1) That's pretty much what I'm thinking. I mean, otherwise why they would be selling these?Originally Posted by cgbier
2) I'm a but skeptical about it though. I mean, a dual-core vs a quad-core makes a huge difference, so why both up-to-date GPU (one being faster/better) would perform the same? I don't have that problem (Quad-Core + 8Gb DDR2 RAM) though.
Despite some people's claims to the contrary, a capable GPU is likely the most crucial component in a modern editing suite. As I've already stated you don't need a GPU to edit. However, that's tantamount to saying you don't need a vehicle to get from A to B since you can always walk.
In addition, every modern editing software leverages the power in the GPU as much if not more than the CPU. The more powerful it is, the more efficient your software will perform and the faster you'll get your work done. It's designed to work that way.
On the other hand, if you're like the Slowsky's, and enjoy sitting around with nothing better to do than watching the render bar migrate then continue using your none complaint GPU, and slow 32 bit editing system. It probably won't matter to an artist, just don't ever get into broadcast news.You have a right to be skeptical, companies aren't always as honest as they should be. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean their product doesn't work. I was also skeptical which is why I did the homework.
It a tandem operation: You wouldn't put a 300hp engine in a Honda Civil without first beefing up your drive train would you? Remember, a system is only as fast as it's weakest link; and in modern editing software, it's efficiency is centered around the capability of the GPU.I mean, a dual-core vs a quad-core makes a huge difference, so why both up-to-date GPU (one being faster/better) would perform the same? I don't have that problem (Quad-Core + 8Gb DDR2 RAM) though.
Not to me.
Editing vs. rendering is maybe something like 98% to 2%, time-wise. Once I finish editing I render. If the render takes a little longer, it doesn't bother me much.
I would take advantage of GPU though, as long as I understood more about which graphics card wouldn't crash Vegas!
No intention to, whatsoever.
Maybe an update of Vegas?I would take advantage of GPU though, as long as I understood more about which graphics card wouldn't crash Vegas!
From an interesting discussion over at videomaker.com:
"Initially, we need to define "rendering." When rendering to your monitor, yes, the gpu does most of the work, but when rendering to a video or image sequence file, it's ALL cpu."
For me personally, its the rendering to the final format, or any transcoding, where I am looking for efficiency. I imagine others want efficiency in intermediate displays of their work in progress. Its a personal choice. There is no 'absolute' answer and this is outlined in scholarly papers which I'm sure the 'research-centric' members have seen.
This page lists the cards and drivers that are compatible with GPU acceleration in Vegas Pro 11: http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/...puacceleration
Michael
I remember having a topic a few years ago about whether CPU or GPU is more important to editing in general. At the time I argued GPU. Well, I still argue GPU because I just got a computer with a processor ~4x as fast as my old one and editing feels exactly the same because the GPU is no more powerful. However, only for rendering this one is much faster. On my last PC (2.4GHz core2duo) a 5 minute video would take about 20 minutes to encode in Handbrake. On my new one the same video takes less than 5. Tonight I will be finishing a 20 minute video in Vegas and I expect it to render much faster than I'm used to, but like 1 stated I would much rather have a fast GPU and good editing experience than a fast final render.
See my videos! http://www.youtube.com/user/lowcostvideos
-Proud owner of the world's only GS80 with a mic input.
That would be wrong.
The Vegas rendering was indeed much faster with GPU enabled - my guess of "at least double" was apparently correct (thanks, Netguru for the link!!).
I knew I needed to update my graphics card...just couldn't be bothered.....but probably will one of these days....rendering speeds of 2.5x sure sound neat!
Added: apparently my graphics card IS compatible after all.....just crashes though...
I'm pretty sure an update could fix that issue!Added: apparently my graphics card IS compatible after all.....just crashes though...
Updated on everything. Still crashes...
GPU acceleration in Vegas Pro 11 requires CUDA Compute Capable 2.0 NVidia cards. See this advisory: https://www.custcenter.com/app/answe...ute-capabilityUpdated on everything. Still crashes...
Also note the updated comment which says the issue was fixed in NVIDIA driver 285.62 to work with Compute Capable 1.0 and greater GPUs with Vegas Pro 11 builds 424 and 425 and later.
Michael
Ah, but consider digging a six foot hole by hand and doing the same thing using a backhoe? It's not solely a question of your decision making time, but amount of work done within that period. The time it take is measured by a slow human brain, and the physical matter of assembling clips.
The real work comes in when the massive calculations render those edits to a usable form. Try doing that by hand and see if it still doesn't bother you.
That would be the certified ones.I would take advantage of GPU though, as long as I understood more about which graphics card wouldn't crash Vegas!
Apparently....not.
Well don't keep any secrets. If something's not working right I'd certainly like to learn about it. Can you say which card is failing?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote