VP 17 and selecting the GPU by TFLOPS

pierre-k wrote on 8/16/2019, 8:46 AM

I want to send my GTX 970 to scrap.
In V17, AVC and HEVC playback has improved a lot, but it's still not perfect. I know the current version does not support AMD for I / O. But in the new VP17 update, it will be the same as with Nvidia. I hope so.

Is it correct to select GPUs according to FP16, FP32 and FP64 performance?

Here is a list of GPUs that I am interested in.

The winner is older and therefore cheaper cards AMD VEGA 56 and 64 and Nvidia GTX 1080ti.

Please help
Thanks.

Back to post

Comments

zdogg wrote on 8/23/2019, 11:22 PM

Good news. Any better playback / fps report? How about with a simple color correction and pan Crop? (no velocity ramps)....Or compositing three tracks, what is the playback there?

pierre-k wrote on 8/24/2019, 4:45 PM

AMD VEGA 64 card is especially great for rendering. It's stable. The number of frames in playback is nearly the same as the GTX 970.

AMD Vega has problems with some plugins.

Vegas Starbust: AMD Vega 1-2fps. GTX970 - 25fps full frame.

Boris Beauty Studio: Flashes of light during playback and rendering. No problem with the GTX 970.

I haven't tried any more plugins. I'm tired. Sorry. I'm probably naive.

I believed that the difference between GTX 970 and AMD Vega would be radical. I believed that the difference between Xeon (4core) and AMD (12core) would be radical. There was no revolution. The 3fps difference when playing is not an argument to buy for thousands of dollars.

If you have a few long 1080p and 4k shots, then everything is fantastic. Full fps in preview Good Full. But if you have a lot of short shots and many cuts in succession, or accelerated sequences to 400%, no super fast computer will help you.

Proxy only.

When someone asks me what computer I should have, I answer this: AMD for rendering, Nvidia for effects and a proxy for editing more complex projects. Hmm

zdogg wrote on 8/24/2019, 5:06 PM

With Vegas Pro 17, I don't think the full hardware accerlation for AMD has been completed, while it has for Nvidia. So, perhaps we should wait on that, have you tried the VP 17 Demo yet??

pierre-k wrote on 8/24/2019, 5:18 PM

With Vegas Pro 17, I don't think the full hardware accerlation for AMD has been completed, while it has for Nvidia. So, perhaps we should wait on that, have you tried the VP 17 Demo yet??

I tested both cards intentionally only in VP16.

In VP17 Trial, I tested only GTX970 4k playback.
Simple projects are great, but my quick cuts are terrible. Vegas is not enough to send so many changes to the card at once.

Apparently low level Buffer. I don't know.

pierre-k wrote on 8/24/2019, 6:18 PM

I wanted to make a video with VP17 Screen Capture, but it took all the CPU power. I had to record the video using Geforce Experience.

TEST GTX 970

Here is a clear demonstration of playing short 4K videos in VP17 (Preview Auto).
Vegas doesn't manage to play smoothly even with I / O support.

And playing two full shots. (Best Full):

Question for Magix Team:
Can you make better use of Dynamic RAM?
Can you make DRAM save changes automatically in the background?
Without using Shift + B

Solution:

I have a total size of 16GB. I like to release 10GB for smooth playback.

I would also like to buy 64GB if I know that Vegas will use all memory for a great preview.

douglas_clark wrote on 8/30/2019, 12:16 PM

Check out Rob Williams' Aug. 25 article "Exploring MAGIX Vegas Pro 17 Encode & Playback Performance" for new GPU and CPU benchmarks on VP17. https://techgage.com/article/magix-vegas-pro-17-cpu-gpu-performance/