Vegas Pro 11 and GPU acceleration
Jøran Toresen
wrote on 10/17/2011, 7:18 AM
Comments
wilvan
wrote on 10/17/2011, 8:40 AM
Indeed , BUT :
nVIDIA GPUs with Compute Capability prior to 2.0 are currently not available for GPU-accelerated video processing.
We are working with nVIDIA and HOPE to be able to expand GPU acceleration in the future.
See this Web page for a list of Compute Capability levels for various nVIDIA GPUs: http://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-gpus.
For more information about troubleshooting GPU acceleration issues, we've prepared an article on our knowledge base.
Meaning only the very latest video cards .....
Anyway , on my dell T7500 ( see specs ) , even premiere and after effects , the power comes from the 16 cores and lots of RAM rather than some GPU assistance.
The render , we don't care much since that runs during lunch time or overnight ( 16 cores at 100% ) , the real-time working ( and preview ) only is in our real interest.
Petty our expensive FX3800 quadros won't do anything .
nVIDIA GPUs with Compute Capability prior to 2.0 are currently not available for GPU-accelerated video processing.
We are working with nVIDIA and HOPE to be able to expand GPU acceleration in the future.
See this Web page for a list of Compute Capability levels for various nVIDIA GPUs: http://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-gpus.
For more information about troubleshooting GPU acceleration issues, we've prepared an article on our knowledge base.
Meaning only the very latest video cards .....
Anyway , on my dell T7500 ( see specs ) , even premiere and after effects , the power comes from the 16 cores and lots of RAM rather than some GPU assistance.
The render , we don't care much since that runs during lunch time or overnight ( 16 cores at 100% ) , the real-time working ( and preview ) only is in our real interest.
Petty our expensive FX3800 quadros won't do anything .
Jøran Toresen
wrote on 10/17/2011, 9:21 AM
Yes, and in the release notes the say: “See this Web page for a list of Compute Capability levels for various nVIDIA GPUs:”
http://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-gpus
Jøran
http://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-gpus
Jøran
T Reynolds
wrote on 10/17/2011, 9:33 AM
Using GTX 460 2gigs works just fine.
Randy Brown
wrote on 10/17/2011, 9:44 AM
I see my cheap, older GeForce 220 listed but I wonder how much faster (or even if) VP11 would be with my cuurent card.
Also do you think it's safe to assume VP10 will still run okay and not get tripped up in some way with the VP11 trial installed?
Thanks,
Randy
Also do you think it's safe to assume VP10 will still run okay and not get tripped up in some way with the VP11 trial installed?
Thanks,
Randy
Marton
wrote on 10/17/2011, 10:09 AM
I tested the MVC rendering with 210 geforce ;-)
Software only: 1 min 30 sec
With gef210: 1 min 25 sec
16 cuda cores rock :P
Software only: 1 min 30 sec
With gef210: 1 min 25 sec
16 cuda cores rock :P
Red Prince
wrote on 10/17/2011, 10:20 AM
I am doing a test render right now. GPU Shark reports it is using anywhere between 35% and 80% of the GPU, with the average around 60%-70%. That is not a very efficient use of my GPU!
FrigidNDEditing
wrote on 10/17/2011, 10:51 AM
I think more to the point is playback performance, how has that improved for folks?
Dave
Dave
TheHappyFriar
wrote on 10/17/2011, 11:01 AM
Interesting: Nvidia has faster RENDER times for the two supported codec's but ATI has faster PREVIEW speeds. I wasn't expecting that!
Another big kicker: those ATI cards (6870's) are $180 on newegg (before rebates). The Nvidia ones are ~$320. Both ~1gb RAM, both 3 video outs (1xHDMI 2xmini) for three monitors. Looks like ATI is the much better deal atm for editing.
The two consumer cards they tested aren't the best either, they're about mid-range.
Another big kicker: those ATI cards (6870's) are $180 on newegg (before rebates). The Nvidia ones are ~$320. Both ~1gb RAM, both 3 video outs (1xHDMI 2xmini) for three monitors. Looks like ATI is the much better deal atm for editing.
The two consumer cards they tested aren't the best either, they're about mid-range.
Red Prince
wrote on 10/17/2011, 11:07 AM
I only paid $76.99 for my NVIDIA card, and the playback is really fast. And, as I said, it does not even use the full capacity of the GPU.
paul_w
wrote on 10/17/2011, 12:08 PM
"nVIDIA GPUs with Compute Capability prior to 2.0 are currently not available for GPU-accelerated video processing"
Yup, thats me out of the GPU fun :(
My GeForce 9600 GSO (with CUDA and Open GL) is not listed in the GPU device list. The only option i see is OFF. Compute Capability = 1.1 , not 2.
Bugger!
Paul.
Yup, thats me out of the GPU fun :(
My GeForce 9600 GSO (with CUDA and Open GL) is not listed in the GPU device list. The only option i see is OFF. Compute Capability = 1.1 , not 2.
Bugger!
Paul.
Former user
wrote on 10/17/2011, 12:52 PM
Friar...
