Graphics Card Upgrade Recommendations

[BillPhillips]

I'm hoping I can benefit from the experiences of others in selecting my next graphics card. My experience tells me that the computational powers of graphics cards can play an important roll particularly during mixing with VST UIs open.

My DAW PC failed and I'm rebuilding in the same case. The power supply and motherboard failed simultaneously. So I could reuse my existing RX 580 video card, but, before the failure, I was already thinking of upgrading it hoping for better playback performance while mixing with multiple iZotope plugin module UIs open.

VST manufactures are pretty much mum on GPU requirements. So, I don't have much justification for upgrading other than anecdotal evidence from my experience of performance improvements when I upgraded from a R7250 to the RX 580 in 2019.

I'm also aware that iZotope, as well as other of their competitors, use the OpenGL API to delegate graphics processing and possibly some other processing tasks to GPUs when that option is available. So I'm speculating that increasing GPU capacity will allow more delegation thereby reducing CPU load and improving playback performance.

I'm pretty sure that a more powerful graphics card will help but there's also a point of diminishing returns. I just don't know where that point is.

[resistorman]

Huh. I haven't heard that audio apps were using the GPU, other than these folks:

https://www.gpu.audio/

If your apps/ plugins are using GPU processing, it would be worth finding out if they're optimized for Nvidia or AMD. Personally, I find that plenty of CPU cores work for me for audio.

[Moroccomoose]

I'm no expert, but my understanding, counter intuitively, was that if the GPU was 'too good ' it could require the use of additional CPU resources, because the cpu has to work harder to keep up with it. So while your graphics may be enhanced, it could actually reduce the cpu bandwidth for audio, giving you worse performance.

Unless you are using multiple 4k monitors or something, - or perhaps rendering video, I can't imagine that audio software would be too taxing on the embedded gpu in any case.

Furthermore, at the cheap end of the market, it is also quite easy to buy something that gives no perceived benefit because the embedded GPUs are really quite good for most applications.

So if you really do want to go down the GPU route, its about getting a balanced card for your system, rather than getting the biggest fastest money can buy.

As I don't know how to judge that balance, I've managed with the onbourd so far.

Stu.

[BillPhillips]

Huh. I haven't heard that audio apps were using the GPU, other than these folks:

https://www.gpu.audio/

If your apps/ plugins are using GPU processing, it would be worth finding out if they're optimized for Nvidia or AMD. Personally, I find that plenty of CPU cores work for me for audio.

Thanks for the link. It appears that they're promoting what I believe a number of plugin manufacturers are already exploiting "Low Latency" and "1000 Parallel Processing Cores."

I think reducing latency and adding processing capacity are good things. I'm all for it. But, I also think that the plugin manufacturers should state how much GPU processing they can use and make graphics card specification recommendations.

I suspect one reason they don't is because no one else does and including graphic card requirements might be make their products appear less desirable especially to those using embedded GPUs.

[BillPhillips]

I'm no expert, but my understanding, counter intuitively, was that if the GPU was 'too good ' it could require the use of additional CPU resources, because the cpu has to work harder to keep up with it. So while your graphics may be enhanced, it could actually reduce the cpu bandwidth for audio, giving you worse performance.

Unless you are using multiple 4k monitors or something, - or perhaps rendering video, I can't imagine that audio software would be too taxing on the embedded gpu in any case.

Furthermore, at the cheap end of the market, it is also quite easy to buy something that gives no perceived benefit because the embedded GPUs are really quite good for most applications.

So if you really do want to go down the GPU route, its about getting a balanced card for your system, rather than getting the biggest fastest money can buy.

As I don't know how to judge that balance, I've managed with the onbourd so far.

Stu.

I have a single 3840x1600 display and don't plan to add more.

I'm not sure a more powerful GPU will tax your CPU as long as you turn off the UI features that tend to convert your PC of a GPU focused host. I've never noticed that. In fact, I suspect that the embedded GPU may be more taxing on your CPU than any graphics card.

I agree. Though I don't play computer games, I suspect for gaming it's generally more is better when it comes to GPUs. DAW GPU requirements are almost certainly lower. I just don't know how much lower.

DAWs themselves don't use much GPU processing, but some plugins do particularly when their UIs are open and displaying before and after audio wave forms, dynamic processing response curves and spectrum analysis.

Not to pick on iZotope, I really like the iZotope Music Production Suite and opening several of their module UIs introduces lots of pops and clicks. Open a couple more and playback can stop. iZotope has settings to reduce impact on playback but I prefer not to use them. I'm more inclined to upgrade my RX 580. I just don't have any information on how much of an upgrade I need.

