Quadro card - 10bit - worth it?

[Roscolo]

A lot of my work involves repro of paintings. Always looking to improve. Building a new PC workstation now. My monitor is NEC PA271Q which apparently is a true 10bit monitor. So, looking at Nvidia graphics cards I had just planned on getting something a GTX or RTX card in the $250 - $400 range. But now I'm thinking since the monitor supports true 10bit, maybe an Nvidia Quadro card is worth it. Would prefer to spend not more than $500 on the card, so looks like the Quadro P2000 would be the card of choice.

My workflow now is pretty good with an old GTX 560ti and NEC PA272W on this current workstation. Most of my work is done in Photoshop. Friends have me looking at Capture One, so I may add that this year.

Always looking for anything that gets me from start of a print to a perfect match with as little time and proofing as possible.

10bit workflow worth it? Quadro P2000 a good choice? 

[dehnhaide]

Building a new PC workstation now. My monitor is NEC PA271Q which apparently is a true 10bit monitor...
...
Always looking for anything that gets me from start of a print to a perfect match with as little time and proofing as possible.

10bit workflow worth it? Quadro P2000 a good choice?

Since I am mostly into BW photography for me the upgrade to the same monitor as yours (PA271Q) and a 10bit video card was HEAVEN! Prior to this upgrade the actual banding I would get in PS on my otherwise smooth transitions was atrocious and would constantly get me distracted and frustrated.

On 10bits display all became buttery smooth. I am not rocking a Nvidia cause I've found it too expensive but a AMD FirePro W7100 which I managed to get for a very good price from a local "eBay" style online shop.

I guess if P2000 would be equally good for PS if you're fine with it's 3D performance. Else, yeah 10bits it is a really enjoyable and useful upgrade. BTW... The NEC PA271Q is a gem! I just love it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[digitaldog]

Open this document in Photoshop at 100%. On a fully high bit display path, you'll see zero banding. You may see some, and then the question would be, is it really an issue?
 http://digitaldog.net/files/10-bit-test-ramp.zip

[Roscolo]

Open this document in Photoshop at 100%. On a fully high bit display path, you'll see zero banding. You may see some, and then the question would be, is it really an issue?
 http://digitaldog.net/files/10-bit-test-ramp.zip

Wow. Thank you. So opening that file and looking at it on my current workstation (Windows 10, GTX 560ti, calibrated NEC PAC272W) the banding in that image is quite obvious and pronounced by my standards. So with a Quadro P2000 and the (I think) true 10bit NEC PA271Q, and with 10bit color enabled, that test image will be completely smooth and no visible banding?

I was going to spend $250-$400 on a GTX or RTX card anyway. May as well fork out an extra $40-$50 for the Quadro P2000. Had no idea it could make such a dramatic difference. I suppose I just need to confirm that the PA271Q is true 10bit, not dithered.

Anyone know of any appreciable downside to the Quadro P2000 vs one of the newer GTX, RTX consumer cards?

[dehnhaide]

So with a Quadro P2000 and the (I think) true 10bit NEC PA271Q, and with 10bit color enabled, that test image will be completely smooth and no visible banding?

Absolutely no banding, guaranteed!

I suppose I just need to confirm that the PA271Q is true 10bit, not dithered.

Absolutely 10 bits, hardware, native, no dithering, 3D LUTs and other goodies!

Anyone know of any appreciable downside to the Quadro P2000 vs one of the newer GTX, RTX consumer cards?

Older card, inferior 3D by a large margin, not gamers oriented, yet providing enough performance for PS needs. But being a Quadro is the only chance one would get 10Bits display in Photoshop via specific OpenGL libraries. Not to be confused with desktop 10 Bits display that one can get with any decent video card.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aaron125]

I wouldn’t waste the money on a Quadro just for the 10bit capabilities because all GTX1080, 1070, 1060 and I think the 1050 cards are also 10bit native cards. I’ve got a GTX1080 and and a Dell 3014 monitor and both are 10bit native devices. I’ve yet to view Andrew’s 10bit test file but the benefit of a Quadro is the 3D application specific drivers. I don’t believe that a Quadro would offer any benefit as far as 2D/Photoshop is concerned and would likely be quite a bit poorer in performance compared to the GTX10x0 and certainly the newer RTX cards.

