I don't know that the 1050 has much of a hardware NVENC chip. My recommendation is the 1650 Super. (If you're keen to have a 1660, then get the 1660 Super.) Both have the Turin ASIC.

2. I have found mp4 to be adequate. My Kodi player (LibreElec) doesn't display thumbnails of movies properly if I encode in HEVC.

3. We're still debating whether an external Nvidia GPU helps much during encoding with MEP. One of the users here doesn't have a very good Nvidia card, yet has among the fastest encode times. I think this is due to his i9, 8C, 16 HT CPU.

5. In the Windows Search bar, type Graphics Settings.

@Craigster

Hi

Did you read this very long topic on this 'issue'.

John EB

@Craigster

First I'll apologise for the length of the prescribed reading material that John has pointed to but it is an interesting and valuable read. (In my opinion).

As to your last question (6)

I thought that as well at first but the difference in the end results going above 192k using MEPs settings is really hard to hear differences unless you have really high-end audio recording equipment in the sound chain when you record your video, or add additional audio content of a really high quality into the mix.

I was surprised, but the resulting audio is much better than say an MP3 file at 320k.

Where you may notice a difference is where phase modulation becomes important in the higher frequencies such as listening to high-hat or snare drum recordings. I've no idea how large the bit depth is on these files that may limit dynamic range but sound quality wise they seem more than adequate.

Ray.

I don't know that the 1050 has much of a hardware NVENC chip. My recommendation is the 1650 Super. (If you're keen to have a 1660, then get the 1660 Super.) Both have the Turin ASIC.

2. I have found mp4 to be adequate. My Kodi player (LibreElec) doesn't display thumbnails of movies properly if I encode in HEVC.

3. We're still debating whether an external Nvidia GPU helps much during encoding with MEP. One of the users here doesn't have a very good Nvidia card, yet has among the fastest encode times. I think this is due to his i9, 8C, 16 HT CPU.

5. In the Windows Search bar, type Graphics Settings.

 

Thank you, pmikep.

However, regarding #5, I urge you to do that search currently if on Windows 1903 (or later). It simply does not provide what you suppose (or what others discuss), as I noted. It brings up a completely unhelpful box. So, wondering what the CURRENT rendition is. Is it Power Settings? Or elsewhere?

@Craigster

First I'll apologise for the length of the prescribed reading material that John has pointed to but it is an interesting and valuable read. (In my opinion).

As to your last question (6)

I thought that as well at first but the difference in the end results going above 192k using MEPs settings is really hard to hear differences unless you have really high-end audio recording equipment in the sound chain when you record your video, or add additional audio content of a really high quality into the mix.

I was surprised, but the resulting audio is much better than say an MP3 file at 320k.

Where you may notice a difference is where phase modulation becomes important in the higher frequencies such as listening to high-hat or snare drum recordings. I've no idea how large the bit depth is on these files that may limit dynamic range but sound quality wise they seem more than adequate.

Ray.

Ray, thank you for your input on this. I do have quite high quality audio gear we are using (and pairing with the video footage -- we almost never use camera audio, except for help in aligning to video, and occasionally for a -30 dB bit of "live" air in a live music situation.) I am much more familiar with MP3 audio; and I can definitely hear the difference between 192 Mp3s and 256/320 Mp3s (though not necessarily the difference between 256 and 320). So, this is interesting that you say 192k AAC is superior to 320 mp3. I will say that I have been surprisingly pleased with the resultant sound we are getting at 192k aac. Some great magic they are doing, for sure. (I just noted that Premiere goes much higher).

No need to apologize for John. He's asking a good question. I read another discussion that was shorter. I'll peruse this one he recommends. Thanks!

@Craigster

(5)

Settings \ System \ Display \ Graphics Settings \ Choose an app to set preferences \ Classic app.

If at this point you don't get an icon for Magix Video deluxe Plus then track the folder to

\ Browse \ Local Disk c: \ Program files \ Magix\ Movie Edit Pro Premium \ Videodeluxe and click on it.

You should get a box like this

from that to this.

Ha! I was apologizing for the length of the thread John is pointing to as it's my delve into experimenting with MEP.

Ray.

Thank you, pmikep.
 

However, regarding #5, I urge you to do that search currently if on Windows 1903 (or later). It simply does not provide what you suppose (or what others discuss), as I noted. It brings up a completely unhelpful box. So, wondering what the CURRENT rendition is. Is it Power Settings? Or elsewhere?

Update: Oops. Just saw Ray's post above with screen shots.

