Does anyone use AMD graphics card?

Hi

I just bought a new computer for video editing using Windows 10 and latest DR.

MSI x570 gaming edge wifi with Ryzen 7 3800x CPU and 32GB Memory
M.2 drive
VGA is a XFX Radeon RX 580 8GB GTS XXX Edition. It's a $200USD card. A budget card like the rest.

With this setup, I can work with 4 x 4K 30fps clips in multicam mode without using any optimization. I have not testet out special effects and stuff like that yet.

My question. Is looks like most people use NVidia graphics cards for editing. Is that really true? And would I get better performance, if I bought a Nvidia card with the same price tag and replaces it with my current one?

Any experience?

Thanks

Br.
Michael

That is a nice system for a upto 4k workflow.

We switched from NVidia to AMD because of the amount of VRAM(important for Resolve) and the price.
We have VEGA Frontier's and Radeon VII's, both cards have 16 GB of VRAM (we occasionally shoot upto 7k RED footage and then you need the 16 GB of VRAM).

Thanks Misha
I'm very pleased with your answer. I believe I will stick to the setup I have now. I have done some more testing, and for a budget system and my needs, I should be good for a few years at least.

Not a master, but if you are talking about video editing, an Nvidia graphic card may play an inadequate role during the process.

The performance of video edit/ encode/ decode are more affiliated to the CPU capability, more core means a better performance the computer running a so-called "working software" like PS, PR, DaVinci... etc

That is a nice system for a upto 4k workflow.

We switched from NVidia to AMD because of the amount of VRAM(important for Resolve) and the price.
We have VEGA Frontier's and Radeon VII's, both cards have 16 GB of VRAM (we occasionally shoot upto 7k RED footage and then you need the 16 GB of VRAM).

With and AMD GPU, 8GB card is also enough for 8k video (even a 6GB video card works).

That is a nice system for a upto 4k workflow.

We switched from NVidia to AMD because of the amount of VRAM(important for Resolve) and the price.
We have VEGA Frontier's and Radeon VII's, both cards have 16 GB of VRAM (we occasionally shoot upto 7k RED footage and then you need the 16 GB of VRAM).

With and AMD GPU, 8GB card is also enough for 8k video (even a 6GB video card works).

Sure thing.
CPU plays a much important role in video editing. A decent AMD card (with 8GB VRAM) is quite a plethora of most video editing works.

[Peter Chamberlain]

CPU plays a much important role in video editing. A decent AMD card (with 8GB VRAM) is quite a plethora of most video editing works.

Simply not true with Resolve. Images are processed in GPU. The CPU runs the app, the UI, disk I/O and generally compression and decompression but even that can be on the GPU now.

Are you using the studio version?

I have a similar setup as the op but with a gtx 1070. The rx580 is a great card and not really slower than the 1070 in normal use. They both get the job done but the drivers aren't as supported on the amd for some apps and games. I just finished a 4k Project That had 18 video tracks about as many audio. The computer did really well until I got over 15 tracks and then playback got a bit rough and I used music waveforms to sync. Rendering also dropped from 30fps to 3. Single track renders at 75-100fps. Cpu and GPU load varies quite a bit based on the content, effects, encoder. The ryzen 7 has no onboard GPU but I notice dr using Intel quick sync on those PCs sometimes as an added benefit.

CPU plays a much important role in video editing.

This statement is incorrect for Da Vinci Resolve. It is my understanding and experience that the GPU does most of the image processing. The CPU is just to run the app and the GUI.

A decent AMD card (with 8GB VRAM) is quite a plethora of most video editing works.