I calibrate and profile my monitor using DisplayCal and check the gpu LUTs and they are, as expected, untouched and all calibration takes place in the monitor LUTs. I shall take a look at the 10bit test file and see if there is any banding on my setup. I’d recommend you look at the GTX1070 range of cards as there would also be no performance gains to be had in Ps if using the RTX cards. For sure in gaming and 3D there will be an increase in performance from the RTX cards but I very much doubt that there would be anything to be gained as far as Ps is concerned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Roscolo]

Well, now I see why the clamor from pretty much everyone for Nvidia to add / enable true 10bit color over OpenGL (photoshop) on their mainstream gaming cards. Looks like it's a Quadro P2000 or I may splurge / seek a deal on the P4000. Would be nice to put a second GTX or RTX card in this machine for the occasional game, but it seems that absolutely is not an option unless you dual-boot. So, boot into one OS for work...and boot into another OS for play. I'm no stranger to dual-booting so maybe that is what I will do. In any event the work takes priority.

[Roscolo]

I wouldn’t waste the money on a Quadro just for the 10bit capabilities because all GTX1080, 1070, 1060 and I think the 1050 cards are also 10bit native cards. I’ve got a GTX1080 and and a Dell 3014 monitor and both are 10bit native devices. I’ve yet to view Andrew’s 10bit test file but the benefit of a Quadro is the 3D application specific drivers. I don’t believe that a Quadro would offer any benefit as far as 2D/Photoshop is concerned and would likely be quite a bit poorer in performance compared to the GTX10x0 and certainly the newer RTX cards.

I calibrate and profile my monitor using DisplayCal and check the gpu LUTs and they are, as expected, untouched and all calibration takes place in the monitor LUTs. I shall take a look at the 10bit test file and see if there is any banding on my setup. I’d recommend you look at the GTX1070 range of cards as there would also be no performance gains to be had in Ps if using the RTX cards. For sure in gaming and 3D there will be an increase in performance from the RTX cards but I very much doubt that there would be anything to be gained as far as Ps is concerned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I probably agree with you, but most of my work is photo printing / art repro for very critical clients. I would be spending around $175 - $350 on a GTX 1060, 1070 anyway. Spending $450 on a Quadro P2000 just not a significant difference, although I appreciate the note about the performance hit. Really sucks that one cannot install and use both a Quadro and a GTX in the same system...at least not using the Quadro's 10bit OpenGL (photoshop) capability. For so much of my work (repro of paintings) I've got a good workflow now. Any slight edge to get me from proof to finished print a little faster is worth dropping a couple hundred bucks. Actually even a lot more, but I'm pretty covered with scanning, capture, printers, monitors, calibration, profiling and viewing station. Didn't even realize the PA271Q was true 10 bit until after I bought it for the new workstation. Was going to get a PA272W like the one I have now, but it's discontinued. That 10 bit workflow is probably one of the only improvements I can make at this point. Seeing those bands in that test image was an eye opening for me. I can spend $450 - $900 and make that go away? Take my money!

Please let me know what you see when you view that test image in Photoshop on your system. Some of this comes down to what we do, how critical the work is. Thank you.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Best hardware recommendations are always found at Puget Systems who do custom builds.  For Photoshop, the recommendations are HERE.  If you do your own computer build, this is always a good resource for hardware.  A Quadro card may be of assistance with the right monitor.  However, I'm not sure Lightroom supports 10 bit video at this point so it's not worth it if 95% of your work is in LR as opposed to PS.

[digitaldog]

Wow. Thank you. So opening that file and looking at it on my current workstation (Windows 10, GTX 560ti, calibrated NEC PAC272W) the banding in that image is quite obvious and pronounced by my standards. So with a Quadro P2000 and the (I think) true 10bit NEC PA271Q, and with 10bit color enabled, that test image will be completely smooth and no visible banding?

