RE: AMD vs NVIDIA modern/recent gpus.
I posted these values previously, anyway, by way of comparison, it shows only a 5 second difference between Shinra's AMD and my NVIDIA based system for render times. Of course the cpu's etc are not the same. But Nick, as I previously pointed out, your jumping to the conclusion of a 2x difference [Quote ... "Nearly 2x improvement with RX480 over GTX1080 is more than I expected! It more or less settles the discussion, unless alternative or future Nvidia drivers improve OpenCL. " ] for the Amd system based on a single test by "Mike" in a previous post just doesn't hold up. Also, even this (5s) comparison is far from perfect because the playback fps is topped out by both systems. Until someone makes up a better red car test, or modifies the existing one to make it harder, it's a little indeterminate, but at least the red car test is readily available for testing, unlike Mikes test. I suggest you modify your 2x conclusion as it's currently misleading, until better and more tests are available based on modern/recent GPUS.
GPU on (off in brackets)
i7-4790K + GTX 1080 + 16gb ram.
The fps was at max 29.97, preview setting was at best-full.
XDCAM .. 0:31s (2:58s)
MC .. 2:15s (3:11s)
But Nick, as I previously pointed out, your jumping to the conclusion of a 2x difference for the Amd system based on a single test by "Mike" in a previous post just doesn't hold up.
Obviously a sample size of just one test is not ideal, and it wasn't very controlled, but that test is still the only one I've seen that directly compares GPU acceleration of video processing between a GTX1080 and RX480 in the same machine. Anyway, which 2 figures exactly (with a 5s difference) are you referring to?
The 2 figures I am referring to are ..
Shinra's ... 1st. column in the middle "case 2" table, 5th row down ...
time ... 2:10s ... RX 470 (Mainconcept avc 30fps)
Jn_'s MC ...
time 2:15s (3:11s) gtx 1080
There are loads of variables here as your figures and Shinra's figures are from 2 completely different machines, and Shinra is testing an RX470, not an RX480. If I was making a purchase decision between the GTX1080 and the RX480 I would give more weight to the test that compared those actual 2 cards in the same machine by the same people. I still stand by what I wrote in that comment as I was simply doing the maths. Anyway I've added a link to your comment in this thread.
Well, not sure it's wise to stand by an assumption that there's a 2x difference between the Nvidia and Amd cards, gtx 1080 and rx480, based on 1 test.
I do agree with you that making a purchasing decision for a PC, and given that the main software of interest was Vegas, and given that the Amd is far cheaper, and Amd's reputation with openCL, it makes sense to go with Amd for now.
I posted here though not based on what to purchase, rather to try and nail down what the state of play currently is between the 2 manufacturers with modern cards, within Vegas.
I just don't buy the 2x part that you are standing over.
The two different tests, Mikes and Red Car are different, another variable, also introducing a question mark over whether perhaps some openCL tests may favour one manufacturer over the other?
You know, the test by Mike that you are putting so much weight on didn't give a lot of hard data, a bit of talk about 2x, etc. At least these 2 examples, despite some differences in machines, in this post gives the normal data you would expect to find in any comparison, i.e. machine basic specs., times for render with/without gpu, timeline playback fps, the vegas codec used for render etc.
The 2 PC'S, Shinra's and mine, are not a million miles apart, spec wise, yet the render times, with gpu ON, are very close, frankly, I'd put more weight on this comparison.
You're putting words into my mouth here. Nowhere did I make a definitive statement that an RX480 is 2x faster than a GTX1080. I merely took Mike's results and calculated that ("almost 4")/("slightly over 2")=(nearly 2), and therefore observed that in his test there was nearly 2x improvement. That's all I intended, and actually all I'm standing by is my reading and maths ability. I accept it may have been a little rash for me to say that "it more or less settles the discussion" but at the time I felt that it had, given a lack of any other data to compare.
Well, I didn't feel I was putting words in your mouth, or had any intention to, the quote from you ..."Nearly 2x improvement ... etc" implied to me that that's what you believe. I think you may be splitting hairs here.
Anyway, for sure I don't want to get into an argument with you here Nick about this, and like i'm sure most here, I really appreciate the tremendous contributions you make, especially the FAQ.
I just want to get a little closer to finding out the real difference between the modern Amd and Nvidia capabilities within Vegas.
Based on the previous "Mike" test and these 2 tests, they are just not looking close to each other at all, to draw any definitive conclusion IMHO.
If more data/tests with modern cards become available that may change. John-dennis had a clip of his red car and it showed also better results for the Amd cards, but not as dramatic a difference as Mikes. Of course as always, all comparisons were different machines. Unfortunately Johns test video clip wouldn't tax the cards as well and all round as the Sony red car test. I think it would be fair to say that the tests in this current post and the john-dennis post were closer together than the "Mike" test. I strongly suspect that the 2x is just not reality, but further info. may clarify.
Given that the Sony test is readily available, maybe some more contributors might chip in (pun intended) with some Red Car tests, with modern cards.
On my system, the Preview Ram setting greatly influences render speed. Anything higher then 200MB will slow it down. In order to have accurate data, one must also take into account the preview ram setting.
Plenty of testing was done a long time ago, maybe that needs to be updated for newer GPUs but I would wait until the underlying code has been changed.
By the way. After installing the GTX580 alongside the Fury-X, I can now render MC AVC with CUDA again. SCS Benchmark project takes 25sec (1:25 CPU). XDCAM EX 1080 30p takes 18sec (1:29 CPU) with the Fury-X, Mpeg 2 is highly optimized in Vegas.
Edit: With the GTX580 set for timeline and CUDA, MC AVC renders in 33sec. Surprisingly, XDCAM EX 1080 30p renders in 23sec. It seems Nvidia has improved their driver in respect to OpenCL. I would have to physically disable the Fury-X to confirm that.
These were the results I got, more than 6 months ago, older drivers, with cuda and gtx 580.
As you say in your edit the newer drivers may give better results, I since replaced gtx 580 card with gtx 1080. I've been thinking of putting the gtx 580 back in with the 1080 but I heard that it (gtx 580) would only work with a slightly older driver, not the very latest, and i'd like to just keep the latest driver with the gtx 1080. Power supply is 750w so should be ok.
i7-4790K + GTX 580 + 16gb ram.
XDCam 0:33
MC 1:40
Waiting until underlying code is updated, i.e. a newer Vegas update I assume you mean?
If I understand you correctly then that is probably the best way to go. Doing more tests now with only partial support for gpus is just frustrating.
Keeping drivers updated only makes sense if you play games.
Good point, thanks.