Comments

OldSmoke wrote on 10/26/2017, 8:59 AM

Both are limited in their number of PCIe lanes, I believe Ryzen even more so. I would buy the i7-8700K and make us of the internal GPU and mix it with an AMD discrete GPU. That get's you fast preview with OpenCL and fast render with QSV. Also the i7-8700K seems to have a high clock speed which is good for Vegas.

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)

dream wrote on 10/26/2017, 9:08 AM

@OldSmoke you saying 8700k is good buy over 1700x and 1800x ,(6 cores vs 8 cores-higer cores better for video editing and rendering)

for video editing and rendering -my priority is time and file size ,so which one should i buy it.

OldSmoke wrote on 10/26/2017, 9:15 AM

The higher clock speed and the internal GPU of the i7-8700K make it a better choice for Vegas editing and rendering, in my opinion.

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)

liork wrote on 10/26/2017, 9:51 AM

For rendering, NVENC changes the picture for the first time in the recent years. Grab a new Nvidia GTX card and this will give you faster results.

dream wrote on 10/26/2017, 10:50 AM

so amd card dont do anything ?just asking ,because i am building pc ,so....

Nick Hope wrote on 10/26/2017, 11:56 AM

As things stand in VP15 build 216, Intel integrated graphics are a good thing to have in VP15, for render (QSV) and possibly also for playback. So I would say get the i7-8700.

OldSmoke wrote on 10/26/2017, 12:14 PM

so amd card dont do anything ?just asking ,because i am building pc ,so....


From my short testing with VP15 and a GTX1080Ti, the preview with the AMD Radeon Fury X was still slightly better because preview/playback is OpenCL. The only thing Vegas doesn't support yet is AMD's equivalent to NVIDIA's NVENC, which is called VCE.

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)

xberk wrote on 10/26/2017, 12:40 PM

As things stand in VP15 build 216, Intel integrated graphics are a good thing to have in VP15, for render (QSV) and possibly also for playback. So I would say get the i7-8700.

I would assume that if one has the funds an i9-7900X 10 core would be worthwhile for Vegas.

dream wrote on 10/26/2017, 12:57 PM

As things stand in VP15 build 216, Intel integrated graphics are a good thing to have in VP15, for render (QSV) and possibly also for playback. So I would say get the i7-8700.

I would assume that if one has the funds an i9-7900X 10 core would be worthwhile for Vegas.

i only have budget (400usd) to get 1700x or 8700k.

most people says you need more core count for video editing/rendering

i am still confused 😕

OldSmoke wrote on 10/26/2017, 1:17 PM

As things stand in VP15 build 216, Intel integrated graphics are a good thing to have in VP15, for render (QSV) and possibly also for playback. So I would say get the i7-8700.

I would assume that if one has the funds an i9-7900X 10 core would be worthwhile for Vegas.

Not necessary.

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)

bob-h wrote on 10/26/2017, 10:48 PM

I would assume that if one has the funds an i9-7900X 10 core would be worthwhile for Vegas.

i only have budget (400usd) to get 1700x or 8700k.

most people says you need more core count for video editing/rendering

i am still confused 😕

8700K is both faster & more efficient & built in GPU(QSV) for rendering is faster than my GTX1070. This comparison is made between NVIDIA GPU encoding using high quality setting & QSV on default setting. The reason for this is that NVIDIA default setting is very low quality for given bitrate in comparison to QSV & software AVC encoding.

Rendering software can only efficiently utalise a certain amount of cores. Not sure of the number that vegas likes, but as an example premiere pro will render faster on i9-7900X 10 core than the  i9-7960X 16 Core

liork wrote on 10/26/2017, 11:39 PM

I would assume that if one has the funds an i9-7900X 10 core would be worthwhile for Vegas.

i only have budget (400usd) to get 1700x or 8700k.

most people says you need more core count for video editing/rendering

i am still confused 😕

8700K is both faster & more efficient & built in GPU(QSV) for rendering is faster than my GTX1070. This comparison is made between NVIDIA GPU encoding using high quality setting & QSV on default setting. The reason for this is that NVIDIA default setting is very low quality for given bitrate in comparison to QSV & software AVC encoding.

Rendering software can only efficiently utalise a certain amount of cores. Not sure of the number that vegas likes, but as an example premiere pro will render faster on i9-7900X 10 core than the  i9-7960X 16 Core

What CPU model do you have?

bob-h wrote on 10/26/2017, 11:55 PM

I have an old i7-6700. Something I just realised . I was comparing NVIDIA GPU encoding while it also did NVIDIA GPU processing, But with the intel QSV encode it would have still been using NVIDIA GPU for the filter/plugin processing. So not a fair test for a benchmark test.of the Intel cpu without graphics card

liork wrote on 10/27/2017, 12:19 AM

Thanks.

dream wrote on 10/27/2017, 7:38 AM

anyone here with ryzen 8 core cpus could share their thoughts ,compare with intel cpus.

or anyone who has knowledge of ...

OldSmoke wrote on 10/27/2017, 7:53 AM

anyone here with ryzen 8 core cpus could share their thoughts ,compare with intel cpus.

or anyone who has knowledge of ...

Keep in mind that the Ryzen doesn’t have an internal GPU, that means no QSV.

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)

dream wrote on 10/27/2017, 8:09 AM

anyone here with ryzen 8 core cpus could share their thoughts ,compare with intel cpus.

or anyone who has knowledge of ...

