Building a video editing workstation

OK, heard back directly from Sony, so this is definitive:

1) For timeline video processing, Vegas uses OpenCL and only OpenCL. It also uses only one video card, so it will not leverage multiple cards. The card you choose is the one it will use, and it will not use more than that one.

2) For rendering MainConcept AVC and Sony AVC, it will leverage CUDA, OpenCL, or Intel QSV. This is set separately from the video processing GPU acceleration, so you can choose a separate card from the one you're using for video processing. Or you can choose the same card. This, too, uses only one card, and will not leverage multiple cards.

3) For GPU acceleration on the Preview Device, it uses the same card as you choose for video processing (not render processing), but can be seperately disabled for Preview Device purposes if there's a driver issue.

So . . .

Multiple cards will be beneficial if you wanted to use, say, CUDA for rendering AVC and AMD OpenCL for video processing. But multiple cards of the same type (like those two 580s) won't do you any good; Vegas is only ever using one card at a time.

A system with both Nvidia CUDA and AMD OpenCL could be utilized for separate functions (one for video processing, one for rendering AVC). However, as said, I would not mix competing video drivers.

I've asked a follow-up concerning SLi (or Crossfire).

As for AMD/ATi/Radeon vs. Nvidia by itself, well, people are making some persuasive arguments in favor of AMD cards for Vegas. I'm an Nvidia guy myself, for purposes wider than just Vegas, but if Vegas is your only concern, perhaps AMD is the way to go. I can't speak to it from experience (unlike with Intel vs. AMD processors).
 
I'm actually running my editing on a machine I bought back in 2011 and I do 4k. Base specs are Win7 64-bit, i7, 16GB RAM, SSD drive and a Nvidia GTX560 TI. I'm sure if I would buy a new one today I'd get better performance but my 2011 machine still works great.
 

@David,

Is there a reason (other than economics) that influenced this choice of GPU over something like the GTX970?

The 970 has double the video memory (allegedly) and 60% more CUDA. I'm curious because I was about to purchase a new GPU and was planning on the GTX970. It is a little more than I wanted to spend, but figured it would be future-proof for at least a little while. But know you've got me thinking about the 960....

Sorry for the threadjack.

:thumbsup:
 
It's not a threadjack. It's a good question.

I just didn't think the added benefit was worth twice the price (or 3x the price for a 980), when GPU acceleration isn't the most important thing, and when GPUs tend to drop in price faster than any other component. A GPU is easy and quick to switch out later when more powerful cards drop in price.

But . . . YMMV.
 
Here is my system I just built. I have a SSD for boot and the Adobe CC suite. I have another SSD for cache and I have other drives for footage storage internally and footage backup externally as well as a drive for plugins, mattes, overlays and other video editing related. I have a total 10 drives hooked up. The price for this system only cost me out of pocket $800 but I can edit in premiere pro full resolution render full music videos with plenty of effects and layers in like 8 mins. The temp never gets over 40 degrees. An i7 would be great but im satisfied for what I paid for everything over time and it handles the job very well.

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/8H6Qxr
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/8H6Qxr/by_merchant/


CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($133.88 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($25.98 @ OutletPC) keeps my cpu extremely cool and completely silent
Thermal Compound: Arctic Silver 5 High-Density Polysynthetic Silver 3.5g Thermal Paste ($6.89 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($170.95 @ SuperBiiz) handles heat very well and runs operations smooth
Memory: Kingston Fury Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($120.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Storage: Silicon Power S70 240GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($103.99 @ Amazon) cache
Storage: Samsung 840 EVO 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($131.88 @ OutletPC) Boot drive and adobe CC
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Green 2TB 3.5" 5400RPM Internal Hard Drive footage storage could use a faster drive but its reliable
Storage: Seagate Pipeline HD 1TB 3.5" 5900RPM Internal Hard Drive ($56.99 @ Newegg) downloads and other none video editing related items
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 500GB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive mattes, overlays, templates and plugin storage
Video Card: PNY GeForce GTX 650 2GB Video Card ($103.98 @ Newegg) this balanced my system so I dont have too much for nothing but may upgrade later
Case: NZXT Guardian 921 RB ATX Mid Tower Case ($52.99 @ SuperBiiz) could use a better case but it was cheap locally
Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA NEX 650W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($54.99 @ NCIX US)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($197.96 @ OutletPC)
Monitor: Acer S220HQLAbd 60Hz 21.5" Monitor ($121.75 @ OutletPC) secondary monitor
Monitor: Samsung S23C450D 23.0" Monitor ($186.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $1470.21
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-02-09 20:38 EST-0500
 
As I said before, I have a machine running an FX-8320, and it does NOT stack up to even a first-generation, quad-core i7.

With the OP's stated budget of $5-6K for an editing machine, there's no reason at all to even consider an AMD processor. You want an i7.
 
An Intel i5 CPU will perform better than the AMD CPU you purchased. And it will render faster. Sorry, but you made a big mistake by going with an AMD CPU. There are many computer hardware websites that do excellent CPU comparisons (Tom's Hardware is my favorite), and their tests always show the latest Intel CPUs, as well as the Intel IvyBridge CPUs, at the top of the list for video rendering (excluding the newest Xeons, which always are at the top).
 
Back
Top