GPU for VS

[MEGATURTLE]

Hey, guys, I need information about importance of GPU for VS. I read somewhere that VS actually doesn`t need some great GPU as Adobe Premiere needs. Is that true? I am all about buying PC that will be used for VS.

THanks!

[aljimenez]

Nobody has posted thorough comparisons with GPU's; best is to ask Corel support for their test results and more importantly how this is being considered for future versions of VS. For sure ticking all the hardware options in the Performance tab is hit and miss for most of us that have tried it; not sure why but sometimes they don't work at all. When they work, the program is faster but not by an order of magnitude.

[jezzer]

Does VS actually use the gfx card when you render, doesn't matter what settings i have on or off the gfx card is only used 2% where the cpu is 96%

[MEGATURTLE]

I talked with VS chat girl "Evangelina" and she told me just to visit the official page of VS software to find the answer. So, it is written there that I could use any 256/512 or bigger VRAM GPU. That means that this one would be great for VS:

https://www.gigabyte.com/Graphics-Card/GV-N710D3-2GL#ov

[pepegota]

I use Intel's built in graphics with my i7-8700 and no problems.

[MEGATURTLE]

Thanks a lot for your answer, but do you make multicam videos with that graphics?

[pepegota]

No, I do not use multicam video

[iNate]

I use Intel's built in graphics with my i7-8700 and no problems.

VideoStudio uses DXVA2 for Acceleration. I'm not sure why they even mention QSV and CUDA on the website/marketing materials, because:

1. The Software does not Decode and Encode video using Intel QSV. It uses Microsoft DirectX Video Acceleration v2 APIs (a Windows Vista-era technology). Every QSV, Nvenc, or VCE-enabled NLE on the market renders faster than VideoStudio. This is actually why PowerDirector is such a speed demon.
2. Their implementation of CUDA Optimizations is completely broken, and leaves the NLE incapable of running on the Nvidia GPUs on machines in Optimus configuration. The driver rejects the executable and locks it to running on the iGPU. So, something is definitely wrong, there.

Yes, your iGPU will work with the software, just as it works with Microsoft Word or Inkscape. But that does not mean that it's using QSV Acceleration for Encode and Decode Video.

I am not sure what Corel does with QSV or CUDA. They've been saying they have "Intel 6/7/8th Generation Optimizations" for years, but the software runs fairly terribly on my system, compared to competing products that actually deliver this. They say they have CUDA, yet there are obvious problems with it, and I'm not even sure if that's truly operational on single-GPU systems with a GTX card.

On my older Laptop, VEGAS Pro 14 performs better and renders faster because the OpenCL Acceleration actually work on that AMD APU (which has full OpenCL 1.2 support, and a decent iGPU with Acceleration support for H.264 Encode/Decode, etc.). There is no UI latency with the application, like there is with VideoStudio on my newer machine. Rendering Times with Acceleration turned on in that application are 25% faster than with it turned off, but I can see no comparable difference in VideoStudio on that machine or on my i7 Machine (which definitely has QSV support - as it worked in other applications).

I wonder if they simply decided to change the compilation flags and then call it "optimization for the latest processor." There is some fishy marketing going on, there.

The one thing I was absolutely shocked by when I tried VideoStudio 2018 is how badly it performed on my i7 system. This was immediately apparent, and very stark. The UI doesn't even operate at a full 60 FPS, while much more demanding software like DaVinci Resolve and Premiere Pro CC do this with ease on the same system. There are lags and stutters everywhere, while scrolling through the Samples folder, Effects Folders, Transitions Folders, etc.

It's possible that the OpenCL optimizations are a better bet than anything else, meaning that you're likely to get more mileage out of an AMD GPU. But I don't have a similarly high spec machine with an AMD GPU/APU in it to do a comparison test.

[asik1]

Good points, iNate,
Since Corel decide to waste 100's men hours on useless un-needed features, they dried out their resources for what needs to be done.

[pepegota]

Inspite of the Fancy Dan talk, I have seen improvement in the speed of encoding with their recent versions, the latter better than former. It works well for me, and as for any software, improvement can be made. It has many good points. True, others may be faster but, it still gets the job done and easily. It works conspicously faster on my i7- 8700 than my i7- 4790K. I would use it over its comparable abstruse Vegas product. I do however, dislike th new layout and hope it will be changed in upcoming versions.
For power and ease of use it cannot be beat. Still, I agree they should improve the encoding and less Fancy Dan stuff.

[Charlie Wilkes]

With or without GPU acceleration, it looks to me like VS is sacrificing quality to speed up rendering. I rendered a short video recently, and clipping was (literally) off the charts. It also added a dose of indiscriminate color saturation I did not want. It looked like video done on an office photocopier. I had to go back, transcode all my sources to Cineform with a 3d party freeware called VirtualDub because VS does such a bad job of transcoding, and then redo my project with the Cineform clips. This was VS x10 Ultimate. I don't remember having this problem with older versions of VS, and it's bad enough so I wonder if I want to use VS at all.

I posted some comparisons, including this one:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hVdjsZ ... sp=sharing

[iNate]

Inspite of the Fancy Dan talk, I have seen improvement in the speed of encoding with their recent versions, the latter better than former. It works well for me, and as for any software, improvement can be made. It has many good points. True, others may be faster but, it still gets the job done and easily. It works conspicuously faster on my i7- 8700 than my i7- 4790K. I would use it over its comparable abstruse Vegas product. I do however, dislike th new layout and hope it will be changed in upcoming versions.
For power and ease of use it cannot be beat. Still, I agree they should improve the encoding and less Fancy Dan stuff.

