hi, how did you manged to enable mc avc in v15 for gtx580

i see only magix avc, which is not allowing use gtx580

and sony avc, that supports FHD only for CUDA, if I select UHD, CUDA is not available

Hold SHIFT when clicking "Preferences" and it's under the "Internal" tab. Can't remember the name. Try searching Mainconcept or AVC. Then there is another preference to set under the "General" tab. Something like "Enable GPU for legacy encoders".

@snacky I would not bother with cuda anymore, the experiments I did with cuda on my titan-x (maxwell) were indeed fast, but I was not impressed by the quality, I would never use it for final results. I am currently building a complete new system ground up with the new intel 6 core 8700K, new mobo, a new videocard nvidea 1800 ti, 32GB etc... I have all the components, except the processor 😟. That is sold out everywhere.

Just a question to the forum members, I am still hesitating if I would I would go for 64GB of DDR4 ram or leave it at the current (also new) 32GB DDR4 I have bought already for the new Z370 motherboard. I know more memory is always better, but I wonder if this not overkill for vegas 15 (with 6 cores 8700K).

 

I debated the same. Decided to go with 32GB DDR4 cas 14 (2 16GB sticks so I can upgrade if I ever want to). Newegg has the 8700K available intermittently today; I snagged one. But haven't decided on a video card yet.

@WindChi I snagged a 8700K via caseking in Germany, albeit it is was via der8auer modified at premium price for the mod. I did exchange my memory 32GB 3200 cas 14 I just bought, for 64GB 3200 cas 14 (still waiting for the 64GB kit).

I did not want to risk adding memory in the future not having the same specs and chips as a complete matched kit is and is rated for. Even if you get 2 rated identical matched kits of 2 ram pieces each it is only rated for each individual kit of 2 RAM pieces, not for the group of 4 (unless you by a matched kit of 4 RAM pieces).

@WindChi I snagged a 8700K via caseking in Germany, albeit it is was via der8auer modified at premium price for the mod. I did exchange my memory 32GB 3200 cas 14 I just bought, for 64GB 3200 cas 14 (still waiting for the 64GB kit).

I did not want to risk adding memory in the future not having the same specs and chips as a complete matched kit is and is rated for. Even if you get 2 rated identical matched kits of 2 ram pieces each it is only rated for each individual kit of 2 RAM pieces, not for the group of 4 (unless you by a matched kit of 4 RAM pieces).

I couldn't actually find a 64GB CAS 14 kit - may not have looked hard enough as I decided to settle for the 32GB mostly due to initial cost considerations. Hopefully 32GB will do whatever I want. I also plan to do audio recording with this workstation and may also add CAD.

 

I couldn't actually find a 64GB CAS 14 kit -

http://www.alternate.be/G-Skill/64-GB-DDR4-3200-Quad-Kit-Werkgeheugen/html/product/1261023?lk=8301

would a 1050 ti card be ok for the new vegas encoding or what is better around 150 uk pounds

@wellandman not sure how the GPU utilisation works. with my gtx1070, it uses on average about 25% with GPU accelerated plugins. biggest peak I"ve seen is 37%. Because I don't understand how vegas utilises the gpu I don't know if it would also only be capable of utalising 25% (average) of your gpu which would mean it would be slower than my GPU or if maybe it would use more of your GPU & so even though you have a slower card they would be similar in performance. I don't think we have enough statistics

@wellandman not sure how the GPU utilisation works. with my gtx1070, it uses on average about 25% with GPU accelerated plugins. biggest peak I"ve seen is 37%. Because I don't understand how vegas utilises the gpu I don't know if it would also only be capable of utalising 25% (average) of your gpu which would mean it would be slower than my GPU or if maybe it would use more of your GPU & so even though you have a slower card they would be similar in performance. I don't think we have enough statistics

the question is are you looking to use GPU to render the project or talking about using GPU acceleration for working with Vegas

personally I see better rendering results when using IntelQuickSync codec functionality

@snacky you still need a decent video card though. built in intel GPU is horribly slow for video processing. The maximum watttages I've seen it using is less than 12w. Compare that to GPU cards such as mine that use 160watts or GTX 1050ti - 75watts The intel GPU simply isn't in the race.

