Not sure if any of these syncing technologies matter for video editing?

A 12th generation Intel iGPU will work with any monitor you can physically connect it to.

That's what I thought!

@Howard-Vigorita?

with fx = 12 min
no fx = 4 min

Has something changed in recent Intel generations that makes them run at 100%, or is it some kind of failed setup on my part that my CPU jumps between 40-75% on the graph and never reaches 100%?

My guess is that you have another bottleneck that is keeping the CPU from working all-out. Are you filling up ram or VRAM, hitting HDD transfer limits, etc? Limits to the engine in your version of VEGAS?

You could also try Voukoder with x264 as that should really hit the CPU at 100%. https://www.voukoder.org/

@KKS Around 1.5 minutes on my systems at 100% cpu vrs 12 minutes on yours at 75%, even if I use nothing but my igpu. A better cpu should help you quite a bit. I agree with @RogerS that something else in your system is making trouble... you might need to start pulling stuff to hunt down the culprit.

I have a great monitor but no gpu sync. Do not need gpu-sync to edit and view. But I get jumpy playback with multicam projects with high-performance Nvidia and Amd gpus. I'm told that's what gpu-sync is designed to fix. Fwiw, Intel Arcs are much lower in performance but creamy smooth without gpu-sync. Maybe they don't really need it. And, as you pointed out, Intel doesn't seem to support Freesync over hdmi... only DP which would be a problem for me.

with fx = 12 min
no fx = 4 min

Invest in a good (nvidia) GPU. At the minimum a 3070/80 card, with 8GB RAM. Or better. I suggest nvidia because we see again and again issues with AMD drivers (even if enough people will disagree with that).
 

But Vegas will more and more utilize the GPU for more and more formats - both decoding, fx calculation and rendering.

with fx = 12 min
no fx = 4 min

Invest in a good (nvidia) GPU. At the minimum a 3070/80 card, with 8GB RAM. Or better. I suggest nvidia because we see again and again issues with AMD drivers (even if enough people will disagree with that).
 

But Vegas will more and more utilize the GPU for more and more formats - both decoding, fx calculation and rendering.

Oh my... these 3080 cards seem expensive and monstrously large!
I thought even the lowest GTX 1050 would make things faster than just having an iGPU, but maybe I'm wrong?
Is there anything much cheaper & more compact from the below list that will still be good / cost-effective?

GeForce RTX 2080 Ti
GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER
GeForce RTX 2080
GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER
GeForce RTX 2070
GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER
GeForce RTX 2060

GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER
GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
GeForce GTX 1660
GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1630

GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
GeForce GTX 1080
GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
GeForce GTX 1070
GeForce GTX 1060
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
GeForce GTX 1050

Tomorrow I will be visiting a store where I will be able to test a PC with one of these GPUs (not sure which);
If I understand correctly the only thing I need to do to take advantage of a GPU installed inside a computer is to find the option in my Vegas called "GPU acceleration of video processing" and select the local GPU from the dropdown list, is that correct? Or should I also render the video in some specific format for Vegas to use the GPU and not CPU?

I have a GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER from 4 years ago and it will need updating- along with the rest of the computer - to something more modern about this time next year. While some may not agree, many have advised for years that a full computer upgrade may be advisable every 5 to 7 years to keep up with newer technology (not just Vegas Pro) - and this does not mean to the top of the range computers.

I have a GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER from 4 years ago and it will need updating- along with the rest of the computer - to something more modern about this time next year. While some may not agree, many have advised for years that a full computer upgrade may be advisable every 5 to 7 years to keep up with newer technology (not just Vegas Pro) - and this does not mean to the top of the range computers.

I'm not sure if my interpretation is correct, because your posts are quite vague to me, but I don't subscribe to this school of thought. I am an artist and what matters to me and the people who watch my art is... the art. The emotions that come from it. Or the opportunity to learn something that transforms your life. We don't care about the latest technology and we don't care about specs that exceed the limits of human experience. Pixels, resolutions, bits, hertzs are always of secondary importance. As long as the video is not pixelated and the audio is not noisy, it's all fine.

