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

Christian de Godzinsky schrieb am 25.03.2008 um 11:48 Uhr

Hi Blink,

I get 82 seconds render time on my overclocked QX9650 @3.8GHz. (still leading the pack **big smile**). I got 97 seconds on the same CPU @ 3.2GHz. It seems that the render time is quite linear compared with the clock frequency, unless you set accidentally the RAM preview to zero! My 4GB of DDR3 is running at 1666Mhz.

I have placed the page file on an other internal drive than windows, on a separate partition not carrying any other files, and as an single non fragmented fixed size file. Would you still suggest for me to test to turn off the page file, even if I have "only" 4Gig of ram? I'm on XP x64.

Christian

blink3times schrieb am 25.03.2008 um 12:17 Uhr

"I get 82 seconds render time on my overclocked QX9650 @3.8GHz. (still leading the pack **big smile**)."

That's my point... CLEARVU is running a 9650 and I'm beating his time with a 6600. He should be doing better than 114 seconds.

Gary R. Brown schrieb am 27.03.2008 um 16:52 Uhr

Thanks for the standardization!

My Ole' trusty AMD 4400 Dual Core (stock) w/2Gig of DDR on an ASUS A8N Deluxe Sli MB manages a 7:02 render on Vegas 8b

The new machine I'm building for a Client manages a respectable 2:12 (132 secs) on Vegas 7e. STOCK! Nothing is OC'ed and I haven't even 'cleaned up' Windows. It's a simple 6600 Quad w/2Gig of DDR2 on the nVidia XFX 680i LT Sli MB.

I have a nearly identical system in the works for myself and can't wait to assemble & tweak it! But I'm probably going to dive into Vista 64 and dump the 8Gig of ram I have on it. Now I just have to start saving for the 64 bit version of Vegas. (Maybe it'll come with DVDA 5 and BluRay menu support???)

GB-)

fordie schrieb am 28.03.2008 um 13:03 Uhr

well ran the test for the first time today..oh boy..depressing 5 mins 58 secs on my dual core opteron running at 2.86..with 4gig ddr2 on vegas 8b.
reason for test.? upgrading monday to intel Q9300 so see what happens then...will post back tuesday with result..all going well with my upgrade of course.

Steve Mann schrieb am 28.03.2008 um 17:09 Uhr

Render as - what? Which output file type is the render as supposed to be for this to be a fair comparison?

rs170a schrieb am 28.03.2008 um 17:18 Uhr

Steve,
Make sure the project properties are set to "HDV 1080-60i" and render it out as HDV using the default MPEG2 "HDV 1080-60i" template.

Mike

NickHope schrieb am 31.03.2008 um 16:46 Uhr

Dell Precision M6300 laptop, T7800 (2.6GHz), XP Pro, 4GB RAM (with /3GB switch), 128MB RAM preview, Vegas 8.0b

245 secs (4:05)

fordie schrieb am 31.03.2008 um 21:23 Uhr

well thats me up and running vista 64 intel Q9300 4 gig ram no overclocking 2.20..thats better..now try overclocking in a few days.

Christian de Godzinsky schrieb am 01.04.2008 um 19:39 Uhr

Hi,

Just for curiosity, and because many people claim that 32-bit processing is slow - I tested the new rendertest on my system (QX9650 @ 3,81GHz, 4G DDR3 @ 1600MHz, XP x64, VP8.0b). The results are quite encouraging:

8-bit processing: 1:22 (82 seconds)
32-bit processing: 1:33 (93 seconds)

Both at best quality at the project default settings and rendered as recommended.

However, this test does not include 32-bit FX filters, but anyhow shows that 32-bit processing is not that much slower, on a fast machine :)

Wonder if the next release of Vegas already incorporates the SSE4 instructions, which should further increase the render speeds?

Christian

fausseplanete schrieb am 01.04.2008 um 20:23 Uhr

Compaq Presario R4065EA laptop with single-core Athlon ~2.2GHz and 2G RAM, rendering to HDV Intermediate AVI (i.e. Cineform).
Vegas 7d took 12 minutes then crashed at the end.
Subsequent test under Vegas 8b took 14 minutes and didn't crash.

