Nvidia Driver 334.89

OldSmoke wrote on 2/18/2014, 8:43 PM

Nvidia released a new driver today and since I have a bit of free time I gave it a try. This is the first driver that works as well as 296.10 with my GTX580. After the first install, I got the expected 10% render difference.
Then I spend some time searching through the "Internal" tab under preferences to find a way to further improve the system and I came across this setting "OpenCL Memory Size Filter" which has a default setting of 384; I assume MB. I changed it to the size of my GTX580 which is 1536MB and restarted VP12. To my surprise the render times are as good as with 296.10!
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/39278380/Internal_OpenCL.jpg
That little tweak did the trick! I also noticed a higher GPU Memory allocation when looking at my HWinfo64 compared to the default setting of 384. I tried to double the values from 1536 to 3072 since I have 2x GTX580 in my system but that made things worse; worse then CPU rendering.
I tried the same under Win8.1 which I have on a different partition and finally got equal render times under both OS with the same driver.
Maybe this trick will help more users then just me and even AMD/ATI users. SCS seemed to have overlooked this value. However, it seems pointless to set it at a higher value then the max. for one GPU. It may even help to set it lower if your GPU doesn't even have 384MB but there may not be many of those cards around anymore and I don't have one to test it.
I hope another user in this forum has the time to test and hopefully confirm my findings.
Edit: I haven't tested the new driver to its fullest; I only used the SCS benchmark project to test playback and render performance.

Comments

Lovelight wrote on 2/18/2014, 9:19 PM

Sweet find. Testing... All good. Thank you.

NormanPCN wrote on 2/18/2014, 9:29 PM

Increasing the OpenCL Memory Filter item did not help my AMD 7950 setup.

Who knows what that number means, but if it helps then why not.

I have doubts you would ever want to set it to your GPU max memory, since the GPU needs memory for other things. Like your display buffer and such. Possibly other applications running at the same time.

Also, if you use plug-in that use OpenGL (NewBlue, BorisFx, ?) then one might have conflicts there. I have no idea if Vegas tries to keep both setups active simultaneously. Performance wise one would want this, but there are always consequences and trade-offs.

If you want to play with internal options, and you don't have anything that uses OpenGL in Vegas, then you can disable that option and see if you get any benefit.

OldSmoke wrote on 2/18/2014, 9:57 PM

Norman

As I mentioned, I haven't done more testing and will do it tomorrow. I do have BFX but I don't have NB products, never liked them.

The memory allocation doubled when I increased the value from 384 up to 1536 but it never got beyond 800-1000MB for both cards together. I actually started off with 1024 and that immediately showed much improvement. My system however might be unique as I have 2x GTX580. Maybe one should leave 1/3 for other application and only increase the value to 2/3 of the physical memory on the card. There was no further increase in memory allocation beyond 1024 but I just left it at 1536 until further testing. BTW: changing this value has no influence on the 296.10 driver at all; at least not on my system.

More testing tomorrow.

ushere wrote on 2/18/2014, 10:58 PM

thanks for your efforts - much appreciated.

ddm wrote on 2/19/2014, 12:14 AM

Oldsmoke, you are the man. I fiddled with the memory settings and found the sweetest spot for my card, since it has 1280mb of memory is allocating 1024 in Vegas, more and less showed slightly less performance. I was able to shave off about 9 seconds of what was a 66 second render down to 57 seconds. That bests my Windows 7 render time. I guess I'd have to try changing the settings in Win 7 to see if it helps there. Too late for that. Maybe tomorrow. Thanks for the fine sleuthing.

VidMus wrote on 2/19/2014, 2:23 AM

Earlier I left a negative results reply but due to a strange object between my ears I did not realize that I had the GPU setting off. I used to have it off with Windows 8 because the performance with it on was major poor.

Anyway, with the latest build of Vegas 12, I now get faster renders with Windows 8.1 than with Windows 7. Approx. 3% faster! This is with the OpenCL memory thing set for 1024 which is the max memory of my card. The used memory is less when I set it at max instead of the default but it is still faster with the max than the default.

wilvan wrote on 2/19/2014, 2:39 AM

Changed that internal pref setting since GPU got introduced . Increasing amount of CPU's and max RAM memory ( in same internal prefs) gave better results in my workstations . ( GPU is therefore off in my workstations ) I am only interested in best real-time preview , rendering is fast enough anyway with lost of RAM and CPU cores , usually a project requires a few weeks evening work and then I can't care less whether that final project renders 0,03 seconds faster or slower .
All those settings should not be hidden but instead ( like in after effects ) be read automatically by the software and adjustable in ( non hidden ) prefs .
Their default values are for ( old ) home PC systems and for movie studio users , where's the " pro " ? :-)

CJB wrote on 2/19/2014, 8:10 AM

Hmmm, I don't have an "internal" tab under preferences.......