I am currently using 1909, but used 1903 before. They have the same core. When I type "graphics," the first hit is "Graphic Settings." In the box, you have to click on "Classic app" and then Browse to the exe for MEP. (Sometimes it's called VideoDeluxe..... ) Then select Low Power in the Options. Then restart MEP.

Now all is clear.

Thank you both, Cube Ace for showing What, and pmike for telling How.

I was on System Default. Have just changed to Power Saving.

(I may run a test and see if I can tell any difference between the 2, while presently on Win 1903 and current VPX).

@Craigster

You are asking some useful questions.

Please see my results in this page of this topic:- https://www.magix.info/us/forum/36-hours-of-testing-mep-premier-settings-for-playback-and-export--1241169/

If primarily using and rendering in H.264, use Intel's UHD630 graphics (assign in Program Settings>Display Options>Video Mode)

Opinion is split between members in the linked post above. In my case in VPX and MEP I got significantly faster encodes in all cases and codecs with the GTX1060 selected instead of the Intel HD(530) in your your above quote.

However, (if you have an NVidia 1050 or above with NVENC) if you are using and rendering in H.265/HVEC, then assign your your NVidia Card in Video Mode settings.

Bearing in mind my previous comment above, if you are using VPX and HEVC then definitely. See Magix comments on using VPX with Hardware acceleration:-

"Video Pro X exclusively offers support for graphics cards from NVIDIA. In addition to accelerated calculation of effects, these graphics cards can be used for accelerated decoding and encoding of videos in HEVC format.

To activate hardware acceleration, please follow the steps in the section “Program settings” and then select the

NVIDIA graphics card.

If you primarily use HEVC videos in your projects, an NVIDIA graphics care provides the most performance."

With HEVC material in the timeline and complicated 4K video collages or PinPs the increase in preview performance is phenomenal. There is a lot of activity on the Nvidia using NVDEC and NVENC during playback and export (and export times may even be faster than with a system with just the Intel iGPU). Note that if you have both GPU's activated in your system VPX automatically decides to use the Nvidia for HWA during export with HEVC. Note: None of this happens with MEP.

I am assuming you are using VPX even though this post is in the MEP section.Your questions answered in bold:-

Questions (as I presently am using an AMD580x card, but am considering getting an NVidia 1660, if useful):

1. If I Don't render via HVEC, is there any advantage of NVidia NVEND? As far as rendering goes no, but if you have HEVC encoded clips then you should experience some benefits during preview.

2. Other than smaller filesize, is there any advantage presently in exporting via HVEC/H.265 rather than MPEG-4/H.264. (i.e. faster render? high quality output?) If you rendering H.264 to HEVC then likely it will be slower. Of course the quality will be better for the same bitrate / file size for HEVC export templates that are lower BR and file size than the original clip.

3. Depending on effects processing (audio and video fx), my export speeds (Mp4, 6k or 4k Variable Bit Rate, at full HD 1920x1080) range between .75 and 1.25/min (i.e. a 60 minute video, 45 to 75 min. to render), with an 8-Core Intel I7 9700k cpu and 64GB RAM, with intel UHD630 assigned for hardware encoding. Are users with NVidia NVENC getting signficantly faster exports? Has anyone run an actual speedtest on the same export file Before NVENC and after? It is a while since I tried this but it depends on the project complexity and is probably not significantly faster.

4. There is descrepancy above regarding whether VPX showing "hardware encoding" (which mine does during export) actually means it is having its effect. Can anyone confirm: Can I trust VPX when it shows it? No, in my experience and at least in one other members experience it can show this in the encoding window but there can be no activity on the Intel GPU with long render times. We overcame this by adjusting the Windows Graphic settings to Power saving GPU for VPX / MEP.

5. Regarding people talking about "power savings" or "default" or "high perforamce" settings options in "Windows Graphics Settings", I'm a little confused. Win10 keeps changing it's naming schemas. I'm currently on 1903. I'm not finding any "Windows Graphics Settings" option by that name. Are people talking about Power Settings? And then "change advanced settings" options? No! Currently under "Intel Graphics Power Plan" the options are: "Maximum Performance" -- which I am set to, "Balanced", and "Maximum Battery Life". These are not the options being referenced over and over. Other various searches lead to dead ends. If Power Options, can anyone confirm that I should change to "Balanced" or "Max Battery Life"? Currently, with Max. Performance engaged, my Intel GPU shows up as GPU0 in Task Manager, as an option in Video Mode Settings, and VPX tells me it is performing "hardware encoding". Am I good to go? As other respondents have described - this is a separate setting and you should make the setting In Windows Graphic Settings . FYI - I have gone to the Windows Power Setting on my workstation and set both the CPU and iGPU to Maximum Performance as this keeps the clocks a Max Frequency in the thought that this may decrease latency when full speed is required but I doubt it has much effect.

