Sony Vegas Pro 11 or 12 question about video card.

[ingeborgdot]

I know that any card will really suffice but I want to ask anyone that has used 11 or 12. I am running 2 monitors so I need some good power to run them sufficiently. I also want to make sure that when I used GPU enabled that I have something that is going to work well. What brand seems to work best with Vegas? Nvidia or AMD? What would be better, an Nvidia GTX660 or an AMD 7750?

[usually_quiet]

The GTX 660 would perform better because it is the more powerful of the two GPUS, and CUDA has better support than OpenCL. A GTX 660 Ti would be better still for a little more money than a GTX 660. A GTX 670 is considerably more expensive, but better than the other two for GPU assisted encoding, if you can afford it.

[ingeborgdot]

What about a Quadro 2000?

[usually_quiet]

Here is a comparison of how well some of the supported video cards perform for GPU assist: http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegaspro/gpuacceleration

The GTX 570 and GTX 660 Ti are supposed to be similar in performance.

[Edit]Don't expect much in the way of GPU assist from the budget cards you keep asking about.

[ingeborgdot]

Will Cuda cores make more of a difference over the core clock and boost clock? I have also been hearing that 2GB of memory is the way to go also...???

[usually_quiet]

If you have to work within a tight budget, here are some less expensive video cards which are supported by Vegas 11
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709+600100181+600083...=1&srchInDesc=

[usually_quiet]

Will Cuda cores make more of a difference over the core clock and boost clock? I have also been hearing that 2GB of memory is the way to go also...???

More cores and more memory are supposed to be better but I am not an expert on the subject of GPU assisted encoding.

[usually_quiet]

removed double post

[budwzr]

Will Cuda cores make more of a difference over the core clock and boost clock? I have also been hearing that 2GB of memory is the way to go also...???

Unfortunately, in this arena, there are as many opinions as there are posters.

The best advice is, there ain't no free lunch. If the price is cheap, it's gonna be cheap goods.

[ingeborgdot]

Is $229 Cheap?

[usually_quiet]

Is $229 Cheap?

It is not expensive for a video card that can provide significant help via GPU assist. aedipuss recommended a GTX 670 in another thread, which is a bit better than a 660 Ti. Those cost in the neighborhood of $400.

[ingeborgdot]

The GTX 660 Ti is at a much more approachable point on the price-performance curve, offering about 88% of the GTX 670’s performance for 75% of the price. Given the price of Kepler cards so far this is definitely a better deal.
Quote from Anandtech. I have read much about the 660Ti and all reviews say the 670 is better but not by much and not enough to justify the extra hundred unless I can find a deal. Anyone got a deal on one???

[usually_quiet]

Sorry, I don't know of any great deals right now on a GTX 670.

I don't know if you have considered the cost of making any changes to your system that may be required to accommodate a new video card which is capable of significant GPU assist.

The better video cards we've been discussing use a lot of electrical power, and have two six-pin power connections to help supply it. The specs for the ones I looked at suggest at least a 500W PSU.

These video cards are also bulky. Make sure there is enough room for one inside your case. ..and they generate a lot of heat, so you will need good ventilation for your case to help get rid of it, even though the video cards have their own cooling fan.

[budwzr]

Great advice so far.

If I may add, you also might want to check the Sony website for desirable specs.

But the most important thing is HOW FAST is fast enough? If you're throwing all kind of mixed bag media on the timeline, that will slow down any card.

[JimmyS]

On my project machine (not the one in my profile), I have two video cards installed. An AMD 5770 Eyefinity 5 card which is driving four 1920x1080 monitors (2 x 26" and 2 x 23"). This card runs all four monitors in extended desktop mode flawlessly. The second card is an Nvidia GTX460, which is not connected to any of the monitors and is used only for video work GPU acceleration when applicable. The two cards, while a bit older, are quite similar in class to the cards you are considering. Benchmark comparisson of these two cards usually gave the edge to the GTX460. Either card you are considering should not have any problems handling two monitors.

Vegas Pro 11 runs fine with this configuration, and I can have parts of it spread across all four monitors if desired. Using either card for GPU acceleration provides some interesting results. Using the same project and media files from the Vegas acceleration test page that unususlly_quiet mentioned, (they can be downloaded from a link towards the bottom of the page).

Rendering the project to MainConcept AVC 1080-30p 24Mbs max VBR using the Internet HD 1080p template.

CPU only 4 min. 10 sec.
AMD 5770 1 min. 05 sec.
Nvidia GTX460 1 min. 33 sec.

The AMD card out performed the Nvidia card by a good percentage margin. Extrapolate this out to an hour or more of video, and the time saved is fairly significant. These results may be because Vegas is now using OpenCL and AMD may have their GPUs and drivers optimized for this standard (also see my caveat below). When comparing the CPU only times with the accelerated times, there is no contest (this pc has a core i7-950 @ 3.7 GHz). When comparing the video quality between either accelerated encode and the CPU only encode, I personally cannot detect any difference. Someone with younger and sharper eyes may be able to, but for me its a complete wash. Also, not to mention the added benefits of smooth effortless scrolling in the time line when editing AVC type content and excellant video preview from the timeline.

I have to state though, that there may be a caveat in my results. Being that the Nvidia card is residing in the 2nd PCIe slot, I'm not sure if that could be effecting the results between the two cards. I've thought about installing each card seperately and re-running the tests, but I just can't seem to motivate my self into tearing the setup apart.

Even with these mid range video cards, the encode acceleration is enticing. What video professional wouldn't like to decrease encode times by 60% or more. And imagine the results if one had one of the new high end AMD or Nvidia cards.

[ingeborgdot]

Sorry, I don't know of any great deals right now on a GTX 670.

