Choosing the RIGHT graphics card

audio2u wrote on 4/16/2015, 8:35 PM

Hi all,
First post here... not a pro video editor.
I'm a professional audio guy (commercial radio for 28 years).
Last year, I rebuilt my PC, updating MB, CPU, graphics card, added an SSD... all the usual suspects. :)
The card I chose, which I THOUGHT would absolutely handle the job, was a Gigabyte GeForce GTX760 4GB card.
However, it turns out that the architecture of the chip on this card (Kepler or Maxwell?) is not supported by Vegas 11, 12 or 13.
As such, my render times are actually faster on the CPU than on the graphics card.... and those times are shocking.
Like... 90 mins to render a 19 min home video*
So, my quesiton is this... how does one know what card/GPU/architecture to look for, so as to achieve the ability to get realtime playback and render?
I'm working with FullHD footage in AVCHD format (.m2ts).
Thanks in advance.

* This was what I posted on the Sony Vegas Editors group on FB:

My PC is a homemade AMD-based 8 core 4.0GHz processor with 16GB DDR3, Gigabyte GeForce GTX760 4GB graphics card. OS is running off SSD.
So, by today's standards, a reasonably well-spec'd machine.
Thing is, I thought that with these specs, I'd be able to play back my video footage without any glitching, yet this is not the case. Vegas is coughing and spluttering all over the place.
Briefly, timeline looks like:
4 video lanes. 2 for full HD footage (.m2ts files), one for photos, one for titles.
4-6 audio tracks. 2 for camera audio, 2 for music and 2 for occasional supplemental sound effects.
As you can imagine, there's only ever 2 lanes of video to process at any one instance in time (maybe 3 if there's a super over a footage edit), and there's usually only 2 or maybe 3 tracks of audio at any one time.
Video FX. I have a colour curves plugin running on the master output, and a couple of transitions here and there, but not much more than that.
Audio FX. Maybe half a dozen different VST plugins.
As I'm typing this, a 19min video is rendering in the background and Windows is suggesting it's going to to take around 90mins to render.
Really? That slow?
Oh yeah... output format is MainConcept AVC/AAC using the following settings:

Video:
HD 1080
Frame rate: 25 (PAL)
Use OpenCL if available

VBR
Max 50,000,000
Avg 20,000,000

Audio:
48k
256kbit

Project:
Rendering quality - best

So, with all that in mind.... is there anything I can do to improve render times (and be extension realtime playback rate) without spending more money?
Does this kind of performance sound right for these specs, or do you guys who do this professionally instantly recognise a problem here?
Thanks in advance for your input!
Please sing out if you need any further info.

Comments

OldSmoke wrote on 4/16/2015, 8:51 PM

Nvidia GTX580 is the last Nvidia card that the MC AVC codec supports with CUDA.

audio2u wrote on 4/16/2015, 9:44 PM

Thanks for that, Oldsmoke.
Two questions...
1. Does your response re: MainConcept mean that if I was to export to some other CODEC, that my render times would improve?
Is there some other format that I should consider (I want FullHD video, and am happy with stereo audio for now... might want 5.1 down the track).
2. I'm not particularly wedded to NVidia. Should I have gone with an AMD/Radeon-based card? If so, which one, and what would the differences be?
Thanks in advance.

OldSmoke wrote on 4/16/2015, 10:12 PM

No offense but please do a search on this forum, I have answered questions with regards to GPU acceleration numerous times.

Short answer to your question. If you are willing to change manufacturer then R9 290x is the way to go for now. This will provide the best timeline performance and renders to MPEG-2 codecs like those for DVD and BluRay.

Also search for Vegas2Handbrake in this forum. That will be the best way to render to MP4 playable on almost any device.

And no, your current card won't be faster with a different codec.

audio2u wrote on 4/16/2015, 10:17 PM

Apologies.
And thanks heaps for your input. Appreciated.

musicvid10 wrote on 4/16/2015, 10:48 PM

With an 8-core cpu, any additional gains from gpu will be understandably modest.
Sometimes, the gpu will actually slow things down, as you have apparently noticed.
The conservative advice is to stop spending money, and accept what you have, which is far more than many (most?) of us.

Keep in mind that some of the FILTERS IN USE ON THE TIMELINE may only be single-threaded, so that is at least as likely to create a bottleneck as your gross processor throughput.

Out of curiosity, what are you using 20Mbps avc video for?
It seems a bit paradoxical that you would use such high bitrates and at the same time defer optimum quality by insisting on hardware-accelerated rendering.

So maybe you would need to restart your thinking from scratch:
Size, Quality, Speed. Pick two.

audio2u wrote on 4/17/2015, 12:41 AM

Ahhh, well see, now you've just got right to the heart of the matter, and exposed the fact that I have no clue whatsoever as to what CODEC and bitrate I should be using! :)

What I want is to be able to output my home movies:

a) in a format that supports FullHD (1920x1080),
b) that doesn't look like a pixelated mess, and
c) that is not so heavily compressed that when it's uploaded to youtube or vimeo (and presumably gets reprocessed), won't turn into a pile of shite.