You may be good to go as you are because your export times don't look too shabby and would likely be a lot slower is HWA was not occuring but then I do not know what the complexity of the project you are rendering is in terms of effects, etc.

6. Bonus Question, unrelated to above, except regarding Audio Encoding: Does anyone know why VPX only allows AAC audio export up to 192k (for MP4 via H.254 or HVEC) rather than 256k or 320k like other programs (like Premiere Pro)? I suspect they believe that is sufficient for the majority of material they expect to be used and it would probably be equivalent quality as say AC3 at 384Kbps, given that it is and Advanced Audio Codec and the compression is more efficient.

@Craigster

Hi

. . . . I'm currently on 1903. I'm not finding any "Windows Graphics Settings" option by that name . . . .

Windows 10 1903 goes have that option - I have just changed to 1909 3 days ago and all testing in to the very long topic was done on 1903.

Press the Windows button or select it on the desktop and type in Graphics it will appear in the list as Graphic Settings.

John EB

@Craigster

You are asking some useful questions.

Please see my results in this page of this topic:- https://www.magix.info/us/forum/36-hours-of-testing-mep-premier-settings-for-playback-and-export--1241169/

If primarily using and rendering in H.264, use Intel's UHD630 graphics (assign in Program Settings>Display Options>Video Mode)

Opinion is split between members in the linked post above. In my case in VPX and MEP I got significantly faster encodes in all cases and codecs with the GTX1060 selected instead of the Intel HD

...

1. If I Don't render via HVEC, is there any advantage of NVidia NVEND? As far as rendering goes no, but if you have HEVC encoded clips then you should experience some benefits during preview.

2. Other than smaller filesize, is there any advantage presently in exporting via HVEC/H.265 rather than MPEG-4/H.264. (i.e. faster render? high quality output?) If you rendering H.264 to HEVC then likely it will be slower. Of course the quality will be better for the same bitrate / file size for HEVC export templates that are lower BR and file size than the original clip.

3. Depending on effects processing (audio and video fx), my export speeds (Mp4, 6k or 4k Variable Bit Rate, at full HD 1920x1080) range between .75 and 1.25/min (i.e. a 60 minute video, 45 to 75 min. to render), with an 8-Core Intel I7 9700k cpu and 64GB RAM, with intel UHD630 assigned for hardware encoding. Are users with NVidia NVENC getting signficantly faster exports? Has anyone run an actual speedtest on the same export file Before NVENC and after? It is a while since I tried this but it depends on the project complexity and is probably not significantly faster.

 

Thank you so much, Scenestealer. This has been a helpful discussion for me. I think I can conclude at the moment that I don't need to pursue an advanced NVidia card. My export purposes are all for streaming, and I've discovered (from what I've been able to read) that the streaming services (Facebook, YouTube, even Vimeo) simply don't accept HEVC/h.265 uploads. I'm guessing it's due to the intensity of de-compressing the files and stability for online streaming. So, my work is all in the AVC/h.264 realm at this time.

@Craigster

. . . . that the streaming services (Facebook, YouTube, even Vimeo) simply don't accept HEVC/h.265 . . . .

Youtube and Vimeo do accept HEVC/h.265 video should you need to use HEVC.

Facebook have odd requirement as most users there would be uploading direct from a mobile or placing video ads.

HTH

John EB

Thanks John. Do you know when they made the update? Current google searches are apparently showing outdated info.

So, I have done a series of tests on my machine with Video Pro X (current version), to determine what my fastest export combination might be. Interestingly, running these 13 tests and logging the data probably took longer than any time savings I will experience in exporting. :^)

Here is my Test Setup:

PC: custom built, i7 9700k (8 cores), 64GB RAM, UHD630 and AMD RX580 graphics card, each feeding 1 monitor.

Video source: 4:00 minutes of mixed mp4 video sources, typical of my renderings. Some video effects and several channels with audio VST effects. (Most effects have been previously processed). Multiple tracks. A few graphics. Rendered file = 186 MB.

Export Settings: to MP4 at 6000 ave bitrate, 8000 max, 192k audio, 1920x1080. Standard Renderer. Target: Facebook and Website.

VPX: Hardware encoding if possible, set, and always showed. "Calculate Effects on GPU" always used, except for one test. Standard Renderer used, except for 1 test. Exported to same WD Black HDD, except for 1 test.

