Curious you should say that, Steve, as I just discovered that my NVidia Geoforce 560 actually not only slows down my frame rate while editing, but it also renders significantly slower than if I shut it off altogether in SVP 12! However, since we all need a graphics card to use our computers (unless you use the motherboard's built-in graphics processor to view screen contents), what is recommended for those of us that use an external graphics card? What do YOU use, Steve? I know that John Rofrano likes his Quadro video card, is that correct John (feel free to jump in)? I am starting to tire of not being able to edit in less than 1920X1080i without jerky video during motion, so what is the best bang for the buck these days that is compatible with Vegas and won't break the bank? Rich Kutnick VIDEO IMPRESSIONS.

(unless you use the motherboard's built-in graphics processor to view screen contents), Exactly Rich. I am exhausted and fed-up with this entire GPU Card series hunting with what works with which software, And with all manner of odd results like what you have mentioned above.

At times they work ok for only a period. So my solution that i am happy with Rich ( if you read one of my earlier GPU Card rants some time ago) lol, i simply just purchase and use the average Joe's powerful off-the-self laptops, Nothing more. Im in editing heaven, lol.

ค้นพบ Link ทั้งสิ้น 28564 รายการ 1. PTNrJPEYSR http://www.musculpump.com/forums/topic/family-constellations-a-practical-guide-to.

Sometimes simplicity is the best solution! Steve Rhoden (Cow Leader) Film Editor & Compositor. Filmex Creative Media. [Rich Kutnick] 'I know that John Rofrano likes his Quadro video card, is that correct John (feel free to jump in)?' Curious you should mention that.;-) My Quadro 4000 just DIED!

The good news is it has a 3 year warrantee and I bought it 2 years and 11 months ago (no joking) in April 2011! I went to the PNY web site and contacted customer support via email and told them what happened. Within 2 hours I got an email reply asking to see my purchase receipt and serial number, so I sent them a PDF copy.

Before the end of the day I had a second email with an RMA number and shipping instructions to get a replacement, no questions asked. That's why you pay the big bucks for Quadro cards. The customer service is outstanding. I don't think you would have gotten that kind of response with a gaming card. Having said that, you are really paying for stability and not performance with the Quadro. The gaming cards are a lot faster for less money but the drivers are not as stable. Now I REALLY am confused!!

So what exactly are the options--Just use my PC's CPU for all video processing and put up with the jerkiness of my video playback? Purchase a Quadro video card? Purchase an AMD Radeon HD6970? Scrap the desktop and put Vegas on a laptop as Steve does? Retire for a second time (LOL!)?

Is this REALLY that complicated that there is no middle-of-the-road solution? Is there not a somewhat reasonably-priced video card that will give smooth full res video while editing, yet still offer stable drivers? I am not concerned with rendering as my CPU handles that quite well, but in day-to-day editing I surely could use a simple solution for smooth video.or are we all just stuck with a hodge-podge of hit-or-miss cards and drivers? Rich Kutnick VIDEO IMPRESSIONS. [Rich Kutnick] Torrent Entpacken Passwort. 'Is this REALLY that complicated that there is no middle-of-the-road solution? Is there not a somewhat reasonably-priced video card that will give smooth full res video while editing, yet still offer stable drivers?'

I think the only simple solution is to buy the card that Sony used in their benchmark because at least you know that someone at Sony tested it.;-) Here are Sony's 'official' guidelines: Supported cards for GPU-acceleration To take full advantage of the GPU-acceleration in Vegas Pro 12, you will need a supported card with at least 512 MB of GPU memory. NVIDIA Requires a CUDA-enabled GPU and driver 270.xx or later. • GeForce GPUs: GeForce GTX 4xx Series or higher (or GeForce GT 2xx Series or higher with driver 285.62 or later). • Quadro GPUs: Quadro 600 or higher (or Quadro FX 1700 or higher with driver 285.62 or later).

