Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

29 posts in this topic

No. Photoshop is almost entirely CPU bound: once you have an "okay" GPU (say a GTX 650) performance is basically identical across every card, The difference between 1gb, 2gb, and 3gb of ram is effectively zero (fractions of a second on a 1minute+ render). See here for an example.

You see similar things in premiere where the top performing card is the GTX 580.

Here's Adobes hardware performance whitepaper.

They recommend > 1 GB of Vram only if you're planning on running 5k red frames (~5000x3000) through premiere. For photoshop the GPU does very little - but if that ever changed, even 1gb of memory would be more than enough because you're not trying to run filters on 60 5kx3k images every second.

Also keep in mind the performance differences isn't for everything. Regular drawing etc won't benefit but if you spend a lot of time working with the liquify filter or content-aware fill then it'll be smoother. You should also know that the benefits are much less noticable in photoshop than aftereffects or premiere. The bulk of Adobes advice for photoshop is "buy a faster CPU, buy more ram, buy a solid state drive".

 

 

After reading over the links, what you said is about as to-the-point as I could ask for.

 

Thank you very much, that was very helpful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can go either way,  but AMD doesn't support Physx, so any title that specifically had support for that wouldn't use it.  IF it had support for both types then it might, but I think nvidia is more widely supported, no?

 

More widely supported in what respects? There aren't THAT many games that support Physx and honestly it is something you can get used to not seeing in games. I'm just saying in pure terms of bang for the buck performance, at 329 dollars the HD 7970 3GB with 4 free games is really tough to beat. I haven't pulled the trigger on it yet just because I already have a GTX 660 and it's a lot of money for me to spend when I can get a second card for SLi at a reduced cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More widely supported in what respects? There aren't THAT many games that support Physx and honestly it is something you can get used to not seeing in games. I'm just saying in pure terms of bang for the buck performance, at 329 dollars the HD 7970 3GB with 4 free games is really tough to beat. I haven't pulled the trigger on it yet just because I already have a GTX 660 and it's a lot of money for me to spend when I can get a second card for SLi at a reduced cost.

 

 

Seeing the #'s in that graph someone posted are tough to beat.  Looks like the 7970 is sort of the best of both options.  Higher clock, and more than 2GB of ram.   The games offered aren't too bad, I've got some of them already but I'm sure I could sell the copies that it comes with.  AMD seems to draw more power than nvidia, but I don't game 24x7, nor am I running 2+ cards, so the change in my utility bill will probably amount to only a few cents. 

 

7970 it is. 

 

THANKS ALL!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can go either way,  but AMD doesn't support Physx, so any title that specifically had support for that wouldn't use it.  IF it had support for both types then it might, but I think nvidia is more widely supported, no?

If it uses the AGEIA/nVidia implementation, yes; if it uses the HaVok/Intel implementation, it will be more CPU-driven. (CryENGINE 3, for example, uses the AGEIA/nVidia implentation, even in Crysis 3 - however, the implementation premiered in Crysis 2.)  More games support the AGEIA/nVidia implementation than the HaVoK/Intel implementation (if a game is nVidia-sponsored, it's pretty much certain that it will also use the AGEIA/nVidia implementation); however, the AGEIA/nVidia implementation costs nothing for a developer to implement (how much does it costs developers to implement the HaVoK version?).  A welcome, though surprising, factoid; Firefall - the currently in open-beta MMO - is an AMD "Gaming Evolved" title; however, for in-game physics, it uses Physx (AGEIA/nVidia).  You can use an nVidia GPU just for Physx - there is nothing in the Physx specification, or even AMD's CrossFire or CrossFireX specification roadblocking it.  However, you do need an additional GPU slot (PCIe x16) for a GPU to be used as a simple Physx accelerator - and how many PC users, or even PC heavy gamers, would go to that amount of trouble?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.