Vegas 10: ATI or NVIDIA

kkolbo wrote on 11/26/2009, 9:24 AM

I would not try to forecast any such thing. In my personal evaluation, GPU acceleration is not the great solution that everyone thinks it is. In fact, I would rather not see it in a future version at this time. With 3D there are some advantages, but it just doesn't help that much with video processing compared to the nightmares it adds.

Adobe added it to Elements. It causes thread issues and other fun. Still plays preview video slower than Vegas. Cyberlink has it, but I see no difference between having it turned on and turned off. Without the GPU acceleration Cyberlink plays HD .h264 very well. With or without, it renders slower than mud. I do not see any REAL results that would make me encourage SCS to implement GPU usage at this time. I find a better processor set up works better than GPU usage. I have a Dual Core 3.Ghz machine that pushes through HD .h264 with Vegas like it was SD DV.

Granted, if SCS implemented it, I would expect that they would do it better than anyone else and we would see advantages. I

KK

TheHappyFriar wrote on 11/26/2009, 10:54 AM

smart gamers don't buy for something that's not out yet, you shouldn't either. :D

If you REALLY don't want to "make a mistake" then just wait & see if vegas 10 has GPU support. If you want to be productive NOW, then just get the cheap ATI with a duel setup.

Ironically, my older GPU still costs MORE then the better one you're looking at. :D Funny how those things work!

MPM wrote on 11/28/2009, 7:49 AM

Sony cozied up to AMD at one time -- don't know if that relationship still exists. Either way, CUDA is further in development, & has the greater customer base -- Stream has more capabilities, but has to evolve more to be as practically useful. Just like with games, it would be near suicidal for developers to target just one or the other if they can/could help it -- Cyberlink for example targets ATI, but then that's probably all they know how to do from their work with ATI's Media Center.

That said, I wouldn't necessarily choose the 4670 as it's not a huge difference from what you've got, is being phased out, won't handle the new DX, & prices for better will come down in the spring/summer -- if things go true to form (or as close to form as they can in this economy), you'll see the 1st models of the 5000 series phased out then at significant savings. The only reason to ever buy the old series with ATI is to get a real bargain -- currently the 4670s are being cleared out in the $60 range.

>"...NVIDIA drivers cause HD video in monitor 2 to get choppy for some reason,
> even though the Core i7 processor is hardly working. "

I'd suggest researching the prob in the nvidia & HTPC forums/sites. There are quite a few Windows & software problems effecting both nvidia & ATI, as they both use hardware accel for video & particularly HD. Going ATI is not a cure-all by ANY means.

>"smart gamers don't buy for something that's not out yet"

The hard core gamers do. ;?P
SO do folks buying many of the new ATI cards, where only 1 or two models have updated drivers available. Currently for those folks many features are not implemented out of the box. :-(

TheHappyFriar wrote on 11/28/2009, 9:20 AM

I said SMART gamers. There's always people willing to part with lots of $$ just for parting with it. ;)

I can't vouch for nvidia's driver's (I haven't used one in years) but both ATI & Intel make it very simple to run a second monitor: basically you install the driver & then hook up the second monitor, then it duplicates your desktop. ATI lets you have different monitor resolutions for each, I can't get that with the Intel drivers.

I'd still say get that ATI card if you want one. Doesn't matter if it's not new, it does what you want & it's cheap. 'Nuf said. :)

If it does matter, ATI has less strict multi-card support. You can put any ATI card together with another one & they will work together (works best with duplicate cards, but it works with all ATI cards & chipsets over the past few years). Last I recall with nividia's SLI they need to be specific duplicate cards (ones that support SLI).

Chienworks wrote on 11/28/2009, 11:01 AM

Now, if you're like me, and the first thing you do when you buy a video card is to break the driver disc in pieces and toss it ... then install the card using Windows' built in drivers, then you can mix and match any combination of cards together. They don't even have to be the same brand. Windows doesn't care in the slightest.

However, i suppose that might limit the amount of GPU support and gaming features you get. I dunno, as i've never really had any use or interest in those so far.

TheHappyFriar wrote on 11/28/2009, 11:25 AM

from experience I've found that not using drivers made for the card windows doesn't respond as fast in the GUI, any accelerated apps don't work as well or not at all (including media players & 3d programs). Multimonitor support is spotty. Windows Vista definitely performs better with specific drivers.

If you use XP you can use any card you want anyways, only Vista & newer have the single-driver limit (yeah, an upgrade! :? )

But I'd suggest NOT tossing the disk unless you find newer drivers on the company's website: the newest cards don't have drivers on the web yet.

LReavis wrote on 11/28/2009, 12:30 PM

I installed the latest ASUS drivers for my ASUS nVidia 9600GSO running on Win 7 64 and performance was so dismal that I searched for and found suitable drivers from the nVidia website. After installation, the nVidia drivers gave me improved performance that can only be described as breathtaking. Poser rotations of complex models showed no time lag at all, in stark contrast to the long wait before with the ASUS drivers. Moreover, DAZ wouldn't even open with the Open GL 2.1 provided by the ASUS driver - DAZ 3 requires at least V2.3. The nVidia driver gave me 3.xx

Lesson learned. I only paid Newegg $40 (after $20 rebate) for this 9600GSO and worried it might not be adequate for Poser, etc. But it's splindid (it has a fairly fast clock, 512 mb memory and 192-bit bandwidth - a notch above many other 9600GSOs, and just a notch below some much more expensive cards).

