MC5 + GPU + Matrox Mini = ? at DVinfo.net

Clark Peters · October 9th, 2010, 05:38 PM

Hypothetical question: If I use a Matrox Mini Max to preview and encode HD content (in my case from an EX1), does the choice of video card matter as much? Will I see a performance benefit to getting a Quadro FX3800, instead of a lower end Quadro FX560?

This would be part of a new computer build based on an i7-930.

Thanks.

Pete

Jeff Murray · December 8th, 2010, 10:42 AM

I have the same question.

However I just picked up an FX1800 on the Bay cheaply.

I presently have an old dual xeon with the FX560 - I'll let you know if it makes a difference and whether its signficant. It won't answer the FX3800 question, but will give an indication.

If it all fails I'll invest in the Matrox.

What is your main issue? Mine is mp4 renders - my system takes 24 hours to complete a multi-pass render of 1 hour of video.

I hear the Matrox is faster than real time and other have posted that render time is more based on the CPU than on the GPU - apparantly the GPU is for playback - ie: AMA issues.

Regards

Jeff

Jeff Murray · January 16th, 2011, 03:06 PM

I have found the CPU to be the most important factor in mp4 renders and AMA playback. The graphics card makes a difference to effects rendering while editing. I have an FX1800 and I am very happy with its performance for rendering while editing.

What I have done to improve mp4 rendering is use a very reasonable programme called TMPGEnc (£50) to render my mp4s and it is CUDA enabled. That means it can select between the GPU or the CPU to speed rendering. On my core i7 950 it choses the CPU and renders mp4s in just over real time. Have seen some posts that say the quality is low - however I do not notice it.

In conclusion I think the Matro Mini will help with mp4 rendering and you could use a lower end graphic card although I wouldn't go lower than the FX1800. I did transfer my old FX1400 onto the machine early in it life and it was definiately slower for editing - some FX took 6 mins to render on the 1800 they take 20 seconds or so.

Of course the main reason for a Matrox mino is IO and also preview on an external monitor while editing. If you get the Max PCIe card your mp4s will render in real time.

Regards

Jeff

October 9th, 2010, 05:38 PM	#1
Clark Peters Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Manhattan, Kansas Posts: 123	MC5 + GPU + Matrox Mini = ? Hypothetical question: If I use a Matrox Mini Max to preview and encode HD content (in my case from an EX1), does the choice of video card matter as much? Will I see a performance benefit to getting a Quadro FX3800, instead of a lower end Quadro FX560? This would be part of a new computer build based on an i7-930. Thanks. Pete

December 8th, 2010, 10:42 AM	#2
Jeff Murray Regular Crew Join Date: May 2007 Location: Glasgow, United Kingdom Posts: 176	Same question I have the same question. However I just picked up an FX1800 on the Bay cheaply. I presently have an old dual xeon with the FX560 - I'll let you know if it makes a difference and whether its signficant. It won't answer the FX3800 question, but will give an indication. If it all fails I'll invest in the Matrox. What is your main issue? Mine is mp4 renders - my system takes 24 hours to complete a multi-pass render of 1 hour of video. I hear the Matrox is faster than real time and other have posted that render time is more based on the CPU than on the GPU - apparantly the GPU is for playback - ie: AMA issues. Regards Jeff

January 16th, 2011, 03:06 PM	#3
Jeff Murray Regular Crew Join Date: May 2007 Location: Glasgow, United Kingdom Posts: 176	Upgrade I have found the CPU to be the most important factor in mp4 renders and AMA playback. The graphics card makes a difference to effects rendering while editing. I have an FX1800 and I am very happy with its performance for rendering while editing. What I have done to improve mp4 rendering is use a very reasonable programme called TMPGEnc (£50) to render my mp4s and it is CUDA enabled. That means it can select between the GPU or the CPU to speed rendering. On my core i7 950 it choses the CPU and renders mp4s in just over real time. Have seen some posts that say the quality is low - however I do not notice it. In conclusion I think the Matro Mini will help with mp4 rendering and you could use a lower end graphic card although I wouldn't go lower than the FX1800. I did transfer my old FX1400 onto the machine early in it life and it was definiately slower for editing - some FX took 6 mins to render on the 1800 they take 20 seconds or so. Of course the main reason for a Matrox mino is IO and also preview on an external monitor while editing. If you get the Max PCIe card your mp4s will render in real time. Regards Jeff