Ok, put it this way. Compare the GTX 295 with lets say a normal 9800.
You pay 400% the price, for at most 200% the real performance. And most of the time (for all but a few games), that improvement in performance would be worthless anyway, since you can't see the difference between something like 60 and 120fps (ie. overkill).
So IMO the GTX 295 is pretty pointless. Spending that much more money just to get a few odd games to run better is not an investment I would make.
Vegetano1 Wrote:ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Vegetano1 Wrote:the GTX295 got CUDA technology meaning >>converting video with GPU "transcoding HD videos", CUDA suported program's eg Photoshop and other program's."editing digital images using Adobe CS4"
Video converting with gpu is way faser then with cpu,..
Hardly any *good* video encoders run on CUDA. There are a number of technical difficulties with this. Primarily, encoding is mostly a serial issue. CUDA is MUCH slower than the CPU at serial processing - it only really starts to shine when you run like 256+ simultaneous threads, which optimising an encoder for is extremely difficult. I recall the x264 developers trying to make a CUDA version, but they dropped it as a typical quad core CPU ran much faster.
;p./ i get whot you mean,. but if you see this pic,. you really tend to believe Gpu is faster then cpu encoding,.>>
So whot you'r saying is that there are't many encoders yet wich use the gpu>!?
It could maybe be faster if the encoder can properly encode using 240 threads simultaneously.
Using x264 as an example (since that's what Zinga was talking about), using 240 threads is un-viable. All the splicing will kill your quality. Even 24 theads is probably pushing it.
Like Zinga said, encoding videos, at least as of this point of time, is the CPU's field. GPUs are good for
decoding video though, but decoding video isn't particularly hard anyway, so petty much any GPU should be able to do it at a good enough speed (not lag), and you won't need a monster GPU for that.