Thanks TheRhino

I read Techgage benchmarks before, but I am waiting for a new one for VP17.

My problem is Intel Xeon E3-1231 3.40Ghz (4 cores). Without GTX970 support, editing is terrible. The editing is not smooth, FPS low and 4K editing is impossible.

I tried AMD RX580 but the result is the same like GTX 970.

In the new Vegas 17 with the GTX 970, the situation is dramatically better. 4k editing is much better. Full 25fps. Preview Full. The project must be simple and without effects and Transitions.

I/O OFF:

I/O ON:

I/O ON (playing complete project). GPU Load is 15 - 90%

Reason for new GPU:
I want to keep an old Xeon processor, and assign the whole work to a new GPU.

It's a cheaper upgrade method than buying an AMD RYZEN Threadripper(12core) with a new motherboard, power supply and Ram.

Is this a good way?

Keep in mind the new Ryzen 9 chips have as many threads/cores as the current threadrippers do, but are far cheaper. I'd buy a mid-range GPU and save a few bucks to upgrade that CPU as well. You can get a solid 12 core Ryzen 9 for $500, Throw that Vega 64 on top for another $350, and you've got one heck of a Vegas machine for under $1000

Your 4-core Intel Xeon E3-1231 3.40Ghz@ has very similar performance to one of my older 6-core Xeon 5660 @ 4.0 ghz which is currently matched to an AMD RX 570. Editing 1080p is fine, but 4K is frustrating... I could live with the poor rendering speeds but not poor timeline/preview performance... IMO AMD still offers better timeline performance than Nvidia. And because the AMD Vega 64 is also much better priced than similarly performing Nvidia, I recommend buying a Vega 64 from a place that offers easy returns, test it out, and see if you can get acceptable timeline performance without upgrading your CPU/motherboard/etc...

Does your current motherboard have PCIe 3.0 or 2.0? My Xeon motherboard is only PCIe 2.0 so my RX 570 is only running at about 90% of its capabilities... Faster GPUs may lose even more of their performance potential on PCIe 2.0 but they will physically fit & run OK. Just make sure your power supply can handle any higher wattage required by the new GPU vs. the old GPU.

IMO a 4-core 3.4 ghz CPU will struggle with complex 4K regardless the GPU but testing-out the Vega before spending more money will help in your decision making. Like fr0sty noted, you can upgrade everything important for around $1000. Currently the new 12-core Ryzen 3900x edges-out my 8-core Intel 9900K on many benchmarks but the Intel also has built-in QSV (Quick Sync Video) that helps with H.264 renders, etc. It won't be out until the Fall, but the 16-core 3950X will likely beat every CPU <$1500 but will cost more in the $750 range when first released...

If you upgrade everything you can expect smooth timeline performance and renders that are at least 2X as fast as your current system. My 9900K is almost exactly 2X as fast as my Xeon on nearly everything I do. Typically my system is now waiting on me vs. me waiting on it... A 4K project renders-out in real-time, i.e. a typical 1 hour project takes 1 hour to render whereas it took 2+ hours on the Xeon...

@pierre-k Not sure how floating point performance of a gpu, fpu, or cpu relates to Vegas performance. Only place I see any reference to floating point is in Vegas plugins that have both gpu-assisted and 32-bit floating point versions. But it's not clear that the 32-bit floating point plugins make fpu or avx calls or just use floating point software algorithms. I posited a question about that here but have gotten no response yet from anyone in the know. Probably more meaningful to select a gpu based on how it performs in projects like your own by evaluating benchmark projects and the stats for differing gpu's. See: Benchmarking and 4K Benchmark Roundup threads.

I could live with the poor rendering speeds but not poor timeline/preview performance...

Exactly! I am constantly using Dram Preview and Proxy while editing and I'm really tired of it.

Yes, my motherboard supports PCI-E 3.0 x16.
I have an MSI Z87-G45 GAMING - Intel Z87
PC power supply is 450w. That will probably be few.

I'm looking for a way to replace only the most necessary.
I have no money for a complete PC replacement.

