I am buying myself new laptop and i am wondering do i need dedicated GPU to render videos in Vegas Pro or integrated GPU will do the job as well. I heard that for rendering CPU is the most important. I am not going to be creating videos in 4k, only in Full HD.
You don't need it for Vegas to function but processing of some effects will be much faster with a GPU.
For rendering, CPU only (no GPU encode) works fine. Intel also has QSV encoding using the integrated GPU that is fast.
I would say goal for rendering would be AVI/MP4 videos for Youtube and Facebook up to maximum 1920*1080 resolution.
Laptops generally have at least 1 integrated gpu. If there's only 1, Vegas runs better with an integrated nvidia or amd gpu. If you go for a laptop like that, amd-cpu based ones generally have an amd or nvidia igpu which would be more optimal than an intel-cpu laptop with only an intel igpu. My experience is that Vegas doesn't run as well with only a single intel igpu. However, I have not tried any of the newer xe/iris ones myself... but I wouldn't go there without positive feedback from a Vegas user who has one. Many of the newer Intel-CPU laptops now have 2 integrated gpus... the more the better as far as Vegas is concerned. For instance I have a nuc with both intel and amd igpus and set Vegas to use the amd generally and the intel for decoding with optimal results. Starting to see laptops with both iris and nvidia 3080 igpus... I imagine they might outperform most desktops. Just make sure you get enough ram... 16 gigs min recommended for HD work or 32 gigs for 4k.
To clarify:
Software rendered files are slower, smaller, and higher quality.
Hardware rendered files are much larger, lower quality, and much faster to render.
What is your goal? Size, Quality, or Speed? You don't get to pick all three.
Vegas render speeds have increased substantially over the years, mostly CPU related, to the point where for most, it's not much of an issue either way. I'm continually perplexed about the concern about/call for greater render speeds, (which for me is pretty good) in the face of really slow playback, no matter what your hardware -or until you reach the uber high end, (even then it's an issue) and that is not the case for competing software, AFAICT.
See the speed and quality charts linked in my signature. Been doing speed tests for quite a few years now rendering to avc hd and 4k. Just started similar quality analysis for different codec settings and bitrates... the bitrates are directly proportional to file size and often higher rates/larger files yield higher quality. But not not always. Look at av1 for instance. At 20 mbps it does 10-bit 4k at a similar quality as other codecs running 60 mbps.
Regarding cpu-only encoding, I stopped testing the MainConcept encoder for a while because it takes so long to run. Needed to cut back on my rock-star hours. But I'm working on an automated benchmarking system that I can program to run overnight. Will update my speed charts for 2021 with the latest versions of Vegas soon as I work it all out... hopefully before 2022.
Well, I don't have an integrated display-adapter on my motherboard (at least not that I'm aware of), and I only have a cheap AMD card the vendor threw in for free (memory unknown). I can't use Vegas' slow-motion effect since it says I don't have enough display-memory (though, I have 32GB of system-RAM). So if you want to use that particular effect (which I think is fairly useful), I would think you need a dedicated graphics board.
I bought a used 4GB AMD card which should arrive tomorrow. By the way, does anyone know if I'll still encounter the "not enough VRAM" error when trying to use the slow-motion effect with just 4GB of VRAM? For example, if I try to apply the effect on a longer clip, say several minutes long, would I need 8GB or even more?
It should work. VP specs say 8GB+ is need for 32-bit mode/HDR for AMD cards so I would assume 4GB is adequate for other purposes (haven't actually tested slow motion Fx, though. I just use high in-camera framerates).
I have two computers on which I run VP18. Both have dedicated GPU. But I find that the CPU "generation" (how new it is) seems to have much more impact on the performance of VEGAS. My 6th-Generation Core i7-6850K Intel processor was far more "high-end" and expensive than my 9th-Generation Core i5-6900K, but the latter processor smokes the former in VEGAS performance (and SoundForge, and iZotope RX...), even with 4 times more DRAM in the older machine. The GPU in the older machine is VEGA-64 Frontier Edition, and in the newer system is nVidia 1660 (also much less expensive than the older GPU).
Good to know—thanks! I also have a Sony FS700 which goes up to 960fps, but I wanted to apply some slo-mo to some iPhone footage I had (forgot to shoot in slo-mo!). I can't carry my FS700 around to work, but I always have my iPhone!
Right. Apparently from what I've read, Vegas' performance seems to benefit from faster CPUs than anything else. Very interesting that a later-generation i5 smokes an earlier i7 (and GPUs as well). Thanks for your comments!