NEW Rendertest-HDV.veg

John_Cline schrieb am 08.05.2007 um 16:50 Uhr

I ran the rendertest.veg file today on my QX6700 Quad machine to see if there was any difference between Vegas v7.0d and v7.0e. I had been getting 14 second renders in 7.0d, but I am now getting consistent 12 second renders in v7.0e.

Since the render times were getting close to the 10-second range and Vegas only reports render times in 1-second increments, I thought that perhaps it was appropriate to increase the "time resolution" of the test by making it a bit more "intense," so I modified the original rendertest.veg file for HDV. I increased the resolution of all the generated media and set the project properties for "HDV 1080-60i" and rendered it out as HDV using the default MPEG2 "HDV 1080-60i" template at the "Best" render setting. My machine rendered it in exactly 120 seconds.

If anyone else wants to try the new, modified test file and report their results back to this thread, I have uploaded the VEG file to my web site:

rendertest-hdv.veg

John

Zurück zum Post

Kommentare

scottbrickert schrieb am 25.01.2008 um 01:48 Uhr

Tomshardware is where I got the idea. Went with an Abit IP35 Pro MOBO. This is my first overclock. The board is great for a rookie. Had some hiccups starting out, but the codes lead to solving the problem (DIMM undervoltage). Once that was within specs I moved straight to 3.2GHz with stock cooling. Ran Orthos Blend for 17 hours at which point CoreTemp was reporting 83/83 C so I shut er down. Then, due to a unique room situation, I vented winter air in, pulled with a 120mm fan, focused on top of the stock fan. Temps dropped into the 20s for idle and 50s for load.

Later I decided to try the Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro. That's what I'm running now. CoreTemp reports idling around 45 with loads (rendering or Orthos) pushing up into the high 60's. Later maybe I'll lap the two faces and replace the stock TIM, hoping to drop the temps 5-10C, but for now it looks solid and stable.

So, to be specific
1--it ran Orthos Blend 17 hours @ 3.2GHz, with no hiccups, on stock fan cooling. It's run 30 minutes of Orthos Blend using the AC Freezer 7 Pro. I've been dialing down the voltages and will run a longer Orthos test with the Freezer 7 tonight. Orthos appears to load it heavier than V8b rendering.
2--I'm really happy with the stability, but have not yet done any long renders. Will have some longish jobs in the next week. Preview (HDV footage) FPS results are way better than the ol P4 3.2GHz, or the C2D 1.8GHz I had for a week

It's kinda cool to realize that 6 weeks ago I didn't know what half these terms mean or have any idea that overclocking was anything but a time and money pit. Things have come a long way in 8 years since my first PC build.

musicvid10 schrieb am 25.01.2008 um 02:14 Uhr

Thanks for the details!
**Things have come a long way in 8 years since my first PC build.**
Oh, yes they have.

VVentures schrieb am 10.02.2008 um 13:14 Uhr

2:23 on my new Quadcore.

Sweet. I edited a 20 min ceremony (HDV) and with color correction, some misc filters and some split-screening it took 23 mins to render

MRe schrieb am 10.02.2008 um 13:40 Uhr

2.22 (142 sec) on my Q6600@2.4 GHz (Intel BadAxe mobo).

1.50 (110 sec) on the same machine @3.1 GHz (w. Zalmann cooling, stock voltages). Q6600 is amazing for OC, stable as rock. Run Prime95 for 6 hours w/o errors, also Memtest86+ did not report any memory errors during 6 hours (DDR2 800 run @865 w. stock voltages). If I raise the freq any further (e.g. to 3.15 GHz Prime95 fails, may be due to the memory or processor but I'm happy with this, don't like to raise the voltages).

For the comparison it was 6.21 on my AMD X2 4800+ with stock freq.

