5 minutes of Video with levels and sharp filters. One small part with multitrack and blur.

(Default) Opencl Memory = 384 - Seconds = 199
(384+33% of 384) Opencl Memory = 511 - Seconds = 200
(66% of 1024) Opencl Memory = 682 - Seconds = 193
(Max Memory = 1024) Opencl Memory = 1024 - Seconds = 191
(1024*33%+1024) Opencl Memory = 1362 - Seconds = 245

Best results = Max Memory

Did some more tests with 1 and 0 and had 205 and 204 seconds.

192 which is half 384 was a little bit slower than 384 by 2 seconds.

Multiple renders can return + or - a second or two.

Still 1024 gives the best consistent results and anything greater than the max of ram gives consistently poor results.

A Funny Thing Happened to Me on My Way Through the Forum:

I use an NVIDIA GTX 560 TI. Raising the OpenCL Memory Size Filter from the default 384 to 1.024 didn't change a thing. However, I found that changing one of the following parameter defaults gave a suprising result:

OpenCL Vendor 1 = NVIDIA Corporation
OpenCL Vendor ! Old Driver = 270
OpenCL Vendor 1 New Driver = 285.58

Changing the last parameter value from 285.58 to 334.89 resulted in a significant speed rise! A title sequence with lots of effects was all at once rendered in 7:55 instead of 8:32. I tried it twice with the same results. Can anyone reproduce this?

By the way, there are other vendor parameters but their function isn't clear to me.

Lou

I just looked at the internal settings and the "new driver" is also set at 285.58 (which I have never had installed on my system). I manually changed it to 334.89, but there doesn't seem to be any difference in the playback or render speed on my system. Does anyone know how Vegas uses this setting? Or if I should just leave it at 285.58?

There was a change in the drivers between 270 which is the earliest that works for GPU acceleration and 285 and higher numbers. Setting it to 334.89 will tell VP that any driver from 270 to 334.89 has to use the values related to 270. It didn't make any difference on my system either because I am now on driver 334.89 but it could make a difference if you are on 332.xx or any other driver lower then 334.89. In fact, I got a slightly slower render performance when set to 334.89; about -3%.

Neither of these parameters make a material difference in MC MP4 rendering here. Render with OpenCL is selected.

SVP 12 B770
Win 7 Pro
GTX 660ti with 2GB RAM
Driver 334.89

dxdy

For Nvidia Cards you should select CUDA in the MC AVC template, not OpenCL.

"For Nvidia Cards you should select CUDA in the MC AVC template, not OpenCL. "

I am using the Sony AVC to mp4 with 5,000 kbps with settings set for auto and am getting results.

The reason why I use this is because this is also what I use for my mp4 videos which I upload to Vimeo. It would not make sense for me to test with something I do not use. Besides MC AVC to mp4 at 5,000 kbps is garbage at best! Why would anyone want to use that? Before Vegas 12, Sony AVC to mp4 used to be the same garbage as MC AVC to mp4.

If I want to have a smaller file size with mp4 by using a lower bit rate then I would use the HandBrake method which would still benefit from what we are doing here at least on the Vegas part. With HandBrake itself there is no difference. I know because I tested it.

Because Vimeo recompresses my uploaded videos I prefer to use 5,000 kbps for the maximum quality without making my upload file overly huge.

YouTube recompresses the videos too much and is no longer worth the effort for me. Besides, I do not want ads in Church services!

!!!FAIL!!!

Ok, I used two TV's to test with HDMI for the second monitor. I have a 19" and a 32" one. I also have an extra computer monitor to test as well.

The 19" monitor will look bad because the image on it will look like it has been zoomed in approx. 50%. No setting changes in Windows, NVidia or Vegas will fix this. Even Windows Media Player will look bad!

With the 32" TV the display will look perfect with Windows Media Player but the Vegas layout will be 100% screwed-up! That means the timeline and all of Vegas Windows will be a horrible mess! I cannot clean it back up either even with default settings.

Trying to display the video using the external monitor with the 32" TV the display will be halfway between the two monitors and will not be full screen.

I went back to using the extra computer monitor and did an ALT+D0 in Vegas and all is fine again.

