Comparison of Video Cards using Timeline Playback of 4k file

Former user wrote on 6/4/2018, 5:27 AM

Hi, I thought it would be interesting to see the difference between playback frame rates of different graphics cards.

A highly taxing GPU filter is VEGAS STARBURST using default setting, Video preview window - BEST - FULL

Playback a 4k file (3840x2160) using your video card & tell me what fps you get. With my gtx1070 I get approx 7fps. I'd be interested to see what fps other cards deliver.

Thankyou

Comments

NickHope wrote on 6/4/2018, 6:20 AM

The Starburst FX is one of a special group of FX that Sony purchased from Velvetmatter years ago and appears to be CUDA-accelerated. It was one of the FX, along with Defocus, that was causing Vegas to crash with certain AMD drivers. That was addressed in VP15 build 311, but possibly simply by completely disabling GPU-acceleration for AMD, and possibly NVIDIA too (I didn't get any replies to my question about that). In any case it's not a good choice for your test (but conversely, an excellent choice to get my question answered!).

Also, the format of the file can make a huge difference in preview fps. For example without FX I get 29.97fps with GH5 AVC 4k, and 0.5fps with GoPro AVC 4k.

AVsupport wrote on 6/4/2018, 10:32 PM

on my machine [XAVC-S 4K/25 full quality preview], Starburst is an absolute CPU hog, 100%, but GPU 1060/6 @~20%. Just about hangs the system, red/black frames, hardly any fps, ended up crashing. For me, Not worth the effort.

Defocus seems to travel a little better, CPU 70%, GPU 26%, but I can see at least 3D load there. Getting 1.085 fps on continuous play.

NickHope wrote on 6/5/2018, 5:00 AM

on my machine [XAVC-S 4K/25 full quality preview], Starburst is an absolute CPU hog, 100%, but GPU 1060/6 @~20%. Just about hangs the system, red/black frames, hardly any fps, ended up crashing. For me, Not worth the effort.

Defocus seems to travel a little better, CPU 70%, GPU 26%, but I can see at least 3D load there. Getting 1.085 fps on continuous play.

@AVsupport Is the performance of these FX the same with and without GPU acceleration of video processing enabled?

Is the performance the same in an earlier version such as VP14 or 13 (if you have them installed), with the same GPU acceleration and so4-enabled/disabled settings?

AVsupport wrote on 6/5/2018, 7:10 AM

what are we chasing? imo these are two badly programmed vfx..

NickHope wrote on 6/5/2018, 8:07 AM

I'm just interested to know if these FX are still GPU-accelerated with an NVIDIA GPU since the fix in build 311. There seem to be 6 FX in this family, and I don't see them being removed from Vegas, so this may play a part in an AMD vs NVIDIA purchasing decision. It also enables us to provide better advice regarding these FX in the future.

OldSmoke wrote on 6/5/2018, 10:54 AM

I'm just interested to know if these FX are still GPU-accelerated with an NVIDIA GPU since the fix in build 311. There seem to be 6 FX in this family, and I don't see them being removed from Vegas, so this may play a part in an AMD vs NVIDIA purchasing decision. It also enables us to provide better advice regarding these FX in the future.

Here is a link to project file that basically has all effects on the time line. I believe I got it from a forum member? Just substitute the missing media file with your own and change the project settings accordingly.

AVsupport wrote on 6/5/2018, 4:28 PM

Sure! Starburst definitely doesn't, and Defocus sorta does, but not sure on what technology platform..i just could see some '3d' activity in the gpu...