Computer specs for Videostudio

[bitman]

OK, cool. What format did you output to? And from what format? I am really interested since on my GTX960 with X8.5 I never get any GPU activity with Corel.
Do you have encoding options for more than 1080P resolution?

I used the source file and output format that "dans" proposed in this thread (by dans on Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:23) so that we can compare rendering times on equal basis.
As for encoding options in x9 you can always use the "custom" tab for higher resolutions than 1080P, I am not sure, but I guess you could that as well in prior versions of vs.

using the default custom setting rendering (mpeg-4 24 bits, 3840x2160, 29.77 fps H.264 high profile video : 105600 took me 68 seconds to render.
a bit more than double the time than the format dans proposed to try out to compare (that ran 24 to 26 seconds depending on PAL/secam setting).

[SoNic67]

Thank you! It was not clear from the product description (reads like those are avail ONLY for intel Skylake) and the trial mode has those functions disabled. I guess I can give it a shot then.

[TonyP]

Skylake and such are required for H.265 codecs. For 4K, there is no problem exporting at that high bit rate.

[bitman]

Just for comparison I rendered the sample video on Vegas pro 13 64 bit on my system, with as close as possible render settings (avcdh), and it took about 37 seconds to render as opposed to 23 seconds on Corel x9.
I ran gpu-z to see if the gpu of my video card (GeForce titan-x) had the video engine loaded during the Vegas pro render, and apparently it was not. It may explain the difference.
I think Vegas lacks in the Nvidea GeForce gpu support department at least for rendering.
Maybe it prefers ATI, or opengl I do not know.

[Ilene]

so you guys all took this thread that was supposed to be about computer specs and turned it into how fast you can render certain file types... does anyone have a list of features that one would look for if they were purchasing a new PC to run VSX9.... I'm upgrading my win7 machine that is 7 years old... VSX7 runs fairly well on it, but I know things have much improved and my computer is living on borrowed time.. I work it! let's have a wish list of features one may want in a new computer -- processor, graphics card, sound card, RAM....do you still need a capture card these days? thank you...

[SoNic67]

... I do have a new powerful NVIDEA Titan-X videocard installed.

Is it really used in this software? Use GPU-Z to see...

[dans]

so you guys all took this thread that was supposed to be about computer specs and turned it into how fast you can render certain file types...

It's a good baseline to determine what actually makes VS process faster.

does anyone have a list of features that one would look for if they were purchasing a new PC to run VSX9....

• multi core cpu, 4+ cores at 3 Ghz or faster
• 8+ Gb of ram, as fast as the motherboard & cpu can handle with as low a latency as possible
• an ssd for the operating system, source files, output files, & proxy files to live on
• a large standard hard drive for long term storage.

[pogonips]

I'm among those who would like to know what computer features actually make a difference in the performance of VideoStudio, especially during editing. The area where I see lags in performance most is while viewing video clips in the editor, especially when effects have been applied. I upgraded from X7 to X8 because of problems with rendering certain AVI files. My cousin had X8 and we tested and found that X8 didn't have the problems. The upgrade price was worth the price for an expedient solution. My laptop has a 2.50 gigahertz AMD A10-5750M APU with integrated Radeon HD Graphics, 12 GB of memory and a conventional hard drive. With both VS X7 and X8, no matter how much content I load in the editor, based on the Windows Task Manager, I've never seen the memory consumption go over 4 GB in 7X or 8X, so I assume Corel has never written any code to actually use memory beyond 4 GB in the editor (other programs on my laptop such as Adobe Photoshop do show memory use well beyond 4 GB). As far as I can tell, the only benefit I get from memory above 4 GB when using VS is to set a large disk cache, but no direct use by VS (disk utilization frequently maxes out, so I assume that a large disk cache and/or SSD helps performance).