NVIDIA recommends NVIDIA Quadro for professional applications and recommends use of the latest boards based on the Fermi architecture. AMD/ATI Requires an OpenCL-enabled GPU and Catalyst driver 11.7 or later with a Radeon HD 57xx or higher GPU. If using a FirePro GPU, FirePro unified driver 8.85 or later is required.That was written before NVIDIA came out with the Kepler architecture so Sony should really update that to say Fermi cards only. The problem is that those cards are very old now and no longer being sold and the newer cards don't seem to work as well.

So I don't see a simple solution. The older cards seem to be better than the newer ones and the workstations cards are very expensive for what they deliver. I've been doing some benchmarking with an old ATI Radeon HD 5870 that I recently acquired while I'm waiting for my NVIDIA Quadro 4000 to come back from PNY. I'll post the results when I'm done but the difference is night and day with GPU on and off. I created a little render test with a rotating smtpe bars background and composited animated noise texture and without the GPU it plays back at 0.78fps at Best/Full (that's less than a frame per second) with the CPU's at 50%. I turn on the ATI Radeon HD 5870 GPU and it plays back at 29.97 full frame rate all day long. The GPU is at 69% while the CPU's are at 9%.

That is impressive GPU performance. I can't wait to try the same test on the Quadro 4000. (Mr.John Rofrano)I'm waiting for my NVIDIA Quadro 4000 to come back from PNY. I'll post the results when I'm done but the difference is night and day with GPU on and off. Thanks Mr.John.i am waiting for a good result,so i can switch back to QUADRO System Details: Custom Built Motherboard - Asus M5A99X-EVO,HardDrive1 boot C:SSD Kingston,Processor - Amd FX 8350 4.0/4.2 GHZ,Ram - 16 GB,Graphic Card - Asus Gtx 650 1GB DDR 5,Blu Ray Writer - Plextor PX-B950SA,Operating System - Window 7 Pro 64 Bit and Editing Programe - Sony Vegas Pro 12.

[John Rofrano] 'I've been doing some benchmarking with an old ATI Radeon HD 5870 that I recently acquired while I'm waiting for my NVIDIA Quadro 4000 to come back from PNY. I'll post the results when I'm done but the difference is night and day with GPU on and off. I created a little render test with a rotating smtpe bars background and composited animated noise texture and without the GPU it plays back at 0.78fps at Best/Full (that's less than a frame per second) with the CPU's at 50%. I turn on the ATI Radeon HD 5870 GPU and it plays back at 29.97 full frame rate all day long. The GPU is at 69% while the CPU's are at 9%.

That is impressive GPU performance.' That's pretty much the kind of thing I've seen with the HD6970 as well.

And again, in my experience with the recent AMD drivers, they are rock solid. Maybe that became a mission after AMD bought ATi, not sure, but it's really a non-issue these days. As I mentioned here before, there are issue with Vegas and both AMD and nVidia with newer cards. Main Concept doesn't support any new cards, not for OpenCL, not for CUDA. Vegas itself does, and I'd expect video get even smoother on newer AMD systems.

There's a different issue with nVidia. The older Fermi architecture was no problem. But the newer Kepler architecture does not seem to have proper OpenCL support. This isn't a problem in Vegas, it's not a matter of Vegas not using new features or anything.

OpenCL has basically not changed between Kepler and Fermi (well, there was a new version, OpenCL 2.0 put out last fall or so, it doesn't impact Vegas). You can find all sorts of discussions of this outside of the scope of Vegas or video. So the short term wisdom is to get an older AMD HD5xxx or HD6xxx (or the Firepro cards based on the same architecture) or a nVidia Fermi, that's GeForce GTX5xx, or the 'no-K' Quadros. Longer term, it's going to take new code from nVidia to improve OpenCL performance for the Kepler cards, and a new release of the Main Concept CODEC (which probably means a new version of Vegas) to make AVC rendering fast on the newer cards. Semiologia Medica Cediel Descargar Pdf Converter. Certainly, GPU support in Vegas makes things render faster even when the CODEC doesn't use the GPU.

