Creative COW SIGN IN :: SPONSORS :: ADVERTISING :: ABOUT US :: CONTACT US :: FAQ
Creative COW's LinkedIn GroupCreative COW's Facebook PageCreative COW on TwitterCreative COW's Google+ PageCreative COW on YouTube
SONY VEGAS:Sony Vegas TutorialsSony Vegas ForumArticlesBasics ForumBlack Magic Design ForumAJA Xena Forum

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

COW Forums : Sony Vegas

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook
Davd KeatorSony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Oct 13, 2010 at 9:36:15 pm

Well, I downloaded the New Trial of Vegas 10. I was so looking forward to testing out the GPU acceleration. BOY was I let down! What a joke. I shoot with RED files, so anything that can help me finish a project faster is a welcome effect. I will add that I do like the R3D tweaks that Vegas 10 added, yet, compared to Cineform speed, I'll stay with them. Any way back to my rant:

.R3D file - 10 second clip.
simple S-curve and Color Grade:
Rendered to Sony AVC mp4 & m2ts

Vegas 10: 1:46 Encode time, Not bad...
Vegas 9 : 1:49 Encode time, things that make you go hmmm...

According to a little gadget 'GPU Observer' 4-6% Usage..Disappointing to say the least...

Computer:

AMD: 925 x4
GPU: GTS 250
8 Gigs ram
4 HDD Raid 0 = 310 MB/s

For a comparison:

Intel 980x
GPU: ATI 5750
12 gig
8 HDD Raid 5 = 675MB/s

Vegas 10: 0:36
Vegas 9: 0:38


Oh well....


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Lawrence FarrRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Oct 13, 2010 at 10:50:02 pm

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."


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Mark PrebonichRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Oct 14, 2010 at 3:02:08 am

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.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Mike KujbidaRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Oct 14, 2010 at 3:08:35 am

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
http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_learn_products.html


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Davd KeatorRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Oct 14, 2010 at 3:45:27 am

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?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Norman WillisRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Oct 14, 2010 at 11:46:04 am

>>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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Dave HaynieRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Dec 1, 2010 at 7:33:31 am

I've been doing much rendering lately myself. I have an AMD 1090T CPU (6 cores, 3.2GHz), a nVidia 8800GT CPU (nothing special these days), 8GB of DDR3 DRAM. I generally render from one HDD to another.. if the project gets very complex, I'll use multiple SATA input drives and render out to USB.

In all recent testing, I get 97-100% CPU utilization. I was able to make the CPU drop to about 90% by compositing two DNxHD files from the same HDD. Fixed that when I moved one to a separate drive (the C: drive in this case... don't worry about VM when you have more RAM than you need for the job).

So yeah, your performance. If there's a filter that's a bottleneck and not capable of multithreading, that could do it. It'll be obvious... you'll have the one CPU nailed, the others not so much, and when you disable that filter, the problem goes away (or shifts to the next filter). With a fast multi-core CPU, it's definitely possible to beat your HDDs, particularly if you have many assets from the same drive... don't let your input drives thrash.

-Dave


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Clarence ReedRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Aug 12, 2011 at 6:20:09 am

I see that this is a rather old post. And I notice that Sony released some updates that help support CUDA cards with AVC rendering. Me and a few friends have tried various GTX 400 cards out and they have similar if not same AMD CPU. We cut through 20mins worth of AVC video rendering it with more then a few effects in 10mins if not less. On a overclocked GTX 590 we got renders in the 4-5min range. I think a Quadro 5000 could do better mebbe, for the price though I doubt it. Now the Quadro 5000 will handle 3D stuff where the GTX cards will not.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Earle Del RosarioRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Aug 12, 2011 at 1:46:19 pm

Would be nice if VegasPro was enabled with the latest Quadro card, to be just as good as PremierePro is. And, if the EDL was similar to Avid's. With retail price maintained.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Matt BergRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Dec 4, 2010 at 1:02:12 pm

Sorry guys I'm new, but is the AVC plug in included with Vegas 10? or do I have to get it somewhere else? If it is included, how do I enable it?

