Vote for Best Video Editing Tool on lifehacker
zipzap
wrote on 12/4/2011, 2:17 PM
Comments
Rich Parry
wrote on 12/4/2011, 5:20 PM
I may have to eat my words, but as of now VP11 sucks. I'd would also have to also vote for PP (which I own).
My hours of testing this weekend appears to indicate VP11 was released far before it was ready.
VP11 may have given better rendering times for those with a GPU, but for those of us (at least me) that put my money into dual Xeon CPU (24 cores), VP11 sucks.
I'm prepared to aplogize, but I doubt it. I trying to calm down before I write the results of my tests.
My hours of testing this weekend appears to indicate VP11 was released far before it was ready.
VP11 may have given better rendering times for those with a GPU, but for those of us (at least me) that put my money into dual Xeon CPU (24 cores), VP11 sucks.
I'm prepared to aplogize, but I doubt it. I trying to calm down before I write the results of my tests.
VidMus
wrote on 12/4/2011, 7:48 PM
Rich Parry says, “VP11 may have given better rendering times for those with a GPU, but for those of us (at least me) that put my money into dual Xeon CPU (24 cores), VP11 sucks”
Suppose you have a cart being pulled by two horses. One horse is an Nvidia GPU 430 and the other horse is a dual Xeon CPU (24 cores).
So off you go and before you know it the CPU horse pulls the cart so fast that it literally runs over the GPU horse causing the cart to crash and a big mess!
Now let’s change the GPU to an Nvidia 590 'horse'. Which horse is now the fastest?
I do not know from your profile what video card you have but do you honestly believe that most any GPU ‘horse’ would out run your CPU ‘horse’? Even match it?
I started with a 430 and while it did improve playback and render on some formats a little bit, overall it was far below par compared to my CPU. I went to the 550 Ti and while it was up to par and a tiny bit more than my CPU it was not quite enough for me. I am now using the 560 Ti with the latest drivers and I am where I want to be.
If I had your CPU power even with the 560 Ti I would comparably be where I was with the 430.
My original thoughts were that the 430 would help and enhance my CPU performance by giving it a boost. In a very minor way it did in certain areas but when it came time for the races my CPU ‘horse’ pulled the cart right over the GPU 430 ‘horse’!
Bottom line is, for the best results the CPU ‘horse’ and the GPU ‘Horse’ needs to be a match! The GPU ‘Horse’ also needs the right driver food to run properly. A lot of Vegas (cart) crashes/problems (such as slow-downs) are being caused by either a miss-match of horses and/or the wrong driver food for the GPU horse!
Suppose you have a cart being pulled by two horses. One horse is an Nvidia GPU 430 and the other horse is a dual Xeon CPU (24 cores).
So off you go and before you know it the CPU horse pulls the cart so fast that it literally runs over the GPU horse causing the cart to crash and a big mess!
Now let’s change the GPU to an Nvidia 590 'horse'. Which horse is now the fastest?
I do not know from your profile what video card you have but do you honestly believe that most any GPU ‘horse’ would out run your CPU ‘horse’? Even match it?
I started with a 430 and while it did improve playback and render on some formats a little bit, overall it was far below par compared to my CPU. I went to the 550 Ti and while it was up to par and a tiny bit more than my CPU it was not quite enough for me. I am now using the 560 Ti with the latest drivers and I am where I want to be.
If I had your CPU power even with the 560 Ti I would comparably be where I was with the 430.
My original thoughts were that the 430 would help and enhance my CPU performance by giving it a boost. In a very minor way it did in certain areas but when it came time for the races my CPU ‘horse’ pulled the cart right over the GPU 430 ‘horse’!
Bottom line is, for the best results the CPU ‘horse’ and the GPU ‘Horse’ needs to be a match! The GPU ‘Horse’ also needs the right driver food to run properly. A lot of Vegas (cart) crashes/problems (such as slow-downs) are being caused by either a miss-match of horses and/or the wrong driver food for the GPU horse!
ushere
wrote on 12/4/2011, 10:40 PM
just to add to vidmus's right driver food to run properly,
i found mine would only eat the latest beta, but boy, did it gallop along after that!
i found mine would only eat the latest beta, but boy, did it gallop along after that!
Gene Aum
wrote on 12/5/2011, 3:39 PM
Assuming your horse analogy is correct it would behoove (pun intended) SCS to provide a tool/util that potential users and upgraders could use to provide feedback on VP11 operability with their configuration - and provide suggestions for optimal operation.
It's quite elemental to determine O/S, CPU & GPU, & Installed Drivers, etc. in a given system.
Steve
It's quite elemental to determine O/S, CPU & GPU, & Installed Drivers, etc. in a given system.
Steve
Steve Mann
wrote on 12/5/2011, 4:47 PM
"and provide suggestions for optimal operation"
They do:
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegaspro/gpuacceleration
But there so many variations of CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD configuration and countless installed drivers, it would be impossible to test even a fraction of the possibilities.
GPU Acceleration is available to assist the CPU with some parallel processing. If you have a rocket-powered dual Xeon motherboard and 16Gb per core, I don't think there is a GPU that can keep up with it. In fact the GPU could slow the overall process.
They do:
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegaspro/gpuacceleration
But there so many variations of CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD configuration and countless installed drivers, it would be impossible to test even a fraction of the possibilities.
GPU Acceleration is available to assist the CPU with some parallel processing. If you have a rocket-powered dual Xeon motherboard and 16Gb per core, I don't think there is a GPU that can keep up with it. In fact the GPU could slow the overall process.
[r]Evolution
wrote on 12/5/2011, 6:19 PM
But there so many variations of CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD configuration and countless installed drivers, it would be impossible to test even a fraction of the possibilities.
This is why I'm a fan of Pre-Built/Qualified systems. even if they are a bit pricier
There are just waaay too many variants when people are building systems based on their limited knowledge of hardware and software specs. It's a double whammy when people build the cheapest system possible.
I too fall into this category because lots of hardware I buy is price dependent. Knowing that, I find an acceptable workaround and live with it.
- I consider my current system (Mac Pro 2 x 3GHz, 8Gb RAM, Dual ATI Cards) to be under powered but my workaround(s) help me get the job done. Not nearly as fast/smooth as I'd like but it gets it done.
Problem is, a system that previews as many HD layers and effects as I'd like would be way too expensive for me, but my workaround is to use intermediates to smooth things out during the edit.
This is why I'm a fan of Pre-Built/Qualified systems. even if they are a bit pricier
There are just waaay too many variants when people are building systems based on their limited knowledge of hardware and software specs. It's a double whammy when people build the cheapest system possible.
I too fall into this category because lots of hardware I buy is price dependent. Knowing that, I find an acceptable workaround and live with it.
- I consider my current system (Mac Pro 2 x 3GHz, 8Gb RAM, Dual ATI Cards) to be under powered but my workaround(s) help me get the job done. Not nearly as fast/smooth as I'd like but it gets it done.
Problem is, a system that previews as many HD layers and effects as I'd like would be way too expensive for me, but my workaround is to use intermediates to smooth things out during the edit.