**Computer Question** Which is it? Rep given - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

**Computer Question** Which is it? Rep given

mr.potato_head Avatar
7y, 5m agoPosted 7 years, 5 months ago
Sorry if this is a simple question but when you do things like editing photos in photoshop or render videos with video editing software, is the workload done by the Cpu or is it the graphics card that processes it?

I just wanted to know what does what out of the two in general?
mr.potato_head Avatar
7y, 5m agoPosted 7 years, 5 months ago
Options

All Comments

(9) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
1 Like #1
depends on how the program you are using is written i would think, but generally, if a suitable gpu is present then it would do the job not the cpu, or it may be shared.
1 Like #2
By the CPU, with two exceptions. The first being with apps that support the new-fangled GPGPU functions, where the GPU can be used to perform some (although not all, due to the limitations of the architecture) of the processing, and in video, where the GPU can render the content as an overlay layer, but it won't actually do any of the work involved in processing and creating the video unless the app and the GPU support the GPGPU stuff.
1 Like #3
CPU most of the time
1 Like #4
This is where SnowLeopard will be interesting using Open-CL. That harnesses power from the GPU for certain applications
#5
ok thanks for the help! one more thing....is it the graphics card that is respnsible for hd video? I see alot of reviews that say a gfx card plays hd video well but surely that is to do with the quality of the monitor!!

what is the link between monitor and gfx? would a rubbish card give a poor picture quality even on an expensive monitor? Thanks for the help
#6
mr.potato_head
ok thanks for the help! one more thing....is it the graphics card that is respnsible for hd video? I see alot of reviews that say a gfx card plays hd video well but surely that is to do with the quality of the monitor!!

what is the link between monitor and gfx? would a rubbish card give a poor picture quality even on an expensive monitor? Thanks for the help


The two should go hand in had with their capable resolutions.
#7
mr.potato_head
ok thanks for the help! one more thing....is it the graphics card that is respnsible for hd video? I see alot of reviews that say a gfx card plays hd video well but surely that is to do with the quality of the monitor!!

what is the link between monitor and gfx? would a rubbish card give a poor picture quality even on an expensive monitor? Thanks for the help


It could , but it depends. Like, my mum's got this knackered old eMachines computer, and the VGA output of that was terrible. The VGA output of my mate's Fujitsu Pentium4 system was rubbish as well. Both output blurry images, even to LCD monitors, and the eMachines system had various other uglifying failings which I think were down to it not outputting a clean video signal, or something like that. It made little blue sparks when the monitor cable's connector made contact with the video output, and that never means good things. Thing is, these are both low-end systems that are a good few years old, and with onboard video. The more that gets packed into a circuit board, the more electrical noise and inteference there will be, so I blame the fact tht they were onboard video outputs for the badness of the output. I'd be surprised if any dedicated video card available today would give anything other than an excellent output via VGA.

With HDMI and DVI, since both technologies are digital, it doesn't make a difference whether the card cost £5 or is one of the £2000 professional Quadro cards, since both will output what they render just the same, and since both will render using the same code, the outpu will be identical.

To make a rough analogy of it, 3+5 outputs 8 regardless of whether you're using a 1980s Casio calculator or a split-new super-computer. To apply this here, adding 3 to 5 is like rendering the content of the screen on a pixel-by-pixel basis, outputting the 8 is like sending it across the cable and to the screen. With digital, providing there's no signal loss, you get 8 regardless of the equipment used, with analogue, you might get an 8.4, because the signal gets converted from digital to analogue and then back after being sent along a cable.
#8
dxx
It could , but it depends. Like, my mum's got this knackered old eMachines computer, and the VGA output of that was terrible. The VGA output of my mate's Fujitsu Pentium4 system was rubbish as well. Both output blurry images, even to LCD monitors, and the eMachines system had various other uglifying failings which I think were down to it not outputting a clean video signal, or something like that. It made little blue sparks when the monitor cable's connector made contact with the video output, and that never means good things. Thing is, these are both low-end systems that are a good few years old, and with onboard video. The more that gets packed into a circuit board, the more electrical noise and inteference there will be, so I blame the fact tht they were onboard video outputs for the badness of the output. I'd be surprised if any dedicated video card available today would give anything other than an excellent output via VGA.

With HDMI and DVI, since both technologies are digital, it doesn't make a difference whether the card cost £5 or is one of the £2000 professional Quadro cards, since both will output what they render just the same, and since both will render using the same code, the outpu will be identical.

To make a rough analogy of it, 3+5 outputs 8 regardless of whether you're using a 1980s Casio calculator or a split-new super-computer. To apply this here, adding 3 to 5 is like rendering the content of the screen on a pixel-by-pixel basis, outputting the 8 is like sending it across the cable and to the screen. With digital, providing there's no signal loss, you get 8 regardless of the equipment used, with analogue, you might get an 8.4, because the signal gets converted from digital to analogue and then back after being sent along a cable.



Thank you for this...you have made everything so much clearer. That must of takensome effort but I am greatful :thumbsup:
#9
dxx;5515377
...With HDMI and DVI, since both technologies are digital, it doesn't make a difference whether the card cost £5 or is one of the £2000 professional Quadro cards, since both will output what they render just the same, and since both will render using the same code, the outpu will be identical.

To make a rough analogy of it, 3+5 outputs 8 regardless of whether you're using a 1980s Casio calculator or a split-new super-computer. To apply this here, adding 3 to 5 is like rendering the content of the screen on a pixel-by-pixel basis, outputting the 8 is like sending it across the cable and to the screen. With digital, providing there's no signal loss, you get 8 regardless of the equipment used, with analogue, you might get an 8.4, because the signal gets converted from digital to analogue and then back after being sent along a cable.


Thats not strictly true (well, the 'providing there's no signal loss' is a pretty big assumption anyway). Whilst the signal is digital, its still an electrical (ie analogue) transmission line and there can still be image quality issues with cheaper cards and particularly cables at higher resolutions - your not strictly sending a '1' or a '0', your sending 8 bit words encoded into 10 bits then sent as a voltage with a corresponding clock. At the other end (the monitor) its not a certainty that each bit will be correctly read - which can result in a noisy picture.

Theres usually enough margin-of-error to assume that a cheap card with a cheap cable connected to a cheap monitor will produce a noiseless image at a modest resolution, but if you push the resolution and refresh rates up that might not be the case. With your analogy, whilst the digital output will never give 5+3=8.4, it can very occasionally give 5+3=9...

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!