Comments

Thanks for the suggestion, where is that available for download?

Another test, but not specific to the needs of Vegas, is Cinebench; http://www.maxon.net/products/cinebench/overview.html.

http://download.sonycreativesoftware.com/whitepapers/vp11_benchmark.zip

Thanks I will give both benchmarks a go and see if there is any significant difference.

The existing card never implemented OpenCL, and Vegas never acknowledged that it was there for any GPU acceleration. The new W7100 is overkill, but AMD is running a 50% off promotion that cinched it for me. Final cost around $300.

Let us know the render results for the SCS Benchmark project for XDCAM 1080 60i.

With only 1792 stream processors, wouldn't that card perform significantly less than a R9 290X, which can be had for around $300?

[I]With only 1792 stream processors, wouldn't that card perform significantly less than a R9 290X, which can be had for around $300?[/I]

I would expect that too but maybe not. The FirePro series uses different drivers, memory and might be more efficient. I hope the OP will report back with the render times for the SCS Benchmark project.

The W7100 is only a notch above an HD6970 in terms of compute power. The 7100 card does have 8GB memory vs 2GB on the 6970. They also support 4x DP 1.2a interfaces, VCE2.0, DirectGMA, and 10bit color modes. The main thing is the memory, mainly used for 3d apps, and supporting the increased amount of display ports and color depth.

The driver set is also tested more with professional applications, and not focused on general use and games.

This should be interesting. I just did that exact render test with my R9 290x on a old AMD 1035t with 16gb of memory. It did it in 60 seconds..

John

Which test did you do to get that time? XDCAM or MC AVC?

"Which test did you do to get that time? XDCAM or MC AVC?"

60 seconds with XDCAM. The resulting MP4 file was 188,618KB. Does this sound right or did I screw something up?

My OS hard drive is SSD, but I rendered to an optical drive. I have 16gb of ram and a AMD 1035T overclocked to 3.4.


It was 234 seconds with MC AVC. Also I had to specify "CPU only" for MC AVC, otherwise it wouldn't render.

John222, Your AMD CPU is not powerful enough to take full advantage on the R9 290X. Your CPU is holding you back with that render you did. Mine did it in 24s. You can check my system specs, just a click on my name.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/r35ppulsujvpbb0/24s.jpg?dl=0

I'm well aware of that Bruce. Just making the most of what I have to work with until the new AMD Zen processor gets released. At this point, I'm pretty satisfied.

The results of the video card upgrade to FirePro W7110 from a FireGL 7750 (which never implemented any GPU acceleration):

Before:
MainConcept AVC Internet HD 1080p = 6.46
XDCAM EX HQ 1920x1080 60i = 3:50

After:
MainConcept AVC Internet HD 1080p = unspecified error
XDCAM EX HQ 1920x1080 60i = 46 seconds (!)

This is out of the box, no tweaking or adjustments, latest AMD drivers as of 12/28/15, So although this is marketed as a workstation card for CAD and 3D, it did a pretty good job of reducing rendering time, by 80%. And compared to the "gaming" versions of AMD cards, this one is very quiet as well. The R9 series may do as well or better for Vegas, but my research indicates that they are prone to higher power draws and fan noise. I did not justify the card for Vegas work only, but I am happy with my decision.

What? what fan noise when I got this?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/njfok1pzww72ty6/IMG_634.jpg?dl=0

Wow. Just got a R9 390 (not the x), using the latest AMD beta driver. Just did the XDCAM 60i test :30. Sweet. With GPU turned off the render took over 5 minutes. I had an Nvidia 570 and I think the best time I got before was about twice the R9 time. Also, so far anyway, my system seems to be just as solid as before. I was concerned about the quality of AMD's drivers destabilizing my system which has been rock solid. Did a few long and complicated renders with no problems. Knocking on wood. Anyway, thanks to Oldsmoke and Bruce (and others) for all the posts they've contributed to this forum.

