@discburn

Hi

. . . . Intel Xeon X5650 @ 2.67GHz and 2.66HGHz (2 processors),  6 GB,  M-Audio Delta 1010LT,  NVIDIA Quadro 4000 . . . .

This PC your does not meet any of the specification requirements for VPX.

Intel Xeon processors were never intended to be used general use, they were intended for use in servers and high end workstations eg for CAD, CGI and DCC, and are significantly slower than more modern processors - see this comparison of the Xeon vs what is a very popular i7 processor.

The same goes for the Quadro 4000 this was also designed for high end workstations, however is does support NVENC which VPX uses, however only for HEVC format video export.

. . . . DaVinci Resolve is free . . .

It may be, however will it run on your very non standard system?

John EB

Thanks John and Jeff,

Yes, DaVinci Resolve runs completely smoothly on my PC. In fact, it is very happy with the CUDA type NVIDIA cards.

As I mentioned, VPX6 is completely smooth also. No need for Reduce Resolution at all.

I played around with VPX10 and managed to get it to play smoothly (after colour correction was added) with Reduce Resolution turned on. Was all set to go with that, then on next time working with it, it could not play smoothly even though Reduce Resolution was on.

I'm wondering would it be worth de-installing and re-installing VPX10?

Seamus

Actually, based on the "Specs" of the CPU and GPU the OP has provided, they do provide more than the "Minimum Requirements" to run VPX. That is after going out to the Intel ARK page for the CPU, which would put it within the X58 HEDT platform area, just Xeon based, of which back then, Intel didn't friggin' cripple the HEDT platform and allowed the CPU to utilize the Workstation class features, such as ECC. Plus, though not sure exactly which "Quadro 4000", but based on the OP's signature of hardware, figure it is either a "K4000 or K4200" Quadro (Kepler series), which based on nVidia's Spec sheet, shows that it supports DirectX 11. And since this card would have probably 3GB of VRAM, provides the minimum for output, hopefully 1920x1080. The GPU "supports" 3840x2160 according to the specsheet, but only on the Display Port Channel.

Hi Michael,

Thanks for those comments. I actually now have 48GB of RAM. And, as far as I can tell from the NVIDIA website, my Quadro 4000 card is simply that, ie the 'Quadro Series'.

Indeed, pretty much all NLE software has its very specific requirements, and the latest Magix versions require the latest processors, cards and os. However, Magix prides itself on claiming its software can run on 'older computers', which is why I'm surprised at my own situation. Which is why I'm searching for a 'workaround'. VPX is such an enjoyable to use product. And the Color Grading/Scopes function of VPX10 is what I'm after! If only I could get it to work!

Sigh!

Seamus

@mmcswnavy24

. . . . based on the "Specs" of the CPU and GPU the OP has provided, they do provide more than the "Minimum Requirements" to run VPX . . .

Here I would disagree with you - the minimum spec requires an onboard GPU ie an integrated GPU, the Xeon processors have no integrated GPU for Hardware Acceleration (HWA) - the minimum required for HWA support is a HD4600 iGPU Full HD (1920 x 1080 MP4 or AVCHD) or a UHD630 for 4K video, if using NVidia the recommended is a GTX 1050 or greater.

The Quadro 4000 does not meet the recommended specification, it has lower performance than the GTX 1050 - see the benchmark comparisons here.

@discburn

The symptoms you quoted are a sure indication of an under powered PC for the video format you are using on the timeline - you have not said what the video format is and the resolution eg Full HD (1920 x 1080) MP4 or AVCHD or 4K (3840 x 2160).

Many effects require hardware acceleration from an integrated GPU which you do not have therefore VPX falls back to using the processor which is significantly slower.

When exporting, eg to mp4, do you see the word CUDA or hardware acceleration in the top bar of the export progress dialog?

John EB

@johnebaker

Thanks again for ongoing investigation!

Right, I've tested VPX6 and VPX10 one after the other with exactly the same project.

Source footage is XDCAM HD35.
Timeline is 1920 x 1080 25fps.
I'm exporting to MP4 1080p25.

Here are the performance differences:

VPX6
Smooth playback, even with effects, dissolves, overlays, etc.
Smooth playback with 'Video output activated' sending video to DeckLink Mini Monitor.
'Hardware Acceleration' showing during export.
No 'Reduced Resolution' at any time.

VPX10
Smooth playback only when no effects whatsoever are applied.
Choppy playback with effects, dissolves, overlays, etc.
Choppy playback with 'Video output activated' sending video to DeckLink Mini Monitor.
'No Hardware Acceleration' showing during export (even though HWA box is ticked).
'Reduced Resolution' activated has no beneficial effect.

So the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 seems to be working perfectly with VPX6, but not with VPX10.
And the Blackmagic Design Mini Monitor SDI works perfectly with VPX6, but not with VPX10.
 

I read somewhere that Dell don't enable Hyperthreading on the T5500. If I go into the BIOS and enable it, would that help? Maybe VPX10 needs it?

Seamus

@discburn

Hi Seamus

. . . . No Hardware Acceleration' showing during export (even though HWA box is ticked) . . . .

That is what I was expecting. The difference in performance, compared to VPX 6, comes from VPX 10 having no Hardware Acceleration using the Quadro 4000.

NVidia dropped CUDA encoding from the graphics card drivers in mid 2014. Strictly speaking we should say NVCUENC, CUDA is something bigger of which video encoding NVCUENC is only a part, .

VPX 6 can still use CUDA encoding, because the drivers for the Quadro have that support in them.

I suspect that CUDA encoding support has been dropped from the VPX 10, hence no hardware acceleration.

