...I had a reproducible vegas pro 14 crash by letting the PC just repeating in the preview window some 50P HD file with a newblue PIP effect....

...Only after putting the Dynamic RAM preview to zero I had stopped all crashes...

Thanks for this. I moved this tip from the troubleshooting rendering FAQ post to the more general troubleshooting stability FAQ post (which is still referred to by the rendering post).

I did some rendering tests with my own video of about 15 s 1080 50P which contains heavy use of newblue plugins, pip, stil, keyframing, speed increase etc.. with various setting of GPU used and either 0 or 200 (default) dynamic ram setting:

GPU = NVIDEA TITAN-x

• 2.26 s - Dynamic ram = 200
• 2.38 s - Dynamic ram = 0
• 2.21 s - Dynamic ram = 200
• 2.38 s - Dynamic ram = 0

GPU = i7 4790K

• 2.16 s - Dynamic ram = 200
• 2.43 s - Dynamic ram = 0
• 2.13 s - Dynamic ram = 200
• 2.43 s - Dynamic ram = 0

GPU disabled

• 2.11 s - Dynamic ram = 200
• 2.35 s - Dynamic ram = 0
• 2.09 s - Dynamic ram = 200
• 2.37 s - Dynamic ram = 0

Something I noticed is that having the GPU active, rendering with dynamic ram at 0 has consistent render duration, whilst at 200 the render duration varied with each render. In general, render is always faster with dynamic ram at 200. I am not sure why that would be, unless the memory is used from time to time by the rendering. As I have occasional crashes in edit mode using newblue plugins with Dynamic ram at 200, and none with 0, I gladly trade in faster rendering by more stability, also the non-varying nature of the rendering time with dynamic ram at zero may point to more stability (just guessing here!)  

In an earlier post I made this comment about the likelihood that a six-core machine with the RX480 would be enough for UHD video:

"I updated the John Rofrano post with the results of the Sapphire Nitro RX 480 8GB card. While render times improved from my original scores and timeline performance is good for Full HD, the whole process is underwhelming for the Canon XC15 4K media (16-20 fps on Draft Auto with CPUs only working at half of capacity). I expect to be underwhelmed with the i7-6850 upgrade, also."

So far, after the first few hours of testing, I am underwhelmed with Preview Performance for 4K video in Sony Vegas Pro 13-453 after spending a couple thousand dollars on more current hardware. I'll do more thorough tests after I save this system image.

Now, with the 4K media on the timeline, the preview is 16-20 fps in Best/Full with the Project Properties set to 1920x1080-29.97p.

Bart Has anyone tried a NVIDIA "QUADRO" GPU card? They are suppose to have algorithms better suited for video encoding.

Bart Has anyone tried a NVIDIA "QUADRO" GPU card? They are suppose to have algorithms better suited for video encoding.

From here:

NVIDIA Quadro - Unless you specifically need NVIDIA 3D Vision live preview, which requires a Quadro card, or (debateably) 10-bit montitoring, AMD Radeon gives more acceleration for less expense. Choice of driver may make a huge difference in Quadro performance (example).

Much of the time, the Pro cards run the same GPU chip as the desktops. The manufacturer gimps the desktop models with lessor display hardware, drivers that do not allow certain modes of operation, or drivers that are optimized for gaming modes.

Pro hardware will most likely be assembled with the chips that best pass all quality assessment from a specific manufacturing run. Pro drivers are tested more with professional software applications, than the latest game modes. This professional software might be NLEs, but more likely government High Performance Computing, CAD, and the needs for major media producers that buy large shipments of these devices.

Thanks for the testing, John.

Conclusion

The i7-3770k and RX480 combination is not ready for 4K.

That is probably highly dependent on which flavour of 4K, and which codec Vegas uses to decode it (see bottom of file properties window to find out). If that Canon footage is getting decoded by mxfplug3.dll for example, it might be a lot less snappy than, for example, compoundplug.dll decoding 4K AVC footage.

The Canon appears (to Vegas at least) to shoot XAVC. That's the all-Intra flavor. It's decoded by mxfxavc.dll in Vegas Pro 13-453.  

General
  Name: A002C012_161120PE_CANON.MXF
  Folder: F:\_Photos\2016\2016-11-20 SMST Gobbler Classic\20161121115823\CONTENTS\CLIPS001
  Type: Sony XAVC MXF
 

Streams
  Video: 00:03:33.480, 29.970 fps progressive, 3840x2160x32, XAVC
  Audio: 00:03:33.480, 48,000 Hz, 16 Bit, Stereo, Linear PCM

Other metadata
  UMID: 060a2b340101010501010d43-13-000000-cd2281cd127705800000850002ec0174
  Source UMID: 060a2b340101010501010d43-13-000000-cd2281cc127705800000850002ec0174

Plug-In
  Name: mxfxavc.dll
  Folder: C:\Program Files\Sony\Vegas Pro 13.0\FileIO Plug-Ins\mxfxavc
  Format: Sony XAVC / XAVC S
  Version: Version 13.0 (Build 453) 64-bit
  Company: Sony Creative Software Inc.

