Answers.Body: <p>I use Sony Vegas 12pro and it uses CPU rendering OR certain codecs can render to GPU. I have used GPU rendering and found that it is only slightly faster but way buggier. GPU rendering is a pretty new thing so I'd stay away from it and I wouldn't expect it to be good for a few more years.</p>
  
  <p>So the faster your CPU the faster the video will render. The GPU is doing nothing with CPU rendering. Well it is doing basic windows OS stuff but not handling the rendering of the file.</p>
  
  <p>I've been editing with Sony Vegas for 5 years and started with version 8.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-01-02T18:17:03.370Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-01-02T18:17:03.370Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: user8937
Answers.Body: <p>Not likely.  Graphics card memory is more about loading information on to the card for textures and such for rendering.  It isn't really a key component of pushing information through the GPU itself.  When using a GPU for rendering, we are interested in the high level of parallel performance that a GPU can reach for relatively simple calculations.  The rate at which information can move in and out of the card as well as the rate at which the GPU can process matters, the memory on the GPU is not generally going to be a bottleneck.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-08-18T00:23:25.870Z
Answers.Text: Ok, what GPU do I use to achieve 1:1 rendering speed (realtime) for simple effects (pan. crop, titles)?
Answers.UserDisplayName: user4551
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-08-18T00:44:45.490Z
Answers.Text: @user4551 - if you really want real time capability, your best bet is to get a real time video editing card.  Most of the good ones also would give you realtime or greatly accelerated H.264 encoding.  [Matrox](http://www.matrox.com/video/en/solutions/adobe/) is personally one of my prefered vendors for such things, though many other companies make similar products.  Black Magic Design and RED also have similar types of cards and I'm sure other companies do as well.  Be aware that they are still limited to certain effects and resolutions though because the difficulty goes up with resolution.
Answers.UserDisplayName: AJ Henderson
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-08-17T21:48:15.253Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-08-17T21:48:15.253Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: AJ Henderson
Answers.Body: <p>I have read that the extra ram (4 gb vs 2 gb) might be utilized when you are working with 4k footage, but there are a lot of other factors at play here (cpu / data throughput etc). This is a good article about choosing the right components for your editing pc (including graphics card): <a href="http://ppbm7.com/index.php/tweakers-page/83-balanced-systems/94-balanced-systems" rel="nofollow">http://ppbm7.com/index.php/tweakers-page/83-balanced-systems/94-balanced-systems</a> </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-27T10:32:24.783Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-05-27T10:32:24.783Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: guus
Answers.Body: <p>I haven't seen any difference between 2GB and 4GB. My GTX680 2GB is practically the same as a friend's GTX680 4GB in terms of PP performance.</p>
  
  <p>I don't know if this is just on our systems, but even with a fast GPU PP just can't handle more than a couple of filters without dropping frames.</p>
  
  <p>It's kind of infuriating, really. My GPU can create beautiful landscapes with hundreds of filters from nothing in realtime but something simple like a few layers of text is too much for PP to handle.</p>
  
  <p>Hint: try DaVinci Resolve Lite. It's free and benefits immensely from a good GPU!</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-26T21:21:20.430Z
Answers.Text: Note that your GPU doesn't fully render those landscapes and there aren't hundreds of filters.  Games pre-render most of the stuff and use lots of tricks to make it so that shaders operate at high efficiency rather than high accuracy.  They also operate on polygon models rather than raster data.  When using a GPU for video acceleration, it has to do all the calculations from scratch, without the advantage of pre-calculated optimizations, on raw raster data.  It is a far, far harder problem.
Answers.UserDisplayName: AJ Henderson
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-27T07:46:44.423Z
Answers.Text: @AJHenderson Sure, PP rendering isn't at all similar to game graphics, but it could be way better. While PP starts dropping frames with only a few color correction filters, Resolve renders practically the same thing in 3x realtime.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Pichan
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-27T13:19:12.263Z
Answers.Text: What kind of footage are you working with?  Even on my system that doesn't have GPU acceleration, I can handle several color correction filters on 1080p footage in real time without dropped frames in PP.
Answers.UserDisplayName: AJ Henderson
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-27T14:08:37.340Z
Answers.Text: @AJHenderson Usually h264 straight from the camera. I know it isn't the optimal format but again, Resolve handles it effortlessly. I may have exaggerated the problem a bit, but it really doesn't take much to make PP slow down.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Pichan
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-26T10:06:14.960Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-05-26T10:06:14.960Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Pichan
Answers.Body: <p><strong>1)</strong> Everytime the GPU has to process something, it will load the necessary data (in that case your video frames) into the VRAM. Simple as that, the GPU cannot work with your system memory.
  Though the GPU gets it's data from the system memory, so your system memory will act as a buffer and you don't need to load that much data at once into the VRAM.</p>
  
