Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when….No Way!

[Lawrence Farr]

Maybe you misunderstood but I think it only works with NVDIA cards, not ATI. I too have an ATI card so it’s no good to me either.

“Users with a CUDA-enabled NVIDIA® video card are able to encode to the Sony AVC format using GPU-accelerated rendering.”

[Mark Prebonich]

Look again at the comparison. The first computer does have a Nvidea card GTS 250 which has 128 Cuda Cores. The second computer that has an ATI card blows the first one away.

[Mike Kujbida]

In case it will help, here’s the full text from the Pro 10 readme.

Support for GPU-accelerated AVC rendering using the Sony AVC plug-in.

If you have a CUDA-enabled NVIDIA video card, Vegas Pro can use your GPU to improve AVC rendering
performance.

GPU-accelerated AVC rendering requires NVIDIA driver 185.xx or later. We recommend using a GeForce 9 Series or newer GPU. GPU-accelerated rendering performance will vary depending on your specific hardware configuration. If you have an older CPU and a newer NVIDIA GPU, rendering using the GPU may improve render times.

For more information about CUDA-enabled GPUs, please see
https://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_learn_products.html

[Davd Keator]

Yes, that appears to be a correct copy from sony\’s web site. Apparently the operative word is \’MAY\’ should be \’most likely won\’t.\’ I find it to be a very poor choice of advertising. Kinda reminds me of a diet exercise ad, you know, results not typical, your results will vary. Lol

My computer drivers, video card, even a slow CPU all match the required ad requirements…

Perhaps, the 3D additions make an upgrade worthy, if you\’re thinking thats the very near future of tv, and movies. However I think Pirana 3d, has shown us the viability of that notion. we can only hope Jackass 3D can prove Sony\’s insight.

On a serious note, even CS5 is no more efficient than Vegas 9 / 10 at rendering…

I would love to know the real bottle neck of rendering..I never see 100% CPU load… Usually 36- 75%…perhaps certain filters are not multicore or something…actuall honest detailed advertising can only help people these days… Until that day, I have ocean front property in Arizona, any one interested?

[Norman Willis]

>>I would love to know the real bottle neck of rendering..I never see 100% CPU load… Usually 36- 75%…

I typically have 95-98% CPU utilization on Pro 9.0e, Core2Quad 3.0GHz, Vista x64, GTX260, 8GB RAM, C:\ standalone 1TB, D:\ RAID 10. I also had similar CPU utilization when I had both C:\ and D:\ in RAID 0.

I downloaded Pro 10a but have not had time to experiment with it yet (as I wear a lot of hats). However, I am curious to know why you only get 36-75% utilization on your CPU.

My projects are usually two layers of AVCHD converted to Cineform .avi, slides, .png’s, a .wav track, and some minor effects.

Norman Willis
http://www.nazareneisrael.org

[Norman Willis]

>>8 HDD Raid 5 = 675MB/s

David, you show Raid 5 on your new machine. When I was researching I was told Raid 5 would be a bottleneck due to slow write times (and to implement Raid 10 instead). However, your new machine does not seem to suffer (as it is 3 times as fast as your old one).

I imagine the speed increase is due to your new processor (Intel 980x), but it seems I got some bad information about Raid 5. Is there no real bottleneck as far as write times with Raid 5?

Norman Willis
http://www.nazareneisrael.org

[Davd Keator]

Raid 5 is not the bottle neck, when you have EIGHT – 2 Terrabyte Hard drives attached. I’m using the areca 1261ml w/ 2gb cache…
it’s nice…it was over kill but I like speed. I use the large work drive for my other computers to render too as well if needed for back ups…

Partitions:

64 gb to Boot drive
64 gb to Backup files / system mirror
800 gb to audio video library
11.9 Tb to Work drive – renderings etc…

[Lawrence Farr]

Sorry Mark. I’m a bit of a video noob (compared to you guys) and I didn’t recognize that card as being an NVIDIA though I should have assumed so. Another example of “think or investigate before speaking”. 🙂

Thanks.

[Norman Willis]

>>Raid 5 is not the bottle neck, when you have EIGHT – 2 Terrabyte Hard drives attached. I’m using the areca 1261ml w/ 2gb cache…

I was told that Raid 5 slows things down because the processor has to spend one core thinking about what to send to which drive…and that an increase in the number of drives actually slowed the processor down more.

Now I am going to have to go back and research that whole thing, because drive for drive, Raid 5 has a lot more capacity than Raid 10.

Norman Willis
http://www.nazareneisrael.org

[Davd Keator]

When researching: make sure you get a dedicated raid processor on the card. Otherwise it would be slow…

My friend is using Raid 5 on the ICH10R – thats the mother board chipset. He’s averaging 5MB/s on three hard drives…and noticable CPU draw…He just uses his computer for his small business database, no mega speed needed…

He is also using a server edition of windows to get Raid 5 support…