I would very much like to find a source (this forum or direction to another source) for practical answers to the following questions:

In order of the most benefit, what hardware features will produce the greatest performance benefit in which VS functions? More specifically;
Is the VS X8 editor supposed to be able to use memory above 4 GB and if so, what do I need to do to activate that (I'm assuming not).
Does the VS X9 editor use memory beyond 4 GB?
Is there a planned future release of VS in which the editor will use memory beyond 4 GB?

Which of the following hardware features would produce the most performance benefit in which VS functions:
Discrete video graphics card (how much video memory would be beneficial).
Solid state hard drive.
Multi-core processor (is quad core enough, or will 8 make a significant difference).
Higher speed processor (is 2.5 Ghz enough, what is recommended).

[ErikLtz]

Rendered in 16 seconds (i7-6700k, GTX 960) using VStudio X9 Ultimate - however, I would have liked to render it as H.265 (HEVC) but can't find the option for it, though X9 is advertised to support H.265 given correct hardware (Skylake) and software (Win 10). Obviously missing something...

[ErikLtz]

@pogonips: You are interested in "what actually make a difference" and sample rigs rendering the same clip provide some insights. A "balanced system" with enough RAM, fast storage to match the CPU and GPU... and generally the more the better, though VideoStudio seem to have weak GPU support so CPU, RAM and SSD/disc are the main components to "spend on". Tried rendering on a 4 year old i7-2600K and it finished in 22 secs, just 6 seconds behind last years "top of the line" Skylake CPU - You would think more had happened performance wise in that time (both machines with GTX960, 16 GB RAM and SSD).

[pogonips]

Thanks for the input. Where I would appreciate better performance most is in the editing module rather than rendering. At times I make projects that run an hour or more, and I don't mind running the render over night. What disappoints me is when I'm viewing a project in the editor and the video gets choppy/laggy. I find the proxy file feature very helpful for this, but I haven't had any luck with the proxy feature on AVI files.
I recently stumbled across Corel community/support on FaceBook and I posed my question there. I was impressed to get a response from Corel support, and the first response was superficial, but when I persisted, the Corel Tech admitted that as far as he knows, the EDITOR MODULE does not use memory beyond 4 GB (I was asking about versions X8 and X9) , so buying a system with a lot of memory doesn't seem like it will help in the editor other than being able to set a large disk cache. When I look at the performance monitor while working in the editor, I see a LOT of disk activity, so I'm guessing an SSD and/or large disk cache should help. I don't know if a better grophics processor would make a lot of difference, and it sounds like your impression is probably not. So, when it's time to replace my current computer, I'm not sure where I would get "the most bang for the buck" for the VideoStudio editor, not memory, probably processor and SSD. I hope Corel will provide more support of memory above 4 GB and graphics processors in future releases.

[Phil]

So in your experience, what computer spec do we need for very smooth editing online (without the need for proxy files) for 1080p files using one or two extra video & audio tracks with FXs

How many cores? GPU? RAM?

[pogonips]

I wish I knew more about this, and I wish Corel support would give a more detailed response. Because Corel does not make use of memory beyond 4 GB in the editor, I don't think additional memory gets you anything other than the ability to run a larger disk cache. When I look at the Windows performance monitor while using the editor, I see a LOT of disk activity, which is what I would expect when not using memory beyond 4 GB, so I suspect that a Solid State Drive or a very fast hard drive would probably provide the most benefit when working in the editor. It seems like the next most likely benefit would come from a separate graphics processor, BUT I really don't know if that would actually make ANY difference, and I've heard others suggest that Corel's editor module may not make much use of a discrete graphics processor. My laptop is an AMD quad core, but not an especially fast one. I honestly don't know if additional processor power or cores would make a significant difference in the performance in the editor, but after an SSD it would probably be my second priority to spend on since it stands to reason that just about any program should run faster with more processing power. Perhaps someone else on the forum (or Corel support) can provide some comparative data.

[Phil]

I'm getting a custom PC built - 8 core AMD, 32GB RAM, SSD, 4GB GPU - will keep you posted on this thread about performance.

[pogonips]

I'll be eager to hear the results!