The issue is more that VEGAS drops hardware support after a certain number of years. The last time was with VEGAS Pro 18. If the minimum specs change I'd upgrade hardware or just not update VEGAS if you're happy with your setup.

I also have a 2080 Super and don't see a need to upgrade any time soon, at least for what I do. I got a good deal on a used one two years ago. It should be under 300USD today. I would get something of this class as a good bargain. A 3080 has much higher power requirements and is still pricey.The 4070 etc uses less power but costs too much (for me).

Your GPU can speed rendering if you use a NVENC template. It can also speed decoding of many AVC and HEVC files.

For hardware power comparisons please see the benchmarks in my signature. You can change the view to only see NVIDIA, etc.

For hardware power comparisons please see the benchmarks in my signature. You can change the view to only see NVIDIA, etc.

So at position 198 there's a person using i5-9400F and no GPU, and their render time = 1:30.

And at 184 there's a person with i7-14700k + rtx 4060 and their render time  = 1:23.

Person 184 has a much more powerful CPU + GPU yet their time is only 7 seconds better? How come?

(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b3ggVifKsuT-cp2kQHjum_KnQ4-2jBmUIvzmu7BQZ34/edit?gid=699797034#gid=699797034)

The issue is more that VEGAS drops hardware support after a certain number of years. The last time was with VEGAS Pro 18. If the minimum specs change I'd upgrade hardware or just not update VEGAS if you're happy with your setup.

I also have a 2080 Super and don't see a need to upgrade any time soon, at least for what I do. I got a good deal on a used one two years ago. It should be under 300USD today. I would get something of this class as a good bargain. A 3080 has much higher power requirements and is still pricey.The 4070 etc uses less power but costs too much (for me).

Your GPU can speed rendering if you use a NVENC template. It can also speed decoding of many AVC and HEVC files.

Yes! I have a variety of options like you say. But I just need to understand what is the wisest move to reach the shortest rendering times and the smoothest timeline playback.

184, UHD encode

198, FHD encode

not an apples to apples comparison.

184, UHD encode

198, FHD encode

not an apples to apples comparison.

Oops... looks like an oversight on my part! But that got me wondering... if you guys wanted to create a benchmark and compare your machines, why didn't you perform the test / render the file with exactly the same set of settings? Why did person 184 choose to render the project in a larger format?

@KKS Seeing your post of performance without fx, I just re-ran your test. Frankly speaking, I agree with the advice of @Wolfgang S. But that advice is more general and doesn't seem to apply to your unusual recording media and test project. And without fx, the render takes longer. Likely because your fx chain removes all the low level content like shadows and darker textures.

Here's what I got with your test video just now on my laptop with and without fx. Since we already know the 3060 isn't much different on your test, I only used the igpu. I added some Voukoder x264 renders which you might want to try yourself... I used x264 crf which is popular here but had to juggle crfs to match MC vbr:

all fx: 1m 31.96s MC; 1m 4.55s Vouk crf21.55
no fx: 1m 38.92s MC; 1m 10s Vouk crf20.32

My Voukoder renders use the same MC 1080p frame and project size you illustrated earlier. Since the MC default render includes an audio track, I did the same for Voukoder. It's curious that the Vegas developer's 4k render is quicker than hd.

@KKS said: "I am an artist and what matters to me and the people who watch my art is... the art."

You've already wasted more time with this effort than it will ever be worth to you since you're not going to get a job at Best Buy in the Geek Squad or seek employment as a Windows server technician.

I'll say it one more time. "Just duplicate the system in my signature and move on with your life."

😵

I am an artist and what matters to me and the people who watch my art is... the art. The emotions that come from it. Or the opportunity to learn something that transforms your life. We don't care about the latest technology and we don't care about specs that exceed the limits of human experience. Pixels, resolutions, bits, hertzs are always of secondary importance. As long as the video is not pixelated and the audio is not noisy, it's all fine.

But you want fastest renders....

To me it seems you want to produce art at no cost....

184, UHD encode

198, FHD encode

not an apples to apples comparison.