As far as speeding up a system, it used to be 'buy a faster CPU', and the GPU was basically just gravy. But since Vegas 12, I don't really think do. Last summer I wet from a 6-core AMD 1090T to a 6-core Intel i7-3930K. That's about a 2x performance increase, give or take, depending on the work being done.

On that very system, the HD6970 gives me a 4x-6x improvement on edit and render speed, on a complex think the red car demo. You can't get a CPU that's anywhere near that much faster.

To get a 2x improvement, I'd need the newer 12-core E3 Xeon, which runs around $2500. Just not really an option. The think is, and it's correct, that the GPU speeds up only specialized code, the faster CPU speeds up everything. And while that's true, the alternate view is this: how much of an effect does each have on the things that really NEED speeding up.

Clearly, I've chosen to do both. But I had the HD6970 there from my last machine. It was still more bang per buck for editing and rendering than any CPU I could have afforded back then. Even today, that's a $150 video card (if you can find one) versus a $500 CPU. Or maybe $200. The price of these seems to have gone up in the last year or two, despite being older models (mine is from 2011, it was about $300 new). They apparently can mine bitcoins (or could, before that got switched to FPGAs) 6-8x faster than my i7.

And you could put four of these in one box. I'm still a bit confused. With an i7-3820 processor and X-79 chipset (16GB RAM), my Nvidia GTX 560 actually slows the rendering down and causes some New Blue add-ons to crash (I do not see any difference in video smoothness when editing, though). Given my equipment then, would an ATI HD6970 video card offer a significant improvement for me (in ANY way--video smothness, rendering speeds, etc.)? I ask this since you ALSO mentioned in 'short term wisdom' upgrading to a 'GeForce GTX5xx', which is what I already own and really not doing a thing to help my Vegas editing.

I am sorry to keep asking the same questions, but every time there is a new thread this issue keeps getting more 'what if'. I am looking for the short term solution, not wanting to upgrade my PC for at least a few more years (as it is blazing fast for everything EXCEPT video editing/rendering). So, will replacing my Nvidia GTX 560 with the ATI HD6970 do me enough justice (in your opinions) to outlay around $230 (Amazon price for a new card)? As always, I appreciate everyone's efforts to help out! Rich Kutnick VIDEO IMPRESSIONS.

[Rich Kutnick] 'I ask this since you ALSO mentioned in 'short term wisdom' upgrading to a 'GeForce GTX5xx', which is what I already own and really not doing a thing to help my Vegas editing.' Yea, I was going to ask that same question. You have a GTX 560 but Sony used the GTX 570 in their GPU tests. Is the 570 that much faster than the 560?

I think what we're saying is to get the most powerful Fermi based card but don't get a Kepler card. Your GTX 560 has 336 CUDA cores. The GTX 570 has 480, the GTX 580 has 512, and the GTX 590 has a wapping 1024 CUDA cores compared to your 336 (that's more than 3x CUDA cores). The question is, would buying a GTX 590 significantly boost your Vegas performance? There are two ways to find out. (1) Find someone who has a GTX 590 and your motherboard/CPU combination and ask them,.

(2) buy one at a store that a allows returns and see for yourself. If it doesn't perform bring it back for a refund. [Rich Kutnick] 'John, why you suggest going the Nvidia route as opposed to the ATI HD6970? Is this just a six of one, half dozen of the other, or are you more confident of the Nvidia GTX series?' I was just using NVIDIA as an example because I know their product line better. The same holds true for the ATI cards but David would have to tell you which ones work and which do not. Sony used the ATI Radeon HD 6870 in their GPU testing.

I'm not sure how far up or down the line you can go and still be compatible but if David is having good performance with the Radeon HD 6970 then go for that. One problem is that you can't compare the specs of the NVIDA and ATI cards because they use different measurements so I don't know what the equivalent of an NVIDA GeForce GTX590 in the ATI line-up.