  <p>Though programs which offer a real-time workflow will want to load as much data into the VRAM as possible. That's the reason why you can allocate a specific amount of VRAM in Adobe After Effects (not 100% sure if you can do the same in Premiere).
  So every time you apply an effect in Premiere that is GPU accelerated, the GPU will have to request data into the VRAM to process the frames.</p>
  
  <p>New versions of OpenCL and CUDA are improving the way of how the GPU will get its data and reducing the overhead caused by the CPU which will reduce the amount of VRAM needed at a time but VRAM will always be a very important factor with the current PC architecture.
  Current GPUs use GDDR5 which is A LOT faster than DDR3 system memory. This is needed as the memory speed is a very important performance factor in GPU computing. Overclocking your VRAM can give you quite a performance boost in memory intensive 3D rendering applications (though probably not in Premiere).
  Current <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDDR5" rel="nofollow">GDDR5</a> based GPUs like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units#GeForce_700_Series" rel="nofollow">GTX 780 Ti</a> are capable of more than 300 GB/s (336 GB/s in this case). <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddr3" rel="nofollow">DDR3</a>-2133 is substantially slower with a peak bandwidth of 16,66 GB/s per module. Also 2133 is rather uncommon in OEM PCs, DDR3-1600 and 1300 is more common.</p>
  
  <p><strong>2)</strong> So you will benefit from a large amount of VRAM everytime you work with very high resolution images or many videos at once aswell as with high-frame rate footage. Premieres rendering engine is utilizing the GPU for both the preview aswell as the final rendering if you chose so.</p>
  
  <p>In practice I'd say it's nonsense to have more than 2GB of VRAM for Premiere unless you work with other applications at the same time that utilize the GPU. Processing bitmaps doesn't require all that much data at once unless you work with crazy resolutions like 8k or 16k, the processing capability of your GPU will be the bottleneck before your VRAM.</p>
  
  <p>Thats my opinion based on what I know about the Premiere video engine and GP-GPU. Premiere might do some other stuff in the background that requires more VRAM. So if you have a very specific use case I'd rather make a benchmark or search for one before making a purchase decision. If you just want to make a general guess this information should help you quite well to make a decision.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-28T20:03:32.307Z
Answers.Text: It is worth mentioning that it does depend on the architecture being used.  There have been numerous graphics cards over the years that worked closely with system ram and even a fair number that directly used system ram as their storage space.  Fundamentally, the proximity of the memory just involves how quickly the GPU can get data.  It can either request data be sent from RAM to itself or it can work directly from the local GPU memory, the only difference is that it doesn't have to talk to anything else to get access to GPU memory.
Answers.UserDisplayName: AJ Henderson
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-28T20:07:27.287Z
Answers.Text: Ah, it does appear that your statement is true for NVidia GPUs though that will be changing with the Maxwell chips.
Answers.UserDisplayName: AJ Henderson
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-28T23:02:13.943Z
Answers.Text: Well yes thats what I wrote. At the end the data still has to be in the VRAM though, even if its for a short amount of time.
  Even the new CUDA versions aren't doing anything new in that regard, they just improve the way system and GPU memory is handled.
  