Oops... looks like an oversight on my part! But that got me wondering... if you guys wanted to create a benchmark and compare your machines, why didn't you perform the test / render the file with exactly the same set of settings? Why did person 184 choose to render the project in a larger format?

 

This benchmark predated me and has more options than I think are useful. I did create filter views so you can only look at FHD or UHD. I also color coded them so you can see this at a glance.

The newer VP20 benchmark has fewer options so is easier to compare.

@KKS said: "I am an artist and what matters to me and the people who watch my art is... the art."

You've already wasted more time with this effort than it will ever be worth to you since you're not going to get a job at Best Buy in the Geek Squad or seek employment as a Windows server technician.

I'll say it one more time. "Just duplicate the system in my signature and move on with your life."

@john_dennis
It's funny how the lofty-sounding art phrase triggers some people!
But you don't understand, so I'll say it one more time:)
This topic is / was about helping me understand what decisions I should be taking when buying a new computer and whether I am understanding CPU benchmarking in the correct way. Or, to put it differently, if it's possible to improve rendering times without turning the whole workstation and my workflow upside down.

It sounds to me like it's you who wants to "move on with your life" instead of taking part in this discusion which seems pointless / irritating to you. Judging by your avatar, if it's real, you're probably much older than me and much more experienced in this field. I get it. Just don't be patronizing.

So I have this advice: stop, because you're not being helpful. I don't want to duplicate your system because I'm not like you and I don't do things in the same fashion as you. And you have no instruments whatsoever to measure if my effort will ever be worth it.

But you want fastest renders....

To me it seems you want to produce art at no cost....

@3POINT Here we go again... You don't understand it either. I don't want "fast" renders. I want FASTER redners than my current renders.

Produce something at no cost? This is such a black-or-white mindset... We can never understand each other fully, but I thought it was clear that I don't want the most expensive components as well as the cheapest. I want to find the golden mean, if you've ever heard of such thing:)

I'll say this: some people just get it and are really helpful ( @RogerS and @Howard-Vigorita to name a few), and I'm grateful to them. Other people have never been helpful, and start becoming unkind. Tip: taking part in this talk is not obligatory!

 

@3POINT Here we go again... You don't understand it either. I don't want "fast" renders. I want FASTER redners than my current renders.

Produce something at no cost? This is such a black-or-white mindset... We can never understand each other fully, but I thought it was clear that I don't want the most expensive components as well as the cheapest. I want to find the golden mean, if you've ever heard of such thing:)
 

Every PC which has better hardware than yours will render FASTER. You never stated how FASTER it should be and at what costs. There's no golden midway. Look in your wallet and spend the money you want to spend for a new PC, it will always be much faster than your current.

 

@3POINT Here we go again... You don't understand it either. I don't want "fast" renders. I want FASTER redners than my current renders.

Produce something at no cost? This is such a black-or-white mindset... We can never understand each other fully, but I thought it was clear that I don't want the most expensive components as well as the cheapest. I want to find the golden mean, if you've ever heard of such thing:)
 

Every PC which has better hardware than yours will render FASTER. You never stated how FASTER it should be and at what costs. There's no golden midway. Look in your wallet and spend the money you want to spend for a new PC, it will always be much faster than your current.

"Is a car with 5 times more horsepower 5 times faster?" - remember?:)
Is a new PC much faster than a current PC only because it's new? I don't think so.
Better advice would go like this:

Vegas Pro performance can be impacted positively or negatively depending on these factors, and the combinations between them:
- CPU (high priority)
- GPU (high priority)
- RAM (low priority?)
- dynamic RAM preview setting,
- codecs selected for rednering, etc

And each of these items on that list could have a short annotation, like:
- CPU line X is preferred to CPU line Y for whatever reason (or there's no difference at all);
- nvidia is sugegsted due to issues with AMD drivers;
- dynamic RAM preview should be set to no more than half of the capacity not to throttle the system and its background apps; etc

I have not found a shortlist like that on the internet and that's why I arrived here (to waste your time;)

OK I think this is the best thing on the subject right now: https://techgage.com/article/magix-vegas-pro-18-processor-graphics-card-performance/

@KKS

As requested.

My PC 2: .. 0m:47.51s