Not sure if your question is a) whether SSD is better than HDD, or b) whether it's good to have a 3rd drive for projects (in addition to OS and media drives).

Can't really answer (b), although I do have OS, media, and projects on 3 separate drives and have had for many years. I don't know if it's really helping, it's just the way I have all my data (except media for video) on a separate drive from my OS. I think once a project is loaded, it's not accessed again until you or the program saves it.

To answer (a), CPU/GPU would would be the bottleneck for render times, not storage read/write. Not sure about DVDA disc prep but if the main part of that is rendering then again an SSD wouldn't help. But SSDs should help the general responsiveness of your computer, in quicker copying and moving of files, and in lower power consumption, noise and longevity of the drive.

Thanks Nick - to clarify my question - I wanted to know if Vegas will render faster if all the render media is located on an SSD project drive as opposed to an old fashioned HDD. I use my SSD system drive for OS and programs only. All my media files are located on my old fashioned 4Tb HDD.

I am rendering a lot of material now and can't keep up with all the projects I need to render. So I'm looking to see if there is anything I can do with my current system that will increase render times significantly. From what you're saying it looks like the answer is "no".

If upgrades like a SSD project drive won't improve render times I'm also thinking about getting a new system. As I see some of these so-called "video workstations" seem to have SSD project drives I'm wondering if the SSD component is really worth the money. Would I be better off with the faster CPU/GPU in a new machine but just use a traditional HDD.

In terms of the basic editing and workflow process I'm happy enough with my current setup. It's the render times that are killing me.

you don't say what your tl format is?

like nick i have ssd system and two 7.2k internal drives that i use for bouncing material around. (projects are stored on ex usb hd's once finished.

i'm working in hd and have never experienced a 'bottleneck' with any drives. 4k might well be another matter though...

I just installed an SSD as a project drive. Using VPro 13, on a 5960x with 16GB RAM and AMD R9-290, I evaluated various Vegas aspects using SSD instead of HDD. My source files are Canon MXF (mpeg 2) at 50 Mbps. These are big files. 2GB for 5 minutes..

1. Rendering - No benefit. I tried rendering MainConcept MP4 from SSD to HDD, HDD to SSD, HDD to HDD and SDD to SDD, all the render times were the same. No FX applied. Use GPU was on.

2. Preview performance - no change.

3. Building audio waveform - 15% faster with the source files on SSD. If you are rushing to make an overnight deadline, this might buy me 20 minutes when working on a 2 hour-long program. I don't think it's a big deal because I don't do all-nighters any more.

Overall, I would say it wasn't worth the extra cost, despite being quieter and using less power. YMMV depending on the format of your source files and what you are rendering to.

2. Try a multitrack project (3-4 or more video track) where seek time is a problem with hdd.

I am rendering a lot of material now and can't keep up with all the projects I need to render. So I'm looking to see if there is anything I can do with my current system that will increase render times significantly. From what you're saying it looks like the answer is "no".

Not at all. If fast AVC rendering is what you need most, you could try these:

1. Get an Nvidia GTX580 off eBay and render MainConcept AVC with "Encode mode" set to CUDA.

2. Get an AMD Radeon HD6970 off eBay and render MainConcept AVC with "Encode mode" set to OpenCL.

As I understand it, those are the last models of Nvidia/AMD GPUs that are compatible with GPU-rendering using the MainConcept AVC encoder, and the speed improvement is still impressive. You may need old drivers for each to work properly with Vegas, and in VP14 builds 161-189 you will need to reveal the GPU rendering option in the internal preferences. You might be able to fit one of those cards alongside your existing card if you have room in your PC and just use it for rendering.

You should research that advice a bit further before spending the money, because I'm not 100% confident in it, especially with regard to an HD6970 being faster than R9 290X. If you have a significant number of GPU-enabled FX then the extra speed of the later card in accelerating video processing might outweigh the rendering acceleration of the earlier card. Start here and here.

3. Try frameserving to an external x264 GUI such as Handbrake or MeGUI. There is an automated way to do that here: http://www.vegasvideo.de/vegas-2-handbrake-en (needs a mod for VP14 ). It will give you significantly better quality per bit than the native Vegas encoders, and my CPU-only x264 renders in MeGUI feel really fast.

I am rendering a lot of material now and can't keep up with all the projects I need to render. So I'm looking to see if there is anything I can do with my current system that will increase render times significantly. From what you're saying it looks like the answer is "no".

Not at all. If fast AVC rendering is what you need most, you could try these:

1. Get an Nvidia GTX580 off eBay and render MainConcept AVC with "Encode mode" set to CUDA.

2. Get an AMD Radeon HD6970 off eBay and render MainConcept AVC with "Encode mode" set to OpenCL.

As I understand it, those are the last models of Nvidia/AMD GPUs that are compatible with GPU-rendering using the MainConcept AVC encoder, and the speed improvement is still impressive. You may need old drivers for each to work properly with Vegas, and in VP14 builds 161-189 you will need to reveal the GPU rendering option in the internal preferences. You might be able to fit one of those cards alongside your existing card if you have room in your PC and just use it for rendering.

You should research that advice a bit further before spending the money, because I'm not 100% confident in it, especially with regard to an HD6970 being faster than R9 290X. If you have a significant number of GPU-enabled FX then the extra speed of the later card in accelerating video processing might outweigh the rendering acceleration of the earlier card. Start here and here.

3. Try frameserving to an external x264 GUI such as Handbrake or MeGUI. There is an automated way to do that here: http://www.vegasvideo.de/vegas-2-handbrake-en (needs a mod for VP14 ). It will give you significantly better quality per bit than the native Vegas encoders, and my CPU-only x264 renders in MeGUI feel really fast.

