Ok, the articles use adobe Premiere, with hardware acceleration, (should be still applicable to Vegas) to show the benefits of maybe using a not so expensive Intel system vs multi core high end system for sequential rendering.
May be of use to anyone considering upgrading their system.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ofdh-THQFpE
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3310-adobe-premiere-benchmarks-rendering-8700k-gpu-vs-ryzen
I wouldn't trust any gaming site benchmarks for video rendering, except I happen to agree with the premise...
@Former user
Thanks for posting that. Hardware canucks have been reviewing PC parts for quite a few years now, and seem to be pretty thorough and accurate. My guess is that a lot (clearly not all) of what is written about performance in PPro also applies to Vegas setups. I found this video similarly interesting:
Jump to 7 minute mark if you are in a hurry.
For sure, @Kinvermark, an interesting take on it also.
@Musicvid, let’s hope there are no gaming site creators here, or if so that their not of the sensitive type.
If low end and high end card make no difference in rendering speed. Then I would like to see low end to mid range cards can come close to 14s Sony Vegas Project Benchmark that most of us have been using to test our system. I am using Frontier Edition card Vega 10. I love to see some sample here from low end cards please.
Hi
This echos what I have seen with modern CPUs and Intel Quick Sync and software versus hardware encoding. Unless you are going for as compressed as possible where the quality is poor anyway regardless of the method, it will be less poor with software encoding if the settings are correct, mainly because you can easily force the software to spend silly amounts of time eking out every little byte. This doesn't really apply to us here in the main who encode with sensible bit rates.
Regards
Phil
it will be less poor with software encoding if the settings are correct, mainly because you can easily force the software to spend silly amounts of time eking out every little byte. This doesn't really apply to us here in the main who encode with sensible bit rates.
With basically a transcode using vegas with nvenc or quicksync the speed difference is significant but mostly that's not what people use vegas for, They are using filters/plugins & most are GPU enabled. It's then that nvenc/quicksync is much less impressive due to the extra delay caused by the graphics processing. Hardware render will always be faster but there comes a point where the difference in speed as a percentage is so low it's sensible to go with the higher quality software encode.
As for using intel IGP for processing & hardware rendering exclusively . It's a hell of a lot slower compared to modern low to medium graphics cards. It just stands to reason. There's nothing magic about intels built in GPU & from memory it uses less than 10watts combined for processing & quick sync. An nvidia 1050ti uses about 60+watts.
it will be less poor with software encoding if the settings are correct, mainly because you can easily force the software to spend silly amounts of time eking out every little byte. This doesn't really apply to us here in the main who encode with sensible bit rates.
With basically a transcode using vegas with nvenc or quicksync the speed difference is significant but mostly that's not what people use vegas for, They are using filters/plugins & most are GPU enabled. It's then that nvenc/quicksync is much less impressive due to the extra delay caused by the graphics processing. Hardware render will always be faster but there comes a point where the difference in speed as a percentage is so low it's sensible to go with the higher quality software encode.
As for using intel IGP for processing & hardware rendering exclusively . It's a hell of a lot slower compared to modern low to medium graphics cards. It just stands to reason. There's nothing magic about intels built in GPU & from memory it uses less than 10watts combined for processing & quick sync. An nvidia 1050ti uses about 60+watts.
Hi
If you are rendering from Vegas then of course the speed is crippled anyway be what else Vegas is doing, however by offloading the encoding you will still gain something. If you want a master render to re-encode at different rates/resolutions, for example a nice high quality 4K render, and perhaps a more general HD version, then exporting from Vegas as an uncompressed or other high quality intermediate then using something like TMPGenc Video Mastering to render out using a hardware encoder like QuickSync can save hours and hours of time.
The point the article is making is that software encoding IS NOT guaranteed to be higher quality just because it is a software encoder. If anything from Vegas, the software encoders are not particularly high quality anyway, even if they are, they lack any access to settings within the encoder that can be tweaked to see any quality gain by going for very slow renders to target very low bit-rate targets.
Typically software encoders show some advantage over modern day hardware encoders where they expose lots of low level settings that can be tweaked to suit the footage for very bit-rate starved renders (typically in competitions), for example X264 using the command line or a complex GUI, but then can take exponential amounts of time extra for not much gain. Vegas doesn't expose these settings for encoding using it's software or hardware encoders, you can't even set the basics such as what the GOP format should be. As a software encoder, Vegas is about as stripped down and basic as you can get.
Regards
Phil