  It's very important that the active workload is in the VRAM as its substantially faster than the system RAM. Maybe I should add that to the answer, thats an important factor to know.
Answers.UserDisplayName: timonsku
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-05-28T19:50:59.623Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-05-29T15:27:59.597Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2014-05-29T15:27:59.597Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: timonsku
Body: <p>So, I'm asking that, since I've got a GTX650Ti 1 GB graphics, and it takes 5 minutes to render a simple 1 minute video with minimum effects. Is it normal? I've tried it both with Sony Vegas and Adobe Premiere
  Will the 2 GB version of GTX650Ti increase performance?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-01-05T17:11:23.687Z
Comments.Text: What codec are you rendering to?  h.264, for example, is pretty computationally intense and takes longer to render than other codecs.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Jason Conrad
Tags: <video><premiere><vegas-pro><performance>
Title: How does graphics card's memory affect video rendering performance?
UserDisplayName: user4551
ThreadText: # How does graphics card's memory affect video rendering performance?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2013-08-17)
  
  So, I'm asking that, since I've got a GTX650Ti 1 GB graphics, and it takes 5 minutes to render a simple 1 minute video with minimum effects. Is it normal? I've tried it both with Sony Vegas and Adobe Premiere
  Will the 2 GB version of GTX650Ti increase performance?
  
  **Tags:** video, premiere, vegas-pro, performance
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: What codec are you rendering to?  h.264, for example, is pretty computationally intense and takes longer to render than other codecs.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 5 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2014-05-28. Score: 5 | Accepted answer
  
  **1)** Everytime the GPU has to process something, it will load the necessary data (in that case your video frames) into the VRAM. Simple as that, the GPU cannot work with your system memory.
  Though the GPU gets it's data from the system memory, so your system memory will act as a buffer and you don't need to load that much data at once into the VRAM.
  
  Though programs which offer a real-time workflow will want to load as much data into the VRAM as possible. That's the reason why you can allocate a specific amount of VRAM in Adobe After Effects (not 100% sure if you can do the same in Premiere).
  So every time you apply an effect in Premiere that is GPU accelerated, the GPU will have to request data into the VRAM to process the frames.
  
  New versions of OpenCL and CUDA are improving the way of how the GPU will get its data and reducing the overhead caused by the CPU which will reduce the amount of VRAM needed at a time but VRAM will always be a very important factor with the current PC architecture.
  Current GPUs use GDDR5 which is A LOT faster than DDR3 system memory. This is needed as the memory speed is a very important performance factor in GPU computing. Overclocking your VRAM can give you quite a performance boost in memory intensive 3D rendering applications (though probably not in Premiere).
  Current [GDDR5](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDDR5) based GPUs like the [GTX 780 Ti](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units#GeForce_700_Series) are capable of more than 300 GB/s (336 GB/s in this case). [DDR3](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddr3)-2133 is substantially slower with a peak bandwidth of 16,66 GB/s per module. Also 2133 is rather uncommon in OEM PCs, DDR3-1600 and 1300 is more common.
  
  **2)** So you will benefit from a large amount of VRAM everytime you work with very high resolution images or many videos at once aswell as with high-frame rate footage. Premieres rendering engine is utilizing the GPU for both the preview aswell as the final rendering if you chose so.
  
  In practice I'd say it's nonsense to have more than 2GB of VRAM for Premiere unless you work with other applications at the same time that utilize the GPU. Processing bitmaps doesn't require all that much data at once unless you work with crazy resolutions like 8k or 16k, the processing capability of your GPU will be the bottleneck before your VRAM.
  
  Thats my opinion based on what I know about the Premiere video engine and GP-GPU. Premiere might do some other stuff in the background that requires more VRAM. So if you have a very specific use case I'd rather make a benchmark or search for one before making a purchase decision. If you just want to make a general guess this information should help you quite well to make a decision.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_3**: It is worth mentioning that it does depend on the architecture being used.  There have been numerous graphics cards over the years that worked closely with system ram and even a fair number that directly used system ram as their storage space.  Fundamentally, the proximity of the memory just involves how quickly the GPU can get data.  It can either request data be sent from RAM to itself or it can work directly from the local GPU memory, the only difference is that it doesn't have to talk to anything else to get access to GPU memory.  
  > **username_3**: Ah, it does appear that your statement is true for NVidia GPUs though that will be changing with the Maxwell chips.  
  > **username_6**: Well yes thats what I wrote. At the end the data still has to be in the VRAM though, even if its for a short amount of time. Even the new CUDA versions aren't doing anything new in that regard, they just improve the way system and GPU memory is handled.  It's very important that the active workload is in the VRAM as its substantially faster than the system RAM. Maybe I should add that to the answer, thats an important factor to know.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2014-01-02. Score: 4
  
