GPU - Looking for an honest, real world answer

john_dennis wrote on 7/16/2022, 12:55 PM

@NTO2care

"I use an older Dell"

We need to know the processor type and amount of RAM your older Dell has.

"I do home video and nature video"

We need to know what type of camera you use and any other video or still images you use in your home video production.

"I am a realist with a limit on how much I can spend on a GPU."

We need to have a currency denominated (US Dollar) number for that limit.

"I can currently produce renders that I burn to Blu Ray, quite satisfactorily."

We need to know whether you use MPEG-2 or AVC render templates to render for Blu-ray.

Teaser

Neither the Magix MPEG-2 nor the AVC Blu-ray encoder uses the GPU to render. From the screenshot, you can see that my GPU is used to decode my source files.

"Considering I do not care about rendering time, would upgrading my video card to the max my computer will support provide any improvement in the video preview quality?"

That depends on many factors.

The speed of your CPU/RAM/I-O system
Whether your source files use the GPU to decode. (AVC,HEVC)

Work this FAQ with a focus on section B and C and post back here:

https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/important-information-required-to-help-you--110457/

Seb-o wrote on 7/16/2022, 3:17 PM

My question is... Considering I do not care about rendering time, would upgrading my video card to the max my computer will support provide any improvement in the video preview quality? Thank you, in advance.

It might, some but I'm going to guess, in your case, 'not really,' most of that would be determined by CPU power/speed. And if that is older, your board is older, your power supply probably smaller and not up to the demands of the new high end cards. The factors are more how many effects you're employing, can you use proxies, are you willing to view in a lower rez (ala preview/draft) format for most of your work, and do you have memory enough for some CNTL-B Ram executed previews when needed in more critical spots and/or use pre-rendering of effects heave segments.

Vegas has never been as fast a some others as far as timeline playback. I'd say you could look at Divinci if that was your main concern and on a budget.

YOU CAN get better playback, but mostly on a maching moving more toward the modern workstation model, with robust and Vegas targeted CPU and Graphix Card. Tech Gage has some Vegas specific speed tests. (a bit old, but still somewhat useful - the NOW cards are the AMD recent offerings, especially those equivalent to 'bang-for-the-buck favorite Nvdia 3070) ) https://techgage.com/article/magix-vegas-pro-18-processor-graphics-card-performance/

https://www.pcguide.com/gpu/guide/best-graphics-card-for-video-editing/

RogerS wrote on 7/16/2022, 7:20 PM

I wouldn't pour money into a computer that's a decade old. The max this computer can support may not be a current card.

I would save up for a new system.

Former user wrote on 7/16/2022, 10:04 PM

On a heavy GPU effects timeline project I found 3080 to be7% faster than 3070. I don't know what current prices are but the price difference would be higher than 7%. This can change, for example using the Vegas Noise reduction(just as an example I know nobody really uses it) Vegas will use 100% GPU, from memory 3080 is 30% more powerful than 3070, so it's possible the 3080 would be 30% faster with Vegas Noise Reduction

3060ti another good card for Vegas, 3060 for the price conscious. Intel CPU's were advancing until around 2016 where performance increases plateau'd If you were using a 6 core series Intel CPU with a Nvidia 1080 from that time period you probably still would be happy. Your computer sounds a lot older

Musicvid wrote on 7/16/2022, 10:24 PM

Looking for an honest, real world answer

Start by answering the questions in the first reply.

Without the information, the real world doesn't exist.

Former user wrote on 7/17/2022, 12:05 AM

BUT, if you were serious about only wanting to upgrade GPU, maybe gtx1650. It is a 75watt MAX card that does not require an extra power cable, at 75W, it is only 55W more than your existing GPU, your existing GPU is listed as only having 5% of the power(performance) of 1650. If you can get one of those cheap, may be ideal. you would still need to check your power supply, but it should be able to deliver the extra 55 watts.

I would say that should make a big difference but with such an old computer, and you've given no details, your CPU could be as much to blame,

NTO2care wrote on 7/17/2022, 6:01 AM

Thanks for the responses! CPU: I7 3770, RAM: 24GB DDR3, Camcorders: Sony HDR-CX260V, Canon HF R800. I render to MPEG-2.

Dexcon wrote on 7/17/2022, 6:29 AM

Sadly, a 3rd generation CPU is three gens below the minimum recommended CPU for HD in Vegas Pro 19 -

https://www.vegascreativesoftware.com/us/specifications/#productMenu

Even if you upgrade the GPU, the weakest link in the chain is still going to be the CPU. With this in mind, seriously consider @RogerS 's advice:

I wouldn't pour money into a computer that's a decade old. The max this computer can support may not be a current card.

I would save up for a new system.

john_dennis wrote on 7/17/2022, 2:44 PM

When I upgraded my system more than five years ago, I moved my i7-3770(k) to function as a media server.

NTO2care wrote on 7/18/2022, 7:15 AM

Thank you one and all who responded. Consider my question answered. My challenge has been to create satisfying video projects using hardware and software within a limited budget. Seeing some of the issues others are battling in this forum using resources far superior to mine, I am pleased. Best wishes to all, in your endeavors.

Seb-o wrote on 7/18/2022, 3:13 PM

Thank you one and all who responded. Consider my question answered. My challenge has been to create satisfying video projects using hardware and software within a limited budget. Seeing some of the issues others are battling in this forum using resources far superior to mine, I am pleased. Best wishes to all, in your endeavors.

The "good news" is that things ARE improving, but not as fast as most would like.Your CPU is not all that bad, I use the same CPU on my second machine. Components ALWAYS are moving toward more powerful AND cheaper, (a caveat would be recent inflated prices of GPUs based on demand via bit coin type minining, and scarcity of chips, we'll suppose) People tend to negate REAL TIME demands place on these machines via Video Editing. There ARE workarounds. Vegas was created in a long gone era, and as such, still relies on a code base that is fairly antiquated, that's how I see it, anyway, as a long time user going back to the early 2000s. It has some inherent strengths that other programs don't duplicate and so I've stayed with it, hoping for some sort of change, especially with Magix as 'owner.' (my suspicion is they are more partners than owners). Again, I've seen some improvement with playback, which is my biggest issue, same as you. But one cannot really expect to get into vid editing "on the cheap" and expect miracles. AMD has always been the preferred card for Vegas, and if you are not video editing with other programs, I'd suggest that route, (AMD Current Offerings) bang-for-the-buck, where spending the $400+ on a card makes sense towards actually producing significant improvement over a card like you have now, and really over some other fairly powerful cards on the market.