OldSmoke wrote on 2/19/2014, 8:32 AM

Press and hold the SHIFT key when you open the preference tab.

CJB wrote on 2/19/2014, 9:59 AM

Thanks, didn't know about the shift. Odd thing.... is that actually in the documentation? What other goodies open on shift select?

I set my memory size to 1024......My previews render full speed at a whole quality setting higher, i.e. from preview to good or good to best (depending on effects loaded)!!! I'm impressed!!

my card: GeForce GTX 550 Ti (1024 MB)

OldSmoke wrote on 2/19/2014, 10:33 AM

dancerchris & vidmus

have you tried a lower setting; something like 2/3 (682) of your available card memory?

MikeLV wrote on 2/19/2014, 11:59 AM

Do you think I should try the new driver with my GTX 570, or stick with the 296.10?

OldSmoke wrote on 2/19/2014, 12:08 PM

I am running the new driver and the changes I made on the internal tab. I worked on it the whole morning and haven't experienced anything negative; BFX is working a bit better too. Playback is faster and so is rendering.

Former user wrote on 2/19/2014, 12:34 PM

I figured I would go ahead and update to 334.89 (from 311.06).

But, when I go to install it, the driver installer wants to create a new root level folder structure (C:\NVIDIA\DisplayDriver\334.89\Win8_WinVista_Win7_64\English). Currently there isn't an "NVIDIA" root level folder although I have updated the driver before.

There are four "NVIDIA" folders currently on the C drive:
C:\Program Files\NVIDIA Corporation
C:\Program Files (x86)\NVIDIA Corporation
C:\ProgramData\NVIDIA
C:\ProgramData\NVIDIA Corporation

Is this the normal behavior for the driver installer? Should I just let it create the new folder structure? I use a 128G SSD for C and I really don't want to add any extra clutter if I can avoid it.

Thanks.

Jim

OldSmoke wrote on 2/19/2014, 12:43 PM

Yes, that is normal. You can delete the root folder after the install is complete.

Former user wrote on 2/19/2014, 1:02 PM

Thanks. BTW - I didn't see the root level NVIDIA folder because I run CCleaner occasionally and it removes the folder.

VidMus wrote on 2/19/2014, 1:20 PM

@OldSmoke

Why would I want to try a lower setting?

I am getting 3% faster with Windows 8.1 and driver 334.89 over Windows 7 with 296.10.

I never figured that Windows 8.1 would be faster than Windows7 with GPU use.

Without changing the 'opencl' memory Windows 8 is slower than Windows 7 but it is still much faster than with previous drivers for Windows 8.1

I did a test render with a previously finished project and the results were faster on it. That project is approx. an hour and a half. Same quality and stability.

Now the question is, is Windows 8.1 worth all of this effort considering all of the non-sense with it?

The only reason why I am used to Windows 8.1 is because I use it a lot on my notebook computer when I use the internet.

VidMus wrote on 2/19/2014, 1:28 PM

jdw said, "...I didn't see the root level NVIDIA folder because I run CCleaner occasionally and it removes the folder."

I do not see that folder and I do not use CCleaner or anything like it either. Maybe it is because I always do a clean install of NVidia drivers?

The last time I did not do a clean install of NVidia drivers I had severe problems and stability issues with Vegas.

Good thing I had cloned backups!

JohnW1234 wrote on 2/19/2014, 1:31 PM

Excellent tip Oldsmoke. Thank you.

OldSmoke wrote on 2/19/2014, 1:36 PM

Vidmus

The reason I asked you to try a lower setting, roughly 2/3 of available memory, is to test whether 1024 is the "magical" number for any card or is it 2/3 of available memory. I only have cards with 1536MB and going higher doesn't do any good and going below 1024 neither. However, there is no difference between 1024 and 1536. I am trying to find out whether there is a relationship between card memory and this parameter.

CJB wrote on 2/19/2014, 2:18 PM

2/3*actual as a memory setting doesn't seem like a good value. Memory likes to be addressed in multiples of 2.

ddm wrote on 2/19/2014, 2:48 PM

I tried a bunch of different memory allocations above and below 1024 and I got a slight decrease using 100% of my 1280mb of memory, and a slight decrease using less than 1024. Not exactly scientific since I didn't try 1023, 1022 etc but I did try several like 640 and 768 and round numbers like 900 as well. Good enough for me until someone else stubles on to that magic number.

OldSmoke wrote on 2/19/2014, 3:02 PM

Thanks ddm
It looks like 1024 is suitable number for many cards rather then a few.

VidMus wrote on 2/19/2014, 3:40 PM

I will make some tests and see what results I get with my 560ti.