Building a new SuperComputer for Vegas Pro 11!

[Kim Olsson]

Much have changed since I used Sony Vegas 7...

My old setup for SV7, was a Core2Duo E6700 - 2.67Ghz, 4GB RAM, nVidia GeForece 7900GS, 2x80GB harddrives and 2 monitors, I believe... I payed $4000...

I haven't used Sony Vegas for 2 years. I gave my sister my old computer, so I am trying to design/build a new setup for video & foto editing...

I need some suggestion from experience people...

This is what I came up with, and this is my reasons:

¤ Intel Core i7 3930K 3.2GHz - (I could settle with 2600k, but I really want socket 2011 for 8xRAM)
¤ Corsair Cooling Hydro H100 - (Going to OC to about 4.2GHz-4.7GHz)
¤ 64GB RAM (8x8GB 1600MHz) - (Everybody talks about the RAM!)
¤ Corsair SSD Force 3 Series 120GB - (This will be the system drive)
¤ 2x2TB HDD - (This is for storing, i do have external drives too)
¤ 1000W 80+ Gold, power supply - (After reading Jeff Harper's posting =)
¤ Windows 7 Pro - (I need the pro version to handle that much RAM)

This will cost about half my old system, on about $2500

Video&foto editing isnt my professional, just memorising my loved ones... but I want good stuff....

Im from Sweden, so my English isnt the best..

Any help would appreciated. Im really confused about the graphic card.... I dont get any smarter reading this forum about it either... Would a GTX 570 or better ex. be to any good ?? Or can i save a couple of $100 being without one?

[Gints Klimanis]

You are building a serious cube. I wouldn't count on overclocking a part 50% even with that water cooling. I opted for a six fan water loop to keep things quiet, and during the summer months, the 560ti CPU fan spins as 2800 RPM even when the card is doing little to nothing.

Intel is boasting performance increases for encoding, but that is for encoders using their new AVX instruction set. I wonder how long Sony will need to add support :
Intel® AVX - Intel® Software Network

Let us know if you observe a speed-up with 32GB vs 64GB RAM. If your app isn't using RAM, Windows caches files in the available memory. Given the serial, size and generally low data rate of compressed video files, it's hard to imagine the advantage of a huge amount of RAM. If you really are limited by memory bandwidth, purchasing faster (2400 MHz) RAM is a better performance move. Which motherboard are you using? On the ASUS Rampage III, I found that my motherboard chipset also needed watercooling, so it is included in the cooling loop.

As for the GFX card, the nVidia 570 is promising. I have an eVGA 560ti, but even with that, I don't notice any speed-up of my most common task : Sony Vegas decode XDCAM 35 / 50 MBit MPEG2 decode and encode with Sony AVC to MP4. CPU overclocking (Core i7 six-core 3.3 GHz 980x)

Other desktop apps such as DVD Fab make better use of the nVidia card for video encoding. I hope to hear your experiences with nVidia's huge increase in CUDA cores in the Kepler line. I'd be willing to pay more for Sony plug-ins that are optimized to use more CUDA cores and more GFX cards for a 2X+ performance increase.

[Kim Olsson]

Great to see responses...

I choosed the Corsair Cooling Hydro H100, because im not really a OC guy...
So my option was also the most simple CPU cooling solution, but also the most effective. This cooling device, have really got great reviews for it effectiveness when you overclock the 2600k and 3930k.
And dont forget, I live in Sweden =) Winter temperature nov-mar is usually -4°F
to 32°F. Summertime, never above 77°F.

And for the motherboard, Im looking at the Asus P9X79, which has room for 8 RAM sticks...
And for RAM, I think I need it. When I toogle Photoshop, Vegas, with heavy projects, using and editing high-res images, high-def videos, multiple tracks, compositions, I belive it is useful...

yea, yea. I know. Some think Im just a playing around guy, who makes homevideos. And he thinks he needs 64GB of RAM. Well, I love computers and the development of it. My first 486, dx2 50mhz, did only have 4mb of RAM. So Im curious whats 64GB of RAM would take off =)

I hope 64GB 1600MHz is more effective then 32GB 2400MHz, I havent afford testing them both...

I read that GPU acceleration wouldnt affect the workflow, just the render time....
But people here, looks like they are disappointed. I read people buying the GTX 680 and could activate the GPU render. So I belive I go without a graphiccard, and maybe purchase one when people get one to work properley in Vegas Pro 11, and so I also know specifically which GPU/modell to choose....

/Kim

[Gints Klimanis]

There is no need to apologize for being a hobbyist. I would be interested if you're willing to test 32GB vs 64GB.

As for the GFX card, what remains to be seen is whether Sony is able to make use of the GFX power. They claim 2-3x performance, but I'm not seeing this on the 560ti. Please let us know what you find with the 6x0 series.

"Benchmarking GPU Acceleration in Vegas Pro 11"
Vegas Pro 11 GPU acceleration

"Five steps to GPU power in Vegas Pro 11" by Gary Rebholz
Five steps to GPU power in Vegas Pro 11

"Sony Vegas Pro 11 Review: Now, With Graphics Acceleration"
Sony Vegas Pro 11 Video Software Review | PCWorld

[Gary Bettan]

Sounds like a great machine. Very similar to our DIY9 guide
Videoguys Blog - Videoguys' DIY9: It's Time for Sandy Bridge-E


We're big fans of he GTX570 and it will I've you excellent GPU acceleration w Vegas Pro 11

Gary

[Jeff Harper]

If you're going all this way Kim why not get the GTX 680 card? It has triple the cuda cores, which will mean increased performance and should help with preview playback. It's all about the number of cuda cores with Vegas. I agree you are seriously overdoing the RAM and will likely not benefit from it unless you need it for other apps.