I agree about NVIDIA. I just upgraded a couple of weeks ago...fortunately I bought "buyer protection" so I can swap for another card within a year. I'll likely take the GTX580 back and pick up an AMD of some flavor. Fast preview during editing is more of a priority. Most of the time I just start a render and go to bed anyway.
I agree about NVIDIA. I just upgraded a couple of weeks ago...fortunately I bought "buyer protection" so I can swap for another card within a year. I'll likely take the GTX580 back and pick up an AMD of some flavor. Fast preview during editing is more of a priority. Most of the time I just start a render and go to bed anyway.
johnmeyer
wrote on 10/17/2011, 12:57 PM
I'll be very interested in real-world benchmarks that users do here. Unfortunately, the Sony benchmark page linked to above does not provide any information on the actual graphic card used. Also, while they provide a link to the project files used, they are over 2 GB in size and that will take far, far too long to download. Finally, I am not really interested in spending the time it will take to download & install the new release, and then download 2 GB of data, and do my own benchmarking. Sorry, I've done enough of this over the years, and I just don't have the time to do it any more.
I see that their benchmarks show a 2-3 time improvement in render and playback performance which, if it is really true for those of us who already have multi-core i7 (or equivalent) systems would be a really big deal.
So, hopefully someone who DOES have the time and the inclination can provide some more information, with complete details on the hardware they have installed.
I see that their benchmarks show a 2-3 time improvement in render and playback performance which, if it is really true for those of us who already have multi-core i7 (or equivalent) systems would be a really big deal.
So, hopefully someone who DOES have the time and the inclination can provide some more information, with complete details on the hardware they have installed.
DavidMcKnight
wrote on 10/17/2011, 1:05 PM
John - look for my review in eventDV magazine / online that should be posted in a matter of hours if not the next day or two. I have a low-ish GTS-450 on an i7-950 proc and saw a considerable increase. While the reports of tests were not as thorough as many of your contributions to this forum have been I hope you can benefit from it. One of the results I show use their benchmark project and one uses my own footage & veg project. I'll update this thread once the review goes live on their site.
johnmeyer
wrote on 10/17/2011, 1:10 PM
David,
Many thanks. I'll read the review when goes live.
Many thanks. I'll read the review when goes live.
Jøran Toresen
wrote on 10/17/2011, 1:36 PM
David's review is here:
http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/News/Feature/What%27s-New-in-Sony-Vegas-Pro-113f-78309.htm
Jøran
http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/News/Feature/What%27s-New-in-Sony-Vegas-Pro-113f-78309.htm
Jøran
DavidMcKnight
wrote on 10/17/2011, 1:46 PM
Well that was fast :)
Cliff Etzel
wrote on 10/17/2011, 1:57 PM
I'm wondering if these same improvements will also apply to Magic Bullet Looks.
My machine comes to a crawl even with a basic look applied. Turn it off and it plays back fine.
Running VP10e
My machine comes to a crawl even with a basic look applied. Turn it off and it plays back fine.
Running VP10e
paul_w
wrote on 10/17/2011, 1:59 PM
Very good review David. :)
Paul.
Paul.
Cliff Etzel
wrote on 10/17/2011, 2:25 PM
It appears my nVidia GT-220 1GB video card isn't supported for GPU acceleration according to VP11.
Yet according to the GPU page - the following states:
"GPU-accelerated video processing AND GPU-accelerated AVC rendering
I have a GT-220 and the very latest drivers - umm - so which is it SONY?
Yet according to the GPU page - the following states:
"GPU-accelerated video processing AND GPU-accelerated AVC rendering
I have a GT-220 and the very latest drivers - umm - so which is it SONY?
DavidMcKnight
wrote on 10/17/2011, 2:34 PM
Marton
wrote on 10/17/2011, 2:35 PM
GT430 and 440 has Compute Capability 2.1
I also need to buy one of these.
Or instean an Ati for better preview performance?
Would be good a nice review of which cheap cards worth the price for Vegas..
I also need to buy one of these.
Or instean an Ati for better preview performance?
Would be good a nice review of which cheap cards worth the price for Vegas..
JohnnyRoy
wrote on 10/17/2011, 2:37 PM
> "Any recommendations on a supported card in that price range?"
It looks like the GeForce GT 440 comes closest but I'm not sure if you would see any boost at all with such low end card.
~jr
It looks like the GeForce GT 440 comes closest but I'm not sure if you would see any boost at all with such low end card.
~jr
paul_w
wrote on 10/17/2011, 2:46 PM
@Cliff Etzel
You have the same problem as me, Its CUDA etc but not Compute 2.0 or higher.
check your card:
http://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-gpus
Paul
You have the same problem as me, Its CUDA etc but not Compute 2.0 or higher.
check your card:
http://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-gpus
Paul
Red Prince
wrote on 10/17/2011, 3:00 PM
Or instean an Ati for better preview performance?
My cheap GT 430 has no problems with preview performance.
My cheap GT 430 has no problems with preview performance.