture or quotes or snide comments. The facts are that in the ever increasing power of the GPU video editing tasks are being relegated to the GPU away from the CPU. It's becoming more and more relevant and will only increase with the high definition demand of most video editing projects today and tomorrow.

Well, facts are difficult to substantiate without reference, and as you’re using your article (which is someone else’s opinion) to support you’re argument allow me to introduce the following:

1) Adobe Premiere Pro 2.0 system requirements

1,280x1,024 video display with 32-bit color adapter

Wow! As much as that

No, wait, there’s the much vaunted GPU cards to the rescue, but all the new ATI ones have incompatibilities. And even if they were fully compatible, like the NVIDIA cards, you’d still be no better than if you used a recommended NVIDIA 6800, yours for $100 as it’s getting long in the tooth a year after launch.


2) Adobe After Effects 7.0 system requirements

24-bit color display adapter

Now we're cooking!

Hardware support going back to the four year old GeForce4 Ti series.

So, to re-cap, running out to buy a new high-end card to use with Adobe video editing software will gain nothing over an older card other than a much larger credit card bill at the end of the month.


3) Sony Vegas 6 system requirements

No specific mention of any video display hardware needed or additional hardware support for new graphics cards.

That’s the big video editing software packages catered for (I even checked Ulead but won’t include them on the same page as Adobe or Vegas) and nothing to recommend a new GPU graphics card.

I still chuckle though when I read your statement about how your 32MB PCI card performs on par with a 512MB Geforce 7800GT PCI-Expressx16 card in any graphical task. But again, facts only please, no more quoting of others.

No………. not any graphical task.

My GeForce 6600 kicks ass at games but offers nothing extra over an old card when I edit video in Vegas.

Want to chuckle some more? Adobe support used to include the Matrox Millenium VGA cards. All 32Mb of them. If I remember correctly, Adobe used to supply a Premiere/After Effects package that shipped with a Matrox 32Mb card.

Funny, huh?

[Lenny_Nero]

Its a bit of a shame where this thread has gone, but it has sort of made its way back, I asked in here (vidhelp) a few weeks back about a gpx card to help with video, and have since learnt that the card will help, some, but not to any extent the importance that it will have when playing hi end games.

I am the sort of person who is a pain (to myself most) when getting something new for the computer in that I want to prove to myself that its worth it and will make a real difference. I also come from a usenet background where posters backup what they say with a link or something, because you cant believe what people say on the internet.

Even though I have been reading this forum/site for a long time some of the names are new to me and without the cite (link, to back it up) are not willing to believe (too any real extent, like spending money because of) but what I will say is AGP might be coming to the end of its life in one way, but just remember how many people are still using 9x versions of windows.

I will be getting another new AGP card, but then I still know someone who uses a 466 MHz celeron everyday and is happy with it, I have seen little to prove to me the PCIe is night and day better, faster, whatever. One poster early on in the thread said wait a while and hope the prices drop on this proven tech, that is what I am going to do, and I think the smart money would as well.

[edDV]

Wait for full hardware MPeg4 encode. Then you have a useful feature.