v16 doesn't render on Dell XPS13 unless GPU disabled in global prefs

peterh337 wrote on 12/6/2018, 1:35 AM

Dell XPS13 9360 R windows 10 P/N ARD8W2MH2 512GB SSD 16GB RAM

The render template is the Magix Internet HD 1080 and changed to 50fps progressive. 20mbps. This template has no GPU config option.

It renders anything from 2 to 300 frames before hanging. The Cancel button does nothing; it says "cancelled" but the dialog never exits and the program has to be terminated by the OS (task manager).

Disabling the GPU fixes the issue completely, it appears.

In the past this was a common problem. One used to have to disable GPU in the global preferences, in each rendering template, in each plug-in (Newbluefx e.g.). This time I am not using nbfx, only vegasaur which has no GPU config option. However v14 worked with default settings.

The same v16 renders ok, with default settings, on my desktop PC which is a 6 core i7 with a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti Fanless Silent Graphics Card (2GB GDDR5, 4K, PCI-E3.0).

Note that both machines show the problem described here
https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/any-easy-way-to-speed-up-a-clip-10x-to-100x-i-e-more-than-4x--113924/?page=2#ca704422
i.e. the velocity profile doesn't work properly. This appears to be project activity dependent IOW I can make it work fine with a fresh video file.

v16 current build (307).

Comments

j-v wrote on 12/6/2018, 4:38 AM

The render template is the Magix Internet HD 1080 and changed to 50fps progressive. 20mbps. This template has no GPU config option.

Something is wrong here.
This is the same codec as the old Mainconcept template if MC is allowed to show up in Internal Preferences, so there has nothing to be changed for one or both of your changes.

Magix Mainconcept

peterh337 wrote on 12/6/2018, 5:08 AM

I am not sure I understand you. You are probably right in that the 50fps option already existed, however.

I just would like to check there is no GPU option there.

What is "MC"?

j-v wrote on 12/6/2018, 5:35 AM

What is "MC"?

Mainconcept codec, I changed my first comment so maybe it is now all clear for you.

peterh337 wrote on 12/6/2018, 5:40 AM

OK; thank you. I did conclude that Magix "bought" a lot of the 3rd party codecs and labelled them "Magix".

Over the years I found that none are better or worse than others, with the choice being determined by which one crashes or doesn't crash during rendering :)

NickHope wrote on 12/6/2018, 6:16 AM

I just would like to check there is no GPU option there.

The "GPU option" in the Magix AVC/AAC encoder is in the "Encode mode" setting on the render template, and what is available in it depends on what GPU/CPU you have and whether they support QSV (Intel CPU), NVENC (NVIDIA GPU), or VCE (AMD GPU). In the case of your laptop I think you should have the Intel HD graphics QSV option as well as the "Mainconcept AVC" option.

The MainConcept encoder shown in the 2nd of j-v's screenshots is a legacy encoder that can be enabled in the internal preferences (which are accessed by holding SHIFT when clicking "preferences"). The non-CPU options available in that renderer's "Encode mode" menu only support CUDA and OpenCL on very old GPUs. The CPU-only option in it uses an older version of the MainConcept encoder than the one used by the Magix AVC/AAC encoder. In other words, I think you can disregard that whole legacy MainConcept encoder in relation to your current issue.

Note that "GPU acceleration of video processing" (in Preferences > Video), and GPU rendering (in the "Encode mode" setting on rendering templates) are very different things.

This post might be useful in tracking down rendering issues.

The version of "Intel HD 620 and Iris Graphics 640" shown on the Dell Support website for your laptop is 23.20.16.4973 ,A10 from 15 May 2018. Update to that if you haven't already. It's also highly possible that Windows update has installed a later driver than this, and that might be causing your issue. There have been some reports of Vegas issues caused by recent Intel HD graphics drivers. If so, try rolling back to the version from Dell.

peterh337 wrote on 12/6/2018, 6:36 AM

Thank you; however over the last few years I have found that GPU-anything brings no visible improvement, relative to a 6-core i7 running at 3.5GHz. So I just want to avoid all issues and disable the whole lot.

Rolling back video drivers is for masochists :) Then a year later one is going to forget and apply some update and bang you are back to a nonworking program, having forgotten what the fix was.

peterh337 wrote on 12/6/2018, 2:34 PM

On the Magix aac/avc mp4 rendering codec

on the laptop I see

- 50fps
- 50fps (Intel QSV)

and on the PC I see

- 50fps
- 50fps (NVIDIA NVENC)

but I never used the 2nd one in each case.