Thanks,

Matt


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Earle Del RosarioRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Aug 6, 2011 at 4:10:34 pm

With the best NVIDIA card (for Vegas) how is the rendering speed of VegasPro10, compared to the latest PremierePro ?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Lawrence FarrRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Oct 14, 2010 at 7:37:51 pm

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.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Clarence ReedRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Aug 12, 2011 at 6:07:54 am

I have yet to double check the Sony Vegas Pro 10 supported video cards, butt-butt I will go out on a limb cuz I pretty damn sure that their is not a single GTS card on that list last time I checked. IIRC the list was GTX, then FX And Then Quadro. ..... Ive seen GTX 400's tear through 20min renders of AVC in 10mins. I plan to test a GTX 460 & 480 and a 590 AND THEN post the results to Youtube. I got to say Iam pretty disjointed with the lack of render time stat comparisons on the web right now. You can find a list of the supported cards on the Sony Vegas 10 site & on wiki.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Norman WillisRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Oct 14, 2010 at 12:04:23 pm

>>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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Davd KeatorRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Oct 14, 2010 at 7:37:21 pm

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...


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Norman WillisRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Oct 14, 2010 at 8:56:25 pm

>>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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Davd KeatorRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Oct 18, 2010 at 3:10:07 am

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...


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Norman WillisRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Oct 18, 2010 at 3:58:46 am

So increasing the number of drives actually speeds writes up??

I have a Raid controller built onto the motherboard, but I only have five available drive bays. Would one big five-disk Raid 5 array be fast enough to do everything (OS, NLE, data, writes, etceteras)? Or does a guy really need eight?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Davd KeatorRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Oct 18, 2010 at 7:19:30 pm

One big array will be fine... However, the built in raid chip on Mother Boards are not designed for speed. You can always give it a shot, I'd like to know how it goes.

Also: from my use as a power user on a computer and what not...

I really like four partitions on a raid.

1:OS
2: Backup files & System restore
3: Work Drive
4: Library - music, images, royalty free stuff...


This allows my work files and other programs sit on the Hard drive and if I mess up my boot sector or need to reinstall the OS it doesn't interfear with my other files... A complete system restore new codecs and the like in under 20 minutes. A brand new speedy clean system.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Norman WillisRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Oct 18, 2010 at 8:27:58 pm

OK, then, that's a $900.00 card! (I'm out....)

I've got a fresh install of Vista x64 on Raid 10, so realistically speaking I'll probably go with that for right now. But the next time I go to install an OS I might try Raid 5....

Thanks.

Norman Willis
http://www.nazareneisrael.org


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Norman WillisRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Oct 22, 2010 at 1:41:16 pm

Hi David.

>>I really like four partitions on a raid.

1:OS
2: Backup files & System restore
3: Work Drive
4: Library - music, images, royalty free stuff...


This allows my work files and other programs sit on the Hard drive and if I mess up my boot sector or need to reinstall the OS it doesn't interfear with my other files... A complete system restore new codecs and the like in under 20 minutes. A brand new speedy clean system.



I am chewing on this. Where do you put all of your program files? Do you put them on the OS partition? And if so, if you re-install Windows, then how do you add the programs back to the registry?

Norman Willis
http://www.nazareneisrael.org


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Dave HaynieRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Oct 19, 2010 at 5:10:06 am

In most RAID senarios, adding drives will speed up both reads and writes, but also increase latency. These days, latency is not usually an issue, but it's easy to see why this is so. When you read or write from a single drive, you have over time an average latency to get the data, but sometimes it's a bit faster. With a RAID, you actually have to wait for each drive to seek, so for any seek, it's the worst actual case of all drives, even if the overall average seek time is the same.

Without a dedicated controller, the overhead of the RAID is exposed to the user. When its something like RAID0 or RAID1, there's virtually no overhead. RAID5 does have overhead... nothing like "devoting a whole core" on a modern PC, but sure, it's very measurable. Better RAID controllers devote a separate processor to run the RAID itself, and also buffer writes... so you actually hide nearly all seek time for writes, at least with the better controllers.

-Dave


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Norman WillisRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Oct 19, 2010 at 6:49:04 pm

OK, so a dedicated RAID card is key, then.

Good to know.

Norman Willis
http://www.nazareneisrael.org


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Alex GeroulaitisRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Nov 18, 2010 at 5:04:05 am

[Davd Keator] "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..."



5MB/s isn't right: sounds like one of the drives is faulty. Even if the write-back cache is not enabled, the speeds with today's drives should be in the range of 50-120MB/s writes, 100-250MB/s reads.

Also, if the hardware (or hybrid h/w as with ICH10R chipsets) RAID5 is used, there should be no need for a Windows Server OS: the OS will only see one volume regardless.

Alex
DV411


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Benjamin SchönebeckRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Nov 28, 2011 at 1:20:24 pm

Hello everybody,

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...

5MB/s isn't right: sounds like one of the drives is faulty. Even if the write-back cache is not enabled, the speeds with today's drives should be in the range of 50-120MB/s writes, 100-250MB/s reads.


