For CPU's with Vegas.

A little older, CPU/GPU for Vegas 18.

There's also a user-run benchmarking project where you can see render and playback performance. Feel free to submit a result with your current system, too!

https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/benchmarking-results-continued--118503/

In general I'd go for a modest number of cores with high clock speeds that can be sustained (good thermal performance), an Intel CPU with integrated GPU, enough ram (32GB should be fine), SSD hard drives, and a GPU you can afford given limited availability at the moment.

So far no body replied with what @Ricardo-Bacchin is asking for.
I am also intersted to know as I might upgrade my computer soon.

Yes we did, we provided benchmarks so you can make an objective comparison.

I guess the links where hardware was tested also with Vegas didn't matter either......

@RogerS I do not think so and I belive his questions was simple:

1- Processors with more cores will be more efficient? In other words does more cores (over the recomnded 8 cores) has positve effect on performance or it has limitation like in Adobe?

2- Won't RAM speed improve performance too? Meaning do faster RAM has positve effect on performance or more RAM is better than faster RAM? Is it limited to a maximum of 32GB or more will be better?

- Are NVIDIA boards still better, or better optimized, than AMD boards? Meaning which one is more optimised with Vegas Pro? And finally, does more GPU VRAM has positve effect on performance or it has limitation?

I guess the links where hardware was tested also with Vegas didn't matter either......

Sure it helps but it did not answer everything. For example is 32 cores the limit for Vegas? Becouse I notcied that the 64 core TR performed lower than the 18 core i9.

Also what aboout the speed of VRAM? And is 32GB is the limit for Vegas?

For the CPU and GPU speed and brand questions, the benchmarks are the best answer we have. Click all the links above. I recommend Intel for better decoding compatibility in Vegas at this time, which has nothing to do with core counts or GHz but can have a greater impact on performance.

There is no data on just ram speed.

Ram amounts, including GPU ram are dependent on what you are doing in Vegas. 32 bit 8K HDR or Blackmagic raw? You'll need more video ram. I haven't yet seen obvious limitations with having just 4 GB video ram myself.

The used hardware is not only needed for steady and fast editing/rendering.
At least even important is the way you handle Windows and all kind of sources.
For all my different sources I use (partitions from) SSD drives . On C:/ Windows are only Windows installations plus my programs.

For the CPU and GPU speed and brand questions, the benchmarks are the best answer we have. Click all the links above. I recommend Intel for better decoding compatibility in Vegas at this time, which has nothing to do with core counts or GHz but can have a greater impact on performance.

There is no data on just ram speed.

Ram amounts, including GPU ram are dependent on what you are doing in Vegas. 32 bit 8K HDR or Blackmagic raw? You'll need more video ram. I haven't yet seen obvious limitations with having just 4 GB video ram myself.

Sure benchmarks are great. However, they do not answer everything.

Ricardo, you wrote a lot of points - fine. But the requirements will depend also on the type of footage you wish to edit. It makes a difference if you edit long-GOP footoge or all-i footage, for example. While for long-GOP footage good encoding capabilities like QSV or strong GPUs are helpful, all-i tends to work great with a CPU with a lot of cores.

The other question is, what your budget is. I have decided to invest in a AMD Threadripper 3960X, GTX 3080 Ti with 12 GB ram. The machine has 32 GB RAM too.

This machine was designed for all-i footage (XAVC-I or BRAW mainly), but works also great with long-GOP footage. To go higher then 24 cores would not have added much value.

You should also think about fast ssds, especially if you go for all-i footage.

I wish to edit HDR footage too - so the render speed to HEVC is much more important for me then to H.264. And my GPU supports the rendering to HEVC too.
 

Real world spec follows. I'm very happy with this system after about a month of use. Solid and smooth. My footage is generally 1080p (HD). I believe it will serve my needs for a long time to come. I'm especially happy with playback when using FX like Chroma Key.

PCI Express Video Card: EVGA VCX 10G-P5-3885-KL GeForce RTX 3080 XC3 ULTRA ,,  Intel Core i9-11900K Desktop Processor ,,  MSI Z590-A PRO Desktop Motherboard LGA-1200 ,, Seasonic Power Supply SSR-1000FX Focus Plus 1000W ,, Arctic Liquid Freezer II – 360MM .. Fractal Design case ,, Samsung Solid State Drive MZ-V8P1T0B/AM 980 PRO 1TB PCI Express 4 NVMe M.2 ,, Wundiws 10 .. Vegas Pro 19 Edit

Thank you all for your help! But what True-H wrote sums up well what I wanted to know and nobody knew how to answer. I want to build the setup specifically for photo and video editing, and not include games. For example, RAM memory. For games you don't need more than 16Gb (32Gb maybe for next gen games), but its latency influences a lot on the games FPS. High-speed, low-latency memory is much more expensive than same-speed, higher-latency memory.
If you use DDR 5 with the new speeds, although latencies are very high (more than twice as high as DD4), will you get a better result that justifies the price difference or not?
Xberk, for example, has a great setup, which is also good for 4k games at ultra quality if he wants to.
I don't know how much would be the value of this setup in his country (USA I presume?), but here if I were to make a currency parity at 1x1, 1 USD for each BR Real, it would cost USD 30k for a PC like this. With the value of this PC it is possible to buy a car here (due to the US dollar parity).

Cost on my system was approx $3100 USD here in California.

For video editing you can benefit from > 32GB ram, depending on what you are doing. What is your current ram usage like? I was doing upscales to UHD yesterday with the AI tool and VP was using more than 16GB of ram, so having 32GB saved some caching.