Disabling GPU acceleration of video processing made the XPS13 render ok. However I also disabled, under Preview Device, Optimise GPU display performance, just in case.

Under Encode Mode in the render template I have Mainconcept AVC set, with the Intel QSV being the other option.

OldSmoke wrote on 12/6/2018, 2:37 PM

Thank you; however over the last few years I have found that GPU-anything brings no visible improvement, relative to a 6-core i7 running at 3.5GHz. So I just want to avoid all issues and disable the whole lot.

Well, that might be true for your system but on my i7 6-core I see immense improvement with GPU acceleration.

j-v wrote on 12/6/2018, 2:44 PM

peterh337 wrote on 12/6/2018, 2:47 PM

It probably depends on the GPU and the API it uses. In the past I had a play with CUDA and OpenGL and neither did anything useful, and that was on relatively slow machines.

I have heard reports that on a Mac you get a massive speedup, but then Apple control the hardware totally so the app programmer knows exactly what he will be talking to. On a PC there are so many graphics cards. The one I have is not state of the art; it is just the fastest fanless one.

OldSmoke wrote on 12/6/2018, 3:19 PM

The one I have is not state of the art; it is just the fastest fanless one.

That could be one reason. I also use AMD cards as they are better suited for Vegas.

peterh337 wrote on 12/6/2018, 3:40 PM

Yes; that has been a long standing situation with various versions of Vegas. One would hope that, as the years go by, this would have improved...

I use these fanless cards for a good reason: the fans are noisy, and they *always* clog up with dust and stop working. PCs have got gradually quieter, with the large and slow rotating CPU coolers, but video cards still have small noisy fans, 2 or even 3 of them.

OldSmoke wrote on 12/6/2018, 8:14 PM

Yes; that has been a long standing situation with various versions of Vegas. One would hope that, as the years go by, this would have improved...

I use these fanless cards for a good reason: the fans are noisy, and they *always* clog up with dust and stop working. PCs have got gradually quieter, with the large and slow rotating CPU coolers, but video cards still have small noisy fans, 2 or even 3 of them.

Well, I use an R9 Fury X that is water cooled together with my CPU in my custom build water cooled loop. I only have two 120mm fans which are extremely quiet, much quieter than the air cooled CPU I had at the beginning. I prefer the little bit of noise over an unstable system and I can enjoy the extra power I get from over clocking my CPU. If I need to do serious audio work, I use headphones. But, everyone has his/her own opinion.

NickHope wrote on 12/6/2018, 10:47 PM

Rolling back video drivers is for masochists :) Then a year later one is going to forget and apply some update and bang you are back to a nonworking program, having forgotten what the fix was.

That's a shame, as my suggestion might have provided a solution for your issue, and valuable feedback for the developers. I'm a little puzzled what the point of your post was. You might at least let us know what version of the Intel graphics driver you are running.

peterh337 wrote on 12/7/2018, 3:58 AM

Where do I find out the video driver version?

I did another render, this time with GPU disabled in the global prefs, but using the Intel QSV render option. The speed seems similar to the other one; maybe 10% faster. It is to be expected that the global GPU option should affect whether rendering works? Perhaps the crash was in the preview screen which of course follows the render progress and which uses the global GPU setting.

I spend much of my life chasing IT issues, home and at work and elsewhere, as well as building PCs, managing mission-critical systems (accounting software, servers, VPNs, running critical legacy apps in winXP VMs, etc) and have found that one needs to adopt a robust approach to solutions, otherwise they break somewhere down the road and then you have to fix it again, having forgotten what the fix was. Win10 updates are hard to control and going for a specific non-latest video driver is a recipe for trouble, especially as the gain is of the order of 10-30% on render time, at best.

I guess most people here are full time video editors. I do it in bursts, every few months.

NickHope wrote on 12/7/2018, 4:32 AM

Where do I find out the video driver version?

Control Panel > System > Device Manager > Display Adapters > Intel(R) HD Graphics Family > Driver

...It is to be expected that the global GPU option should affect whether rendering works?...

If you mean GPU acceleration of video processing then the answer is very much YES. It's one of the common causes of rendering failure.

peterh337 wrote on 12/7/2018, 4:48 AM

It is 23.20.16.4973 dated 28th Feb 2018.

On the wider topic of GPU acceleration, does anyone get a speedup on rendering of say 5x or 10x, on "real" projects e.g. ones where there is some rotation, not just where one imports an mp4 and renders it straight out, same size, with some titles added (which I know speeds things up dramatically). This would require each fx to be written for each different GPU, and tested...

peterh337 wrote on 12/7/2018, 5:32 AM

As another data point, on my PC, with the previously posted Nvidia card, the NVIDIA NVENC render option works fine.

