You may want to hold off on upgrading your GPU...

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 10/18/2011, 12:07 PM
Just a heads up to people who haven't been following the GPU news, but nVidia and ATI are due to release new video card lineups within the next 6 mo. nVidia will be GTX 6xx series and will be moving to a new 28 nm core which is supposed to double the compute power of their current Fermi architecture. ATI is planning to release their 7xxx series lineup of cards as well, which (*I think*) will also be a 28nm processor design as well. This may mean that if you stick it out for now with low/no gpu acceleration for the next few months, you will be able to buy either the current line of GPU's at a better price or the new line of GPU's and get a lot more crunching out of them.

Also, while it may not necessarily be true of Vegas, in programs I've used that are cuda accelerated, there is usually a direct correlation to both the number of cuda cores, the amount of memory, and the memory bandwidth in the card to the performance gains achieved. For example, my 2 GTX 260's with 216 cores each, have a 448bit memory bandwidth and most newer cards have much less bandwidth but more memory, however my 2 cards together, tend to equal the power of a current single 570 in applications that utilize multiple cards due in part to the larger memory I/O even though it has smaller overall memory.

In video applications I think that increased video card memory is often quite beneficial, so it may be that if you're doing high resolution work ( eg HD, 2K, 4K ) or lots of layers of video, you may be able to handle more with a higher memory video card than with a lower memory one, so it may be of interest to you to buy one that has additional memory.

This is just my experience with video cards, and it may or may not be representative of the implementation in Vegas, but these are just general knowledge points that are true of most GPU accelerated applications I work in.

HTH
Dave

Comments

Former user wrote on 10/18/2011, 12:16 PM
Informative post, thank you.

But this illustrates why I have been a fan of Vegas in the past and why now I find it confusing. Not having the software tied to hardware was always a plus for vegas. You can look back on many posts where people asked about Video cards and were told that Vegas didn't care about what card you used because it was all software. Not with this new version, everyone is p-offed because their video card is not supported.

My video cards aren't supported. I can't even run the New Blue titler. But I am still a Vegas fan. As long as they give us a choice of using GPU acceleration or not, I will be happy. One less hardware device to worry about going out of date.

Dave T2
TheHappyFriar wrote on 10/18/2011, 1:10 PM
The *ONLY* issue i have with the wise advise is that with GPU's, just like CPU's, there's ALWAYS a new one around the corner. If the next lineup follows their previous releases for the past 8-10 years or so, they'll release a small spectrum of cards (a low end, a mid range & a high end). Within a couple months they'll release a greater range of cards, some that are lower, more powerful midrange ones and some super-powerful ones.

It's a loose-loose really. :)
gwailo wrote on 10/18/2011, 1:30 PM
yes... tight tight is much better
MUTTLEY wrote on 10/18/2011, 1:45 PM
Yea, I'm kinda with Friar on this one but glad he voiced my thoughts as last night I bit the bullet and bought this card:

3GB EVGA GeForce GTX 580

Pretty sure it's going to be a beast no matter what and will hopefully last me a good few years.

As for people gripping about the improved performance that may be had with certain cards I just don't get what people are whining about. Vegas will perform just as it always had without a supported card (which has always been exceptional in my book) but why would anyone think that Vegas should not take advantage of new technology? As I've said elsewhere the formula hasn't changed, Vegas has always run on just about any system and still will, but just as always the better the system the better the performance. Is the implied that everyone should suffer with limitations because you don't have or want to buy a better card? Sony obviously can't offer the enhancements in cards that don't even have the functionality. So what? They should have just blown it off altogether?

To be clear I'm not made of money, I do video production full time, independently, and when I spend money on my chosen profession it's never without pain. To me, from what I've read, this is worth the sacrifice. If you don't think it is that's fine but faulting Sony for giving us the option to work more efficiently then ever is just silly.

- Ray
Underground Planet



FrigidNDEditing wrote on 10/18/2011, 1:46 PM
agree friar except that going to a new 28nm core is actually quite the change not just a small one, so this is why I posted. It's a matter of the value of your time too, maybe it's going to be more useful to you to upgrade now and have the improved performance along the way and either keep it or ebay it and buy a new one on the new release.

Dave
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 10/18/2011, 1:47 PM
Hey Ray, My Cousin has a 3GB 580, he likes it a lot (but his is just for gaming :P )
Former user wrote on 10/18/2011, 1:54 PM
Ray,

Don't misunderstand. I was not complaining about Vegas moving forward with technology. My only concern is like I said, that they keep giving us the option. Many NLEs do not. You either have a specific hardware setup or you don't use the editor. It used to be simpler because I didn't have to worry that I have a crappy video card. Now it is confusing.

I just hate that everybody is complaining that their video card is not supported, when none of them were supported before. I guess I want people to be happy. :)

I purchased Version 11 which is unusual for me because I usually only stay with even numbered updates. My hope is they have fixed a few of the issues I had with 10 and maybe it is a bit more stabile.