That's NOT correct!

Lets assume these disks are standard SATA Disks with about 10 - 15 ms access time (say 12.5 mean).

Performance calculation of raid5 with enabled wb cache is:
Reads: Number of Disks * IOPS per Disk
Writes: (Number of Disks * IOPS per Disk) / write penalty (which is 1 for raid lvls 0,1,10 / 5 for raid 5 / 6 for raid 6)


In Numbers
Reads: 3 * (1 sec / 12.5ms) = 240 IOPS
Writes: 3 * (1 sec / 12.5ms) / 5 = 48 IOPS

As you can see, this is less performance than with a standalone disk which can do 1sec / 12.5ms = 80 IOPS.

If yiu want to setup up your raid for maximum data protection and you either have no bbu or no usv, you have to disable cache writeback for the raidcontroller AND to disable disks cache. Just switching off the controller's cache but leaving the disks cache on may result in data loss in case of power loss.
Not using the disk's cache results in MAJOR performance decrease. 5MB is quite normal at this point. using even slower disks (ie 5200 rpm) results in even less performance.

One more word concerning different partitions:
Sure, different partitions may be useful. But be aware: If you use more than one partition on ONE raid volume, the performance will be shared between the volumes and you MAY decrease your performance by forcing the disks read heads to jump from onw physical section to another (causing access times, lowering IOPS performance).

The performance in MB/s can be calculated by Num IOPS * block size.
Just breaking down the ratio:
A single SATA standard drive does about 100 MB (SEQUENTIAL) read OR write (not at the same time). Sequential says: There are almost no access times because the head is already positioned correctly.
Sequential Read Rate should be around 300 MB/s. Write rate would be around 60 MB/s. With both, disk cache and controller cache empty, but enabled.

So, if you have a 50:50 read-write workload, you should choose raid 10. If you've got a lot of reads and just some writes you should choose raid 5.

Best regards

Benny


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Dave HaynieRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Dec 1, 2010 at 7:40:18 am

RAID5 systems will spend SOME CPU time working out the format. It's not like they have crazy work to do to figure out where to send what.. they simply have to create the redundant data, so there's a fair bit of extra processing. It's nothing close to consuming a whole core on a modern system, but it's a waste of a good bit of x86 code.

This problem is solved by using a "hardware" RAID... meaning, you get a PCI card with a tiny RISC processor of some sort on it, and the RAID software runs there, not on your PC. At that point, writes will at least seem fast, since the card will grab buffers from PC memory and do all the computing of distributed parity data out on the card.

RAID systems to technically slow down seeking. Rather than hit the average of your single drive, a seek has to wait for the worse case of each drive involved. This is usually offset by the fast that you're loading N times as much data per seek. But if your system isn't buffering enough, this is also a problem.

-Dave


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jim ScarbroughRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Nov 29, 2010 at 10:59:53 pm

Sorry to interrupt the RAID discussion, but to get back to the original post...

The GTS 250 generally came with 512MB of DDR2 or DDR3 RAM. From my research, you need a bare minimum of 768MB of DDR3, but to be safe, consider 1024MB of DDR3 the minimum.

It also appears that DDR5 will provide faster results than DDR3, but more than 96 CUDA cores won't necessarily provide an improvement in render times.

So, as often happens, your comparison is flawed, but only because Sony has elected to not provide any guidance regarding optimizing the GPU rendering of Vegas 10.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jim ScarbroughRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Nov 29, 2010 at 11:06:05 pm

@David Keaton - just saw your rig specs in another post and your GTS 250 does indeed have 1GB of RAM. Although it's probably DDR3, it should still provide a bump in rendering speed to Sony's AVC codec. I've been considering upgrading to Vegas 10 and a GTS 450 primarily for this feature and am now having serious doubts.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Davd KeatorRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Apr 7, 2011 at 11:14:20 pm

Hey guys,

Thought I'd try Vegas 10 again now that I have the Sandy Bridge I7 2600k CPU & GTX 560 Ti & 16gig. I love this computer it's actually faster than my 980x and way less expensive. Anyway:

Vegas 10:

RED footage 19 second clip - 4k raw
Color correction
Chroma key
Film grain

Sony AVC at default 1280x720x30p setting:

GPU Enable:
GPU: 22%
CPU: 62%
Time:0:28 seconds

CPU only:
GPU:6%
CPU:92%
Time: 0:24 seconds
--------------------------------------------
Well, I guess it is still things that make you go HMMM...
Nearly the fastest GPU on the market is worthless for rendering in VEGAS!