Has anyone tried vegas with the new Nvidea Titan-x (the pascal version) not the Titan-x (the older maxwell version which I have). It is suppose to blow away the Nvidea 1080 ...

Has anyone tried vegas pro 14 with XFX Radeon Pro Duo 8 Gt HBM ?

Hi!

Can you recommend an RX480 card to buy ? I would like to buy one used for my SONY VEGAS PRO 13

Will a card work ? like MSI AMD RADEON RX480 GAMING X 4gb

Im looking for a smooth playback in the timeline .

Thanks

@max-f A used AMD card is probably OK for Vegas 13 timeline playback. If you think on upgrading to Vegas 15 or the new 16 which is out now, you may want to invest in NVIDEA as it seems better supported than AMD. And the NVIDEA RTX 2080ti with real time ray-tracing is a few weeks from the shops (but it will set you back around 1200 Euro...)

@max-f A used AMD card is probably OK for Vegas 13 timeline playback. If you think on upgrading to Vegas 15 or the new 16 which is out now, you may want to invest in NVIDEA as it seems better supported than AMD. And the NVIDEA RTX 2080ti with real time ray-tracing is a few weeks from the shops (but it will set you back around 1200 Euro...)

What makes you think NViDIA is better supported? OpenCL is still better with AMD cards and VCE is now supported too.

@max-f A used AMD card is probably OK for Vegas 13 timeline playback. If you think on upgrading to Vegas 15 or the new 16 which is out now, you may want to invest in NVIDEA as it seems better supported than AMD. And the NVIDEA RTX 2080ti with real time ray-tracing is a few weeks from the shops (but it will set you back around 1200 Euro...)

Well I dont want to pay 1000 or more dollars/euros Im looking for an affordable card (used cheaper) so I can edit my videos easy. I need a good playback with good framerates in my preview window.

Ive heard that RX480 is better than RX580 . thats why Im looking for a recommendation. on Which brands to look at : MSI, asus, XFX, or original AMD card

what do you guys think

I use an Asus Radeon Fury X and it does very well in Vegas, VCE rendering and timeline performance are excellent. Such a card should be around $300 on eBay. Depending on the complexity of your projects, A R9 390X may actually be sufficient but I am not sure if it does support VCE.

 

What makes you think NViDIA is better supported? OpenCL is still better with AMD cards and VCE is now supported too.

@OldSmoke

I am looking at the whole picture here, not only Vegas, but also the plugins, and their HW accelerated support which I get the impression it is more and more biased towards NVIDEA support. This is probably due to the fact that NVIDEA dominates both the high end video cards for PC's, the complete laptop scene and the gaming scene. I do not even mention scientific research, AI, self driving cars (Tesla). With regard to the gaming scene: according to Steam’s hardware survey revealed that 85% of Steam gamers use Nvidia GPUs, while a meager 8.9% of Steam gamers use AMD cards... I assume a large number of Vegas users are gamers to show off their exploits, so it was no surprise that NVENC HW encoding got first love from Vegas 15 much sooner than AMD. It makes much more sense for a company like Vegas to (better) support the most dominant hardware out there.

Nvidea cards compared to AMD (if matched for the same graphical power) tend to dissipate less heat and as such run more silent and save precious energy (a bit beside the point but I could not resist :).

Coming back to OpenCL, is it really still the case that AMD is better? Things evolve, and clichés like AMD is better than NVIDEA could be sticking around longer than warranted for as following benchmark may reveal:

http://browser.geekbench.com/opencl-benchmarks

P.s. I am not a NVIDEA fan boy, but had ATI video cards in the past, and build PC's with AMD CPU before the Intel core duo era...

@bitman Still, if someone asks which card is better for Vegas, I will still recommend an AMD card. You also seem to rely on an old “image” of what AMD/ATI was what it is now. AMD has vastly improved their driver and hardware and cards like the latest VEGA series with HBM2 are exeptional cards. Their workstation cards are also fantastic and I might well get a WX8200 to finally get into the 10bit game.

Granted, I don’t play games and my editing machine is just that, an editing machine. For my line of work I don’t need fancy plug ins, Vegas has sufficient tools as long as someone is willing to learn them; many editors prefer the “one click” solution. The only power hungry plugin I use is NeatVideo and my tests have shown that even my old Fury X is faster than the GTX1080i I had for a short while.

https://techgage.com/article/performance-testing-redshift-blender-magix-vegas/

Scroll to graph near end of article. Looks to me that Rx580 would be a good sweet spot for Vegas.

Thoughts?

I'm eyeballing the Radeon Pro WX5100, not much more money but you get far better performance and the ability to have 10 bit output on all supported apps, fullscreen or not. Seems to be Vegas friendly and does pretty good at C4D ProRender as well.