  I use Sony Vegas 12pro and it uses CPU rendering OR certain codecs can render to GPU. I have used GPU rendering and found that it is only slightly faster but way buggier. GPU rendering is a pretty new thing so I'd stay away from it and I wouldn't expect it to be good for a few more years.
  
  So the faster your CPU the faster the video will render. The GPU is doing nothing with CPU rendering. Well it is doing basic windows OS stuff but not handling the rendering of the file.
  
  I've been editing with Sony Vegas for 5 years and started with version 8.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2013-08-17. Score: 4
  
  Not likely. Graphics card memory is more about loading information on to the card for textures and such for rendering. It isn't really a key component of pushing information through the GPU itself. When using a GPU for rendering, we are interested in the high level of parallel performance that a GPU can reach for relatively simple calculations. The rate at which information can move in and out of the card as well as the rate at which the GPU can process matters, the memory on the GPU is not generally going to be a bottleneck.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Ok, what GPU do I use to achieve 1:1 rendering speed (realtime) for simple effects (pan. crop, titles)?  
  > **username_3**: @username_0 - if you really want real time capability, your best bet is to get a real time video editing card.  Most of the good ones also would give you realtime or greatly accelerated H.264 encoding.  [Matrox](http://www.matrox.com/video/en/solutions/adobe/) is personally one of my prefered vendors for such things, though many other companies make similar products.  Black Magic Design and RED also have similar types of cards and I'm sure other companies do as well.  Be aware that they are still limited to certain effects and resolutions though because the difficulty goes up with resolution.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2014-05-27. Score: 2
  
  I have read that the extra ram (4 gb vs 2 gb) might be utilized when you are working with 4k footage, but there are a lot of other factors at play here (cpu / data throughput etc). This is a good article about choosing the right components for your editing pc (including graphics card): <http://ppbm7.com/index.php/tweakers-page/83-balanced-systems/94-balanced-systems>
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2014-05-26. Score: 1
  
  I haven't seen any difference between 2GB and 4GB. My GTX680 2GB is practically the same as a friend's GTX680 4GB in terms of PP performance.
  
  I don't know if this is just on our systems, but even with a fast GPU PP just can't handle more than a couple of filters without dropping frames.
  
  It's kind of infuriating, really. My GPU can create beautiful landscapes with hundreds of filters from nothing in realtime but something simple like a few layers of text is too much for PP to handle.
  
  Hint: try DaVinci Resolve Lite. It's free and benefits immensely from a good GPU!
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_3**: Note that your GPU doesn't fully render those landscapes and there aren't hundreds of filters.  Games pre-render most of the stuff and use lots of tricks to make it so that shaders operate at high efficiency rather than high accuracy.  They also operate on polygon models rather than raster data.  When using a GPU for video acceleration, it has to do all the calculations from scratch, without the advantage of pre-calculated optimizations, on raw raster data.  It is a far, far harder problem.  
  > **username_5**: @username_3 Sure, PP rendering isn't at all similar to game graphics, but it could be way better. While PP starts dropping frames with only a few color correction filters, Resolve renders practically the same thing in 3x realtime.  
  > **username_3**: What kind of footage are you working with?  Even on my system that doesn't have GPU acceleration, I can handle several color correction filters on 1080p footage in real time without dropped frames in PP.  
  > **username_5**: @username_3 Usually h264 straight from the camera. I know it isn't the optimal format but again, Resolve handles it effortlessly. I may have exaggerated the problem a bit, but it really doesn't take much to make PP slow down.  
  
  ---
  
  