I can't wait when they advertise that they support red rocket! 0_o


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jim ScarbroughRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Apr 8, 2011 at 5:08:47 am

It might be better that Vegas 10 doesn't leverage the GPU more, seeing as they're using the CUDA API.

AnandTech and TomsHardware have recent articles with good info on the current GPGPU rendering technologies - Nvidia's CUDA (as used by Vegas 10) and ATI's Stream. Although CUDA was faster than Stream, it seems to generaly produce noticeably worse video quality to achieve that speed. The article is focused on Intel's QuickSync technology, which holds great promise. http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-26...

One interesting comment in the article, "Both AMD and NVIDIA have fixed function video decode hardware in their GPUs now; neither rely on the shader cores to accelerate video decode." The article mentions that the same hardware used to accelerate decode is also used to accelerated decoding. So a lower-end card should provide similar benefits to a higher-end card with more shader units, leaving only the amount and speed of the video card's RAM as a variable.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Davd KeatorRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on May 1, 2011 at 7:05:05 pm

Jim,

Just for the heck of it, I installed Vegas 10 their lates iteration just give it a lookover one more time.

Vegas 10 does do a nicer job of video preview due to the gpu access. I have noticed my Red .3rd files much better looking in preview mode which makes lining up effects better over all.

I am running the I7-2600k OC: 4.2GHZ.

I noticed a very slight decrease in performance with Hyperthread off... Like 1.3% I decided that 1% wasn't worth turning off due to other apps that I use actually work just a hair better.

For your rig: the I5-2500 sound interesting, you only seem to loose 2megs of cpu cache, however, 2 megs might be a critical level of info you may be missing out on. If your CPU needs input, you will be slowing down the cpu as it has to wait for your ram or worse your HD to give it the data it so desperately needs.

But then again, my 980x has 12 megs and I noticed no diference dropping to 8 megs cache, but both cpu are at 2 megs per core. Your i5 is at 1.5 megs per cpu. My thoughts are it will be measurable yet negligable.

My thoughts for your rig:

1: i5-2500k OC-3.8 to 4.2ghz with Hyper212 CPU cooler.
1b: H67 or better p67 pro from asus
2: Nvidia GTX 450 stock clock.
3: 8 gigs o ram - 16 if you like over kill.
3: 2 Harddrives| 1 or 2 TB drives
C: Sytem Boot partition at 80 gigs.
D: Backiup appz / files Partition - 150 gigs
E: Library copy of all your media, clips, music etc...
-----
F: Work drive - full 1 or 2 tb drive for work.
(keep less than 50% full)

This is about as fast of a system you can get...

Don't count on Vegas incorporating Intel tech anytime soom...

Also if you use integrated graphics, you share your system ram with your apps and video. Your video preview and over all system will be laggy and just plain not fun...


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jim ScarbroughRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on May 1, 2011 at 6:22:54 pm

David: Your April 7 post started me researching the Sandy Bridge processors and I'm now in the process of upgrading with an i5-2500k/H67 combo. (H67 just in case Sony adds QuickSync support to Vegas!)

Everything I've read indicates that HyperThreading slows down most rendering engines, including Vegas. Do you have HT enabled or disabled? If it's enabled, could you try disabling it and rendering your test clip? I think it would be valuable info to those reading this thread.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jim ScarbroughRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on May 1, 2011 at 6:37:57 pm

Dave - you already answered the HT question in another thread:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/24/918270

Anyone reading this thread will want to read that one as well. Lots of great info.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Eric KirkRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Jun 15, 2011 at 11:41:17 pm

Can anyone tell me where the GPU settings are in Vegas Pro 10 and what settings are optimal for using GPU?

Thanks,

Eric

Eric D. Kirk
http://www.kirkproductions.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Davd KeatorRe: Sony Vegas Pro 10 GPU ..What, where, when....No Way!
by on Jun 15, 2011 at 11:57:03 pm

The only one that I know of is when you select a sony AVC mp4 codec.

When you hit the custom button: at the bottom of the video tab:

Automatic (recommended
Render CPU only
Render GPU if available

Thats it...

President: http://www.VertexMedia.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook


FORUMSTUTORIALSFEATURESVIDEOSPODCASTSEVENTSSERVICESNEWSLETTERNEWSBLOGS

Creative COW LinkedIn Group Creative COW Facebook Page Creative COW on Twitter
© 2014 CreativeCOW.net All rights are reserved. - Privacy Policy

[Top]