Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

More RAM, CPU, or GPU for Sony Vegas Video Editing?

Tags:
  • GPUs
  • RAM
  • Apps
  • CPUs
  • Video Editing
Last response: in Apps General Discussion
Share
August 3, 2014 7:13:41 PM

I'm in the market to buy a new computer. In order to speed up rendering times, is it better to invest more money on RAM, CPU, or GPU?

I frequently create videos that are an hour long, 1080p, 10GB in size. It takes an hour or two to render on my current computer. These are my specs currently, but again I'm in the market to buy a totally new computer

AMD Radeon HD 6450 1GB DDR3
Sandy Bridge intel Core i7-2600
12 GB DD3 RAM
windows 7 64 bit

More about : ram cpu gpu sony vegas video editing

a b à CPUs
August 3, 2014 7:35:38 PM

It depends on the rendering. If its video rendering that you have edited then it would go CPU, RAM, GPU. If it was more like 3DS Max stuff it would go CPU, GPU, RAM. Either way CPU's are the number 1 factoring item. I would go for a Intel Xeon. The E3 Series will fit and work in just about any socket 1150 board like the E3-1230 which is pretty much a i7 4770. Just you get no overclocking but its cheaper. If you really want to go big then get a socket 2011 board with a i7-4970k or a Xeon E5 CPU.
m
0
l
August 3, 2014 7:39:52 PM

drtweak said:
It depends on the rendering. If its video rendering that you have edited then it would go CPU, RAM, GPU. If it was more like 3DS Max stuff it would go CPU, GPU, RAM. Either way CPU's are the number 1 factoring item. I would go for a Intel Xeon. The E3 Series will fit and work in just about any socket 1150 board like the E3-1230 which is pretty much a i7 4770. Just you get no overclocking but its cheaper. If you really want to go big then get a socket 2011 board with a i7-4970k or a Xeon E5 CPU.


thank you! yes it's just regular video rendering of PS3 and PC games, no fancy 3D holograms
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2014 9:27:43 AM

yea then want to to focus on CPU and RAM. More so the CPU. more RAM just helps when editing. My roommate's iMac has 32 GB of ram and Adobe can take up to 25 GB when editing video but then we edit RAW 2.5K video so it requires more ram. For now i think 8GB would be ok and if its not enough just toss in another 8GB stick. But with CPU i wouldn't skimp out on. thats the key player
m
0
l
August 4, 2014 9:48:22 AM

drtweak said:
yea then want to to focus on CPU and RAM. More so the CPU. more RAM just helps when editing. My roommate's iMac has 32 GB of ram and Adobe can take up to 25 GB when editing video but then we edit RAW 2.5K video so it requires more ram. For now i think 8GB would be ok and if its not enough just toss in another 8GB stick. But with CPU i wouldn't skimp out on. thats the key player


CPU it is then! by the way don't iMacs have Core i5's? How long does it take your friend to render a 25GB video?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2014 10:49:11 AM

lol no they come with i7's as well. he has a 3770 in his mac. not sure exactly how long redering takes though on his Mac.
m
0
l
August 4, 2014 1:27:39 PM

drtweak said:
lol no they come with i7's as well. he has a 3770 in his mac. not sure exactly how long redering takes though on his Mac.


oh darn! if you can ask him i would be very much appreciative!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2014 2:20:54 PM

haha I will ask him when he get home later tonight
m
0
l
August 5, 2014 8:43:51 PM

drtweak said:
haha I will ask him when he get home later tonight



thanks, looking forward to hear what he says!
m
0
l
August 5, 2014 9:30:17 PM

I agree that the CPU and RAM are critical components. Personally, I wouldn't go with anything less than 16GB of RAM. I edit video using Premiere Pro on an older i7 processor (i7-2600K), 16GB of RAM, and a CUDA enabled GPU and a late 2011 MacBook Pro (I know it has an i7 processor but not sure which one without looking up the specs and 16GB of RAM). Both machines perform well enough to meet my editing needs.
m
0
l
August 6, 2014 3:10:08 PM

kenrivers said:
I agree that the CPU and RAM are critical components. Personally, I wouldn't go with anything less than 16GB of RAM. I edit video using Premiere Pro on an older i7 processor (i7-2600K), 16GB of RAM, and a CUDA enabled GPU and a late 2011 MacBook Pro (I know it has an i7 processor but not sure which one without looking up the specs and 16GB of RAM). Both machines perform well enough to meet my editing needs.


