looks like i am leaning towards intel(8700k)

found a tech website that tests CPU's in vegas pro

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i7_8700k_processor_review,14.html

found a tech website that tests CPU's in vegas pro

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i7_8700k_processor_review,14.html

Useful, but that test does not reveal the benefits of Intel graphics.

I don't know if is due to windows update or BIOS update but Ryzen performance has improved a lot since the beginning, here's my 1800X test in octuber and it seems to work way better that what it used to a few months ago, you get more cores plenty for many more years, faster render speed etc the downside is that it does not have an integrated gpu

A guy here uploaded this file for testing and I can attest now that it runs perfectly fine on my pc

found a tech website that tests CPU's in vegas pro

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i7_8700k_processor_review,14.html

Useful, but that test does not reveal the benefits of Intel graphics.

that means 8700k is good over 1800x

found a tech website that tests CPU's in vegas pro

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i7_8700k_processor_review,14.html

Useful, but that test does not reveal the benefits of Intel graphics.

Most users have a dedicated graphics card, so of what use is the intel integrated graphics card ?

The integrated graphics card is cute to a point, the moment you throw anything serious on the timeline like color grading or neat video denoise, the intel graphic card is uselles, serious software like Davinci Resolve don't even work with low end graphics (Intel).

I it were me, i would buy the CPU with the most raw CPU processing power, and that is the 1700x, with a bit of overclocking it's 1800x, you could even do 1700 for less money.

8700k is a CPU that bets on the fact that some encoders and applications don't use more than 4 or 6 cores, if you search forums and reviewers you find that the tests they did in handbrake, permiere pro and even sony vegas with some codecs, CPU stay mostly unutilized, it's a good CPU but not future proof.

Also, when a lot of things happen on the timeline, like denoise, color correction, hitfilm plugins applied to some clips and so on, then you will see better usage of the 8 cores.

Right now video editing software is badly optimized for high core CPU's, just look at this guy review and go at minute 5:07, so you could put a threadripper or a 20 core intel CPU and it's the same as 7700k.

So in conclusion, buy the 8700k for better perf. right now, buy 1700 or 1700x for good perf. now but better perf. in the future when software gets updated to fully utilize 8 cores. or more.

Most users have a dedicated graphics card, so of what use is the intel integrated graphics card ?

It’s of great use when you want to render fast with QSV. If you than add a discrete GPU, you get the best of both worlds.

...Most users have a dedicated graphics card, so of what use is the intel integrated graphics card ?...

With Magix AVC, you can use Intel graphics for rendering (Encode Mode), and you can use your dedicated GPU for GPU acceleration of video processing at the same time.

If you have an AMD GPU and no Intel graphics then you've got no hardware Magix AVC rendering at all (although VCE is hoped for in future updates).

Intel graphics have shown very good results for Magix AVC rendering (QSV) in VP15 so far; comparable with NVENC.

The test only used XAVC-L, so didn't cover that whole subject.

I'm not sure about the performance of Intel graphics for GPU acceleration of video processing in VP15. I think I saw some good results in early testing. Would like to know more before dismissing that as a serious option.

Most users have a dedicated graphics card, so of what use is the intel integrated graphics card ?

It’s of great use when you want to render fast with QSV. If you than add a discrete GPU, you get the best of both worlds.

how does qsv perform better than nvenc

A long time ago i tested the integrated graphics from a 3570k vs a gtx 560 from Nvidia, vegas pro 13.

What i found is that for encoding a simple project the GTX 560 was a tiny bit faster, just tiny.

I also tried using the intel graphics card for timeline preview and Nvidia GPU for rendering with mainconcept, almost same result as using only intel GPU or only Nvidia GPU, so NO, vegas doesn't get faster at encoding if you try combining one for timeline and one for encoding, at least this wasn't the case with vegas 13.

If you are wondering how did i get to use both, the second display was Intel and first Nvidia and they showed up in vegas 13.

Nick Hope, it's not true that you don't get GPU encoding with AMD, i used vegas 15 trial and Sony AVC encoder uses by default AMD GPU, it just doesn't show you options to use it or not, like in vegas 13.

Also timeline preview has AMD acceleration, it's probably ancient based on Opencl but it works.

So, not much has changed since Magix acquired Vegas, the changes from 13 to 15 are so minor, there is no reason to upgrade if vegas 13 works.

QSV has greatly improved in 15 and you shouldn’t compare it to 13 at all. The only reason you can see your AMD card being utilized is for OpenCL, FX and others, during preview and rendering. However, VCE, the equivalent to NVENC, is not yet supported.

...Nick Hope, it's not true that you don't get GPU encoding with AMD...

I didn't say that. I said "hardware Magix AVC rendering". But you make a good point. The Sony AVC codec is still a fine option.

...i used vegas 15 trial and Sony AVC encoder uses by default AMD GPU, it just doesn't show you options to use it or not, like in vegas 13.

It does if you allow legacy GPU rendering in the general preferences.

Anyway back to the point... The Threadripper numbers on that test are impressive. And I don't really know the value of the Intel graphics in the i7 8700K without further test results. It's a difficult choice.

