What is the Point of GPU!

SmedVideo wrote on 11/11/2012, 7:12 PM

I bought a Dell Vostro 3350 i5, 8GB RAM with Radeon HD 6490 512 MB for two days ago to be able to render with GPU on my new Vegas Pro 12.

So far, Vegas do not allow me to render with GPU. It can only be set to off. And Vegas will not smart render to Cine form, which studio 10 was capable of.

But I am in doubt, if it is my computer that do not tell Vegas Pro 12 the right information about my graphics card or it is something to do with Vegas Pro 12. I am disapointed, that it will not smart render to Cine form in the new version.

There seems to be a lot of bugs to debug in the pro 12. I surely would like Sony to set up some information sheets concerning known troubles.

Zeitgeist wrote on 11/11/2012, 9:58 PM

What gets me is I edit in Vegas 11 with gpu on with the same computer. Why is Vegas 12 not the same. With so many little enhancements why is the most important feature (render time gpu on) excluded from working this long? Will I ever be able to use Vegas 12 with gpu on? Should I ask for a refund?

I had to start a project completely over in Vegas 11 because I can't rely on Vegas 12 & the render time is terrible without gpu support. I can't go back.

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 11/12/2012, 3:41 AM

For the most part I have no issues with GPU, only in rendering to certain formats do I find an issue. I'm surprised you went back to 11, as I've found 11 to be less than ideal, where as the latest release of 12 has been on the whole quite useful for me with the occasional hiccup, and that's even with the latest drivers for my GTX580.

If you're going backwards, at least export/import via a file so that your edits are all preserved ( even if you have to re-apply FX and P/C ).

If you're dissatisfied with 12 so much so that you feel you should ask for a refund, then do so. And if you are having a good working experience with 11 ( as so few of us did - myself ultimately not included in that group ). Then more power to you. Sorry to hear you're having a rough go of it.

Just my .02 for whatever that's worth (probably not .02 :P )

Dave

mikkie wrote on 11/12/2012, 9:44 PM

> "Pretty upset that I paid for an update for Vegas 12 & the gpu feature does not work at this late date"

Hear ya... I was concerned about it so I did a full backup, updated ATI drivers, added VP 12 trial, found problems, restored backup. A month later repeated the whole thing, broke MPG2 w/GPU assist in VP 11 64 but not 32, VP 12 trial worked, paid the moneys for VP 12. Repeated again for the VP 12 latest -- still cool.

Some of these sorts of issues belong on SCS' doorstep, some are the fault of the driver developers, & frankly some are the fault of users for the other stuff they've installed &/or not following recommendations on updating drivers -- I'm speaking generally here, not saying you did or didn't do anything wrong Zeitgeist, but suggesting always backup & test 1st, along with checking out the forums for your graphics hardware.

mikkie wrote on 11/12/2012, 9:58 PM

> "I bought a Dell Vostro 3350 i5, 8GB RAM with Radeon HD 6490 512 MB for two days ago to be able to render with GPU on my new Vegas Pro 12.

So far, Vegas do not allow me to render with GPU. It can only be set to off. And Vegas will not smart render to Cine form, which studio 10 was capable of."

One, I'd start by using Google to see how capable your notebook graphics are -- might also check the AMD site for info on whether it's recommended for GPU assist using OpenCL. If everything's go at that point I'd suggest searching for the best driver setup for your laptop -- it may/may not be from Dell -- & after a full backup you know how to restore, try those drivers. I did not check to see if your laptop has dual graphics or anything like that which could complicate things, so if that might be an issue please do research before plunging ahead.

As far as 10 goes, VP started using OpenCL AFAIK with v. 11.

Zeitgeist wrote on 11/12/2012, 10:30 PM

I did test V12, but not rigorously enough. I was so lucky with previous versions of Vegas that I made that mistake. Never again.