[/quote]
I've used AMD Cards and am very happy with its performance. The thing about AMD cards are they are power hogs.

i use vega64 under Osx, i'm not happy
previous i used to use gtx 780 + 2x asus strix gtx980ti (after hisierra dead ( )
impossible to do the same power. i keep them on a less powerful cpu computer, but often i move project on that computer to render speed up, especially if i need to use denoiser, ofx gpu hungry.
i tried also with three vega64 but are not fast so that old nvidia cards (2015), but apple decide to break with nvidia

i use vega64 under Osx, i'm not happy
previous i used to use gtx 780 + 2x asus strix gtx980ti (after hisierra dead ( )
impossible to do the same power. i keep them on a less powerful cpu computer, but often i move project on that computer to render speed up, especially if i need to use denoiser, ofx gpu hungry.
i tried also with three vega64 but are not fast so that old nvidia cards (2015), but apple decide to break with nvidia

AMD on Metal is pretty good with Apple and 1 Vega 64(300 Watt) uses less power than 1 gtx780(250 Watt) + 2 gtx 980 ti's (2x 250 Watt) ~ 750 Watt.

Despite the performance in real time for 4K, or 8K, at n fps with multicam or several video tracks also you can check if render process in the format / codec you want is supported by the GPU.

For example, HEVC H265 10bits. Not present with Vega 48, in iMac, but yes it does with 5700 XT.
Or the same format implemented through software with DaVinci 16.2.2 in AMD Radeon Pro 5300M in a MacBook Pro 16 (but not with DaVinci 16.2.1).

i use vega64 under Osx, i'm not happy
previous i used to use gtx 780 + 2x asus strix gtx980ti (after hisierra dead ( )
impossible to do the same power. i keep them on a less powerful cpu computer, but often i move project on that computer to render speed up, especially if i need to use denoiser, ofx gpu hungry.
i tried also with three vega64 but are not fast so that old nvidia cards (2015), but apple decide to break with nvidia

AMD on Metal is pretty good with Apple and 1 Vega 64(300 Watt) uses less power than 1 gtx780(250 Watt) + 2 gtx 980 ti's (2x 250 Watt) ~ 750 Watt.

pretty good seem 4fps in denoise against 47fps of sums other three cards on same project?
750w which run few minutes against hours of AMD cards mean less consumption.

i understand your point of view, i have a computer for work and other to rest of spare time, it's less expansive to have single powerful computer to use for all.
I'm from genoa and i ever had an eye to how i spent on energy ;-D

I think you should check your drivers.

The Vega 64 has ~ 10.2..12.7 TFlops FP32, 8 GB and 484 GB/s mem. bandwidth (and it won't crash with 4k, 6k or 8k, no matter what you throw at it).
The GTX 980 ti has ~ 5.6 .. 6.1 Tflops FP32, 6 GB and 337 GB/s mem bandwidth and it will crash when you push it a little with 4k.


For reference
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/DaVinci-Resolve-14-NVIDIA-GeForce-vs-AMD-Radeon-Vega-1213/

I think you should check your drivers.

The Vega 64 has ~ 10.2..12.7 TFlops FP32, 8 GB and 484 GB/s mem. bandwidth (and it won't crash with 4k, 6k or 8k, no matter what you throw at it).
The GTX 980 ti has ~ 5.6 .. 6.1 Tflops FP32, 6 GB and 337 GB/s mem bandwidth and it will crash when you push it a little with 4k.


For reference
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/DaVinci-Resolve-14-NVIDIA-GeForce-vs-AMD-Radeon-Vega-1213/

From many years i forget to see spec like unique truth, but i see real result, i'm under mac and at difference of Nvidia which build their driver, Amd not release custom driver for mac, then when os is updated, driver is updated

anyway from years i had stress test for 3d, 3d gpu rendering, for denoise, etc and often makerting number or hardware spec not follow the result.
Often be cause developers of software not support all newer instruction of gpu (like game or 3d engine like unreal) immediately, or driver not allow you to support it (Octane with nvidia studio driver give 10% more then gaming driver for example, and gaming are newer), etc etc.

like i told i'm under mac Os, and vega64 is not so fast as i want, but... patience is my mantra, i do 3d and post from over 25 years, i ever needed patience, for every task of my work, only today with new engine like unreal i see dream come true