As an example project that takes 3m12s rendering using intel QSV with nvidia gpu accelerated filters

takes 9m53s rending using intel QSV with intel 530 GPU accelerated filters.

It's also my opinion that hardware encoding is inferior, especially magix AVC using QSV, to the point that it prob shouldn't be a contributing descision when deciding on a system or cpu. If the AMD is the better deal, get the AMD. (in my opinion that is)

@snacky you still need a decent video card though. built in intel GPU is horribly slow for video processing. The maximum watttages I've seen it using is less than 12w. Compare that to GPU cards such as mine that use 160watts or GTX 1050ti - 75watts The intel GPU simply isn't in the race.

 

As an example project that takes 3m12s rendering using intel QSV with nvidia gpu accelerated filters

takes 9m53s rending using intel QSV with intel 530 GPU accelerated filters.

 

It's also my opinion that hardware encoding is inferior, especially magix AVC using QSV, to the point that it prob shouldn't be a contributing descision when deciding on a system or cpu. If the AMD is the better deal, get the AMD. (in my opinion that is)

hi, I was testing just plain rendering of 4k material using NVENC and Intel Quick Sync and got better results with quick sync

for example: 1 min movie rendered in 1:20 without any fx using quick sync, default render values

nvenc, using quadro k1100m card was getting more then 2 minutes for rendering the same material

was also doing some tests with GTX980, quick sync was faster always

but it might be worth to do some more complex tests with FX applied

thx for that!

yes for hardware encoding QSV is fastest, if that's all you're doing. no processing. I get approx 25% faster for QSV AVC over NVEC AVC, BUT for me not using any video processing never happens. I also see that QSV AVC is lower quality than NVENC AVC, which is lower quality than mainconcept avc which is lower quality than sony avc.

I guess it depends on what you're doing. I'd always strive for best quality over speed so would never consider QSV AVC but if time doesn't permit maybe it's your only option.

Also when you do use plugins for video processing the difference becomes very little. example

• MAGIX AVC - nvenc with with nvidia gpu processing of 3 filters - 3:32
• MAGIX AVC - QSV with nvidia gpu processing of 3 filters 3:12
• MAGIX AVC - software with nvidia gpu processing of 3 filters 4:27

EDIT: Btw SONY MXF software with nvidia gpu processing of 3 filters is 3:47

That seems rather amazing for a software render almost as fast as hardware render. Is there a downside to MXF files?

I've never used that format.

i have a rizon 7 1700

16gb 3200 memory

no video card but 130 gift voucher to put towards buying one

did have a r9 but that went pop

if a cheapy £150) will make do i will as don't want to spend 900 on a card

so what to go for AMD Or Nvidea

and nither do i play games etc

Don't know about AMD's GPU's except people are talking about their disapointment with Vegas & their drivers for AMD cards. It's actually the same with premiere PRO. A GTX 1050ti is approx as fast as as an RX480 8 gb (which shouldn't be the case). So maybe AMD's aren't worth buying at the moment? Some proud AMD GPU user likely has something to say.

If AMD's aren't in the game for now, maybe only thing to consider is 1050ti or 1060 3gb. 1060 3gb costs approx 33% extra, but you do get 33% extra power, so you are getting what you pay for if you felt you needed the extra speed. BTW my knowledge on this subject including prices is 6months old when I was looking into buying either. I got the 1050ti,, but for a friend who uses it for games. So I don't have any vegas performance info.

Bob are you Psychic i have a 1050I in my basket

For hardware rendering (NVEnc):

GeForce 600 series onwards (6xx, 7xx, 9xx, 10xx)

Quadro Kxxx, Mxxx and Pxxx

Default NVEnc templates in MAGIX AVC include HDV, HD, and 4k, and as always, can be customized.

I'm considering purchasing a somewhat entry level GeForce GPU that will help in NVEnc.

I see a lot of options, but I see GT and GTX series,with numbers like GT 730, and the like, are all of them compatible with Vegas Pro 15 to obtain Rendering GPU acceleration?

OR only GTX series?

GTX 900 series will give you a respectable boost in rendering performance, I can vouch for that as I'm using a 970. All GPUs are spiking in price now thanks to bitcoin miners, but you should be able to get a good 900 or 1000 series card for $250-500. You won't want to go much older, or your performance advantage might not be as worthwhile.