I’ve never been able to sort this out.
The company Adobe makes video/image processing software for PCs. I know that sometimes a better video card matters. And other times, it does almost nothing.
But, despite Googling, I cannot discern what programs/processes benefit from a good video card and which do not. Certainly I have found info but nothing that gives a bottom line to it all. Video card for X, no need for Y.
It matters if you wish to run your monitor at a high resolution setting, which most designers, video developers & gamers would. Say for example 2560 x 1440. Not all video cards will support this. Nor all monitors.
It will also support faster screen redraw for complex graphics. And of course colour is critical.
All this so you can design artwork that could be 25" x 35" and send it off to a client so they can proofread it on a 5" telephone screen and tell you; “This doesn’t look right”. Don’t get me started 
However these days even cheap monitors/graphic cards are significantly improved over the entry level monitors of 20 years ago who’s quality was almost comparable with the earliest colour TV’s.
It’s really a matter of how critically exacting your work needs to be. And how much money you have to spend. An integrated graphic card could work fine, depending on your situation and your monitor.
This is less about monitor resolution and more about things like rendering video.
Adobe Premiere:
Basically some effects are GPU accelerated, and here is a list of those effects. You can also tell within Premiere which effects are accelerated by looking for an acceleration icon next to that effect:
In addition, hardware accelerated decode and encode of H.264 and HEVC is enabled depending on the video hardware. What hardware does what sounds complex, but the article tries to get into that. I’d thought I’d remembered that there was hardware ProRes support, but I’m not googling up a cite.
After Effects also has GPU acceleration, but I’m less familiar with what is accelerated. Premiere and AE both use the same encode/decode engine, so if you’re getting hardware encode/decode acceleration in one, you’ll get it in the other. Apparently some effects are accelerated but I’m not coming up with a list. More AE GPU acceleration notes here.
Here’s a page on Photoshop GPU acceleration, including a list of effects that use or require it.
I spent some time a few years back trying to make “interesting” videos out of holiday footage. Someone I saw recently said that a ratio of one hour to one minute is a kind of industry standard.
Apart from the time it takes to edit a video - I would choose the best clips. add some graphics and transitions - there is the time it takes to render. On my mid-range setup, it took hours.
I don’t believe it matters except for render time. If you don’t mind waiting a very long time a potato can do it.
Yeah. I was just wondering if, for a video editing PC, more money should be put into the CPU or GPU for best results (read faster render times mainly). If editing family vacation videos once a year most any PC will manage even if slow. This is meant to edit several videos per day.
GPU. I find when people attempt to go high-end they tend to buy more CPU than they need. In most cases the CPU isn’t the limiting factor. A mid-range CPU with high-end GPU will provide much better results than the other way around.
It’s right there in my link above:
Premiere is highly threaded, so get a CPU with as many cores/threads as you can and it will take advantage of all of them. Get an adequate amount of RAM, Premiere will use as much as it can. Then get a decent but not insane GPU that fits the Premiere’s requirements (>= 4GB VRAM, more is better). e.g. get closer to a (say) rtx 2060, than to a rtx 4090. The GPU is for decode/encode of MPEG4 type video and accelerated effects (see list above). The CPU cores do the rest.
Question: why do you see doing to the video? Just simple cuts + audio? Or massive multilayer compositing, color correction, lots of layered effects? Are you using dynamic link to bounce from several Adobe apps at the same time?
You should definitely get a 4090 if someone else is paying.
This is for a co-worker. He has not given me that detail (and I did not think to ask…I would not know to ask). This PC is to make him more efficient in his job.
OK, if work is paying for it my thumbnail would be:
That’ll get you into high performance at mid level price. Note you can always add more RAM and GPU and storage. You can’t add more CPU easily.
I’m not sure you can have “more CPU than you need” when it comes to video editing.
Yeah, I’d agree with more CPU power being more useful than more GPU power.
I bought a new PC in 2020 specifically to use with Adobe Premiere (and the rest of the Adobe suite).
Even after reading up on it extensively, the CPU/GPU question vexxed me. I ended up compromising on both a little. If I had it to do again I’d back off the GPU spending in order to get a better CPU with more threads.
That’s for Premiere. But if you’re using DaVinci Resolve, for instance, the power of your GPU becomes a lot more important.
That’s really down to the specific design of the editing software.