Dave T2
CorTed wrote on 10/18/2011, 6:01 PM
Ray said:
Yea, I'm kinda with Friar on this one but glad he voiced my thoughts as last night I bit the bullet and bought this card:

3GB EVGA GeForce GTX 580



Hey Ray, would you be so kind as to review the performance of this card on the new Vegas 11 once you get it installed. I am very interested to see how it works out for you as I am looking at upgrading my card as well.

TIA


Ted
TheHappyFriar wrote on 10/18/2011, 8:38 PM
going to a new 28nm core is actually quite the change not just a small one, so this is why I posted

Until I see benchmarks I don't worry to much. The best part is that the cards we're looking at now will drop in price, most likely between $50-100 lower at that time. I like to keep my eye on what I would buy now if I had the $$, then buy it when it gets to the value I am willing to spend.
Spectralis wrote on 10/18/2011, 10:34 PM
I've been using an NVidia GTX 470 card with After Effects and various other CUDA accelerated software and together with an AMD X6 CPU it handles any video job very quickly.

I'm going to upgrade to a i7 2860 / NVidia GTX 560 / 16GB RAM laptop which will cope with just about any processing job. The Intel Ivy Bridge processors are about 6 months away as are the new NVidia chips but in terms of greater processing power the new Intel CPU's will be at most 20% faster than current chips. The new chips will be focusing on power saving by using smaller dies than on significant increases in processing. Why wait at least 6 months for a 20% processing increase when I can get a good deal now on current hardware that can cope with anything I throw at it?

Look at all the delays with AMD's Bulldozer only to find upon release that it performed worse than an i5. Unless a new chip is just around the corner (ie next month) then the waiting game is pointless. Chip manufacturers miss their schedules all the time so don't rely on promises of a new release in Qx 2012 because it's more than likely to be 2013 before it arrives. And usually the early releases aren't optimised until later cycles of a new chip (e.g. Sandy Bridge) which is just another excuse to hold back and never commit to upgrading ever.
imaginACTION_films wrote on 10/18/2011, 11:20 PM
Just got my first look at what GPU acceleration can do. System is i7 2600 3.7GHz Win7 64-bit 8GB RAM. New graphics card is AMD Radeon HD 6950 2GB DDR5.

Switching GPU acceleration on gives me a 33% reduction when rendering HDV to MPEG-2 video stream. Significant time saving on an already very fast render. A 60 min video renders in just over 20 min. Cost me $275. I'm happy!
David
imaginACTION
Marton wrote on 10/19/2011, 12:16 AM
Hmm, mpeg2 rendering is also hw accelerated now?
hazydave wrote on 10/19/2011, 1:07 AM
Vegas performance has always been tied to hardware -- just general purpose hardware, like your CPU. As in, no special-purpose graphics cards, etc.

This is no different. GPGPU computing is a general purpose resource today. And it's offering a level of performance not available in any other way. But it's something that anyone can offer. In fact, it's more open in theory than the CPU ties, which have been pretty much 79.75% Intel, 29.75% AMD, and maybe 0.5% every other x86 vendor (well, they're all pretty much contained with Via these days, but there used to be two other companies doing slow x86 chips).

I'd be upset if I HAD to drop $1000 on a dedicated Matrox card or some-such. Not sure I'd mind having that option, on the other hand. My GPU wasn't supported either, but it's lasted though my last THREE CPU upgrades. It's been time to replace it for awhile, I just figured I'd hold out for a real reason. This is a real reason.

I have a rule: if I can double performance on my PC for anything important for $300 or less, I do it. If not, I'm pretty much going to wait.
hazydave wrote on 10/19/2011, 1:13 AM
Just ordered an AMD Radeon HD 6970, 2GB DDR5, $300 with Amazon rebate. I'll post some benchmarks.

The most interesting thing in the Sony-posted benchmarks was that the nVidia chips were helping more on rendering, but the AMD were accelerating editing more. I want 'em both fast, but the editing part is really a big win. I don't always have to be here for rendering :-)
DGates wrote on 10/19/2011, 1:34 AM
"Not having the software tied to hardware was always a plus for Vegas. You can look back on many posts where people asked about Video cards and were told that Vegas didn't care about what card you used because it was all software."

Unless you're still editing SD material, Vegas, and any other NLE, need all the help they can get when editing HD and especially data-intensive DSLR files.
ushere wrote on 10/19/2011, 1:58 AM
@hazydave

please do get back with results.

i'm with you re editing being much more important than rendering, and which ever card gives me better playback will be the one i opt for, even though i haven't been impressed with ati's catalyst drivers in the past.

as i've written elsewhere, i just wish scs would be more transparent regarding which cards do what things better (faster?).
John_Cline wrote on 10/19/2011, 1:58 AM
"Not having the software tied to hardware was always a plus for vegas."

But nothing has changed with this new version, Vegas is still not tied to hardware, it will work just fine without a supported GPU, it just won't be accelerated.