I don't know if you have considered the cost of making any changes to your system that may be required to accommodate a new video card which is capable of significant GPU assist.

The better video cards we've been discussing use a lot of electrical power, and have two six-pin power connections to help supply it. The specs for the ones I looked at suggest at least a 500W PSU.

These video cards are also bulky. Make sure there is enough room for one inside your case. ..and they generate a lot of heat, so you will need good ventilation for your case to help get rid of it, even though the video cards have their own cooling fan.

I will be running an Intel Xeon E3-1245 V2 Ivy Bridge with 750 Watt High Current 80 Plus Gold certified PSU with 16GB of ram. I think I have enough power to handle it

[ingeborgdot]

In my time crunch I just can't afford to be slow.

[usually_quiet]

Sorry, I don't know of any great deals right now on a GTX 670.

I don't know if you have considered the cost of making any changes to your system that may be required to accommodate a new video card which is capable of significant GPU assist.

The better video cards we've been discussing use a lot of electrical power, and have two six-pin power connections to help supply it. The specs for the ones I looked at suggest at least a 500W PSU.

These video cards are also bulky. Make sure there is enough room for one inside your case. ..and they generate a lot of heat, so you will need good ventilation for your case to help get rid of it, even though the video cards have their own cooling fan.

I will be running an Intel Xeon E3-1245 V2 Ivy Bridge with 750 Watt High Current 80 Plus Gold certified PSU with 16GB of ram. I think I have enough power to handle it

That is good. My concern arose from the computer details in your profile, which describe a far more modest system. I think it is time to update them.

[aedipuss]

On my project machine (not the one in my profile), I have two video cards installed. An AMD 5770 Eyefinity 5 card which is driving four 1920x1080 monitors (2 x 26" and 2 x 23"). This card runs all four monitors in extended desktop mode flawlessly. The second card is an Nvidia GTX460, which is not connected to any of the monitors and is used only for video work GPU acceleration when applicable. The two cards, while a bit older, are quite similar in class to the cards you are considering. Benchmark comparisson of these two cards usually gave the edge to the GTX460. Either card you are considering should not have any problems handling two monitors.

Vegas Pro 11 runs fine with this configuration, and I can have parts of it spread across all four monitors if desired. Using either card for GPU acceleration provides some interesting results. Using the same project and media files from the Vegas acceleration test page that unususlly_quiet mentioned, (they can be downloaded from a link towards the bottom of the page).

Rendering the project to MainConcept AVC 1080-30p 24Mbs max VBR using the Internet HD 1080p template.

CPU only 4 min. 10 sec.
AMD 5770 1 min. 05 sec.
Nvidia GTX460 1 min. 33 sec.

The AMD card out performed the Nvidia card by a good percentage margin. Extrapolate this out to an hour or more of video, and the time saved is fairly significant. These results may be because Vegas is now using OpenCL and AMD may have their GPUs and drivers optimized for this standard (also see my caveat below). When comparing the CPU only times with the accelerated times, there is no contest (this pc has a core i7-950 @ 3.7 GHz). When comparing the video quality between either accelerated encode and the CPU only encode, I personally cannot detect any difference. Someone with younger and sharper eyes may be able to, but for me its a complete wash. Also, not to mention the added benefits of smooth effortless scrolling in the time line when editing AVC type content and excellant video preview from the timeline.

I have to state though, that there may be a caveat in my results. Being that the Nvidia card is residing in the 2nd PCIe slot, I'm not sure if that could be effecting the results between the two cards. I've thought about installing each card seperately and re-running the tests, but I just can't seem to motivate my self into tearing the setup apart.

Even with these mid range video cards, the encode acceleration is enticing. What video professional wouldn't like to decrease encode times by 60% or more. And imagine the results if one had one of the new high end AMD or Nvidia cards.

the problem i have with any type of gpu use is that there are lots of things that can't be rendered with the gpu in vegas. almost all resizing and multiple effects will crash gpu encoding. i've given up and only use the cpu unless there are absolutely no effects/re-sizing.

[ingeborgdot]

Update done. I forgot all about updating that dang thing.
I have never hand any problem rendering anything with GPU encoding. Knock on wood.

[JimmyS]

the problem i have with any type of gpu use is that there are lots of things that can't be rendered with the gpu in vegas. almost all resizing and multiple effects will crash gpu encoding. i've given up and only use the cpu unless there are absolutely no effects/re-sizing.

I haven't really looked at which effects work well with GPU encoding, but your point does raise some interesting questions. There are a few different effects used in the Vegas demo that they reference on their acceleration page. I did a quick scan of them and found it using Sony Chroma Keyer, Black & White, Cookie Cutter, Color Corrector, Bump Map and Lens Flare along with Pan & crop and Zooming. Its a rather complex project with 9 video tracks and 1 audio track. Well worth downloading and looking over. Even if you don't use the GPU for encoding, its acceleration is still quite nice while editing a project.

[budwzr]

Ummm...last time I checked, there's no Mac version of Vegas. <ahem> <cough>.

[ingeborgdot]

Who's running a Mac?

[budwzr]

Who's running a Mac?

Maybe I'm wrong. Disregard.

Anyways, don't let yourself get baffled with a lot of fancy numbers and ten dollar words. We ain't all got a million dollars to toss around, like them Apple people. Hehehe.

Just kiddin'

[JimmyS]

No Macs here either. (4 pc desktops anf 2 pc laptops)

Worked in corporate IT for >25 yrs. with a mix of pc's and Macs. Have several family members and friends with Macs, so I must stay bi-lingual.

In fact some of the ladies say that I am a very cunning linguist.

[budwzr]

I'd say you're also a "smart feller".