It produces an output file less than 1% different in size and runs maybe 10% faster. It plays back ok though I have not done screen capture comparisons to see any quality difference.

One has to do these comparisons very carefully (file size is a good start) otherwise speedups are meaningless; one can speed up rendering several times by dropping the bitrate :) And since the GPU render options use a different piece of code, the (say) 10% speedup achieved by the GPU option could be easily accounted for by a 10% drop in quality (which nobody will notice).

NickHope wrote on 12/7/2018, 5:40 AM

It is 23.20.16.4973 dated 28th Feb 2018.

Thanks. Well that's the last version that is on the Dell page for your laptop. I would not really recommend either rolling it back or updating it, especially as you're averse to that anyway, so if you want to use that encoder I think you're stuck with disabling GPU acceleration of video processing unless something else in that post permits you to enable it.

OldSmoke wrote on 12/7/2018, 7:23 AM

It is dated 28th Feb 2018.

On the wider topic of GPU acceleration, does anyone get a speedup on rendering of say 5x or 10x, on "real" projects e.g. ones where there is some rotation, not just where one imports an mp4 and renders it straight out, same size, with some titles added (which I know speeds things up dramatically). This would require each fx to be written for each different GPU, and tested...

Yes I do and almost all native Vegas FX are written to support OpenCL/GL which is why AMD cards are still better suited for Vegas.

peterh337 wrote on 12/7/2018, 9:30 AM

Let me get this right... you have an AMD card which speeds up rendering 5x to 10x. What is your CPU?

I looked up your card
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sapphire-Radeon-Graphics-Express-DisplayPort/dp/B00ZPQS0AG
No wonder it makes it go faster :)

OldSmoke wrote on 12/7/2018, 10:27 AM

Let me get this right... you have an AMD card which speeds up rendering 5x to 10x. What is your CPU?

I looked up your card
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sapphire-Radeon-Graphics-Express-DisplayPort/dp/B00ZPQS0AG
No wonder it makes it go faster :)

The new Vega 64 of Frontier Edition are even better has they already have HBM2 with more then 4GB, HBM 1 was limited to 4GB.

As always, one must weight the cost of the equipment/system vs the potential gain which was a no brainer for me 6 years ago. The part I kept on changing was the GPU, GTX570, 580, R9 290, R9 Fury X, 1080Ti and back to the Fury X. It's been 6 years that I build the system and I can still edit 4K 30p camera files and 1080 60p mutlicam projects. I never has issues with Sony Vegas 11-13, VP14 (must admit I never used it much, hate the icons) and now VP15.

peterh337 wrote on 12/7/2018, 11:04 AM

OK; I never realised one has to have a really high-end card to get the big speedup. I reckon yours must have cost 1000-2000 quid. 5 years old used ones go for 500.

I don't edit 4K but one day I might, not because I render 4K but because 4K input should produce a sharper 1080P after doing any sort of geometric correction. Also I like 50-60fps for the sheer smoothness and there isn't a camera around yet which does 4K with 50-60fps and reasonably low geometric distortion.

And if not rendering 4K, presumably there is little point in the powerful GPU...

Does Vegas handle 4K natively? I recall reading somewhere that all the editors run 4K with a low-res proxy for the editing, for performance reasons. I guess the only relevance of this Q is if displaying the preview screen on a second monitor - something I have not tried but which might be quite nice - does it work well?

OldSmoke wrote on 12/7/2018, 11:44 AM

OK; I never realised one has to have a really high-end card to get the big speedup. I reckon yours must have cost 1000-2000 quid. 5 years old used ones go for 500.

I bought my Fury X USD899.00 when it first came out and I sold my two R9 290 which I had in my system.

I don't edit 4K but one day I might, not because I render 4K but because 4K input should produce a sharper 1080P after doing any sort of geometric correction. Also I like 50-60fps for the sheer smoothness and there isn't a camera around yet which does 4K with 50-60fps and reasonably low geometric distortion.

And if not rendering 4K, presumably there is little point in the powerful GPU...

Not true at all, 1080 60p single and multicam benefits greatly from it.

Does Vegas handle 4K natively? I recall reading somewhere that all the editors run 4K with a low-res proxy for the editing, for performance reasons. I guess the only relevance of this Q is if displaying the preview screen on a second monitor - something I have not tried but which might be quite nice - does it work well?

It all depends on your system. My new Surface Pro 6 with an i7 4-core and 16GB can handle XAVC-S 4K 30p natively. 4K 60p is a different story but a well build powerful desktop shouldn't have too much trouble with it.