cool! how fast can you encode a 10GB video?
m
0
l
August 6, 2014 3:19:47 PM

videoeditor said:
kenrivers said:
I agree that the CPU and RAM are critical components. Personally, I wouldn't go with anything less than 16GB of RAM. I edit video using Premiere Pro on an older i7 processor (i7-2600K), 16GB of RAM, and a CUDA enabled GPU and a late 2011 MacBook Pro (I know it has an i7 processor but not sure which one without looking up the specs and 16GB of RAM). Both machines perform well enough to meet my editing needs.


cool! how fast can you encode a 10GB video?

I will test it later this evening and will let you know.
m
0
l
August 7, 2014 7:30:09 AM

kenrivers said:
videoeditor said:
kenrivers said:
I agree that the CPU and RAM are critical components. Personally, I wouldn't go with anything less than 16GB of RAM. I edit video using Premiere Pro on an older i7 processor (i7-2600K), 16GB of RAM, and a CUDA enabled GPU and a late 2011 MacBook Pro (I know it has an i7 processor but not sure which one without looking up the specs and 16GB of RAM). Both machines perform well enough to meet my editing needs.


cool! how fast can you encode a 10GB video?

I will test it later this evening and will let you know.


thanks looking forward to knowing the results of the testing!!
m
0
l
August 7, 2014 6:18:48 PM

8.9GB File, .mpg file, 720x480, exported as h.264 file (2 pass - match source - high bitrate) took just over 1minute.

22.5GB, .mov file, 1920x1080, exported as h.264 file (2 pass - match source - high bitrate) took 1 hour 21 minutes 06 seconds.
m
0
l
August 7, 2014 6:58:41 PM

kenrivers said:
8.9GB File, .mpg file, 720x480, exported as h.264 file (2 pass - match source - high bitrate) took just over 1minute.

22.5GB, .mov file, 1920x1080, exported as h.264 file (2 pass - match source - high bitrate) took 1 hour 21 minutes 06 seconds.


wow, thanks for those times! i'm very, very surprised the 22.5 GB 1080p took 81 times more time than the 8.9 GB 480p one! i was imagining it would not take more than 30 minutes.
m
0
l
August 7, 2014 7:26:58 PM

videoeditor said:
kenrivers said:
8.9GB File, .mpg file, 720x480, exported as h.264 file (2 pass - match source - high bitrate) took just over 1minute.

22.5GB, .mov file, 1920x1080, exported as h.264 file (2 pass - match source - high bitrate) took 1 hour 21 minutes 06 seconds.


wow, thanks for those times! i'm very, very surprised the 22.5 GB 1080p took 81 times more time than the 8.9 GB 480p one! i was imagining it would not take more than 30 minutes.


The 480p video was recorded at a lower quality than the 1080p video and was recorded directly to the hard drive on a laptop from a TV using an old Sony Hi8 video camera as a pass through from the TV to the laptop. The 1080p was shot using a Canon T4i DSLR and was of much higher quality. The 480p file had a duration of about 1 hour 15 minutes whereas the 108p video had a duration of 57 minutes. I will add that no effects were added to either video.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 7, 2014 7:49:23 PM

Yea i also go back with my buddy. We work with 2.5K video and we render it out as 1440p, for a 2 Pass at 1440p 11 minute video with vb2 took 3 hours. When he did it as 1080 it only taken 20 minutes. Not sure of the before size though.

this is the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfSAUfA4nbs&index=1&lis...

Actually got nominated at the film festival. They all got interviewed for the finals.
m
0
l
!