FrigidNDEditing, does the defocus plug render out correctly with gpu on? I'm getting strange jumps, pixel shifts, & weird lines on the edges. Some might not notice because it is subtle but it is there. I am worried that other plugs might not work correctly with gpu on so I abandoned v12 all together.

mikkie wrote on 11/13/2012, 3:36 PM

> " I'm getting strange jumps, pixel shifts, & weird lines on the edges. Some might not notice because it is subtle but it is there. I am worried that other plugs might not work correctly with gpu on so I abandoned v12 all together. "

GPU assist can be a minefield for users, that's for sure. It's gotten me skittish enough that I won't add anything video or audio related without a full backup, & then I try to record any changes in case I have to try & go back moths later.

It used to be all about Nvidia's Cuda & ATI Avivo, later Stream, & now it's OpenCL, which to some extent relies on those other, older technologies. One catch is that whatever functions were developed had to be fast 1st, good enough 2nd, & never focused on high quality. And with the big money in multiple highest dollar cards in gaming rigs, video folks are not even on-board the ship, but trailing in its wake in a dinghy.

Long story short, & just FWIW, some GPU video processing IMHO is pretty low quality, depending on the functions used, & on the video hardware brand, model, driver, & firmware. And since video hardware assist is necessary for many systems to just play HD, drivers plug into the video pipeline no matter what you do, & so can be effected by other software that you wouldn't think would have any effects.

Zeitgeist wrote on 11/14/2012, 1:24 AM

Well, whatever the case, the fact is, presently, V11 works with gpu on & V12 does not on the same machine. Seems V12 is to blame. What happened in V12 to cause these plug problems & gpu problems? Who is responsible?

Who put in the odd icons & moved their standard placement for navigation control in the Vegas Explorer Window? What is going on here? Where is the focus of this update? Where is the inspiration? V12 was not ready for release & was released anyway at the user's expense. Who is responsible? What is their name?

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 11/14/2012, 7:11 AM

I didn't notice anything but I haven't slept in almost 20 hrs, I'm working on 4 tight deadline projects, and I've been keeping this pace up for over a month now, so with the small amount of time I spent to check... Defocus seemed to work flawlessly for me, at Good Full on 720p MXF and MP4 files. Sorry I couldn't reproduce, but I wasn't looking full screen at the time, so that may have also hindered.

Dave

craftech wrote on 11/14/2012, 8:45 AM

I've said this before.

I feel that the introduction of GPU dependency is when Vegas versions started to exhibit problems that weren't easily resolved by patches and updates. Vegas 8 (9) run perfectly well and don't appear to lack anything significant the later versions offer. And they run on Windows XP to boot.

So if eliminating GPU dependency in Vegas 13 restores Vegas to a generally reliable software, what's the hesitation on the part of SCS?

John

Former user wrote on 11/14/2012, 9:19 AM

I dont think eliminating GPU accleration is the answer, that can of worms has already been opened. SCS needs to take the clue from AVID and Mac and make it work on SPECIFIC hardware with SPECIFIC drivers. Then if people want it, they would not have to guess which drivers work best.

AVID has always issued warnings that updating drivers on hardware or QT other than what they specifiy could cause the software to not work correctly. Since Final Cut is on a Mac, they have always been very specific about which hardware each version of FCP is approved for.

I remember even updating QT with AVID would cause uwanted consequences. The problem is, SCS might release a version of Vegas that worked with driverXXX of the Nvidia ModelXX, but then Nvidia updates to driver YYY, now some of the calls that Vegas makes may not work.

SCS needs to list the specific drivers and cards that they have tested and verified that they work, not just say drivers XXY and up.

Dave T2

videoITguy wrote on 11/14/2012, 12:26 PM

I disagree with DaveT2 on several matters of concern.
1) To understand the marketplace that SCS created with VegasPro versus the AVID/Premiere brands is to note that they were able to broadly sell to a large volume of potential users. They did that by not locking down the hardware so tightly. That was the pinnacle (pun) of success for SCS as versions 8 and 9 were released. For them to return to a strategy to try to compete in the AVID narrow market would most certainly kill them dead.
2) Given that GPU advantages have questionable success ( for example on a machine configured at economy style - the choice of CPU makes more effective use of the hardware than adding too much power in the GPU. This is the so-called balance of processing units for the app.
3) As others have testified competing technologies for quick-render success (albeit in slight reduction of output quality) are already here and working well with VegasPro. Thus to push for more development in the GPU code could be really unnecessary.