AMD Vega in VP17 but I can't try yet.
I / O support for AMD is not yet available.

Magix Team wrote that they still have technical problems.
I hope it will be resolved just as well as with Nvidia.

You could get the Nvidia 2060 card for about the same price as Vega. Similar performance and it works right now. You WILL need a better Power supply. Slap on a M.2 NVMe SSD (on PCIe slot) e.g.: Do the whole thing around $500

https://www.amazon.com/Blue-SN500-500GB-NVMe-Internal/dp/B07P7TFKRH/ref=asc_df_B07P7TFKRH/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=320228665853&hvpos=1o2&hvnetw=g&hvrand=8048648294718666297&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9031013&hvtargid=pla-661338559386&psc=1

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&hs=1Vl&biw=1024&bih=529&tbm=shop&q=Nvidia%20RTX%202060&tbs=vw%3Al%2Cmr%3A1%2Cprice%3A1%2Cppr_min%3A250%2Cppr_max%3A350&ei=jQpXXcjNMKyV0PEPm9iWwAE&ved=0ahUKEwiIyKimlojkAhWsCjQIHRusBRgQuisIpAQoBA#spd=2301629490233015431
 

Another option: second hand 1080ti. Prices seem close to higher end AMD, but theoretically this card should be faster and offers 11GB of VRAM as future proofing. Opinions?

I have an MSI Z87-G45 GAMING - Intel Z87. PC power supply is 450w.

Unfortunately the Z87 motherboard is limited to slower 4-core CPUs like you already have and the 450W power supply limits GPU options... IMO there is no affordable means to make this system handle 4K adequately, but you can start with GPU & power supply first, and then upgrade to a faster CPU/motherboard/RAM when you can afford it...

Referring back to the Techgage benchmarks, you can compare the performance of various GPUs & CPUs. IMO best bang/buck goes to the Vega 64 GPU & AMD 2700X when every penny counts... The 2700X is often used in benchmarks to compare what a more affordable CPU can provide vs. more expensive options...

https://techgage.com/article/exploring-magix-vegas-pro-16-gpu-performance/https://techgage.com/article/exploring-magix-vegas-pro-16-gpu-performance/

If you look at the "Median FX Playback" charts, the AMD Vega 64 outperforms all of those more expensive Nvidia cards which has been the case for both Vegas 15 & Vegas 16, so I expect similar results once Vegas 17 is updated (soon)...

Another option: second hand 1080ti.

If you start looking at used GPUs, then you can also look at used Vega to save even more. I have seen refurbished & open box Vega 56 at Newegg for <$250 USD. Later, when you can afford to upgrade the CPU, etc. the 8-core AMD 2700X is around $250, motherboard around $100, and memory around $100. Add a $75 750W power supply and you can have a system capable of editing 4K for around $800.  If you have the means to make some extra money editing video for others, then this system has the potential to pay for itself.

8-17-19 EDIT: Newegg has a NEW Vega 56 for $230 after rebate & promo code:

https://www.newegg.com/msi-radeon-rx-vega-56-rx-vega-56-air-boost-8g-oc/p/N82E16814137263?Description=MSI%20Radeon%20RX%20Vega%2056%20&cm_re=MSI_Radeon_RX_Vega_56-_-14-137-263-_-Product

Tomorrow I will try AMD Vega 64. I bought the last piece with the possibility of return within 14 days.

SAPPHIRE NITRO+ Radeon RX Vega 64 8G HBM2.

Please, where can I find Median FX? I can't find him anywhere.

I have video editing as a job. Although not so well paid. That's why smooth playback is more important to me than rendering.

I'll write you my experience with my old processor and Vega. :-)

AMD VEGA 64 tests with Intel Xeon 3.40Ghz (4 cores):

I / O OFF:
Preview Full playback speed is a few frames better than GTX970. 4k is the same - bad playback. 1-7 fps.

Cut between events with occasional tearing. The previous event stops slightly. I noticed this effect when testing the AMD RX580.