For a full high bit path, the OS, application, display and video card all need high bit support. So it depends. But for a modern version of Photoshop and Mac or Windows, and the other items supporting high bit, there should be no visible banding.

[dehnhaide]

I wouldn’t waste the money on a Quadro just for the 10bit capabilities because all GTX1080, 1070, 1060 and I think the 1050 cards are also 10bit native cards. I’ve got a GTX1080 and and a Dell 3014 monitor and both are 10bit native devices. I’ve yet to view Andrew’s 10bit test file but the benefit of a Quadro is the 3D application specific drivers. I don’t believe that a Quadro would offer any benefit as far as 2D/Photoshop is concerned and would likely be quite a bit poorer in performance compared to the GTX10x0 and certainly the newer RTX cards.

I calibrate and profile my monitor using DisplayCal and check the gpu LUTs and they are, as expected, untouched and all calibration takes place in the monitor LUTs. I shall take a look at the 10bit test file and see if there is any banding on my setup. I’d recommend you look at the GTX1070 range of cards as there would also be no performance gains to be had in Ps if using the RTX cards. For sure in gaming and 3D there will be an increase in performance from the RTX cards but I very much doubt that there would be anything to be gained as far as Ps is concerned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok. In short sorry to trouble your firm opinion but you're wrong. Only Quadro and FirePro cards will support and enable 10 bits display in Photoshop. No other. Absolutely none. End of story. I PS settings is called 30bits support (10bits per each RGB channel) and only available for those with Quadro or FirePro cards.

You're confusing desktop 10bits display via DirectX with the PS OpenGL 10bits acceleratation. A common and forgivable mistake, though.

[dehnhaide]

Best hardware recommendations are always found at Puget Systems who do custom builds.  For Photoshop, the recommendations are HERE.  If you do your own computer build, this is always a good resource for hardware.  A Quadro card may be of assistance with the right monitor.  However, I'm not sure Lightroom supports 10 bit video at this point so it's not worth it if 95% of your work is in LR as opposed to PS.

+1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aaron125]

I’m not confusing either setting, I’m quite familiar with both settings you’re referring to. If the GTX1070 wasn’t actually capable of displaying in 10/30bit, why then would Ps give me the option to enable the 30bit setting if the card couldn’t actually display at said bit depth? I can take a screenshot if it’ll make you happy but I’m not confused. I may be wrong, sure, but if I am then Ps is wrong too. Also, how would it be possible that the desktop could be displayed in 10bits but not the Ps workspace? Doesn’t really make sense but maybe you know something I don’t. If you could elaborate and explain how and why the desktop is able to be displayed in 10bits and Ps gives the option of ticking the 30bits setting in the preferences, I’d be quite interested to know how this is not actually 30bits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dehnhaide]

I’m not confusing either setting, I’m quite familiar with both settings you’re referring to. If the GTX1070 wasn’t actually capable of displaying in 10/30bit, why then would Ps give me the option to enable the 30bit setting if the card couldn’t actually display at said bit depth? I can take a screenshot if it’ll make you happy but I’m not confused. I may be wrong, sure, but if I am then Ps is wrong too. Also, how would it be possible that the desktop could be displayed in 10bits but not the Ps workspace? Doesn’t really make sense but maybe you know something I don’t. If you could elaborate and explain how and why the desktop is able to be displayed in 10bits and Ps gives the option of ticking the 30bits setting in the preferences, I’d be quite interested to know how this is not actually 30bits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok. Then I am sorry for "you're confused"... You're wrong!
Yes, the PS would show the option, allow you to select it but... it's lying! Try with the file digital dog proposed and you'll see banding. Other way to actually confirm there's no 10bits for you is to dig into the logs PS offers in Photoshop, select Help > System Info. End of lies!

I am running a dual video card system, GTX 1080 Ti FE and the FirePro W7100, both hooked up to the same NEC. Trust me when real 10bits gets enabled for the FirePro, switching to the other port where the GTX is hooked would make PS crush, thus proving the 10bits on GTX is ... not there!