Using Windows 7 and the 296.10 driver I have none of these problems. Apparently the latest NVidia drivers and/or Windows 8.1 are not fully compatible with my 560ti when using the HDMI port as the second monitor.

The extra computer monitor is too large to use because I can only place it on my desk and I cannot move it back far enough to see the display properly. The 19" TV is barely small enough to use on my desk if I move my chair way back. The 32" TV looks great on another desk farther away. It also gives me the best idea as to how my videos will look.

With all of the other S-t-u-p-I-d-cies of Windows 8.1, I have had it with that pathetic junk!!! I am going back to Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 can rot in you know where!!!


Edit: I tried an earlier NVidia driver and still a no-go.

"For Nvidia Cards you should select CUDA in the MC AVC template, not OpenCL. "

Tried it both ways. CUDA was 2 seconds faster than OpenCL in a 2 minute-long render.

Update:

I wanted to make sure if the problem is Windows 8.1 and/or the NVidia driver.

I installed the latest NVidia driver in Windows 7 and everything works fine. Windows 7 is a little bit faster with the latest NVidia driver but is now only 2% slower than Windows 8.1 instead of 4% to 5% slower. This is with 1024 in the settings.

So if it were not for the mess that Windows 8.1 causes all would be fine. Just for kicks I changed the memory from 1024 to 384 and that made Windows 7 approx. 7% slower.

I finally upgraded from build 714 to build 770. And that makes a difference as well.

Each time I change the settings in Vegas I always close the Vegas test project and then re-open it before making my next render test.

So with the newest driver and build 770 I can get within 2% of what I can with Windows 8.1 without the horrible mess. So build 770+Latest NVidia driver on Windows 7 = approx. 7% faster.

So I will stay with Windows 7, Vegas build 770 and the latest NVidia driver.

Forget Windows hate.1. LOL!!!

Vidmus

I am not a Windows 8.1 lover at all but it works fine here. I have 3x 1920x1080 Samsung monitors via DVI-D and one 32" HDTV via HDMI an my 2x GTX580 and it all works fine under Win8.1 with the latest driver. I did however update the OS including the latest .Net 4.5 and anything else that was offered. I had initially issues with a "garbage" preview window but that went away with the latest updates. My Win7 is still a little bit faster then Win8.1 and I will certainly stick with Win7 until 9 or as long as it takes for MS to make a professional OS again. I know, I can run Classic Shell on it and I do but the desktop interface is all "flat" like Win2000 used to be; what a progress.

The Windows updates cleared-up the Vegas mess but still required setting my external monitor/TV to an oddball size of 900x600 to make the display fit using Vegas. 1920x1080 works fine for Windows Media Player. Go figure.

I did another render test and it was slower again. So I am done with Windows 8.1 for now.

The one GOOD thing out of all of this, is I can finally use the latest NVidia driver with Vegas and Windows 7. And it is now 7% faster with the 1024 trick!

Windows 8 boot goes back on the shelf to collect more dust.

The other thread asks Windows 8 or Windows 7? On my system it is definitely Windows 7!

Thanks much!
Danny Fye
www.dannyfye.com
https://vimeo.com/channels/cocnwp

I changed my GTX460 to no noticeable change in rendering time with GPU on than before with the GPU off. The card is 756MB

MikeyDH

This "trick" so far only works on the 334.89 driver also try setting it at 756MB fro your card.

I am using the updated driver and changed the CL memory size filter to the memory size of the card which is 756MB. Am I missing a step?

Is it possible that this trick only works for the 500 series of NVidia cards?

win 8.1, Nvidia Titan here, tried some settings, no noticeable changes.
granted, I didn't do any sort of scientific testing...

whether it improves 2% or 10%, rendering is still something to walk away from and go do something else for a while.

>whether it improves 2% or 10%, rendering is still something to walk away from and go do something else for a while.

Like catch up on the ever informative and entertaining Sony Vegas forum ;-).

/jerry

Is there a benchmark render test that everyone here uses so that I can determine if I'm getting the most out of my GPU and system in general? Seems like I remember a file, but I can't seem to find it on here.....?

We all use the SCS Benchmark project for performance tests.

I remembered this thread about setting the OpenCL Filter memory size: apparently the preferences are either not copied or only partially copied for an update from a previous version. I had to reset the default value here to my memory available and got the increased performance again!