Here are my Conclusions, based on 13 tests, making generally 1 change per test: (Below is the data)

• Fastest Results (7% above slowest) were from this combo: Windows Graphics Settings on "System Default" (see more below), with Intel gpu connected to main tracks monitor, and with Intel set to both "Video Output Monitor" and "Video Mode". The biggest factor here is assigning Intel UHD630 to Video Mode.
• Impact of Graphics Mode was almost negligible in my setup. As long as Intel 630 is set as Video mode, my results varied by mere seconds: (System Default: 4:44, High Performance 4:45, 4:46, Power Savings: 4:48.) Actually, my slowest combo involved Power Savings, with the Radeon in Video Mode, but again neglible: Power Savings: 5:05, High Performance: 5:04, Default: 5:03.) This is perhaps the LEAST significant factor in my setup -- in my original monitor configuration. See below...
• Regardless of Settings, WINDOWS makes alterations in shifting who is doing what to reach essentially the same speed and final result. So, for example, High Performance Graphics mode taxes the CPU more (i.e. 90+% on CPU-0, and 4 other cores above 30%). Meanwhile, my lowest CPU usage was when the Intel 630 graphics was assigned to both Video Output and Video Mode: i.e. 75% on CPU-0 and usually only 3 other cores at 30% or higher.
• Unchecking "calculate FX on GPU" just shifts more burden to the CPU. It reduced Intel 3D (encoding) from it's typical 38-52% (parts of my video would always sit around 38%, and parts at 50-52% - every time the Intel encoded) down to 17-18% (below half). Meanwhile, the CPU went from a typical 24-30% up to 32-42% overall. CPU-0 pushed 95%, and the other 7 cores all exceeded 30%, which was unique. The speed, was my 2nd fastest in High Perforance mode: 4:45, 1 second slower than the fastest test, and 1 second faster than identical settings with the box checked (where the Intel 630 was used more heavily and the CPU more lightly). Essentially: NO SPEED DIFFERENCE.
• VPX is not using core-balancing very well. In No combination, did a 2nd CPU core ever exceed 50%. And usually 3 of my cores got very little action. Generally CPU-0 was taxed 70-95%, 3 or 4 other cores utilized about 30-40%, and 3 cores around 20%.
• Intel gets used regardless. Even when I assigned the RADEON to BOTH Video Output and Video Mode, the Intel got involved in encoding: 9-10% 3D, and 5-7% Video Decode. So, if plugged in, it is not ignored.
• When I swapped the way my monitors were connected -- THEN the Graphics mode made a difrerence. With the Radeon feeding the program monitor, Power Savings Graphics mode was 1-2% faster than Default, and 5% faster than High Performance. So, perhaps this explains how others have gotten better results with Power Savings. The way I see it: Power Savings just renders the Radeon (in my case) obsolete, making it Intel+Intel, getting nearly the same results as when I had the original setup and assigned Intel+Intel. So, this seems to be rather a byproduct rather than a cause. The actual ISSUE is having Intel set to both Output Monitor and Video Mode, bypassing the add-on video card. This is confirmed as the Radeon basically shows 0-1% usage in Power Savings mode and System Default -- which appears to replicate Power Savings mode (as the dialogue describes: Power Savings = Intel UHD630 and High Performance = Radeon RX580, in my setup, with "High Performance" ending up being a misnomer). So, actually, there seems to really be only 2 settings, as "Default" defaults to Intel, which means Power Savings.
• I had no speed advantage exporting to an internal SSD drive. So, there is no delay in writing. And there is lots of CPU and graphics headroom. It seems any bottlenecks are within VPX for disallowing faster renderings.
• Bottom line: +/- 7% consistency for all potential settings options: The user can hardly go wrong. Windows makes the necessary adjustments to reallocate resources between CPU cores and graphics cards. I will lose no more sleep over my settings.

Chart with full testing data: next post.

Here is my Data:

@Craigster

Hi

Thanks for sharing your impressive analysis and tabulation of your encoding tests using many different settings in VPX. A lot of work has gone on there!

I am still digesting your findings and trying to draw some parallels with my own testing and experiences. To me your results are interesting in that you have a RX580 Radeon card and most of the results of other responders tests have been using an Nvidia (although @emmrecs has tested with a Radeon) . It is interesting that a your Radeon seems to be favoured on the Vegas forum but Magix help files state that the "Calculate Video FX on GPU" feature in VPX / MEP is "optimised for Nvidia cards but other cards can be a benefit".

However your results seem to show a similar trend that Calc.VFX on GPU shows with Nvidia discreet cards - a slowing down of the exports, although maybe by less than the 25-30% on my Nvidia system. Because of this performance reduction I would have preferred to see most of your tests carried out with that setting not checked. Not that I am suggesting you should redo all your tests but I would especially like to see Test1 redone with the same settings but without that one ticked as this configuration has given me and some others the best times.