P.S. for anyone interested on OC'ing with BadAxe, here's the link to check : http://www.peakin.com/xbx2/

Edit: Vegas 8.0b; 4 GB RAM

JJKizak schrieb am 10.02.2008 um 14:48 Uhr

2:49 Q6600 Gigabyte board 8 gig 667 memory. Tried to overclock to 3.0 but would not boot. Ended up at all stock. Stock fan. This board has a zillion ways to overclock but no cigar on any of them other than boosting the memory to 800 which didn't do a thing for render time.
JJK

TheHappyFriar schrieb am 08.03.2008 um 14:19 Uhr

Updated to 4bg RAM. Same specs (AMD Phenon 9600, XPSP2, V8b):

3:13

blink3times schrieb am 08.03.2008 um 14:31 Uhr

2:49 Q6600 Gigabyte board 8 gig 667 memory. Tried to overclock to 3.0 but would not boot.

It's your memory.
Overclocking is quite the double-edge sword. You can OC like crazy with slower memory, but in general, the faster the memory, the less OC will be attained. In fact I keep a couple of sticks of really slow memory on hand in case I screw up while OC'ing. If I OC to the point where I can't boot even to BIOS, I simply slide the slower memory in and 99% of the time i will get a boot, and

JJKizak schrieb am 08.03.2008 um 16:34 Uhr

I re-jiggled a few things on the motherboard and now it is 2.88 with the memory at 800 with the test at 1 min 53 sec.

JJK

jabloomf1230 schrieb am 10.03.2008 um 00:02 Uhr

The website TechGage.com has put together a guide for building reasonably priced (~$2,500-$3,000 US) dual quad core CPU systems (8 total cores) based on the new Intel Skulltrail motherboard. These systems will run two nVidia graphics cards in SLI, although that isn't a great benefit to Vegas users. The big benefit is in rendering and encoding speeds. Here's the link:

http://techgage.com/article/building_an_affordable_skulltrail_system/

Of course, you can go all the way up to the top of the line CPUs and spend ~$6,000. Basically, these are server systems in consumer clothing.

clearvu schrieb am 10.03.2008 um 21:42 Uhr

Just put a new system together as follows:

QX9650 with 8 GIG of DDR3 ram. Rendering done in V8b with settings as described, namely MPEG2 - HDV 1080-60i. Creates an "mt2" file.

Anyhow, notice that my CPU usage is only around 30%

Render time: 3:38

I tried the original rendertest file and the results were: 0:24

I don't understand why my system is taking so long! I specifically bought it for Vegas. Any suggestions or ideas why it seems to render so slow? Are there other settings within Vegas that need adjusting?

Help appreciated.
Thanks

Christian de Godzinsky schrieb am 10.03.2008 um 22:28 Uhr

Hi,

Try to play around with the preview RAM setting in the Vegas preferences. I have noticed that this setting has sometimes an unexplained effect on the render times, at least when rendering DV material into Mpeg2. Try at least 0MB, 128MB, 256MB settings to see if they have any effect on the rendertest rendering time.

With your system you should be able to come very close to my still unbeaten record from January 2008 (that is 82 seconds!). However, only if you decide to overclock.

You could also run some benchmarking software such as SiSoft Sandra or equivalent, and see if your system is setup properly, and runs these benchmarks at comparable speeds as other similar systems. It might not be Vegas at all to blame.

Why do you have 8GB of DDR3? Must have costed you a fortune? You need both an 64 bit operating system, and preferably an 64 bit video editing application to be able to use that amount of memory efficiently for video editing. I will probably also some day upgrade all the way to 8GB, but Sony should first publish the much awaited 64 bit version of Vegas!!! Hopefully SCS at least will soon publish a new release date...

Best regards,

Christian

Darren Powell schrieb am 10.03.2008 um 22:33 Uhr

I'm a bit confused regarding the 'Preview RAM' setting in Vegas preferences ... doesn't this setting only affect the amount of RAM available to do a Tools / Build Dynamic RAM Preview / on the timeline??

Lots of people have suggested changing the 'Preview RAM' setting to help Vegas render stuff out generally ...