Twixtor plugin plays full fps with Preview Half.

Boris Conntinuum with AMD Vega 64 works strange.
OpenCL can be checked in plugin preferences. The number of frames is still the same. Playback cca16fps. With the GTX970, previewing is much faster.

I / O ON:
Here the GTX970 clearly wins in 4k. Yet.
We are waiting for an update for VP17.

-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
If you have an intro in your project made up of pictures, effects and moving texts, the GPU is asleep. Everything counts CPU. With I / O ON, there are curious situations where you have perfect AVC preview and alternately poor preview when playing back compositions from still images.

Conclusion:
I think a strong processor is more important than faster graphics.

-------------------------------------------------- -------------------------

Much please.
Test your 8 and more core processor without GPU support.

https://www.uschovna.cz/zasilka/PK2VZFD7Y9RNFZZW-T4S/

1. Preferably in VP16 - turn off GPU support in your preferences
2. Start playback with Preview Full and higher.
3. watch the number of frames.

The first video is AVC 1080p and the second video is 4K.
Both videos are accelerated to 400%

My 4 core Xeon preview is 4fps in Preview Half.

Thank you very much for your results!

I had the same motherboard as you have, without the "gaming." Nice Motherboard, but here is the best possible chip for that board, some are overclocking to 4.8 and it is possible, (though perhaps not practical) to go to 5.0.
Scores a ninety plus, versus your chip in the 57 range....

YOu could also significantly improve the SSD throughput with the PCIe 3 slot SSD (using adapter).

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-Devils-Canyon-Quad-Core-4-0-GHz-LGA-1150-88W-Desktop-CPU/273970262393?epid=1639776885&hash=item3fc9e67179:g:VWYAAOSwlkFdWPVr

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-E3-1231-v3-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4790K/m11040vs2384

I suggested upgrading the GPU first with a $230 VEGA 56 only because it can be affordably tested-out without reinstalling the OS and can be easily returned if it does not provide the FPS needed to edit 4K...

For rendering, a $240 8-core AMD 2700X is nearly 2X as fast as a (used) $180+ 4-core Intel 4790K & I wouldn't count on a used CPU overclocking well... Yes, you have to spend even more to install a new motherboard, etc. but at least you are not throwing-away money on another e4-core CPU that will still be inadequate for 4K...

Although I have (4) $200 2 TB M.2 drives in my 9900K system which are setup as (2) separate 4 TB RAID0 drives, that $800 is as much as the whole AMD 2700X / VEGA 56 upgrade I recommended... They also fill rather quickly when working with 4K intermediate files. Rather, to save money, you can place SATA drives in RAID0 using your motherboard SATA ports to setup the RAID as long as you keep a backup elsewhere. My systems also have (4-6) SATA drives in RAID0 as SOURCE video drives and they are fine for most 4K work...

Remember, 4K video is 4X the pixels as 1080p so 4K brings older systems to their knees... Every time I upgrade from one video standard to the next, I have had to upgrade everything (CPU, motherboard, ram, GPU...). For SD to HD I upgraded from 2-core Athlon X2 CPUs to 4 & 6-core Intel I7 CPUs with Nvidia GTX 570 GPUs. For HD to 4K I upgraded from 6-core I7 to 8-core I9 & VEGA 64 GPU.

I started with Vegas 3.0 & Vegas has always allowed us to produce professional results with the latest video standards on very affordable systems. I consider an $800 AMD 2700X w/VEGA 56 a very affordable upgrade for handling 4K video consider the cost of 4K cameras & other gear needed to produce professional videos...

Rhino....Doubling the chip you have, per the provided scores, and keeping your "upgrade" to the $5-600 range, as opposed to the $1200-1600 range - in the short run, is the idea. It's not just the MB he'd be upgrading, it is the memory, and the soemtimes the case and powersupply - maybe the the OS and the re settup (time = money) I don't think render times, for most, are that critical, seems he's more about fps on playback. What is 'affordable' (your term) for you is not necessarily affordable for others. He can work with proxies, as well, and gain significant efficiency on the timeline playback issue.


