Limits of HD 2600?

[shinji]

Would the 2600 be a limiting factor when using Photoshop and doing very light video editing? I'm not a gamer, do no 3d stuff, don't use aperture/lightroom. Is there a point in me going for the 8800? I mean would there be any noticeable difference at all for my purposes?

When I say very light video editing, I mean very light. Really just adding watermarks and cutting clips into shorter segments.

 

[Pressure]

Then the Radeon HD 2600 XT would do you fine

Enjoy your new Mac Pro!

 

[Cromulent]

None what so ever. Photoshop makes almost no use of the graphics card and unless you are using Motion and Colour in Final Cut Studio for video editing then none of the other applications make use of it really either.

Just get the fastest CPU and the most RAM you can afford and you'll be sailing.

 

[ErikAndre]

Yeah... i need the 8600 only because I do hd editing... for lightweight video editing (non hd), you will be fine. I say this as I do tons of heavy non-hd video editing on my PowerBook G4 without a hiccup, so I know the 2600 will be fine for what you need it for. It's when I edit HD for a movie timeline over 45 min, that i run into problems (using the Apple codecs).

 

[netdog]

Yeah... i need the 8600 only because I do hd editing... for lightweight video editing (non hd), you will be fine. I say this as I do tons of heavy non-hd video editing on my PowerBook G4 without a hiccup, so I know the 2600 will be fine for what you need it for. It's when I edit HD for a movie timeline over 45 min, that i run into problems (using the Apple codecs).

Unless you are using Motion or After-Effects or anything else that composites, you would be fine with the ATI as well. You may already know that, but I just wanted to make sure. Apple employees innocently spread a lot of misinformation about FCS/FCE and GPU dependence.