Try to find a study about video editing and ram latency- there is no information specific to Vegas I have ever seen. Video editing shouldn't be as sensitive as gaming. For photo editing it is irrelevant.

Ricardo and True-H, you have given no information about your use scenario or current performance in Vegas so it's impossible to give you specific guidance. Do spend time with the Vegas-specific benchmarks linked to above as you'll see perfectly workable systems with both Intel and AMD CPUs and GPUs. As with everything there are points of diminishing returns and most of us don't need extremely powerful hardware just to edit 4K video.

It's actually exactly like buying a car - the first thing is to define your own requirements.
Then a detailed research of what the market offers (possibly search function here in the forum).
In most cases it is a vehicle below the Lamborghini.....
https://www.lamborghini.com/en-en

I want to build the setup specifically for photo and video editing, and not include games.

I can't give you the tech but that is basically what i did, I don't game i just want to edit & render video as efficiently as poss, so i bought what was recommended, 32core Threadripper, RTX 3090, 256GB of RAM & 2 M.2 drives, whether it's the best i could have got for the money i don't know, but looking at the Benchmark test compared to others it isn't doing better than some of the others. if anything it's similar or worse. 43secs is the best i can get for the 1080p HD render & 10-17fps, avg 13.5fps for the region 1 selected,

Look at the Benchmark that's been mentioned before, on the link is a chart of peoples results inc the graphics card, there's also 13pages of comments on this matter,

https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/benchmarking-results-continued--118503/

Sorry for the time it took me to reply!
As I understand it, people downloaded the same project from Vegas, rendered it, and posted the results that were compiled into this spreadsheet.
From what's there, AMD's GPUs did better, and Intel's CPU did better. Interesting these results, since for example Premiere and DaVinci are more optimized for NVidia, and apparently Vegas is for AMD.

From what's there, AMD's GPUs did better, and Intel's CPU did better. Interesting these results, since for example Premiere and DaVinci are more optimized for NVidia, and apparently Vegas is for AMD.

I think that most likely is true, but it's a flawed benchmark, because NVENC encoding is bugged on VegasPro via MagixAVC. As an example on UHD NVENC render, my bench is 8 seconds faster using voukoder to access NVENC compared to using MagixAVC Nvenc. So if you're looking at these tests to extrapolate GPU processing performance and GPU processing performance with a CPU encode or NVENC via voukoder you will be mislead.

If we had all these NVENC encode people do the same test with Voukoder instead the GPU processing could then become so similar you would just buy Nvidia, due to the better compatibility and faster speeds with other applications, even if the AMD GPU is still a slightly faster. Intel's do seem to be the way to go with Vegas for it's processing speed and it's IGPU (gpu decoding)

It's a realistic benchmark of NVIDIA'S performance today (and the past few years).

If they update drivers and improve performance in Vegas it will be reflected in future benchmarks but who knows when that will be.

A true representation of NVENC under Vegas without using 3rd party plugins, the problem is that it's not possible to extrapolate upon the results, and it's my understanding of why using Hardware encoding was such a great idea. The hardware encoding side of things should not impede the rendering, and this is true for Intel and Amd but not true for Nvidia.

I forget who made the suggestion, but his idea was to render to a cpu codec that won't cause a slowdown for many (unlike AVC) I suggested Apple Prores, but there could be a better codec that uses less resources but not give ridiculously huge files. In my test, My UHD NVENC encode via voukoder is the identical encode time of apple prores422. The problem is people with 4 or 6 core CPU's would most likely slow down their encode times, whereas Hardware encode via Intel or AMD would not, and removes a standardization with lower powered CPU's,

However we can see the problem that arises, Ricardo above extrapolates that AMD works faster as a GPU processor based on the results he see's from the hardware encoding results, and that would work fine if Vegas did not have the slow NVENC encode problem, in reality Ricardo can't extrapolate anything, he can only compare the encoding methods above, when really the benchmark should not be about encoding but rendering of the frames

What I know best is about vector editing programs (Corel) and photos (Photoshop). I just started doing video editing, so I confess that I'm still learning! I just set up the computer but it's still standing there, serving as an ornament on the table. I still haven't received the LGA 1700 bracket to install the NZXT AIO WC (still in transit).
I didn't buy the GPU, and once I turn it on I'll probably use it for a while without it (I'm going to use the built-in Intel UHD 770 graphics card).
I didn't know this voukoder. When I finally turn on the PC I will test it.
As for the GPU, I'll stay with NVidia.

What I know best is about vector editing programs (Corel) and photos (Photoshop). I just started doing video editing, so I confess that I'm still learning!

The problem is what you said and attributed to the benchmarks is exactly what is expected from a reasonable person(given the limited information), you should not come to any other conclusion if Vegas worked properly with NVENC encoder via MagixAVC. In reality NVENC(MagixAVC) slows down your CPU and GPU from processing as fast as it can, and there's no reason anyone should be expected to know that, which is why the benchmark is flawed as far as a tool to work out what CPU and GPU works best with Vegas,

A more accurate comparison could be made with Nvidia GPU's using voukoder for hardware encoding instead of MagixAVC, but that's going to confuse people, if there's no explanation, and also it would need to be tested to see if Intel and AMD GPU systems also speedup using Voukoder, the answer should be no, their results remain the same, it's only Nvidia systems that speed up with hardware rendering using Voukoder,

Good CPU choice, and Nvidia is great for compatibility with other software, just not Vegas with MagixAVC/HEVC nor it's GPU DECODER, but you have the UHD770 so no problems there. As far as GPU processing though which is the main concern for many, Nvidia looks to be so similar to AMD you wouldn't buy AMD based on a performance increase but due to availability or pricing