VPX 10 does support the new NVidia encoding NVENC, however the Quadro, while in theory, should support this, it is not in the older driver version and which if you update the drivers it may or may not work, and will definitely stop VPX 6 using CUDA/NVCUENC.

John EB

@johnebaker

Thanks John!

I'm going to leave well enough alone, as they say. With more experimentation using VPX6, I've managed to get a grip on the 'Brightness' and 'Contrast' sliders so as to keep my brights and darks 'legal'. Sometimes using 'Auto Exposure' helps, sometimes 'Gamma' helps.

My entire interest in VPX10 was the 'Curves' function, which quickly helps keep everything 'legal', as well as the other contrast adjustments it can do.

So, I'll wait a while until my present computer/system is no longer viable and upgrade to all the best 'bells and whistles'.

If I absolutely have to grade/edit in another programme (eg DaVinci Resolve), I can export a DnXHD master from there which opens nicely in both VPX6 and VPX10 for burning a DVD/BD. But a DNXHD file is very big. I do have the possibility to export an MOV (MPEG4) H.264 master, which (I've checked) imports and plays nicely in both VPXs. Just wondering, how high a Bitrate should I go for (especially if BD is a delivery option)? Is 25Mbps enough? My current version of DaVinci Resolve (12.5) does not export High@4 profile, just Baseline@4.

Sorry, my last question there is slightly off-topic, but definitely relates, if you have an idea about it.

Thanks again for the indepth explanation of my situation!

Seamus

The Xeon processor is way above minimum spec .The Quadro, as well. System would be limited in Resolve only by VRAM. For VPX, only notable missing part is WQS for decode Acceleration and encoding H.264 with acceleration, which isn't a huge issue with that CPU.issue

workstations are also for Video editing . Not just CAD and Engineering apps. GeForce cards are for the gaming market .What do is optimal .Some of them have multiple NVEncs, and you need Quadro to get native 10 but display support without using a Video card from Black MAGIC design, etc. Quadriplegic can encode multiple streams with NVenc concurrently. GeForce can't .

i think some people here just don't know what they're talking about .

(Sorry: Bad formatting cause awful Kindle KB),

Feature set of Resolve is well beyond VPX. Notable exceptions are resolution limited to UHD, and no HEVC export or 10-Bit support. It def. has higher system requirements. No Disc burning.

@Voormalige gebruiker

Thanks, Trensharo. It's all very 'deep' for a guy like me whose not a 'computer person'. But I'm learning little by little. 😊

Seamus

@Voormalige gebruiker

Hi

. . . . The Xeon processor is way above minimum spec . . . .

This is correct only in so far as it has more cores and speed than required, however it does not have the integrated GPU, so there is no GPU acceleration (Hardware Acceleration) from the processor.

. . . . For VPX, only notable missing part is WQS . . . which isn't a huge issue with that CPU . . . .

What do you mean by WQS? Do you mean Intel Quick Sync or the Windows h.264 decoder/encoder software?

If Intel Quick Sync, the dedicated video encoding and decoding hardware core, this is lacking in the Xeon processor.

If the Windows decoder/encoder this does not help - software encoding is a considerably slower then hardware encoding for file formats which are capable of using HWA eg mp4, AVCHD, MOV.

. . . . Quadro, as well . . . .

VPX 10 uses the new NVENC codecs for encoding video - the Quattro 4000 does not support NVENC.

VPX 6 uses the NVCUENC codec via CUDA which the Quattro supports and as @discburn has has stated VPX 6 runs perfectly which is to be expected.

. . . . i think some people here just don't know what they're talking about . . . .

Provocative comments, such as this, are unnecessary and against the Community rules. See the Note paragraph for rule #2 here. If you disagree with a comment, say so in a polite and meaningful manner.

John EB

Forum Moderator

@mmcswnavy24

....not sure exactly which "Quadro 4000", but based on the OP's signature of hardware, figure it is either a "K4000 or K4200" Quadro (Kepler series), which based on nVidia's Spec sheet, shows that it supports DirectX 11. And since this card would have probably 3GB of VRAM, provides the minimum for output, hopefully 1920x1080. The GPU "supports" 3840x2160 according to the specsheet, but only on the Display Port Channel.

That is not my conclusion as he states that it is a 4000 not a K4000, which seems about right considering his CPU is from the same vintage circa 2010. This has a Fermi chip and 2GB VRAM and does not support 3840x2160. The good thing is that it having the Fermi chip it should still allow CUDA hardware encoding for export with magix NLE's, as John EB has mentioned. It does not support NVENC as far as my research goes.

@Voormalige gebruiker

For VPX, only notable missing part is WQS for decode Acceleration and encoding H.264 with acceleration, which isn't a huge issue with that CPU.issue.

I, like John EB would question that because encoding decoding is required during preview when playing back heavily compressed formats in MEP/VPX and this is accelerated via the GPU hardware layer in modern i series Intels AFAIK. Add effects like Colour correction and these are specifically outsourced to a GPU.

@discburn

So, basically, I can't use VPX10 for colour grading. It's like VPX10 switches off it's performance.

One thing that might be relevant here is that is that your Xeon does not appear to support AVX instruction sets which Magix make quite a big thing of in their feature advertising :-

Get more power from your CPU. Video Pro X's comprehensive AVX optimizations for internal image processing and 3-way color correction make processing much faster, deliver much more precise output quality on color conversions and free up resources for the use of additional effects.

Read more: https://www.magix.com/us/video/video-pro-x/new-features/

On top of that VPX changed to 16Bit colour processing after VPX6 which could have made this more CPU / GPU process intensive. This could contribute to the difference in VPX6 vs VPX10 playback performance with your hardware, and maybe why they suggested the HW upgrade?

Peter