Test Sony Vegas: rendering i7-4790, GTX-580, Quick

kmaniek wrote on 3/24/2016, 4:40 AM

hi,

I bought used graphics card "MSI GTX 580 Twin Frozr III PE OC 1536MB", to speed preview and render in sony Vegas.
After first tests the results was not satisfacted.

I've decided to do some rendering tests with 3 different version of Sony Vegas, with the same entry file, the same project and render settings and the same result file.

Results below:

Entry file: *.mts, 1080-50i, AVCHD, 60second (without FX) (Sony AX2000)

Project settings:
HD 1080-50i (1920x1080; 25,000 fps),
Field order: Upper field first,
pixel format 8bit,
Full-resolution rendering quality: Best

Render settings:
Sony AVC/MVC (*.mp4; *.m2ts; *.avc)
Template: AVCHD 1920x1080-50i
Bitrate:16Mbps

Hardware:
Processor: i7-4790
mainboard: ASROCK B85M Pro3
RAM: 12Gb DDR3 (2x4Gb 1600 CL9, 2x2Gb 1600 CL7)
HDD: SSD 250GB (only system and Sony Vegas), 2x750GB 7200obr. (dane)
Graphics card 1: MSI GTX 580 Twin Frozr III PE OC 1536MB (driver: 296.10)
Graphics card 1: HD4600 (intergated with processor)
Power supple: Chieftec (CFT-600-14CS) 600W
System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit, SP1

Sony Vegas Pro 10 (oryginal)
i7-4790: 163 sec.
i7-4790+GTX580: 131 sec.
i7-4790+Intel Quick Sync Video, HD4600: no support

Sony Vegas Pro 12 (trial)
i7-4790: 82 sec.
i7-4790+GTX580: 68 sec.
i7-4790+Intel Quick Sync Video, HD4600: 33 sec.

Sony Vegas Pro 13 (trial)
i7-4790: 92 sec.
i7-4790+GTX580: 74 sec.
i7-4790+Intel Quick Sync Video, HD4600: 46 sec.

In render GTX580 was used about 20-30%

Conclusion is one.
The fastest rendering was in Sony Vegas Pro 12 with card graphic integrated with processor with IntelQuick Sync (33 seconds).

The questions:
1) Anybody have the same configuration and the results are better then my results (with GTX)?
2) Is my card efficient in 100%? I try changes drivers (on CD with card; latest from nvidia site; ), and the results are worst. With driver version 359.06 the results is difference about 2-3 seconds
3) In this case, processor is strong enough, that any graphics card 5xx series can't match them?

After tests I installed Cuda Toolkit 7.5 too. Improvement is only in preview (Best-Full - fluently preview 25fps). Without Cuda Toolkit the preview was lag in transitions (even with gpu transition - 10-15 fps)

Maybe other observations?

Thanks for answer

Comments

OldSmoke wrote on 3/24/2016, 1:16 PM

The Nvidia GTX580 is a great card for Vegas but not as good as recent R9 series of cards starting with the 280X up to the latest Fury X. The reason is simple and has been discussed countless times in this forum.

Vegas uses OpenCL for timeline preview which is much better implemented in AMD cards. Nvidia's latest driver generation has improved OpenCL support but is still not as good as AMD. The only fully CUDA supported render codec is MC AVC, not Sony AVC.

Try rendering using the MC AVC codec and you will see better results.

If you want to compare results, you should test your setup with the SCS Benchmark project, that is what almost all the users here use to test their system.

Cliff Etzel wrote on 3/24/2016, 3:55 PM

@OldSmoke - from a timeline performance standpoint for playback only - YOU still recommend the AMD Radeon card over the nVidia card with very latest drivers? I've had issues with Vegas locking up quite a bit recently and have reverted back to PPro CS6 as much as I don't like it but PPro is stable and TBH, Rock Solid on all counts. The vast majority of my work is pretty simple yet it seems VP13 just doesn't seem to want to work well - and regarding Catalyst Edit - I'm sorry but it's a joke IMO as much as I tried to use it to create audio slideshows mixed with video interviews, etc.

What are your thoughts?

OldSmoke wrote on 3/24/2016, 5:13 PM

@Cliff

Yes I still recommend the AMD cards, Nvidia is still far behind when it comes to OpenCL.My projects are mostly multicam and 30% 4K and the rest is full HD. I have no issues with my system, it could be a bit faster for 4K but it is stable and has always been. Proper hardware makes a huge difference. Catalyst Edit is so far behind Vegas that you cant even see a dot on the horizon.

Cliff Etzel wrote on 3/25/2016, 9:16 AM

@OldSmoke - I agree on Catalyst Edit - The very simplest of things like zooming or panning across a still left me scratching my head in how to accomplish this feature. IT seems to me SCS would have better spent their resources secretly rebuilding Vegas Pro from scratch and then launching it all at once for both platforms.

But who am I - other than a disappointed Vegas user for the past few years.

rmack350 wrote on 3/25/2016, 12:57 PM

...SCS would have better spent their resources secretly rebuilding Vegas Pro from scratch...

Maybe they did spend their resources that way, and then called it a sunk cost. If it was secret, we wouldn't know.

Rob