"One less hardware device to worry about going out of date."

I don't understand this statement, ALL hardware goes out of date.

However, the new Vegas does require Vista or Win7, it won't run on WinXP anymore. Technology marches on...
travtek wrote on 10/19/2011, 5:32 AM
Just downloaded trial version of Vegas Pro 11. I tested the performance between 11 and 10 pro versions. Simple test is do a split and create a standard simple transistion with no effects. loop a few seconds before and after the transistion. Count how many times it loops before the transition looks like normal playback. My first test was ugly. No change. Then I found on the forum to make sure my NVIDIA 480 GTX driver is up to date (it wasn't). Then re-tested. In version 10 it took 21 passes before transition was normal. In version 11 it took only 3 (three) passes to accomplish the same goal. That's a 700 % increase. Better yet the GPU showed only a single digit percentage of use and and the card's temp never bumped above 55C. SOLD!
Former user wrote on 10/19/2011, 8:16 AM
John Cline,

Yes I understand that you can still use Vegas without a GPU. But that used to be the selling point of Vegas. that is why I brought it up.

And by device going out of date, it has been my experience with other NLE programs that once you start basing performance on specific hardware (not just a faster CPU or certain amount of memory, but actual video card models) then that changes when the software changes. Hardware, specifically video cards, become outdated much faster. Just my thoughts, not trying to be negative, just thinking out loud.

Dave T2
Sebaz wrote on 10/23/2011, 2:33 PM
Simple test is do a split and create a standard simple transistion with no effects. loop a few seconds before and after the transistion. Count how many times it loops before the transition looks like normal playback. My first test was ugly. No change. Then I found on the forum to make sure my NVIDIA 480 GTX driver is up to date (it wasn't). Then re-tested. In version 10 it took 21 passes before transition was normal. In version 11 it took only 3 (three) passes to accomplish the same goal. That's a 700 % increase.

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but I find that kind of sad actually. For the last year I've been editing in Edius where transitions always play real time without having to do any rendering, as well as events with two or three filters applied to them, and pan&crop events. Since Vegas 11 was released with the promise of accelerated playback with a supported graphics card I've been following the discussions because Vegas remains my second favorite NLE and if it gets realtime playback for everything, perhaps I might consider coming back to it, but if you tell that with a powerful graphics card it still gets stutters when going through a simple cross dissolve as usual, then I might stick with Edius.
johnmeyer wrote on 10/23/2011, 2:44 PM
but if you tell that with a powerful graphics card it still gets stutters when going through a simple cross dissolve as usual, then I might stick with Edius.I have versions 7, 8, 10, & the demo of 11 installed on my computer. With HDV and AVCHD I can do a simple dissolve, with "Best-Full" preview quality at 29.97, without any GPU assist. So, if either you or the person who said he had to run the preview multiple times are having problems, then you probably don't have a very powerful computer OR you are not setting up Vegas correctly with the settings needed to provide smooth timeline preview. I have posted many times, providing hints on what is required for smooth preview.

Four rules for fast preview speed

The new GPU assist for preview is designed to extend the ability for smooth playback to include the extra burdens of having multipel fX, composites, masks, etc.

I'll be interested to hear from others as to how well the new Vegas, with a good GPU assits, performs with this sort of project.

Hulk wrote on 10/23/2011, 2:48 PM
I have to agree with Sebaz here. My 2500k at 4GHz can do a crossfade from one AVCHD clip to another in realtime at Best/Full. And by that I mean if I overlap two clips by 10 or more seconds the entire crossfade will preview in realtime. And that is with the preview window at half resolution. I can put on color correction and still hold full frame rate at Best/Half, and even add unsharp mask and get full frame rate preview at Best/Quarter. VP10 is very usable preview-wise with a 2500k or faster processor and a little overclock. And things will only get better when Ivy Bridge is released.
Grazie wrote on 10/23/2011, 2:52 PM
Edius doesn't do transition renders? Never used it, so it's really an innocent question. Then how does it do it? To go from one set of circumstances to another surely some form of change of state has to occur? No?

Grazie

Sebaz wrote on 10/23/2011, 3:00 PM
Edius doesn't do transition renders? Never used it, so it's really an innocent question. Then how does it do it? To go from one set of circumstances to another surely some form of change of state has to occur? No?

What I meant is, you don't need to do a RAM preview or a prerender, even when the events around the transition have plenty of filters applied to them, as long as they are the transitions and events that ship with Edius itself, because when using some filters from New Blue or ProDad, you do need to render first, but it's a render much more similar to the way it's done on other NLEs like FCP or Premiere.

But normally on Edius you don't need to render anything to be able to watch it at full size and full fps. And this is without any expensive graphics card, because Edius uses the CPU fully, so the faster the CPU, the more stuff you can throw at it and it will play realtime. That's the main reason I started using Edius, because I was really tired of doing RAM previews just to preview a simple crossfade, or to preview an events with color correction in real time and full frame size.