Again common and forgivable mistake... yet a msitake (pun intended)!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aaron125]

Hmmm, if that’s the case then I’ve changed my mind; go for the Quadro. I still don’t understand though, why would the GTX cards say they’re 10bit capable and Ps allows the 30bit setting to be enabled if the cards can’t actually display at that bit depth. Is this just another bug which Adobe needs to fix or is there something else going on? I’m curious now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vikcious]

Hmmm, if that’s the case then I’ve changed my mind; go for the Quadro. I still don’t understand though, why would the GTX cards say they’re 10bit capable and Ps allows the 30bit setting to be enabled if the cards can’t actually display at that bit depth. Is this just another bug which Adobe needs to fix or is there something else going on? I’m curious now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A rather old misery of Adobe, confusing and frustrating users for some 5-6 years already...

Referring back to Pugget Systems, as per Alan Goldhammer hint:

How to enable 30 bit in Photoshop

You will need to also have a workstation class graphics card (AMD Radeon Pro / Nvidia Quadro) in your system, and connect to a 10-bit monitor using a DisplayPort cable connection.

[Roscolo]

Best hardware recommendations are always found at Puget Systems who do custom builds.  For Photoshop, the recommendations are HERE.  If you do your own computer build, this is always a good resource for hardware.  A Quadro card may be of assistance with the right monitor.  However, I'm not sure Lightroom supports 10 bit video at this point so it's not worth it if 95% of your work is in LR as opposed to PS.

Thanks for the link. I think I read Puget's recommendations when I got started building this workstation, but wasn't seriously pursuing 10bit workflow until after I had already purchased the PA271Q and realized it apparently is true 10 bit capable. Came here thinking I would not go Quadro, but viewing that test file that shows very obvious bands on my current set-up. I use PS all the time, and almost never use LR. Puget seems to verify that the for my circumstances and Photoshop, the Quadro is the way to go. With my luck within 6 months of my purchase Nvidia will add / enable 10bit color on their mainstream GPU's. Which would definitely be great and long overdue. Searching this topic I've found many people buying expensive, or older, cheaper workstation cards just for the 10bit OpenGL feature.

[Mac Mahon]

For a full high bit path, the OS, application, display and video card all need high bit support. So it depends. But for a modern version of Photoshop and Mac or Windows, and the other items supporting high bit, there should be no visible banding.

Hmmm.  I'm seeing no banding on my iMac screen, but quite visible banding on the attached PA241W.  As I use the NEC for all photo work, that's distressing.   Is there something I got wrong, or has the PA241W passed it's prime?

PS - Good test, Andrew, even if disturbing my equilibrium!

[Alan Goldhammer]

Thanks for the link. I think I read Puget's recommendations when I got started building this workstation, but wasn't seriously pursuing 10bit workflow until after I had already purchased the PA271Q and realized it apparently is true 10 bit capable. Came here thinking I would not go Quadro, but viewing that test file that shows very obvious bands on my current set-up. I use PS all the time, and almost never use LR. Puget seems to verify that the for my circumstances and Photoshop, the Quadro is the way to go. With my luck within 6 months of my purchase Nvidia will add / enable 10bit color on their mainstream GPU's. Which would definitely be great and long overdue. Searching this topic I've found many people buying expensive, or older, cheaper workstation cards just for the 10bit OpenGL feature.

I think most games utilize DirectX and the game designers these days are adding more ray tracing graphics that require the new generation of NVIDIA GPUs.  The RTX 2060-70 cards are now the state of the art (I'm still running an NVIDIA 960 on my work station).  Gamers are concerned about frames per second on big monitors which we photographers generally are not (I've only played one game and that was because it was free with my graphics card purchase).  It's too bad that everyone cannot agree to a  common standard and OpenGL and DirectX are useful but for different purposes.  I wouldn't hold my breath about NVIDIA coming around, their user base are the game players!!!  Sales to that group dwarfs sales to photographers.

[digitaldog]

Hmmm.  I'm seeing no banding on my iMac screen, but quite visible banding on the attached PA241W.

Should be the opposite and I believe that iMac is introducing dithering to 'hide' the true results.