[merlyn]

... My experience tells me that the computational powers of graphics cards can play an important roll particularly during mixing with VST UIs open. ...

I wouldn't think so. The computational powers of graphics cards are for rendering 3D. Have you seen the latest games? Some of them look like a film, and obviously require a lot of GPU power to render. Rendering 2D, like plugin UIs doesn't require much power.

If you edit video, the amount of graphics RAM could help, and is the RX 580 8GB? That's a lot. I would think an RX 580 is already overkill for a 2D setup.

I think you should get some objective measure. How much CPU is being used when you have three instances of a plugin open? How much GPU?

[BillPhillips]

If you edit video, the amount of graphics RAM could help, and is the RX 580 8GB? That's a lot. I would think an RX 580 is already overkill for a 2D setup.

I think you should get some objective measure. How much CPU is being used when you have three instances of a plugin open? How much GPU?

Yes, the RX 580 is 8GB. I'm suspicious that the RX 580 isn't overkill and more GPU capacity would improve performance when multiple UIs for VSTs doing lots of complex mathematics are open during playback.

How would I know how much GPU is being used?

[merlyn]

Do you have a control panel for the graphics card? AMD call it Adrenaline.

I see what you're getting at, but it could be the CPU that's limiting you. Yes, calculating frequency spectrums takes up resources, but it's the CPU that calculates the graphs, and the GPU draws it. Adding graphics power will just sit there doing nothing, while the CPU struggles.

Does the CPU have built-in graphics? Could be worth trying as a reference. But if the CPU is maxed out then there are pops and clicks, and there's no way around that.

If it's not that it could be drivers/interrupts/priorities. Latest drivers? All the Windows audio optimisations?

[James Perrett]

Surely a quick look at Task Manager would tell you how much CPU and GPU each piece of software is using. I just did a quick check with RX Spectral De-noise and Ozone 8 Elements. The GPU Compute usage went up when I first added Spectral Denoise but went back down again and only increased when I changed something on the user interface. The 3D and Compute_0 usage when up when I added Ozone. It stayed up when I stopped playback but went right down when I closed the user interface. It went up slightly when I restarted playback.

[merlyn]

Honestly I'd be surprised if any amount of plugin UIs even tickles an RX 580. I'm prepared to be surprised, though.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Take a look at the graphics cards SCAN are using in their top-of-the-range 3XS audio PCs. That should provide a useful benchmark as to what is required.

[merlyn]

SCAN's top-of-the-line TX 670 uses the built-in graphics, so I think we've cleared that up.

[resistorman]

SCAN's top-of-the-line TX 670 uses the built-in graphics, so I think we've cleared that up.

That's what I thought

[S.Crow]

I had a lowly Nvidia, 1030 I think, that only ever had an issue with one plug-in.
The developer told me that their Open GL drivers were rubbish, so I went back to using the Intel integrated graphics and that solved the problem.

When troubleshooting, I could see that the GPU had hit 100% load which made it obvious.
It couldn’t even draw the screen properly at this point.
That plugin is particularly graphic intensive, but even so, if the Intel i9-9900 could handle it, the Nvidia 1030 one would expect to find it a doddle.

[tea for two]

Some of the top tier graphics cards are as Brontosaurus size lol.

There is something to be said for peace of mind.
There's AMD RX5700 XT 8GB DDR6 to upgrade to, will give approx 70%-80% jump in performance over your current AMD RX580.

AMD RX5700 XT is approx 500% more ! performance than top tier AMD 7950X cpu's integrated graphics supplied by Scan in their top tier TX670 3xs audio pc linked by Merlyn.
Can pick up RX5700 XT 8GB DDR6 £160 from Cex online with 2years warranty.

My previous audio pc self assembly in 2018 used AMD dedicated integrated graphics chip on to cpu : 2400G a 4core 8 thread cpu with Vega 11 graphics.
I'm not a fan of adding huge graphics cards in audio pcs particularly for fan noise and added wattage power draw. There is water cooling blocks for graphics cards.

[S.Crow]

Most graphics cards above £200 don’t turn the fan on unless the card is pushed fairly hard, which DAW usage is very unlikely to do.

A site like Techpowerup will show the power usage at idle and in multi screen mode etc.
That’s worth looking at as some GPUs have an Achilles heel when it comes to multi monitor mode.

[BWC]

How would I know how much GPU is being used?

For that answer and more, I like:
https://www.cpuid.com/softwares/hwmonitor.html

[merlyn]

... AMD RX5700 XT is approx 500% more ! performance than top tier AMD 7950X cpu's integrated graphics supplied by Scan in their top tier TX670 3xs audio pc linked by Merlyn. ...

