Getting EVGA GTX 560 Ti SuperClocked GPU, opinions ?

[Vladimir1]

Hi,

I recently changed many of my PC components in order to allow myself better working conditions for video editing but I didnt see any big improvements after doing so and I suspect that the problem lies in my GPU which bottlenecks the power of the CPU.

My PC stats:

Motherboard: MSI X58 Pro-E
CPU: Intel Xeon E5620 2,4 GHz 50% overclock to 3,6 GHz
GPU: GT 630 4GB DDR3
RAM: Kingston 12 GB DDR3 1333 MHz running @ 1600 MHz
PSU: Cooler Master 500W B500 V2
HDD: 500 GB
OS: Windows 7 Professional 64bit

My new ( used ) CPU does very well in benchmark tests, scoring 568 points in Cinebench R15 which is pretty much solid.
That said, I first gave a try to how well my CPU would do in rendering with the stock speed @ 2,4 GHz, I wasnt really impressed so I overclocked it to 3,6 GHz but I am getting exactly the same rendering time with and without overclock.

I tested whether my HDD is the bottleneck and it turns it's not ( no constant red light during rendering by the HDD, plus I created a RAM disk of 1 GB and rendering to the RAM disk and to HDD disk takes the same time ).

I render mostly with Sony Vegas Pro 13 and sometimes with Adobe Premiere Pro CS6, both of these softwares support CUDA rendering. During rendering with Sony Vegas Pro, my GPU usage is about 90% and the CPU usage is among 30-70%, never above 70%.

So, now Im planning to buy a used EVGA GTX 560 Ti Superclocked GPU for about $55 and I need your opinions for this. I need the GPU in order to let the CPU work as it should and avoid any bottleneck. Correct me if Im wrong, but my overclocked CPU is just too fast for my current GT 630 4GB, it's sending too many informations for the GPU to handle and reply and this is where I see the bottleneck laying.
My current GPU has a max memory bandwidth of about 13,8 GB/sec whilst the new GPU would have almost 10X more, 134 GB/sec.

My main goal of buying this GPU as I said is to avoid the bottleneck in rendering, gaming would be just a bonus ( though Im pretty much sure it's capable of running games in good settings especially for a not so high resolution like mine 1440x900 ).

Other than that, as far as I know, the software I work with is much more optimized for older Fermi cards ( 4xx, 5xx series ) than the new Kepler and Maxwell cards.

Now, what do you guys think about this, will the superclocked GTX 560 Ti allow my CPU to be more efficent in video editing ?
Is the price good for a used card in a good working condition ?
Shall I expect a big improvement in the rendering time ?

Thanks

 

[EarthDog]

The GPU isn't holding anything back. If the software uses the CUDA cores, then that is what it is using and its the GPU holding things up for itself and nothing else. If you didn't see any improvements with CPU overclocking, this leans towards supporting that point.

Honestly, I have no idea what kind of improvements you will see as I do not work in Vegas. You will have to likely look that up and see if you want something objective.

 

[Vladimir1]

Sorry but, if it's not the GPU bottlenecking in this case then what is it ?
I tested the HDD and it's not the HDD, the CPU is supposed to be good at 3,6 GHz speed, I've got plenty of RAM 12GB DDR3 1600 MHz, there is really nothing else I think that might be bottlenecking here ..

Though I am not really familiar of how exactly rendering process works, do you have any idea about this ? Does the CPU send informations such as which frames to be rendered to the GPU and then the GPU has to reply back ? That's the way I think it works, but again Im not sure about this.

 

[EarthDog]

The GPU is not holding back the CPU. The GPU is doing everything it can. You need to upgrade your GPU as you are doing.

 

[Vladimir1]

Well, after reading on the internet I got to conclusion that the Fermi GPUs can really speed up rendering, hence why Im going to buy a Fermi GPU.

Please check out the picture bellow showing rendering results with and without CUDA rendering.

Other than that, do you think that the rendering time I get is normal and that's all what the CPU can do ? It's just weird for me because I see that some people with worse CPUs than mine but with better GPUs, they get much faster rendering time like 1 min of rendering for each minute of the video ( I've got like 15 mins rendering for about 3 mins video, 8 mins video takes about 37 mins so it's like each 1 min video takes about 3-5 mins to render )

 

[EarthDog]

Vlad,

As I said, I have no idea what is or is not normal for your setup. You would have to look it up and compare yourself. Even if you gave us some information to help (such as file size and time it takes), unless someone uses that software and has your same PGU AND is rendering a similar file size, I'm not sure how we can answer that question.

You keep on pushing that it is the CPU, but, as I said once already, if it was your CPU, you would have seen some performance gains when overclocking. Grab the 560Ti and call it a day. Report back with your improvements... and please be sure to take a baseline test and repeat the same exact thing with the new card.

 

[Vladimir1]

Well, after all I am not spending much here so it's definitely worth a shot.
I expect good things to come forward, time will tell

Thank you for your replies

 

[Kenrou]

Sony Vegas Pro 13 uses openCL not Cuda, it's supported but will lose something in the translation (slightly lower rendering/editing speeds depending on your specs). One of the few programs i know about that actually uses Cuda is PowerDirector 8 or your Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 but seemingly you have to change something on the program itself to be able to use it, i linked the below for you to check.

http://wiki.tiker.net/CudaVsOpenCL

 

[Vladimir1]

Sony Vegas Pro 13 supports CUDA too ( well not all rendering templates, just MainConcept AVC/ AAC and Sony AVC / MVC ) and I use MainConcept AVC/AAC which supports CUDA .

 

[Vladimir1]

Will I have any troubles using this GPU on 1440x900 max resolution ? That resolution is the max that my monitor supports.

I heard that the lower the resolution is less work for the GPU to do which makes sense, but on the other side there's more work for the CPU to do in lower resolutions and some say that way I'd lose like 50% gaming performance of the GPU's potencial. Does that make sense ?
My CPU is Intel Xeon E5620 2,4 GHz overclocked to 3,6 GHz.

Do you guys think there will be any problems using the GTX 560 Ti Superclocked GPU for a lower resolution ( 1440x900 ) than what it's optimized for ( 1920x1080 ) ?

 

[EarthDog]

No problems with a lower res, nope!

 

[JrClocker]

Can the software use both cards if he leaves both in his system?

 

[Vladimir1]

I dont think I'd actually need both of the cards once I get the new one, thanks anyway