I also tried using the intel graphics card for timeline preview and Nvidia GPU for rendering with mainconcept, almost same result as using only intel GPU or only Nvidia GPU, so NO, vegas doesn't get faster at encoding if you try combining one for timeline and one for encoding

Intel QSV is a dedicated hardware encoder, it doesn't do video processing. It does H264 & HVEC encoding, & with latest intels: VP9 & HVEC10bit. It's always been faster & higher quality than discreet GPU encoders. Video processing is where traditional discreet GPU's have the advantage with massively parallel processing.

If all the software & drivers were working correctly You should have seen the best advantage(speed & quality) with Nvidia GPU processing & Intel QSV encoding, but software encoding will give highest quality encode

Intel QSV is a dedicated hardware encoder, it doesn't do video processing...

Intel graphics, of which QSV is one feature, does do video processing. If you have Intel graphics on your CPU, it's there in your Vegas video preferences as an option under "GPU acceleration of video processing", and in my experience it does accelerate.

I ran some tests on my ageing laptop:

To my eyes, the quality of all results is comparable.

Note that if you do a software-encode-mode render of this project, then the rendering time is effectively a direct measure of video processing performance, which is directly related to playback smoothness.

Interpretation of results (for my system, for this project):

• AMD GPU accelerates video processing by 18% (MC rendering mode)
• Intel graphics accelerates video processing by 15% (MC rendering mode)
• Intel QSV accelerates rendering by 58% (No GPU processing)
• AMD GPU + Intel QSV accelerate rendering by 80% (compared to software only)
• Intel graphics + Intel QSV accelerate rendering by 84% (compared to software only)

Intel graphics support looks strong in VP15. [Intel GPU + QSV rendering] was even faster than [AMD GPU + QSV rendering]. If these results carry over to the i7 8700k then it should be a winner.

Of course, other users' systems will differ.

I should do some similar tests in VP13/14 to see if Intel GPU processing has improved in VP15.

That is interesting that the Intel integrated GPU is so good. it must be extremely efficient in Vegas. I've never even considered it's use for processing over my GPU card just considered it as really good hardware encoder.

It is interesting, but of course that's just one ageing laptop. There are many variables including not just the spec of the CPU and the GPU but (critically) the driver versions, and how well present and future Vegas updates utilize each technology. Things are in a state of flux at the moment. Intel support seems to be good already, possibly even as good as it's going to get, but I guess discrete GPU support is set to improve in future updates.

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.

Does someone know if Magix has plans to support AMD video cards for GPU Rendering?

And if so,about how much time will it take?

Does someone know if Magix has plans to support AMD video cards for GPU Rendering?

And if so,about how much time will it take?

Comments from Magix. None of these are recent:

• https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/how-to-max-render-acceleration-settings-preferences-in-vegas-15--108336/#ca667507
• https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/amd-support-in-vp15-or-vp16--108733/#ca670301
• https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/release-vegas-pro-15-inspiration-meets-productivity--108313/?page=5#ca679124

Most users have a dedicated graphics card, so of what use is the intel integrated graphics card ?

It’s of great use when you want to render fast with QSV. If you than add a discrete GPU, you get the best of both worlds.

how does qsv perform better than nvenc

Hello, my testings in december revealed no real quality difference between i7 6700K (QSV with HD530) and GTX1070 (NVENC) encoding. The only cool thing about QSV was a little bit faster in encoding, ~30 min for NVENC and ~27 min for QSV on a 1080p/60fps file.

I run a R7 1800x at stock clock (3.7Ghz) with a GTX1080 now and i encode without problems with NVENC, a 30 min 1080p/60fps/50Mbit shadowplay file takes like 25 minutes to encode in 1440p/60fps/24Mbit for YouTube.

my testings in december revealed no real quality difference between i7 6700K (QSV with HD530) and GTX1070 (NVENC) encoding

This is really interesting. What encoder are you talking about? Magix AVC? Could you advice, how did you test it?

@Cornico supplied a few renders (hm, his posts were deleted from the thread for some reason) witn QSV & NVENC (I do not have NVidia graphics card and on AMD CPU at this moment) and I noticed huge differences between these encoders. NVENC is better (it is even better than CPU only for Magix AVC encoder, but worse then other encoders).

Two screenshots from his render (have a look at the kid's arm. You can download the archive with these screenshots to be sure they were not modified by the forum's engine)

The general consensus seems to be that CPU was better, do you have a comparison image of it?

In the thread I mentioned, I supplied archive with test project, renders, helper scripts and detailed instructions how I compared renders (eyes not the best tool for such comparison). I have not compared any GPU renders right now (I do not have hardware for such renders). I just checked renders that Cornico did for testing. You can download the project, render it using your favourite encoder/settings and compare yourself. Alternatively, upload renders somewhere and I compare them for you (I have everything installed. I really like that someone do QSV/HVENC renders for me).

P.S. In VP11 era I compared CPU/GPU renders and CPU always was better. But in VP12 the quality of CPU encoding Mainconcept AVC encoder was decreased dramatically. I reporten it to Sony these days and I reported it to Magix recently.