Yeah, you can't directly compare card to card, particularly between the nVidia and AMD, simply because they're different enough in architecture that the answer is usually 'it depends'. There's some comparability in naming. NVidia's GTX5xx, GTX6xx, GTX7xx etc.

Indicates the main chip generation. The xx digits pretty much indicate the relative performance within that family. And if you get to '90', you have a two-chip card, so it's likely close to the double the performance of the next one down. If you can use that. That tends to be a problem for GPGPU. Each processor looks like a separate device.

For AMD, the older cards worked similarly, the HD5xxx, HD6xxx, and HD7xxx represent successive generations of product. So it's more or less the same chip architecture, but even then, not always.

For example, the first members of the HD6xxx family were based on the same GPU architecture as the HD5xxx, but it changed in the HD69xx models. But basically, the 1000's digit represents the generation, the 100's digit the specific chip used, then it's relative performance: things like clock and memory speed, how many stream processors are enabled. For example, the HD6790 has 800 stream processors at 840MHz. The HD6850 has 960 stream processors at 775MHz. The HD6870 has 1120 stream processors at 900MHz. Not quite as fast as the older 5870, though.

The HD6970 has the all-new (at the time) Cayman processor, and 1536 stream processors at 850MHz. You have to look at what you're doing. I've seen it stated pretty often that the HD6970 is comparable in gaming performance to the GTX570. That makes sense, given that when I bought mine, it was about the same price as the GTX570, and these are priced based on gaming. However, in OpenCL benchmarks, it's usually pretty close to the GTX690. And isn't there always a BUT. Is that because the GTX690 is dual-chip (two Kepler GPUs), like the AMD HD6990 or HD7990?

Many if not most GPGPU programs -- Vegas included -- can only use one GPU per program instance. Or is it because the GTX6xx series is using nVidia's Kepler architecture, and Kepler is reported 'not so good' at OpenCL? Here's some source of OpenCL benchmarks: Anyway, to answer your question. There's a pretty good parallel. Given that the single-chip GTX570 and HD6970 are comparable, at least for games, it stands to reason that the dual-chip GTX590 and HD6990 would be similarly comparable.

In fact, that's a little easier than sorting out the differences in AMD's line. Particularly because the HD6xxx line was as much a project to get costs and power consumption under control as it was to advance performance. So as mentioned, most of those cards were lower power, die-shrunk versions of essentially the HD5xxx series.

And sometimes further downclocked. [Rich Kutnick] 'I can buy a NEW ATI Radeon HD 5870 1GB CYPRESS XT GDDR5 DP HDMI STKD_DVI Video Graphics Card for $149 (shipped) on EBay with a 14-day money back guarantee. What do you think?' That's the card that I have but I'm not sure if it's the best one for Vegas Pro. I would ask David what's the highest performing card in the ATI line that works well with Vegas Pro. I'm not the guy to ask because I didn't even know that the newer ATI were having problems like NVIDIA was.

Just to be clear, I'm using a Radeon HD 5870 because it came with a computer that I bought, not because I carefully selected it for a certain purpose. That card might not be any better than the GTX 560 that you have now so I don't want to mislead you.

I just don't know how ATI and NVIDIA compare. [Rich Kutnick] 'I can buy a NEW ATI Radeon HD 5870 1GB CYPRESS XT GDDR5 DP HDMI STKD_DVI Video Graphics Card for $149 (shipped) on EBay with a 14-day money back guarantee. What do you think?' The HD5870 benchmarks out just a little slower than the HD6970 on most of the things I've looked up, and occasionally comes out faster. It's main disadvantage is that it's more power hungry.

Much of the point of the HD6xxx series was lower power, so they did die shrinks on chips that were basically the same as the HD5xxx series, except for the HD69xx, which used a new architecture. But the nomenclature changed a bit too. Prior to the HD69xx series, all of the HD59xx were dual-processor boards. You still pay $600+ these days for an HD5970. What that means is that the HD6970 was the fastest single chip AMD from the 2009 generation, while the HD5870 was the fastest single chip AMD from the 2008 generation. It actually has a few more stream processing units (1600 at 850MHz) than the HD6970 (1536 at 880MHz).