If anyone would care to illuminate me on what CODEC and bitrate I SHOULD be using to achieve these goals, I'm all ears! :)
Thanks again.

set wrote on 4/17/2015, 1:25 AM

Youtube and Vimeo has suggested video spec:
For youtube you can find here: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171?hl=en

You have choose the right codec, Mainconcept MP4.
20 Mbps won't be too much compressed, but may not be the most 'efficient' one.

Based on Youtube's info, 8 Mbps is sufficient for 1080p.

If your target is offline viewing after edit and keep shooting in interlace format (1080i-50), then Sony AVC > AVCHD template is a good choice. (Bitrate 16 Mbps)

Set

audio2u wrote on 4/17/2015, 1:37 AM

Thanks Set!

OldSmoke wrote on 4/17/2015, 8:50 AM

@musicvid

Let's stick to the facts shall we?

With an 8-core cpu, any additional gains from gpu will be understandably modest.
I hope you have tested this and can back it up with hard facts? If not, you should stop making such statements. If you have, please show us a rendering video similar to

one with CPU only and let's compare the numbers.

[I]Sometimes, the gpu will actually slow things down, as you have apparently noticed.[/I]
It will only slow you down if you have the wrong GPU or your combination of CPU and GPU is not well balanced.

[I]The conservative advice is to stop spending money,...[/i]
Statements like this usually come from users who didn't manage to get good GPU acceleration. The OP is asking for better render performance and not how much he is allowed to spend on it.

And here are the facts.
AMD 8-core is not equal Intel 8-core; it's at best a 4-core Intel.
GTX760 is not supported under CUDA in Vegas, only OpenCL. The implementation of OpenCL in Nvidia cards is mediocre.
Fermi based cards are supported by MC AVC mp4 codec because the codec was written for it by Mainconcept, not Sony and was never upgraded to support newer cards. The GTX580 is the last and fastest card you can get for rendering to MC AVC Internet format; such a card is easy to find on eBay for around $150 or less. However, timeline performance increase will be limited again as Vegas uses OpenCL for it.
The last fully supported AMD card that I personally tested was the HD6970; performance was on par with a GTX570; timeline was slightly better.

My current 2x R9 290 perform excellent as these cards are powerful and support Vegas OpenCL used for preview. I don't care anymore about MC AVC or Sony AVC because I use the Vegas2Handbrake method to render for Internet or anything I like to watch on my TVs at home. Since this method involves timeline performance I get the acceleration the R9 290 provides. R9 290 cards go for $200 or less on eBay.
MC AVC and Sony AVC renders are as fast as CPU only because the AMD Hawaii chip is not supported by those codecs.

So, if the OP wants better performance and better render times with MC AVC, a GTX560Ti 448 is the minimum and a GTX580 is the best you can do with Nvidia.
If he wants to try the Vegas2Handbrake method and forget about MC AVC and Sony AVC, the R9 290 would be a good card.

BruceUSA wrote on 4/17/2015, 10:09 AM

A+ Oldsmoke

here see for yourself.

?https://vimeo.com/116909126?email_id=Y2xpcF90cmFuc2NvZGVkfDQxZjk3ODdmNDNiYTcxYmIzYmQ1N2YzNTNjNTU2NWI5NzgxfDEwNTExNDk1fDE0MjEzNjE4MDh8NzcwMQ%3D%3D&utm_campaign=7701&utm_medium=clip-transcode_complete-finished-20120100&utm_source=email

OldSmoke wrote on 4/17/2015, 11:27 AM

@Bruce

Great performance. I get 26sec with R9 290 but I think that is more related to the lower clock speed on my CPU, I run at 4.3GHz "only". I tried 4.5GHz but cant get it stable on my Intel DX79SR board. I am not changing my hardware until one can show me that the 5960X is really so much better; 20% better is what I would expect and make it worth to change. I can run 1080 30p 422 files in a 32bit float full range project with as many FX as I need at Best/Full.

BruceUSA wrote on 4/17/2015, 6:00 PM

Oldsmoke,

Your setup and mine are working with Vegas really well. At this point, I really don't see the need for the 5960X yet. Maybe Broadwell E chip perhaps worth the upgrade.

Kauzmic wrote on 5/7/2015, 5:25 PM

Great discussion on a baffling subject! I'm ready to buy the R9 290x card. But which brand/card are you talking about?

- ASUS Radeon R9 290X
- XFX Force Radeon R9 290X Graphics Card
- AMD Radeon™ R9 290X graphics card with 8GB

Are there other r9 290x cards to consider. Are these cards pretty much the same? Is one more quiet than the others?

I'm interested in smooth timeline performance in Vegas 12 (or 13). But rendering has been a bear, even with dual quad cores.

Thanks,
Kauzmic

OldSmoke wrote on 5/7/2015, 7:46 PM

I use 2x ASUS Radeon R9 290 which I bought off eBay and upgraded with EK water blocks myself. Asus is my preferred brand, graphic cards and motherboard. The 290X is slightly faster and you want to look for those with big coolers or water cool it. The 8GB card is maybe an overkill, not sure Vegas can make issue of it. Make sure you have a god power supply and sufficient space in your case.