Incidentally, I use Google Sketchup a lot and its techies recommend nVidia cards - they say stay away from ATI . . . just a thought for those who might want to created .AVI fly-throughs in the free Sketchup.

rmack350 wrote on 11/29/2009, 12:17 AM

Kelly, as far as I know , the Windows Driver Model starting with Vista requires that multiple graphics cards use the same driver, so you can't actually mix ATI and NVIDIA cards in Vista or later.

Regardless, SCS has never shown signs of writing for any particular make of graphics cards. They've always been pretty neutral. This could change of course, but I'd bet more on them writing for common tools. Not CUDA, but maybe OpenCL or DirectCompute. Why? Because these won't tie them to one GPU manufacturer.

But would I really "bet"? No. I'd buy an adequate card without sinking a bunch of money into it, knowing that I don't need to buy a special card for Vegas until the day Vegas can use it, and that's far enough down the road that I'd need to buy a new card at that time. I don't think we'll see Vegas 10 until Fall '10 or Spring '11.

Oh, and if I was buying a card in the next five minutes then I'd go with an ATI card that supported DirectX 11, because DirectX 11 supposedly supports DirectCompute.

Rob Mack

ritsmer wrote on 11/29/2009, 6:54 AM

Why speculate in GPU's CUDA, ATI, Nvidia etc. as long as our only codec for unpacking AVCHD High profile seems to be the free one that comes with Quicktime?

I mean - if we paid the same bucks for a professional codec as we might for a GPU accelerated wonder - then I would expect some seriously faster decoding times.

What I mean is: Some years ago I got a piece of assembler code about 3.000 lines. I rewrote it to do precisely the same things but in only 550 lines, which improved the speed accordingly.
If this was done to the code in the Quicktime codec (which might not even be assembler in the key parts) - then we might be able so see 30 FPS stable preview on even a small Atom cpu. Imagine??

BTW: Anybody knows if the codec in the payable Quicktime Pro version is faster than in the free version??

kkolbo wrote on 11/29/2009, 7:11 AM

BTW: Anybody knows if the codec in the payable Quicktime Pro version is faster than in the free version??

I have not seen any difference.

richard-amirault wrote on 11/29/2009, 10:22 AM

ATI or NVIDIA multiple monitors?

I would not assume that ATI is better. I just purchased a new Dell i7 with an ATI video card. I then added a second monitor for video editing .. (all SD .. no HD)

I then started to get "screen flashes" with an error box saying that my video driver had recovered. That was OK .. unless it happened 3 or 4 times in a row .. then I got the Blue Screen Of Death (Vista 64)

I checked on-line and discovered that it was a common probem with my ATI card .. when used with dual monitors.

Before I could buy a new card .. I got another BSOD and then .. somehow ..my operating system was totally screwed. Instead of Task Manager telling my I had 8 cpu's and 12 gig or RAM .. it told me I had one cpu and 256 MEG of RAM.

EVERYTHING took forever after that .. because of all the disk access of virtural memory. Some things I tried .. I couldn't do .. because they timed out .. like do a "system restore" .. or .. re-install Vista (wanted to see more than 256 ram)

Resolution? ... Dell had to replace my HD (with a new copy of operating system)

I've removed the second monitor until I get a new video card.

TheHappyFriar wrote on 11/29/2009, 11:09 AM

the screen flashing is because something is wrong & the ATI drivers are stopping the computer from BSOD. It turns off all acceleration & other "enhanced" stuff to eliminate stuff. It's saved me dozens of times when something went bonkers & I had a chance to save my work. You didn't head the warnings & had your system go kaput. :( But if dell replaced your drive it sounds more like a drive issue then a video card, so not sure why you'd blame it...

W/o specifying a card I wouldn't say it's common or not. Why? You can search for problems for anything it it will show up with a lot of hits. I'd say just buying Dell means you love dealing with tech support. :D

Former user wrote on 11/29/2009, 11:40 AM

While I agree with Chienworks, I'd top short of breaking the installation disc. I'd keep it and use it as a coaster.

I have two systems (work office, home office) I used for editing and both have the same video card because I've had excellent results and dual-monitor setups are brianless: plug in two monitors and, >poof< dual monitors in a nice extended desktop. I have an ATI Radeon 4870. It has lots of horsepower, but I also agree with what a lot of people have said; while GPUs are touted as the next big expansion of horsepower and clock resources, it's not actually happening with software developers. And interstingly, when developers do use GPU acceleration (eg: Photoshop, and other Adobe pieces), the results are "meh" to downright sketchy.

The rule of thumb that has always served me well: get what gamers are getting - with an emphasis on stability.

TheHappyFriar wrote on 11/29/2009, 1:19 PM

a good "timeline" here may by 64-bit: AMD 64's were announced in 99 & released in 03 So it's taken ~6 years for software companies to start making software where 64-bit code isn't the bullet point feature but now the norm. GPU's just started being used for parallel processes ~2 or 3 years ago. We could be waiting another 5 years for this to be something more then a bullet point feature.

Steve Mann wrote on 11/29/2009, 9:53 PM

There is no difference. You download the free, pays your money and get a serial number that you load in the free version, and *poof* it's the pro version.

Hulk wrote on 12/2/2009, 4:52 AM

I agree with kkolbo 100%.

GPU acceleration is mainly useful for 3D and other vector based applications.

I think Sony should concentrate on optimizing Vegas Pro's threading, code to use more SSE instructions, basically tweak the code to exploit more of the power already in the cpu's we are using today.