1. The Fancy Dan talk (a confusing term considering your varied usage) matters, because it informs you that rendering with a faster CPU will result in faster rendering times, since almost all of the rendering is done on the CPU (see thread topic/conversation ). Mentioning that your i7-8700 is faster than your i7-4790K (a 4th generation CPU) is not of any use, because that's the expected result - regardless of what NLE you're rendering the video with. It's kind of cute that someone would even do that, though...

In order to compare rendering times, you have to use the different software versions on the same PC, and then compare how fast they render. All of them will render faster (and perform faster) when you load them on a PC with a faster CPU, Faster RAM, [probably] Faster Storage, etc.

You cannot compare an older hardware platform to a newer one, and then claim that the "software" has improved in performance. You have changed far too many variables to form any reliable hypothesis.

Lastly... No one said that the rendering times for the software haven't improved. The issue is the GPU utilization/acceleration of the rendering with software. People assume that QSV and CUDA are used, but it does not seem to work when you're actually using the software. Pinnacle Studio often renders 3-4x faster than VideoStudio Ultimate (to use another Corel product for comparison ). Performance isn't as good as competitors in the same tier and we aren't just talking about rendering speeds. UI Responsiveness, etc. is worse in VideoStudio than in other software. As I've stated, the UI can't even match 60 FPS on my new i7 system, and the executable is completely barred from running on the GTX card because the CUDA support is broken (so the Device Driver rejects it).

2. VEGAS isn't abstruse. VEGAS is known for being an easy-to-use video editor, and was the de facto choice in the gaming YouTuber market for the better part of a decade or more. The layout in that application is fairly normal for a video editor. Most things are fairly obvious. I mean... if you find software that hard to use, I guess there is not much else one can say.

VideoStudio is actually far more abstruse than VEGAS Movie Studio, since it is:

A:) Backwards in how it layers Overlay Tracks (bottom covers, when almost everything else has the top track covering)

B:) Has no A+V Track View (confusing to novices when they put a video track on the timeline and don't see the video)

C:) Has non-configurable auto-rippling of the video track (forcing many people to edit ONLY on Overlay tracks), etc.

VEGAS also has full context-sensitive HTML Help (that loads practically instantly) implemented throughout the application, while the VideoStudio (and PaintShop Pro, for that matter) documentation is beyond awful.

But, I am not here to sell VEGAS Movie Studio. I mentioned it for the sake of comparison, because it actually has awful GPU Acceleration (outside of rendering to a couple of video formats), so outperforming VideoStudio on the same hardware when the latter [literally] advertises QSV and CUDA Support is... shocking, to me. Again, this isn't just about rendering performance, but application performance, as well.

The layout of VideoStudio is still pretty much the same as it has been for the past several years, so I'm not sure why anyone would complain about that... unless they were upgrading form an ancient version of the product. The layout in 2018 is almost exactly the same as it is in the X9 I had.

There is also the question of the Quality of the Video Renders out of the product; but that's a topic for a different thread.

[asik1]

iNate. I'm also looking into VMS, but 2 main things hold me back for the time being
1- masking is track based and not clip based as in VS
2- No selective attributes copy/paste.

Another side thing is that VMS comes with no instant projects library like VS, so it is just more time consuming to get to know the "in and outs" how things are done. With VS it's simpler to load IP and learn "how and what" was done and use it for advanced projects.

So I'm keeping my VS19.2

[TonyP]

I think a lot of what it comes down to is what you are familiar with. The products mentioned above, I own and have used. Vegas Pro14/15 and Pinnacle Studio 21 Ultimate, in the past PD, and currently VS2018.
While nothing has beaten VP15 with AMD VCE rendering (100% GPU usage along with 85% CPU), which allows me to render FAST 4KUHD. Sadly, I can only "software" render HEVC with Corel, and with PInnacle, there is no option because my hardware is not supported. The only downside is that Vegas can't play that file back smoothly. Bummer... and one I posted about in their forum.

While I started NLE editing with Premiere 6 (oh... like around 2002 or so, before that, Amiga/Toaster), meaning "overlays" were placed over videos (as is in all pro editors today except Magix Pro X), I've edited as I call it "upside down" too. It all depends on what a user is used to and exposed to, and the willingness to learn. My personal preference is overlays being just that.

Also, I have to agree with aski1, nothing gets you up faster than the included templates in VS. They not only allow the user to create something, but see how it's done. This aids in further helping the user "grow" and expand their knowledge. This is where VS really excels to "me". And, you can edit these templates as needed on the timeline. My only gripe with VS is in timeline editing of the main track. You can't move or do with it like you can the overlay tracks.

Rendering is something of another discussion. The fastest "consumer" rendering software is Pinnacle. Faster than PD. But while it's important to make use of all the features of a modern computer, I'd still think on usability and functionality for the user. VS to "me" excels in doing this, especially for those entering video editing for the first time, with room to grow with some advanced features to keep you growing.

I'm not sure what Corel's plans and directions are for the future of this or any of it's software, but hardware acceleration is something that should be on the list.

For people that ask me what video editor I use, I tell them I use the tool that will work best for me. I, like most long time editors, have several different tools in our editing "tool chest". But for those going to start editing for the first time, it's always been VS. That comes from my personal experience of using most of the "consumer" editors out there. VS also allows for some pretty complex workflows, where a lot of times, the user is the limiter, not the software. It's not perfect (none are), and long time users want it to be better.... that's just how we are.

[pepegota]

Of course an i 7 8700 would be faster than a i7 4790k. Comparison is not used to judge speed of VS rendering of a project as alluded to above. Vegas does not have a storyboard, which I find useful in certain situations. VS works fine for me and I would recommend it over its Vegas counterpart anyday. I hope they do improve performance in lieu of more novelties. By the way, the layout has changed somewhat in VS 2018 and not to my liking.