Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Benchmark Results: Adobe Premiere Pro CS5

GeForce GTX 580 And GF110: The Way Nvidia Meant It To Be Played
By

We’ve been looking for non-gaming-oriented applications to fold into our graphics card reviews for a while, and Adobe’s software is widely-enough used by professionals and power users alike to demonstrate the merits of GPU-based computing. We’ve held back on less-popular tests in the past, but enough of us use Adobe’s software, which now supports this technology natively, that it makes more sense to start adding it.

Bear in mind that the Mercury Playback Engine only supports a limited number of CUDA-capable graphics cards. Of course, neither the GeForce GTX 480 or 580 are included in that list (humorously, the GeForce GTX 470 is), so Premiere gets “hacked” to make those cards work (see William Van Winkle’s exploration of performance in CS5 for instructions on how to do that). I’m leaving AMD’s cards out because this isn’t an AMD versus Nvidia battle. It’s all about hardware (GPU) against software (CPU) rendering—expect the AMD cards to look a lot like the Nvidia cards running in software mode. That score is most dependent on our Core i7-980X overclocked to 4.2 GHz.

The hardware-accelerated configurations are more than 20 times faster than rendering in software. No surprise there. The question is: should you spend the extra money on a $500 graphics card to help improve your experience with Adobe’s Mercury Playback Engine? Probably not. Even our baseline GeForce GTS 450 finished this effects-laden project in 1:35. And while the GTX 580 shaves off four seconds from the 480’s time, such high-end hardware is only really worth it if gaming is your first priority. Otherwise, a more mainstream (supported) GPU would be plenty.

Display all 8 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    jamie_macdonald , 9 November 2010 20:07
    Kindof relieved that its only 5-10fps above, when i saw news of the 580 i thought "uh oh"

    Pretty happy with the 480 though, i might give this one a miss :) 

    Allways good to see some improvments though ^^
  • 0 Hide
    mdedrick , 9 November 2010 22:45
    2560x1600 dirt 2 , gtx 470 reads 30.1 minimum FPS yet the bar shows 40.1
  • 0 Hide
    Rab1d-BDGR , 10 November 2010 00:34
    No attempt at all to compare the 580's temps with its "Thermi" predecessor? - Fail! I'm not even going to consider this card until I know whether it will throttle down due to overheating in the summer months...

    If you can't force it to run Furmark you should at least have tried Metro, or Crysis or even ...Quake 2?
  • 0 Hide
    Chaos Marine , 11 November 2010 15:47
    Co Crysis test?
  • 0 Hide
    chechak , 12 November 2010 04:31
    Nvidia GTX 580 rocks
  • 0 Hide
    jamie_macdonald , 15 November 2010 22:44
    @ Rab1d-BDGR

    My GTX480 never "throttled down" over the summer ....

    Old CPU's use to get up to 70=80 degrees Centigrade and were fine operating there, this is no different, it's jsut alot of people have become obsessed with figures and benchmarks and numberwars rather than caring if it actually does the job in a stable manner,

    if the 480 is bad, then i cannot wait for good cards ;) 
  • 0 Hide
    Peltz , 15 November 2010 23:47
    The big C after the number of degrees is generally known as Celcius
  • 0 Hide
    mysh1tst1nks , 30 December 2010 13:55
    nice review. recently picked up a 580 and have been very pleased with its performance. have 3d vision and gd235hz, the 580 handles cod:bo on max settings with ease. no problems with it so far. runs quiet and no temp issues. only con is size. anxiously awaiting cayman arrival and TH review. thanks