Former user wrote on 11/14/2012, 12:54 PM

To be clear, you are saying that you think Vegas should go back to being hardware agnostic?

And to be honest, I would agree. I always liked Vegas BECAUSE it didn't require specific hardware. It could run on my little laptop and my big desktop. I thought it was a big mistake when they started persuing the GPU hardware route. But they did because people kept screaming about how they wanted to use the latest tech of their video cards. But I think now that they have done it, they can't go back. BUT you still have the option to run Vegas without specific hardware, and that is what I am doing with V11. So Vegas is still superior in that way.

So, we seem to agree in how it should work, but I don't think that they can just drop hardware support now that they have started it without, again, making a lot of people angry after spending dollars on video cards and such.

So the point of my message was, if they continue the hardware support, it needs to be clear on what hardware it works on.

Dave T2

videoITguy wrote on 11/14/2012, 1:24 PM

Right-on DaveT2 +1 , I think you and I should be in the driver's seat, but what SCS is facing in a very tough market is a classic study.

Delving much into corporate growth and downfall case histories, SCS is at a very difficult cross-roads. They will likely be ensnarled by their own struggle for the market share. I think it would be a huge mistake to pursue Avid or even Premiere, if they cannot quickly fix this. On the other hand to retreat in this move is also going to really hurt.

This is why I suggest they pursue a different path altogether with modern innovation and jump to the Intel Quick Sync method or other for fast rendering at a lower price. This should keep them out of the bind they are increasingly getting into.

Former user wrote on 11/14/2012, 1:25 PM

I actually "do" video for a living. I budget for hardware and software, and so far, Vegas has been the best tool for me to work efficiently. It's kind of galling that I've spent some money on hardware (re: GPU) that is kind of sort of mostly supported (except for preview).

I'm not fond of editing in Preview Mode, switching to "best" to see what I'm actually getting. I know it's a balance of choices, but it really would be ideal if we would know what hardware would work and what wouldn't.

EVERY box of software comes with a list of "musts" (Win XP/Vista/7, 2GB RAM, 1.5GHz CPU, etc etc). There are often "best case" lists as well. If we had that list, we could deal with it.

The certification issue is always a thorny one though. I remember when Cakewalk started publishing supported hardware...I had a freak out because my Maya card (at the time) wasn't supported. Eventually, I changed to something that WAS supported, but then that was the end of it. Any bugs were software bugs, not hardware/software interaction problems. And I've stuck with Cakewalk because of that.

Imagine a day when you could buy hardware for Vegas, confident it would be the optimal output.

ps: I want to know why PPro and Edius have such clean and smooth preview...like, what is it about their tech that does that?

Former user wrote on 11/14/2012, 1:34 PM

"I want to know why PPro and Edius have such clean and smooth preview...like, what is it about their tech that does that?"

It would be interesting. What I notice is that when I play my video in the PREVIEW window, it seems to play full speed very smooth. When I put it on the timeline, it has issues. Maybe Vegas is not allowing for slight speed variations in the timeline and thus is trying to keep up and seems stuttery.

I do video for a living, but not on Vegas. Vegas is my hobby tool. Not really by my choice, but because I work for someone else.

Dave T2

Former user wrote on 11/14/2012, 1:40 PM

"When I put it on the timeline, it has issues. Maybe Vegas is not allowing for slight speed variations in the timeline and thus is trying to keep up and seems stuttery. "

I don't follow...are you talking about a dual monitor set up? Just taking the preivew window and un-docking it from the timeline/vegas window?

Former user wrote on 11/14/2012, 2:07 PM

No, sorry I refer to the TRIMMER screen as the PREVIEW screen. Sorry to confuse the issue. It is the TRIMMER screen that plays smoothly.

Dave T2

Former user wrote on 11/14/2012, 3:15 PM

Ah, fair enough. Yeah, I've noticed that too. It makes me a litle crazy. Whatever engine the trimmer uses, if it can be used on the preview...I'd be good with that.