I also suggest that the Video Output Mode is irrelevant and could introduce another unnecessary variable, so should be left out of the equation.This is designed to be used where you want to send a full resolution output to a reference monitor or HDMI recorder and as such increases the HW load at least during playback (and who knows when else?) when it is activated.

Just to make sure you are aware - you mention Power Savings and High Performance - but this is only giving the 2 GPUs different names ie Power Saving means that it is the GPU that uses less power being on the CPU die and High Performance just means it is capable of High(er) performance in some applications. IOW you are designating the Intel power saving GPU to VPX because that is what gives VPX, being optimised to the Intel, the best performance. I presume you did associate VPX.exe with the Intel? I am still a little suspicious that everything is set up correctly in this respect as you export times seem to vary a lot less than I would have expected between the allocating of the 2x Windows Graphics Settings seeing as according to Magix support and my own experience - setting the High Performance GPU to VPX disables HWA on the Intel completely!

BTW what does the export time look like on your system if you export Software (no HWA) only with Calc.VFX on GPU on and off?

I would not expect to see any improvement in export time just from writing to an SSD as it would be a pretty sick HDD that couldn't handle 186MB of data in 4.45mins. What would be interesting though is if all the project and multiple tracks of source sound and video clips were on the SSD and then exported to itself or another HDD.

Peter

@Craigster, @CubeAce

. . . . Power Savings and High Performance - but this is only giving the 2 GPUs different names ie Power Saving means that it is the GPU that uses less power being on the CPU die and High Performance just means it is capable of High(er) performance in some applications. . . . .

To clarify this statement:

Power Saving refers specifically to an integrated GPU in the Intel processor these have a much lower power consumption than a NVidia or AMD when under load, eg my UHD 630 power consumption is up to 18W.

High Performance refers to a graphics card ie NVidia or AMD - their power consumption tends to be on the high side under load, eg up to 160W for my RTX 2060.

These should not be confused with the settings for the Windows Power Plan - which uses similar terminology Balanced, Power saving and High Performance

John EB

@johnebaker @Scenestealer @Craigster @pmikep

Hi John.

Did you mean to copy me or Peter into your last reply?

To add to what John has stated I would like to say that you can add that plan to any program that uses the UHD graphics but normally outside of using MEP I have seen little difference in either power usage \ savings.

Also, that when using MEP with the Intel GPU set to Power Saving, my more humble Nvidia card than Johns'card is running at full pelt all the time. What I do find interesting is the Intel GPU clock speed is much lower than the Intel GPU clock speed and doesn't vary that much under load or not when in use. I assume the temperature in use must be similar to the CPU. I can monitor both the GPUs and the CPU in use at the same time.

Here is a screenshot of one of my 4K video clips being played in Windows Films and TV but I could do another one running MEP for either playback or export.

Ray

@CubeAce

Also, that when using MEP with the Intel GPU set to Power Saving,

Umm....The Intel GPU is the Power Saving GPU......I think you mean "With MEP set to use the Power saving (Intel) GPU in Windows Graphic Settings......"

Yes I have noted that your Nvidia seems to work very hard at times but not sure why.

Intel GPU clock speed is much lower than the Intel GPU clock speed...

you mean "....lower than the Nvidia GPU clock speed...."

I mentioned recently that I set my Intel to Max performance in my custom Windows Power Scheme to keep the clock at max MHz at all times.

Peter

@CubeAce

Hi Ray

😬 was meant to include Peter, btw sometimes you do not appear in the @ list !

@Craigster

Hi

I also set my Intel to Max performance in my custom Windows Power Scheme to keep the clock at max MHz at all times as @Scenestealer

John EB

@Craigster @Scenestealer @johnebaker @pmikep

Hi Peter. No I meant much lower than the CPU clock speeds. Look at the right bottom corner of the image I posted. 451. something MHz.

Yup. Whenever I start MEP the Nvidia card is maxed out for playback but not always on exporting.

Yes I did mean the latter as you can set power savings to any app but seldom makes a difference in something like a video player.

You mean the settings here.

Ray.

@Craigster @Scenestealer @johnebaker @pmikep

I set up a Max performance in my custom Windows Power Scheme. Tried it and it made no difference to either MEP performing in playback or on export times over using a Power saving scheme on my system. Power usage, various clock speeds etc. were as close to the same that I found it hard to see a difference even taking snapshots at the same points during the exports. This was exporting to H264 as I'm still currently awaiting my reactivation code for HEVC.

The Intel GPU did jump in clock speed during use in MEP but still way behind the CPU clock speed.

Ray.