I can't promise you it'll give you what you're looking for. But I can pretty much bet that on the right kind of projects, the playback performance will be day and night, GPU vs. I ran this same GPU on my older AMD 1090T PC, and it had at least as much improvement there as it did on my current i7-3930K system.

That means the 'red car demo' playing in realtime, rather than dropping to a couple of fps in sections. Obviously, it won't help for things not OpenCL-accelerated. Ahhh, the frustration factor increases, Dave! By the time you got back to me these boards had been snatched up, one individual alone purchasing five of them!! So now all that I can find are used or factory refurbs for the same price, but no return privileges. I can buy a used Sapphire Radeon HD 5870 1 GB DDR5 Dual DVI-I/HDMI/DP PCI-Express Graphics Card on Amazon for $150 plus $6.99 S&H. So is it worth a crap shoot for 150 bucks that if it does not improve SPV 12 performance to at the least have a spare graphics board in case mine fails?

Rich Kutnick VIDEO IMPRESSIONS. I have been running a Quadro 4000 for my GUI, and have an old GTS250 for my third monitor, I do set that as the 'GPU' in Vegas and started this thread to see if there was something 'better' I can pick up a used Quadro 4000 or move to something else. I also use Resolve 'lite' and having a second card for that program is beneficial too. Intel i7 930 with 12GB ram, I would like to keep this computer a while longer and that is why I'm looking for a GPU as a half-step upgrade before building/buying a new computer in a year or two. My AMD Radeon HD6970 has been nothing but stellar in Vegas.

It's true that some other things out there in the world don't work on OpenGL, but want CUDA for their GPGPU coding. Which is of course limited to nVidia stuff. But for editing or rendering, the effect can be rather dramatic, depending on the job.

For example, with GPU enabled, I get full screen/full quality playback of the old 'red car' Vegas GPU benchmark project at 29.97fps. Without the GPU, it's very jumpy, and sometimes down to single digits. And that's on a 6-core i7. When Vegas 11 first came out, I did a head to head of the HD6970 vs. The nVidia GeForce GTX570 -- because they were about $300 each.

The AMD was faster at everything, but it wasn't day and night. Vegas 12 uses the GPU better, and some plug-ins, like the Main Concept AVC CODEC, use it very effectively. Which also brings up a problem. The GTX570/580, the HD6970, they ain't exactly new cards. They're well understood in Vegas, and they're supported by Main Concept.

We've recently established here, I believe, that Main Concept is hard-coding chip revisions in their CODEC, and won't accelerate for any chip they know. So if getting the best performance in an AVC render is important, the HD6970 or maybe the GTX580 (should be faster than the GTX570 I tested) would be good choices. That's because the HD7xxx, GTX6xx, and newer devices, while supported for Vegas internal GPGPU stuff, isn't supported in Main Concept's AVC encoder.

If you don't care about AVC and/or you're mostly trying to speed up editing, perhaps a newer GPU card would be a better bet. I had thought about upgrading the HD6970, but since Vegas is the primary reason I have a good GPU, I figured I'd wait for the next version, and see how that benchmarks on newer hardware. No sense in just guessing. I know some people are wary of AMD (ATi) driver issues, and certainly there's some merit there. I had been an ATi fan years ago, and really left them for a some time based on the drivers just plain not working right. And going months without any attention to the bugs.

The HD6970 was where I switched back, and I've had no problems at all with drivers. In fact, when I did the benchmarking of the two, I compared OpenGL performance in other things, not just Vegas. There were no problems with the GTX5760 in Vegas, but it failed a few of the OpenCL benchmarks back then, as well as being slower than the AMD. But again, the GTX580 might be faster than my AMD, certainly has to be about the same if not faster, and those driver issues were like fall-of-2012 era issues. Certainly not a lingering problem in current drivers.

That wasn't long after nVidia had officially started supporting OpenCL, not just CUDA.