I know, we all have to make these decisions, many times, every two to four years, really, but if he's not ready for that move, there are some "bandaids" that do help out significantly.

but if he's not ready for that move, there are some "bandaids" that do help out significantly.

 

+1. That's why I think all editors should be comfortable using a proxy workflow. Eventually, you run into a situation where you don't have enough horsepower.

The prices I gave earlier are what is available now, but on Amazon Prime Day or other sale days these components were cheaper: 2700X & cooler was $200, compatible motherboard < $100, 16GB DDR4 $50, 750W Power Supply $60 and Vega 56 $230. That's <$650 provided he uses his existing ATX case & SATA/SDD drives. (I have been using the same tower ATX cases & SATA drives for over 10 years through several upgrades...)

IMO the $200 4790K will only provide a 15% speed improvement whereas the $420 (2700X/ motherboard/ DDR4/ PSU) provides a 100% speed improvement = better bang/buck vs. throwing money away at old technology...

Yes, the OP could upgrade these components first before upgrading the GPU... However, the VEGA 56 / 64 are well-known on these forums to boost preview speeds in Vegas 15 / 16 & I was assuming the OP could RESELL his Nvidia GTX 970 for $100 or so on CL or eBay_... That means he would only have about $130 invested in the price-difference between the new Vega 56 and the old GTX 970...

@pierre-k 

You are making way too much demands of almost ANY machine with the 4x playback, (the first envelope showed even higher, like 900 %, added to 400% on the video properties)....you just have to pre render...which I did, (happy otter is good for that, btw)...

I downloaded your test, and just on the first test footage:

By Rendering first,

I was able to play back at 50 fps, (which I set the project speed at 50 fps)


and also, when re-set to normal. 1.0 speed...I got 50 fps, no problem.

AND VP 17 is a bit better than VP 16, like 45 frames with the audio.which I tried also. and 15 is also better than 16. 15 is also at 50 fps.

But playing at 4x playback (or higher) is just unrealistic, IMHO.

On the second, just under 50fps with the audio.



My system has a lowly Quadro 2000, basic z420 HP Workstation

 

I often use 400% acceleration with the CTRL (Time Stretch) key. Smooth video preview is very important to me.

Yesterday I tested my test project with AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X (12 core) processor together with GTX 1070 and without GPU the result is just as bad. With GPU (I / O ON) the speed is + -15 fps.

Yes, well you are completely unrealistic. The computer -- even the fastest -- can't keep up with all of that number crunching in such a short time span. RAM preview your ramp ups to fast speed, to get it right, and then just pre render those sections, I mean, what is the problem?? you can add more effects from there if need be. Don't ask the machine to do the impossible and then get frustrated.

One thing to try: turn resample off. You are ACCELERATING x4 so you have way more frames than you need for smooth motion anyway. Also, I hope you're not running in 32 bit mode.

The veg project he sent me had one file "hard set" at 4.00 playback (inside "properties") and the event velocity curve set to 900%.....so I don't know what that really works out to, 9x or 4x (I think higher) or 9x4x ....but in any case, really asking too much from the machine in real time. So, you're right about the resample and also turn of interlacing etc. But it is a bit moot when you get into those level of acceleration curves in real time playback situations.

One thing to try: turn resample off. You are ACCELERATING x4 so you have way more frames than you need for smooth motion anyway. Also, I hope you're not running in 32 bit mode.

Yes. Resample off and project is 8bit.

Anyway, @pierre-k, your editing - especially with your speed ramps - is great.

If you'd allow for a suggestion, I might suggest that if you combine what you have already, which is great, with cuts more "on the beat" (probably every fourth beat, like every two seconds) I think you could take that video to another level still. The music is good -- you could take even more advantage of that, IMHO.

(....you may have already considered that, of course, and went passed that, of course, and there is more than one way to cut musically, of course, doesn't have to be "on the beat" -- but in this particular case, especially because it is sports and the adrenaline idea, which you're already on to, I think it will work better).