Regardless, it does kind of beg the question, why would I have a big honkin' GPU and a ton of RAM if Vegas works better when one is disabled and the other is set to zero.

Erg.

Zeitgeist wrote on 11/14/2012, 3:32 PM

Good point, what is the point of advertised features that need to be off or set to 0 in order to have Vegas work. What are we paying for, delusion & denial?

mikkie wrote on 11/14/2012, 7:05 PM

> "I feel that the introduction of GPU dependency is when Vegas versions started to exhibit problems that weren't easily resolved by patches and updates. Vegas 8 (9) run perfectly well and don't appear to lack anything significant the later versions offer. And they run on Windows XP to boot. "

Exactly why I've got VP 9 in XP Pro in a multiple boot setup with win7/8. :)

> "SCS needs to take the clue from AVID and Mac and make it work on SPECIFIC hardware with SPECIFIC drivers. Then if people want it, they would not have to guess which drivers work best. ... I remember even updating QT with AVID would cause uwanted consequences. The problem is, SCS might release a version of Vegas that worked with driverXXX of the Nvidia ModelXX, but then Nvidia updates to driver YYY, now some of the calls that Vegas makes may not work."

You're right on IMHO about the drivers, but OTOH the day SCS marries VP to a certain hardware is the day I stop buying it. That's why I never have, likely never will buy anything from Apple. It makes sense from the perspective of selling a product that does everything it claims, but raises costs while tending to put you in a straightjacket should you dare also want to do something else. It would be nice if SCS could afford to do hardware & driver certification, even if that limited them to one brand, ATI or Nvidia, & unless you also use whatever rig for gaming, you do not need the latest driver set, so any time lag waiting for certification wouldn't be a big problem [though some would surely complain]. But it would be expensive from both testing/certification & support standpoints, and money would have to come from somewhere, & I'm not sure how many VP users would be happy with higher prices &/or diverting resources from developing fixes & features.

> " I don't think that they can just drop hardware support now that they have started it without, again, making a lot of people angry after spending dollars on video cards and such."

SCS has to offer competitive products if they want enough sales to keep the doors open, & I don't think that for a lot of people they would be competitive if they didn't offer GPU assist -- it's gotten to the point where the free & cheapest video converters have it, so particularly with their lower end versions of Vegas, it's specifically one of the things potential SCS customers look for. The more pro aspects of Vegas are kind of lost on potential customers who don't know yet how that stuff might matter. I know if I was new to video & saw Nero Ult., took a look at the editing features along with everything else in the package, & then saw I could get it for $40 upgrade from some OEM version, I'd look at any version of Vegas an awful lot more critically. Remove Vegas GPU assist in that situation & Nero would be a slam dunk. I might later be disappointed, or sooner if/when I found encoding times were higher than I'd imagined, but I'd have already bought Nero, & being angry with the Nero folks doesn't help the SCS bank acct. one bit.

> "This is why I suggest they pursue a different path altogether with modern innovation and jump to the Intel Quick Sync method or other for fast rendering at a lower price. "

Problem there is that there doesn't seem to be much in the hardware mid-range, & no AMD that can use Quick Sync if you mean as a sole alternative -- if you mean in addition to ATI & Nvidia VP 12 seems to use it now to some extent via Virtu... it does call the Intel OpenCl stuff, mentions it in the release notes, & for me can add 1 or 2 fps, though more Intel graphics assist would always be welcome. :)

-----

As an afterthought, & purely FWIW, the economy being what it is hurts chances that SCS can afford some major re-writes, & by that I mean re-doing very major portions of their codebase that they've been building on over the years. Because of that VP can't take the most advantage of newer methods & tools that they might otherwise use to speed some stuff up considerably. They can speed up encoders & stuff like filters/FX because those aren't part of that core codebase, & when it comes to filters/FX, they don't have as much freedom because those still have to interface with existing, older code.

At any rate not an alibi for anyone, but more a theory on why performance seems uneven, based in part on the history of DVDA, which has needed but not received a re-write ever -- seems to me perhaps poured a lot of resources & licensed code into building it, & once it was build, didn't have those resources to do more than glue on basic BD.