Dedicated audio PC, but occasional Video Editing, Video Card Help ?

[YZ125]

My system is adequate for it's main use, tracking our band, editing audio in Reaper. The problem is that I occasionally edit GoPro footage of our dirt bike races and riding (my other hobby) . The system takes about 3 x realtime to render the footage. I do this on an "enthusiast/hobby" level . I am looking at upgrading in the next 6-9 months to an X99/i7-5820k/16Gb Ram system . Right now my system is an Asus P6T-se , i7-920 quad@2.66/3x2Gb 1600ram/barebone Ati vid card/Intel 530 SSD for Os, DC3700 SSD for libraries, 1Tb Veloc for active project data and a few WD Black 2TB drives for storage, acronis images, ect , and not connected to internet.



I was thinking about adding a better video card so that I could do Gpu rendering in Vegas to speed up the rendering process, and this card would stay with me when I upgrade. I was looking at putting a radeon R9 290 (or Gtx760) and bumping up my DDR3 ram since it's so cheap now. I also use an Orico Hdd switch that allows me to have separate boot drives while the data drives are always powered, so I could add an SSD system drive with 64 bit windows just for editing the Video. (My current system is 32 bit which is adaquate for my main use, audio tracking and editing but cant use the extra ram.) Any insight on this are greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance !

[newpball]

I am looking at upgrading in the next 6-9 months to an X99/i7-5820k/16Gb Ram system .

A fine system, expensive price/performance wise. Seems to me if you do basic editing of GoPro material this is overkill, a z97 with a 4790k should be sufficient.

But if you have the money and want to go for the X99 system, I would install a minimum of 32GB.

[Cornucopia]

32GB is overkill, unless you are going to be doing 3D model/render/anim or complex compositing or 4k/8k/stereo3D work.

Scott

[YZ125]

I am looking at upgrading in the next 6-9 months to an X99/i7-5820k/16Gb Ram system .

A fine system, expensive price/performance wise. Seems to me if you do basic editing of GoPro material this is overkill, a z97 with a 4790k should be sufficient.

But if you have the money and want to go for the X99 system, I would install a minimum of 32GB.

I'm planning to upgrade my 5 yr old system this year anyway. At $389 the 5820 isn't expensive. Using existing case, SSD's, PS, ect, a X99/i7-5820k/16Gb Ram system would only cost me about $1200 . I can also sell off the P6T/i7-920/ram which is still a very capable DAW. A new X99 system would still be my main audio PC which I use for live audio tracking, editing, soft synths, ect ...so the video performance would just be an added benefit, not a sole use, and the difference in cpu's is not that much.

Thanks for the responses guys. The video card is what i'm really not sure about. Any suggestions on that ?
Yes, the editing is fairly basic, trimming the clips, a few transitions, some EQ carving on the vid audio and music track audio.
I'd like to get a better graphics card now to use it in my P6T and see if gpu rendering speeds things up .
Then I have some time to do a new system. Thanks guys !

[newpball]

Thanks for the responses guys. The video card is what i'm really not sure about. Any suggestions on that ?

You could go a tad higher if you get a hexacore but please don't expect the moon from a GPU, most is done by the CPU.

[jagabo]

Last I heard, Vegas with Intel Quick Sync is faster and delivers better quality than CUDA.

[YZ125]

Last I heard, Vegas with Intel Quick Sync is faster and delivers better quality than CUDA.

So are you saying that if I swap out the generic barebone ati card (currently in my P6T i7-920 quad@2.66 system) with a Radeon R9 290 and then choose GPU render in Vegas I won't see much difference in rendering time ? I currently do "cpu only" in vegas because my video card is a cheap one that's stable and adequate for audio.
I would probably shoot more video and edit more if it didn't take so long to render...takes like 3x realtime . 15-20 min finished 1080 video takes about 45-90 mins .

[newpball]

I would probably shoot more video and edit more if it didn't take so long to render...takes like 3x realtime . 15-20 min finished 1080 video takes about 45-90 mins .

Again don't expect the moon.

GPUs work for some effects and scaling but most of the time it must be done by the CPU(s).

[sophisticles]

You could go a tad higher if you get a hexacore but please don't expect the moon from a GPU, most is done by the CPU.

The i7-5820k is a 6 core.

[YZ125]

Ok . I have a 5 year old very basic Ati card in the p6T system, therefore I do "cpu only" rendering , that's all I can do.

If I replace it with a radeon R9 290 and then choose GPU rendering in vegas, are you saying I will see no improvement over rendering
cpu only with my 5 yr old i7-920 ?

Maybe i've misunderstood what i've read. .. From what i've read, modern (2014) GPU's render about
as fast as modern (2014) CPU's . But I have a 5 yr old i7-920 . http://youtu.be/Y_LQ853yITk

I just want to make sure I understand you. And thanks for taking the time to respond. I appreciate it !

[newpball]

You could go a tad higher if you get a hexacore but please don't expect the moon from a GPU, most is done by the CPU.

The i7-5820k is a 6 core.

Yes, I know, thus I said you could go a tad higher, for instance a 770, if you get a hexacore.

[newpball]

Ok . I have a 5 year old very basic Ati card in the p6T system, therefore I do "cpu only" rendering , that's all I can do.

If I replace it with a radeon R9 290 and then choose GPU rendering in vegas, are you saying I will see no improvement over rendering
cpu only with my 5 yr old i7-920 ?