Offworlder wrote on 5/10/2015, 9:45 AM

@OldSmoke

Sir, first thank you for your cogent and extensive posts, it has been very useful as I continue to learn all the variables which affect the many decisions.

This post crystallized the point for me specific to determining how you want to output and work backwards towards those GPUs and process (Handbrake, etc..) which will obtain the desired output....

That said, I am still working through a couple of questions and would appreciate your time and input.

System:
Asus P6T Deluxe V2 (pushed the heck out of this great Mobo, now on my second proc)
Xeon W3690 @ 3.47GHz
NVIDIA GeFroce9600GT (loaned GPU from friend who helped me do the new build on box, till I get replacement)
18GB RAM
Win7 64-Bit
SanDisk SSD (boot drive)
WD 1.TB Black (scratch disk)
WD 3TB Black (render/storage)

I have both Vegas 12 and Premiere CS6 (the whole CC model bothers me, but for another story)
Don't really care about MC, using Handbreak and VLC can get anywhere I need.
Would like do do some occasional gaming for fun but not hard core by any means

Questions:
Go with -1- Asus R9 290 for now ($130 on eBay) and add a second later at half the price
or/ go with MSI Radeon R9 290 GAMING 4GB 512-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX $290.00 on Newegg

Am I going to see much of an improvement in either Vegas or Premiers with the added 2GB of GPU memory verses having it for the occasional gaming where I think it would likely pay off?

Also, as my Antec P280 is a very upgradable box, I am thinking I can get another three years out of my current Mobo/Proc before replacement but where "now" to put funds on a GPU for near and longer term growth.

Thanks

OldSmoke wrote on 5/10/2015, 2:46 PM

Offworlder

It very much depends on what your source materials are. The P6 platform is rather dated and higher end graphic card may not fully utllized as the system cant information fast enough to the card. It will be better then the GF9600GT bt will belimited by other hardware. I have 'really" no experience with Premiere, never liked that NLE, hence not sure if a R9 will be supported and to what extrend.

set wrote on 5/10/2015, 10:18 PM

Besides of R9 290, does R7 series supported?

Just for having several budget choices options, based on my list from this site.

Offworlder wrote on 5/11/2015, 9:21 AM

@OldSmoke

Makes sense and currently working with some DV and HDV 1080 content - so not highly intensive with many layers.

Thanks

astar wrote on 5/11/2015, 11:40 AM

In my opinion you want to stick with AMD XT chips. Chips other than XT are limited in comparison. Pro chips < XT. The flagship Firepro cards like the w9000 and w9100 are XT chips. Specifically the 290x and W9100 share the same GPU minus pro display features.

You can dig up the chip type on wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units

Oldsmoke is right, this topic is well covered in previous posts. Search the forum and spend some time reading.

As for the source material, convert that .M2TS format to XDCAM.MXF. Editing in XDCAM will be a much more optimized and fluid experience.

If your edited material is going to YouTube, you can just render xdcam, and upload the .mxf directly. Skipping elaborate processes of rendering to MP4, or intermediates that then go into Handbrake, only to be uploaded to YouTube. Decent upload bandwidth is required for this.

Kauzmic wrote on 5/15/2015, 8:50 AM

I purchased the Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X 4GB GDDR5 OC(UEFI), New Edition. Lots of research and felt like a pinball.

Card installed easily and is quiet. Vegas 12 timeline works much better and YouTube videos playback without skipping and hanging as they did with my Nvidia GTX 760. One problem - no sound...

I've tried everything I can think of.

Also, I cannot enter the system BIOS. I get an error:
"Error: can't enter setup. Video mode 103 is not supported by this video card"

Further, on shutdown, the computer will not turn off. The monitor goes off, but the computer fans keep turning.

Anyone have any advice?

PS - the Nvidia 760 would not allow full shutdown either, where as the GTX 9800 did. Perhaps it's time for a computer upgrade...

Dell T-7400, 8 processor, 32 gigs ram, SSD C drive, 2t D drive for storage. Works great otherwise.

Kauzmic wrote on 5/15/2015, 8:37 PM

UPDATE:

I switched from the R9 to the GTX 9800 and was able to change the audio bios on my computer to "internal only". Then I reinstalled the R9 & software, but didn't install the audio or gaming software.

It works now, but I still can't access my bios, and the computer does not fully shut down without holding the power button after it shuts down (fans keep running). I'm chalking this up to hardware incompatibility.

I also found out that "jerky" playback on YouTube is caused by the embedded player in the browser. One of my videos that looks especially bad in browsers, so I tried the link in VLC directly - smooth as glass.

BTW - the R9 works great with Vegas 12 - even with unsharp mask & color curves turned on at full resolution. And it's much quieter than the GTX 9800.

DGates wrote on 5/26/2015, 5:15 PM

Just watched that video, Steve. Very nicely done. What were you shooting with that day?

jedikeeper wrote on 5/27/2015, 6:30 AM

This is correct

Jedi