GPU for video rendering

[jithins]

Hey, I have been rendering many video lately, and I want to speed up the process. What GPU is good for video rendering and which is better CUDA or OpenCL? All the video I'm rendering are at 1920x1080 at 60FPS. I currently have GTX 660, which is quite outdated. I want to speed up the rendering, since I render several long videos per week

 

[Geekwad]

What programs are you using?

 

[jithins]

What programs are you using?

Sony Vegas pro 13

 

[Guest]

Rendering speed is more dependent on the power of the CPU not the GPU. Essentially what you're doing is offline rendering after you have finished editing the video with title and effect tracks needing to be rendered before the final output. May I ask as to your computer's specifications, and what video editing software you are using?

 

[Guest]

If Sony Vegas is a mature enough software, then a faster and more powerful GPU might help with any real-time effects that you might be using. Does Sony recommend a certain type of of video card, possibly a prosumer version?

This may be on their the Sony Vegas website.

 

[Supermuncher85]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU15/1231

 

[Guest]

I checked their website and I quote:

GPU-accelerated video processing and rendering requires an OpenCL™-supported NVIDIA®, AMD/ATI™, or Intel® GPU with 512MB memory; 1GB for 4K.

Seems like pretty basic requirements for a GPU with 1GB vram. That's all video cards coming out right now...basically.

To answer your question, yes, a newer faster and more powerful GPU will help with any real-time titles and effects you insert on the fly, but it will not render the final video for output any faster than it does right now.

This depends on mostly on the CPU, but could also benefit from lots of fast RAM, speedy SSD storage...basically, the works.

All this depends on how intricate your videos really are, and the amount of simultaneous tracks you need to render.

If you are editing 4K video with lots of titles and effects, multiple layers, fades, and the like...then you obviously need more power overall.

 

[Karadjgne]

That 660 is just fine for anything you are doing. You can video edit and render using a gtx750ti. For speed, you need a cpu with balls. That means processing power and cores. Which means a cpu with a good amount of Lcache, good amount of GHz and a good amount of cores to work with as many threads as possible.

 

[jithins]

Rendering speed is more dependent on the power of the CPU not the GPU. Essentially what you're doing is offline rendering after you have finished editing the video with title and effect tracks needing to be rendered before the final output. May I ask as to your computer's specifications, and what video editing software you are using?

Amd fx 6350 with gtx 660 and 14gb of ram

 

[jithins]

That 660 is just fine for anything you are doing. You can video edit and render using a gtx750ti. For speed, you need a cpu with balls. That means processing power and cores. Which means a cpu with a good amount of Lcache, good amount of GHz and a good amount of cores to work with as many threads as possible.

so upgrading to amd fx 8350 will be a huge benefit from fx 6350?

 

[Geekwad]

With them, any Open CL supported GPU will provide speedier rendering times. I'd recommend at least 2Gb of vRAM, but something even lesser can work. What is your budget and the rest of your system specs? A jump from a 660 will certainly help, but CPU's play an important part too.

 

[Guest]

Rendering speed is more dependent on the power of the CPU not the GPU. Essentially what you're doing is offline rendering after you have finished editing the video with title and effect tracks needing to be rendered before the final output. May I ask as to your computer's specifications, and what video editing software you are using?

Amd fx 6350 with gtx 660 and 14gb of ram

You can spend $150 on a new video card, but to be honest, you will not notice that big of a difference in rendering time.
14GB is a good amount...hopefully you have at least 7200 RPM mechanical drive, or even better, SSD technology.

 

[jithins]

Rendering speed is more dependent on the power of the CPU not the GPU. Essentially what you're doing is offline rendering after you have finished editing the video with title and effect tracks needing to be rendered before the final output. May I ask as to your computer's specifications, and what video editing software you are using?

Amd fx 6350 with gtx 660 and 14gb of ram

You can spend $150 on a new video card, but to be honest, you will not notice that big of a difference in rendering time.
14GB is a good amount...hopefully you have at least 7200 RPM mechanical drive, or even better, SSD technology.

just a mechanic hard drive at 7200 rpm, ill just upgrade to amd fx 8350 along with it grab an ssd

 

[Guest]

Dude,
Check out GeekWad's signature. This is basically what you need if you have the cash. Fast X99-based platform with lots of power. Would work great for rendering videos on Sony Vegas Pro, or any other piece of software for that matter.

-slightly star-struck with Geekwad's machine

 

[Guest]

Rendering speed is more dependent on the power of the CPU not the GPU. Essentially what you're doing is offline rendering after you have finished editing the video with title and effect tracks needing to be rendered before the final output. May I ask as to your computer's specifications, and what video editing software you are using?

Amd fx 6350 with gtx 660 and 14gb of ram

You can spend $150 on a new video card, but to be honest, you will not notice that big of a difference in rendering time.
14GB is a good amount...hopefully you have at least 7200 RPM mechanical drive, or even better, SSD technology.

just a mechanic hard drive at 7200 rpm, ill just upgrade to amd fx 8350 along with it grab an ssd

Good idea. Let us know if you have any further questions.

P.S. Try to setup the software's scratch disk (temp rendering files), on to the SSD. It will speed up the responsiveness of the software's interface and real-time capabilities.

 

[Geekwad]

Rendering speed is more dependent on the power of the CPU not the GPU. Essentially what you're doing is offline rendering after you have finished editing the video with title and effect tracks needing to be rendered before the final output. May I ask as to your computer's specifications, and what video editing software you are using?

Amd fx 6350 with gtx 660 and 14gb of ram

You can spend $150 on a new video card, but to be honest, you will not notice that big of a difference in rendering time.
14GB is a good amount...hopefully you have at least 7200 RPM mechanical drive, or even better, SSD technology.

just a mechanic hard drive at 7200 rpm, ill just upgrade to amd fx 8350 along with it grab an ssd

Good idea. Let us know if you have any further questions.

P.S. Try to setup the software's scratch disk (temp rendering files), on to the SSD. It will speed up the responsiveness of the software's interface and real-time capabilities.

Bingo! A great, but admittedly probably over the top, upgrade would be a PCIe scratch disk. It is spendy (trust me, I know), but something like the Kingston HyperX PCIe 2.0 x4 in your setup would give the fastest possible times to your core system doing all the work, and make a great difference.

I would wait until you do the SSD upgrade for programs (and do get a small scratch disk that's separate....even if just a 120Gb) as the step from mechanical to SSD is more noticeable than SSD to PCIe. If after you make that jump and you're looking for part upgrades that would be transferable (and improving rendering speed is still important), check to see if your mobo manufacturer released a UEFI/BIOS update to support NVMe, and look at the newly released Samsung 950 Pro m.2 drive.

Size matters here though, and the larger the file you're working on, the more noticeable its improvement is.

 

[Supermuncher85]

I mean I'm using 99% off my CPU 5820k@4ghz doing a blu-ray transcode from one 7200rpm drive to another 7200 rpm drive taking about 45minutes. Doing it from my 1tb ssd to ram disk made no difference in speed. Blame handbrake if you want but I don't see the old spindle drives being a bottleneck here.

 

[Karadjgne]

Speed is nice, no argument there, but sometimes it's not.

Take your hand, spray it on a cutting board and run the gauntlet with a sharp knife. I'd put money on you preferring accuracy over speed. Handbrake is just for that reason. It's trying to guarantee accuracy by sacrificing speed. You all see the difference between a quick print and a full high quality print,. One small error in one small bit of info and instead of a one you get a zero and the whole project is useless.