Maybe i've misunderstood what i've read. .. From what i've read, modern (2014) GPU's render about
as fast as modern (2014) CPU's . But I have a 5 yr old i7-920 . http://youtu.be/Y_LQ853yITk

I just want to make sure I understand you. And thanks for taking the time to respond. I appreciate it !

It depends on many things, for starters the CODEC you want to use.

On the CUDA H.264 front things are a bit iffy now because most CUDA supported encoders use obsolete CUDA software, Kepler based CUDA encoding is the future but it has not very much catched on.

On the OpenCL front there are some but beware if I am not mistaken some do not (officially?) support windows 8.

Also CUDA or OpenCL based encoding with GPUs might be lower quality than CPU based encoding.

[sophisticles]

Last I heard, Vegas with Intel Quick Sync is faster and delivers better quality than CUDA.

So are you saying that if I swap out the generic barebone ati card (currently in my P6T i7-920 quad@2.66 system) with a Radeon R9 290 and then choose GPU render in Vegas I won't see much difference in rendering time ? I currently do "cpu only" in vegas because my video card is a cheap one that's stable and adequate for audio.
I would probably shoot more video and edit more if it didn't take so long to render...takes like 3x realtime . 15-20 min finished 1080 video takes about 45-90 mins .

I have used Vegas quite a bit, you might be better off exporting to a high quality intermediate format after your edits and encoding that with either x264 or x265.

Regardless if you were to build a system based around the 5820k you most certainly achieve close to real time rendering within Vegas sans the need for a discrete add in card, those cpu's are real fast.

A good video card would speed up rendering further but for my money i really recommend the export to a high quality intermediate and then encode with an open source tool like VidCoder, Handbrake, Hybrid or XVID4PSP.

[YZ125]

Last I heard, Vegas with Intel Quick Sync is faster and delivers better quality than CUDA.

So are you saying that if I swap out the generic barebone ati card (currently in my P6T i7-920 quad@2.66 system) with a Radeon R9 290 and then choose GPU render in Vegas I won't see much difference in rendering time ? I currently do "cpu only" in vegas because my video card is a cheap one that's stable and adequate for audio.
I would probably shoot more video and edit more if it didn't take so long to render...takes like 3x realtime . 15-20 min finished 1080 video takes about 45-90 mins .

I have used Vegas quite a bit, you might be better off exporting to a high quality intermediate format after your edits and encoding that with either x264 or x265.

A good video card would speed up rendering further but for my money i really recommend the export to a high quality intermediate and then encode with an open source tool like VidCoder, Handbrake, Hybrid or XVID4PSP.

Yes, i've read this. GoPro now has "GoPro Studio" free for download to GoPro owners, and the first thing it does is convert to an intermediate uncompressed format. http://gopro.com/support/articles/why-does-gopro-studio-convert-file-to-the-gopro-cineform-format

I'll probably build the new x99/5820k system march/april or so . I was considering a Radeon R9 290 card. If I were to get that card now, put it in my current system and then use "GPU render" would I see any improvement in rendering time ? If no , then i'm better off to just wait and get all the parts this spring. I appreciate you all taking the time to offer your advice. Thanks much !

[jagabo]

ATI's GPU h.264 encoder is the worst of the bunch. If you're putting together a new system with a Haswell CPU you should try the Quick Sync encoder.

[YZ125]

``

[YZ125]

ATI's GPU h.264 encoder is the worst of the bunch. If you're putting together a new system with a Haswell CPU you should try the Quick Sync encoder.

Thanks much . Can you be more specific ? I'm not dead set on the R9 290 or ati, it's just one that I have considered. In audio, a basic dual monitor video card that doesn't cause problems is all i've ever needed, but in the area of video I am very much a novice.
Thanks for all your patience !

[jagabo]

ATI's GPU h.264 encoder is the worst of the bunch. If you're putting together a new system with a Haswell CPU you should try the Quick Sync encoder.

Thanks much . Can you be more specific ?

I don't use Vegas so I'm not sure what the situation is there. But before spending a few hundred bucks on a graphics card try using the onboard video. It's adequate for desktop applications (not for serious gaming). You may find the Quick Sync h.264 encoder is fast enough. I haven't seen the quality the latest ATI and Nvidia encoders deliver but their GPU encoders weren't any better than QS in Ivy Bridge (3xxx) or Sandy Bridge (2xxx) CPUs when those CPUs were new (and QS easily beat them in encoding speed, though again, the situation may be different in Vegas).

Also be aware that the situation may be difference between h.264 encoding and all the other filtering you might be doing in Vegas. I don't know what filters if any are accelerated with Haswell.

[YZ125]

..

[YZ125]

..

[YZ125]

Strange coincidence ....I was talking to a buddy who is a member of one of these "big churches" and he says lets talk to to his friend who is the A/V guy at his church. Turns out the guy videos/edits the sermons and events. They are just in the process of upgrading the church computer, it's a 980X that has been only run stock , no gaming, just church A/V work . I got that 980X and the Noctua cooler for $250, I also took 3 of their 4Gb Mushkin Black ram sticks for $75 .
I don't know how relevant it would be but I could post render times of a project in the i7-920 @2.66 system , then render the same project with the 6 core 980x , more ram and 64 bit windows. I'm going to keep my cheap video card for now and just do "CPU only" rendering.
Hopefully it will knock some time off the rendering, and if it does then I can wait a year and get the same X99/Haswell system I was looking at for le$$ .