Waste your money if you want, but what do you think 'performance' means when applied to a graphics card?

[BillPhillips]

Do you have a control panel for the graphics card? AMD call it Adrenaline.

Yes. It has Adrenaline, but it's never occurred to me to open it while the DAW is running. I'll try that on the replacement PC before I spend money on a better card.

I see what you're getting at, but it could be the CPU that's limiting you. Yes, calculating frequency spectrums takes up resources, but it's the CPU that calculates the graphs, and the GPU draws it. Adding graphics power will just sit there doing nothing, while the CPU struggles.

I'm not sure it's that cut and dry. iZotope tech support has told me they use OpenGL to take advantage of GPU processing when it's available, but they weren't willing to provide any details.

Also, I've noticed that some plugin installers have an OpenGL (or similar) checkbox.

I see what you're getting at, but it could be the CPU that's limiting you. Yes, calculating frequency spectrums takes up resources, but it's the CPU that calculates the graphs, and the GPU draws it. Adding graphics power will just sit there doing nothing, while the CPU struggles.

It will. I'm replacing the CPU and MB in my existing DAW which failed.

I'm using either the i9-12900K or 13900K CPU in the replacement DAW PC. Both have embedded GPUs. I haven't used embedded GPUs in years and had planned to use the KS model without a GPU but all the motherboards have display ports on the back panel, kinda like the writing on the wall.

[BillPhillips]

Surely a quick look at Task Manager would tell you how much CPU and GPU each piece of software is using. I just did a quick check with RX Spectral De-noise and Ozone 8 Elements. The GPU Compute usage went up when I first added Spectral Denoise but went back down again and only increased when I changed something on the user interface. The 3D and Compute_0 usage when up when I added Ozone. It stayed up when I stopped playback but went right down when I closed the user interface. It went up slightly when I restarted playback.

I haven't used the embedded GPU for a long time. I can't check right now, since my DAW PC died, but I don't think Task Manager will show GPU card performance.

I haven't tried that I will when I can. Did you try that with any parameters automated which could be making frequent changes? I use a lot of automation.

[merlyn]

You said above that you only want to use one monitor. The graphics built into a CPU would cover that. If you wanted multiple monitors, then a graphics card with multiple outs would make sense.

These two slot, two fan graphics cards are aimed at gamers. And yes, you'll hear that a particular card is amazing. For games. The metric of interest to gamers is the frame rate, and that's of little to no relevance to a DAW. In fact it's a good idea to use 'tear-free' or 'V-sync' which locks the graphics card frame rate to the monitor refresh rate.

The fact that the compute power of gaming cards is not used in an audio PC is demonstrated by the company GPU Audio, linked to above. If plugin UIs taxed a GPU, there wouldn't be compute power left over to run DSP.

[BillPhillips]

Take a look at the graphics cards SCAN are using in their top-of-the-range 3XS audio PCs. That should provide a useful benchmark as to what is required.

I didn't see any mention of a graphics card at the SCAN link but the 7950X has Radeon RDNA 2 graphics embedded. The story might be if SCAN is using embedded GPUs, maybe that's all you need.

I believe my RX 580 is still working. So I'll be able to compare it's performance with the embedded GPU in the i9-12900K or 13900K once the rebuild is complete. For now though, I definitely not investing in a more capable Graphics Card.

[BillPhillips]

SCAN's top-of-the-line TX 670 uses the built-in graphics, so I think we've cleared that up.

Yes. I'm definitely delaying upgrade of my existing RX580 until I've got the new DAW up and running, and had a chance to evaluate DAW performance with both the embedded GPU and the RX 580.

[S.Crow]

You said above that you only want to use one monitor. The graphics built into a CPU would cover that. If you wanted multiple monitors, then a graphics card with multiple outs would make sense.

Integrated graphics are fine for multiple monitors also.
The issues are that you need to see how many outputs your motherboard has and what resolutions they run at.
So if you want to run dual 4K monitors, check closely what the specs are.
Mine has 3 outputs but only one is 4K.
I don't use 4K so not an issue, but only one can output 1440P which might be an issue for some.
Newer platforms should offer higher resolutions.

[BillPhillips]

I had a lowly Nvidia, 1030 I think, that only ever had an issue with one plug-in.
The developer told me that their Open GL drivers were rubbish, so I went back to using the Intel integrated graphics and that solved the problem.

When troubleshooting, I could see that the GPU had hit 100% load which made it obvious.
It couldn’t even draw the screen properly at this point.
That plugin is particularly graphic intensive, but even so, if the Intel i9-9900 could handle it, the Nvidia 1030 one would expect to find it a doddle.

Thanks. Another good reason not to upgrade my RX580.