Keep in mind that the Ryzen doesn’t have an internal GPU, that means no QSV.

but those who have ryzen ,would they go with nvenc setting .

actually i just render couple of files on my laptop with intel qsv and nvenc ,nvenc wins dont know why-even gpu selected intel 4000.😁

OldSmoke wrote on 10/27/2017, 8:42 AM

Those that have an Intel CPU with a GPU can utilize QSV and OpenCL which makes renders even faster.

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)

astar wrote on 10/27/2017, 9:44 AM

There are 4 seperate things to build into your system:

CPU - frequency then cores - adds the most bang for the buck.

Memory - 8GB per core and make sure your "memory channels are properly filled, 1 higher density chip per channel can work better than filling the slots. Choose the higher speed rating your motherboard can handle properly. memtest86+ can verify your memory speed and zero error operation.

OpenCL capable GPU - looking for maxing the amount "Compute Cores" then look at GFLOP ratings. OpenCL works like a math specific processor that beats the CPU at certain types of math = acceleration. The CPU has OpenCL cores and the GPU combines with them to perform functions.

Render Acceleration - This would be Cuda, NVENC, QSV, or VCE.

  • Cuda - certain older NV GPUs allowed the Mainconcept AVC encoder to run on the GPU. This provided some acceleration at the cost of image quality. The industry went away from GPU AVC encoding for technical reasons.
  • NVENC,QSV, VCE - These are ASIC (application specific integrated circuits) that are onboard the CPU or GPU. These circuits are much like the way your camcorder or DSLR records AVC to storage. With proper programming in Vegas, decoding and rendering can be done on these extension. The ASICs are hard coded to work in very specific ways, and generally are compromising true AVC encoding for speed. The Version of the ASIC matters, so investigate the NVENC version your GPU supports. NVENC ASIC expands capabilities greatly version to version.

Here is a video that shows the intricate differences of Software AVC vs NVENC:

 

There are 3 different things to consider when building a Vegas optimized computer.

Source File decode - this can be a combination of hardware(asic,) CPU, and OpenCL

Timeline Playback - CPU and OpenCL make the most difference here. This is also where the memory speed and your PCIe lanes to your GPU matter the most.

Rendering - CPU, ASIC, and limited OpenCL depending on the codec being rendered, matter most here. The OpenCL portion of rendering is used to calculate frame prediction a fairly complex math that OpenCL handles quickly. The rest is CPU, so here adding the ASIC to the mix decreases render time significantly. There is a cost for using the ASIC, but most do not care because its all about the immediate gratification.

john_dennis wrote on 10/27/2017, 10:18 AM

“The rest is CPU, so here adding the ASIC to the mix

Astar, a cogent summary but check this.

OldSmoke wrote on 10/27/2017, 10:53 AM

There are 4 seperate things to build into your system:

CPU - frequency then cores - adds the most bang for the buck.

Memory - 8GB per core and make sure your "memory channels are properly filled, 1 higher density chip per channel can work better than filling the slots. Choose the higher speed rating your motherboard can handle properly. memtest86+ can verify your memory speed and zero error operation.

OpenCL capable GPU - looking for maxing the amount "Compute Cores" then look at GFLOP ratings. OpenCL works like a math specific processor that beats the CPU at certain types of math = acceleration. The CPU has OpenCL cores and the GPU combines with them to perform functions.

Render Acceleration - This would be Cuda, NVENC, QSV, or VCE.

  • Cuda - certain older NV GPUs allowed the Mainconcept AVC encoder to run on the GPU. This provided some acceleration at the cost of image quality. The industry went away from GPU AVC encoding for technical reasons.
  • NVENC,QSV, VCE - These are ASIC (application specific integrated circuits) that are onboard the CPU or GPU. These circuits are much like the way your camcorder or DSLR records AVC to storage. With proper programming in Vegas, decoding and rendering can be done on these extension. The ASICs are hard coded to work in very specific ways, and generally are compromising true AVC encoding for speed. The Version of the ASIC matters, so investigate the NVENC version your GPU supports. NVENC ASIC expands capabilities greatly version to version.

Here is a video that shows the intricate differences of Software AVC vs NVENC:

 

There are 3 different things to consider when building a Vegas optimized computer.

Source File decode - this can be a combination of hardware(asic,) CPU, and OpenCL

Timeline Playback - CPU and OpenCL make the most difference here. This is also where the memory speed and your PCIe lanes to your GPU matter the most.

Rendering - CPU, ASIC, and limited OpenCL depending on the codec being rendered, matter most here. The OpenCL portion of rendering is used to calculate frame prediction a fairly complex math that OpenCL handles quickly. The rest is CPU, so here adding the ASIC to the mix increases render time significantly. There is a cost for using the ASIC, but most do not care because its all about the immediate gratification.


There should be a "sticky" post for all that information!

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)

bob-h wrote on 10/27/2017, 11:22 AM

There is a cost for using the ASIC, but most do not care because its all about the immediate gratification.

So how do people feel about using the GPU only for video processing, & software for encoding, does that give best possibly quality or does using GPU for video processing also lower the quality?

Nick Hope wrote on 10/27/2017, 9:32 PM
So how do people feel about using the GPU only for video processing, & software for encoding, does that give best possibly quality or does using GPU for video processing also lower the quality?

It doesn't lower quality in general but be aware of a few specific issues that are listed in the "GPU-related issues" part of this "known issues" list.

bob-h wrote on 10/27/2017, 10:45 PM

oh quite a lot of bugs with specific filters I see. If a filter doesn't specifically have a 'USE GPU ON/OFF' option is there another way of turning off GPU processing only for specific problem filters, but the default for video processing being GPU ON.?

 

Thankyou