Nice system, I'm a huge fan of overclocking, it's too easy to do these days.

[Gints Klimanis]

Jeff wrote "It's all about the number of cuda cores with Vegas"

Jeff, do you see a speedup for video rendering to Sony AVC .mp4 or XDCAM EX .mp4? If so, which GFX card do you have?

[Jeff Harper]

Gints, I turn off GPU acceleration most times for rendering, I've read others have seen lower quality when using it. My CPU is already at 4ghz+ so I don't need the relatively minor increase for rendering. I'm mostly concerned with preview playback as it is horrible in Vegas.

The number of cuda cores in Nvidia cards are the factor in GPU affecting playback, so that's why I point this out.

[Harm Millaard]

Although not for Vegas, but for Adobe CS6, which should not make a huge difference in what is needed in a computer in terms of the components, you may find this page interesting: PPBM6 Planning a new system

It is in the early stages of the build and I will add to this page as the build progresses.

[Gints Klimanis]

For a 720p60 16 Mbits VBR rendering of 35 MBit/sec Sony XDCAM EX, I get these numbers with Sony Vegas 11 (Build 511) (64-bit) in Windows 7. Vegas was restarted before each rendering.

Sony AVC : No GPU= 2:57 GPU: 3:00

Main Concept AVC/AAC: No GPU= 1:11 GPU: 1:35

I'm using an eVGA nVidia 560ti 850MHz (Overclock off) with an Intel Core i7 980 3.33 GHz(No Overclock).
I have not benchmarked other Sony Plug-ins, so perhaps the advantage is greater during normal use.

[Kim Olsson]

Thanks Gints Klimanis, I already looked at Sonycreativesoftwares own benchmark charts...
They looks great.

But for a minute, I wasent convinced. After reading alot of forums and reallife experience from people, using the GPU acceleration, it seems that many didnt get it to work properly. Some people even got some bad render quality...

But after this reading: Sony Creative Software - Forums - Vegas Pro - Video Messages,
I'll go for the GTX 570 or GTX 580. NOT the GTX 590, because VP11 doesnt support dual GPU at the time.

I was also reallly happy when I checked this:

Sony Vegas Pro 11 with GPU Acceleration - YouTube

This confirms faster preview/workflow with GPU (VP10 2fps against VP11 20fps with "Glow" filter on)

And Jeff Harper, this is why I wasent leaning towards the GTX 680: Adobe Premiere CS5, CS5.5 and CS6 Video Cards with CUDA Acceleration Mercury Playback Unlock Enable MPE Hack Mod Tip

I know this big benchmark test was for Adobe Premiere CS6 and the Mercury Playback Engine.
But I think it has a connection. Please read it all, but u see further down, that the GTX680 wasnt really any faster rendering then the GTX570 (1second)!!

But will the GTX 680 have the advantage over GTX 570 when it comes to faster workflow/preview playback??!
Iam so confused.

And maybe I satisfy with 32GB of RAM (Quad channel).
But I have to wait, I found out that Windows 8 is comming soon.. Dont want to buy a new system, with an old operating system =)

[Leslie Wand]

@ kim - unless you want to be on the cutting edge (and perhaps bleeding to death), i wouldn't wait for win 8 when the software you're using isn't tested on it. nor would i be in the rush for the first iteration of ANY new software, albeit nle or os. let some other poor bastard find out the problems first ;-)

[Jeff Harper]

Kim, it's the number of cores in the GPU that affects Vegas, and the 680 has over double the number of the 570. I do not know how test for Premier relate to Vegas.

I would personally not spend all the money on a new computer and not take advantage of the 680, but that is just me.

Good luck, tough decision.

[Harm Millaard]

Jeff,

Do not be lured by the simple number of CUDA cores in the GTX 680 over the GTX 580. They have completely different architectures and number of CUDA cores are just not comparable. My partner in crime, Bill Gehrke has tested the differences with PR CS5.5 and CS6 with both cards and the differences are small but the 680 is the winner on all aspects. There are a number of major benefits to the 680, apart from the performance gains - that may not apply to Vegas - and that is the lower power consumption, the lower temperatures and most importantly the 4 GB VRAM over the more limited memory of the 5xx series. Now, this will only make a difference if you use large stills or RED material, but I thought it worth mentioning.

[Jeff Harper]

Interesting Harm, maybe Eric is better off not spending the extra if the performance is not much better. Nevertheless, for me personally, for a new system I would go with the fastest, as I'd feel good about it. I would buy the card today if my current card wasn't relatively new, less than a year old.

Harm I'm glad to hear someone has tested the card against the 570 but would still be keen to test the card's help with preview performance on my system. I'm just so sick of the terrible playback with Vegas.

With Edius trial I downloaded last week playback is flawless with multiple lines of 1080 24p, it just makes me sick. I learn so slowly, and I really don't want to learn Edius, it's so foreign, but wow what a program it is. It really does kill Vegas in a number of ways.

Harm, is the GTX 570 significantly better for Vegas preview performance than the GTX 460 with to your knowledge?