Just upgraded my video from a Sapphire Radeon 5670 to an RX480. The XDCam benchmark went from 1:27 to 0:33 (V12&13). Almost every other format also went quicker but not by so much. Sony AVC from 1:50 to 1:19; WMV from 3:44 to 3:11 (V12) and 3:49 to 3:17 (V13); MC AVC from 2:29 to 2:16 (V12&13).  System is a 5 year  old Asus x58 mobo (pcie2) with i7-980x 3.3ghz and 24 gB DDR3 1600 ram. Thinking of building a new system with dual E5-2643 on a Supermicro board with the same gpu and wondering if Vegas performance on v14 will improve much. I'm figuring that pcie3 should at least speed up the gpu throughput.

Just upgraded my video from a Sapphire Radeon 5670 to an RX480. The XDCam benchmark went from 1:27 to 0:33 (V12&13). Almost every other format also went quicker but not by so much. Sony AVC from 1:50 to 1:19; WMV from 3:44 to 3:11 (V12) and 3:49 to 3:17 (V13); MC AVC from 2:29 to 2:16 (V12&13). 

Thanks for the useful RX480 testing. I guess the improvement would be greater as you add more GPU-enabled FX to the media.

Thinking of building a new system with dual E5-2643 on a Supermicro board with the same gpu and wondering if Vegas performance on v14 will improve much. I'm figuring that pcie3 should at least speed up the gpu throughput.

Regarding your new system, you should read this thread and bear in mind the quote there that "a faster clock speed is more important than more cores". https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/vegas-pro-14-rendering-on-16-core-32-thread-monster-setup--104010/

There is another useful older thread on that subject here: https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/clock-speed-vs-core-count--98791/

Just upgraded my video from a Sapphire Radeon 5670 to an RX480. The XDCam benchmark went from 1:27 to 0:33 (V12&13). Almost every other format also went quicker but not by so much. Sony AVC from 1:50 to 1:19; WMV from 3:44 to 3:11 (V12) and 3:49 to 3:17 (V13); MC AVC from 2:29 to 2:16 (V12&13). 

That is great. I wonder if we can expect an improvement between an R9 390X and your card.

For the new system I agree with Nick: a faster clock speed is more important then more cores. So even a Xeon system will suffer if the clock speed is too low. A 8 core processor that can be overclocked may be the better solution, together with an internal water cooling system. i7 5960X or later for example.

I did the test using vp14 on my laptop, problem is when I play the xdcam files, no video? Do I need some software drivers installed for xdcam to become visible?  The Laptop MC test gave 2:57, XDCam 3:07.  The PC MC test gave 1:40, XDCam 0:33.

 

Laptop, HP dv7 ...
Hewlett-Packard, model 1800 m/board.
Intel i7 (Sandy Bridge) 2670QM, 2.2ghz, 8mb DDR3 memory.
Graphics .. Intel HD Graphics family, plus ATI Radeon HD 6490M.

Just got a chance to run the Sony vp11 benchmark on Vegas 14 and got identical results with the Radeon rx480 as I got on Vegas 13. That was after setting the "Allow GPU" to "YES" in the internals menu.

Also tried overclocking my cpu from 3.3 ghz to 4 ghz and got no change in Sony AVC and only slight improvement in the rest. WMV from 3:17 to 3:09; MC AVC from 2:16 to 2:11; XDCamEX from :34 to :32. GPU makes the biggest difference on my system.

One curious thing I noticed after adding the rx480 video card is that my ram went down from 24 gb to 16 gb in the bios. Also slowed down slightly in Win7 Novabench from 9789 mM/sec to 8962.  But all my Vegas numbers got better so I guess its a good trade off.

Asus x58, i7-980x 3.3ghz @4ghz, Sapphire Radeon rx480 4gb, 16 gB DDR3 1600 ram

I did the test using vp14 on my laptop, problem is when I play the xdcam files, no video? Do I need some software drivers installed for xdcam to become visible?

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/