Thanks Nick. As it happens I recently changed from a Nvidia GTX 560Ti to the R9 290X. I ran a series of tests and the R9 290X gave significantly faster render times - but even still I can't keep up with my workload. Just for information here are some of the test render times I posted in another thread:

Project 1

Original Media: Mp4, 1920x1080, 29.97fps, 3500kbps
Project Length: 41 minutes 29 seconds

Render Times

Nvidia GTX 560Ti  1.23.35
R9 290X                1.16.15

Project 2

Original Media: Mp4, 1080x720, 29.97fps,4000kbps
Project Length: 34 minutes 47 seconds

Render Times

Nvidia GTX 560Ti    2.10.17
R9 290X                  1.08.18

Project 3

Original Media: Mp4, 1920x1080, 29.97fps, 7500kbps
Project Length: 16 minutes 30 seconds

Render Times

Nvidia GTX 560Ti    49.31
R9 290X                   25.07

Project 4

Original Media: Mp4, 1920x1080, 60.00fps, 8700kbps
Project Length: 1 hour 8 minutes 34 seconds

Nvidia GTX 560Ti   5.45.59
R9 290X                 3.29.26

I've read that article on GPU acceleration several times but I'm still quite confused about the whole CPU/GPU rendering issue.😳

I have that frameserve to handbrake already setup. I use it mainly for rendering slow motion clips in .mp4 using an avisynth script. I've never tried MeGUI but I'll give it a try and see what happens.

Thanks again for all your input.

Jep, in those tests you had "GPU acceleration of video processing" on in the video preferences, but exactly what settings did you have for "Encode mode" in the render custom settings?

If your system and power supply allows it, use both cards. Set the R9 290X for GPU acceleration under preferences and render to MC AVC with CUDA enabled. This way, the R9 290X will be used to process all the FX components of the video and the GTX560Ti's CUDA capability will be used by MC AVC encoder. The 3770K doesnt have sufficient PCIe lanes and both cards will only run in PCIe x8 mode but it might be still significantly faster.

Nick

In the tests all render templates were set to CPU Only.

OldSmoke

Thanks for the suggestion. My motherboard is capable of taking an additional graphics card, however I only have 650W power supply. I had a chat with the manufacturers support this morning and they said it would not be adviseable to run both cards without upgrading power supply. So I'll have to knock that one on the head for now.

I think the only real solution at this point is to get a bigger, better, faster machine. I could also run both machines at the same time which would at least double my output.

Thanks for all your help guys.

Jep,

to be honest you will still ahve the same issue, newer cards are not supported by the rather fast MC AVC encoder. My 3930K is nowhere near as fast with the R9 Fury X as with the GTX580 when it comes to MC AVC render. That is the only reason I have both in the system.

Since you already lean towards a new system, why not buy the bigger power supply first and give the two cards in the current systen a try? You can always use the bigger power supply for the new system.

Jep,

to be honest you will still ahve the same issue, newer cards are not supported by the rather fast MC AVC encoder. My 3930K is nowhere near as fast with the R9 Fury X as with the GTX580 when it comes to MC AVC render. That is the only reason I have both in the system.

Since you already lean towards a new system, why not buy the bigger power supply first and give the two cards in the current systen a try? You can always use the bigger power supply for the new system.

That is a very good suggestion, and I will give it a lot of thought.

On the subject of a new system - my thoughts were that a very fast modern CPU would give better rendering performance for non-Cuda render templates like Sony AVC (my go to render template). Or perhaps a system with dual identical graphics cards set up with CrossfireX/Sli might also improve render times due to a higher fps capability?

Sorry if these questions seem a bit dumb - but I'm somewhat technically challenged. 😥

Thanks again for all the help.

my thoughts were that a very fast modern CPU would give better rendering performance for non-Cuda render templates like Sony AVC (my go to render template).

Fast CPU is a good idea for many reasons. But my feeling is that the MainConcept encoder with the Nvidia GTX 560Ti and CUDA acceleration would probably be faster. You could actually test the speed before spending any money by temporarily swapping the graphics card back to that. The fact that it would also be running your displays should not impact the speed too much.

Or perhaps a system with dual identical graphics cards set up with CrossfireX/Sli might also improve render times due to a higher fps capability?

Not really. That would be a waste of money for Vegas.

Don't discount Vegas2Handbrake as detailed above. You might be pleasantly surprised.

my thoughts were that a very fast modern CPU would give better rendering performance for non-Cuda render templates like Sony AVC (my go to render template).

Fast CPU is a good idea for many reasons. But my feeling is that the MainConcept encoder with the Nvidia GTX 560Ti and CUDA acceleration would probably be faster. You could actually test the speed before spending any money by temporarily swapping the graphics card back to that. The fact that it would also be running your displays should not impact the speed too much.

Or perhaps a system with dual identical graphics cards set up with CrossfireX/Sli might also improve render times due to a higher fps capability?

Not really. That would be a waste of money for Vegas.

Don't discount Vegas2Handbrake as detailed above. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Thanks Nick. OK - I'll give that a go and run some test renders with MainConcept and the GTX 560Ti, and compare render times with Sony AVC.

I'll report back - but it will be next week as I'm going to be away for a couple of days, and all that testing will take a bit of time.

I'm interested in Vegas2Handbrake suggestion. But there seems to be a couple of problems with it for me.

• I don't think I can render to AVC in Handbrake which would be preferable for burning to Blu-ray. Just mp4 or mkv.
• I can't see a way to export chapter markers for mp4 files. I've tried using the DVDA chapter marker tool in Vegasaur but it doesn't seem to work with mp4 files. Without that it's a no go as 99% of my output is destined for Blu-ray with chapter markers.

I'll also have a look at MeGUI as soon as I can get around to it.