Darren Powell
Sydney Australia

Christian de Godzinsky schrieb am 10.03.2008 um 23:00 Uhr

Hi Darren,

Well, so am I. I just rendered out a DV to mpg2 (DVDA compatible 4:3 PAL, video stream only). The render time was more than 3,5 hours for this 80 minute projet! This was with the preview RAM set to 0MB. When I changed the setting to 256MB, then the render took only 1 hour and 9 minutes!!! Faster than real time, evein if heavily color corrected (on my d-mn fast rig).

In my opinion, there is something very spooky with this, something is not as it should be. You are right, this setting should not in any way affect the render times - but it does!!!

I wonder if this has been discussed in some other threads or if there has been opened tickets to SCS support due to this behaviour?

I would also like to have an explanation...

Regards,

Christian

clearvu schrieb am 10.03.2008 um 23:03 Uhr

I know 8GIG is overkill...for now...and it was pricey.

I'll try that benchmarking software as you suggest.

By the way, I am running Vista 64.

clearvu schrieb am 10.03.2008 um 23:15 Uhr

I tried changing the preview RAM setting to 256 and result was 2:08.

Rendered the original Rendertest and it still took 0:24.

R0cky schrieb am 11.03.2008 um 02:02 Uhr

2:15 on my quad 2.4 GHz box with 4 GBytes of 800 MHz single channel DRAM. Preview RAM setting (16 and 1024 MB) and preview on/off during rendering made no difference. XP Pro.

GeirOtto schrieb am 11.03.2008 um 19:09 Uhr

2.35 on 2 x xeon E5405, 4gb 667mhz memory, ultimate x64
:-(
Slower then your Q6750 single sockets machines with 800 memory
Only way to get all 8 cores running, starting 2 x vegas and render simultanious. then I did 2 files at 3.20 each shoul equal to 1:40 if i render half of project on each vegas:-)

Why cant we go over 4 threads on Preferences?

Harold Brown schrieb am 12.03.2008 um 00:24 Uhr

Q6600 w/4gig 800mhz memory on Gigabyte Board.
Vegas Pro 8 (b)

2:38 render to c drive
2:38 render to USB drive
2:44 render to c drive with Spyware Doctor doing full scan

CPU at 100% & 4 threads.

darg schrieb am 13.03.2008 um 02:34 Uhr

OK,
I got 2' 53" on an E6850 (Stock is 3GHz) running @ 3.61GHz with 3GB RAM running at the moment on 1000MHz (I have to fix this back to 1066) and temperatures around 58C
I have tried from 640MB Preview RAM up 1024 but no difference. The time is like concrete.

My everyday computer is a dual core T2500 @ 2GHz and time was 7' 06".

Axel, San Jose

Illusioneer schrieb am 16.03.2008 um 00:26 Uhr

Q6600 with 4GB 800Mhz DDR2 (2.8 GB effective for Windows)

Rendering done in V8b with settings as described, namely MPEG2 - HDV 1080-60i. Creates an "mt2" file.

2:19 to C: drive (have yet to move my video work drive to this box)

Stefan

LSHorwitz schrieb am 24.03.2008 um 14:57 Uhr

108 seconds!

Vegas 8b
Dell XPS 420
Intel QX9650 Quad Core Penryn 3.0 GHz non-overclocked
4 GB RAM

Steve Mann schrieb am 25.03.2008 um 03:08 Uhr

What profile are you selecting in "Render As"?

John_Cline schrieb am 25.03.2008 um 04:11 Uhr

108 seconds for a stock 3.0Ghz QX9650 is right in the ball park.

Just to make sure, in order to compare results between machines, you must render using the default MPEG2 "HDV 1080-60i" template, even if you happen to be in a PAL country.

blink3times schrieb am 25.03.2008 um 09:45 Uhr

"I know 8GIG is overkill...for now...and it was pricey.

Your time should be a bit better than that. Try turning off your page file.

I'm running Q6600 (OC to 3Ghz), 8gig ram, no page file with a time of 114 seconds

Vorherige Seite

1 … 6 7 8 … 21

von 21

Nächste Seite