CPU was near-enough 100% and memory usage low ~ 100MB. Compared rendering to system disk and then to USB RAID0 drive but made no significant difference, being CPU-limited.

Steve Mann schrieb am 02.04.2008 um 15:51 Uhr

Anyone tracking the results?

mkosma schrieb am 06.04.2008 um 22:01 Uhr

Help! Looks like my Vegas (V8b Pro) installation is rendering on only one core of my Q6600 @ 3.4GHz with 2GB DDR2.

Rendertest-HDV takes 6:12.

Although Video prefs says max rendering threads = 4, CPU monitor shows only Core 2 is being used (100%). The other three cores are at 0%.

Tried changing Dynamic RAM Preview max from default (128) to 1024 - with little or no effect.

Any idea what's throttling me to a single core? Otherwise everything looks okay - if I divide my 6:12 by 4 I get 1:33 which is much more sensible for my system.

mkosma schrieb am 06.04.2008 um 22:26 Uhr

Since it's what tech support always says to do, I tried restarting my computer.

Sure enough, it worked. Why? Who knows. Now all 4 cores are being used.

Total render time: 1:38

clearvu schrieb am 07.04.2008 um 10:43 Uhr

I did some homework about turning off page file and everything I read says DO NOT EVER TURN IT OFF.

Any thoughts?

clearvu schrieb am 07.04.2008 um 11:05 Uhr

Anyhoo, I set Paging FIle off, and it made no difference with the render time. Still 2:08.

What else could there be slowing things down?

NickHope schrieb am 07.04.2008 um 11:21 Uhr

Maybe you've got unnecessary programs and/or services running on startup?

You could try some of the things here (but I would avoid Diskeeper which mucked up my system).

clearvu schrieb am 08.04.2008 um 12:09 Uhr

I shut down every single unnecessary program and the only difference it made is that the file rendered at 2:06 instead of 2:08.

Seems that there must be something else wrong.

Christian de Godzinsky schrieb am 08.04.2008 um 14:55 Uhr

Hi clearvu,

Did you ever run some speed tests on your hardware, like SiSoft Sandra, or alike? Would be easier to compare your harware to others (mine). Maybe it is not Vegas to blame at all?

Mainly, the CPU math test and memory bandwidth test would be of interest... And at what CPU clock speed.

I have no idea how Vegas runs on Vista 64, compared to XP x64...
You are not THAT far from the target...

Christian

Seth schrieb am 09.04.2008 um 03:47 Uhr

Crashed Vegas 5 running on Mac OS under Wine ;)

Erni schrieb am 09.04.2008 um 04:22 Uhr

2:28
Vegas Pro 8.0b
Q6600 without overclocking
2GB RAM

Ernesto

clearvu schrieb am 09.04.2008 um 04:42 Uhr

Christian,

Downloaded the SiSoft Sandra program. I ran the test you mention. Which of the results should I look at?

Christian de Godzinsky schrieb am 09.04.2008 um 09:57 Uhr

Hi Clearvu,

To beging with, run the processor arithmetic benchmark, and check the two first parameters (benchmark results:dhrystone xxxx mips /wetstone xxxx mops) below inte the parameter/value window.

Next run the memory bandwith benchmark, again look at the two first results in the window below (Int Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth, Float Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth)

I'll give you my numbers when I'm back home today, then we can compare the raw speed of our systems. There is no need to test the HD-speed since the rendertest runs without any extensive HD access.

EDIT: Here are my results with Sandra (CPU QX9650 @ 3,81GHz and FSB @ 1,69GHz):
Dhrystone: 63036 MIPS (CPU arithmetic)
Wetstone: 51292 MIPS (CPU arithmetic)
Int: 8.52GB/s (MB, Int)
Float: 8.51GB/s (MB, float)

Christian

clearvu schrieb am 09.04.2008 um 19:46 Uhr

Christian,

Here are the results:

CPU X9650 @ 3.01 GHz and FSB @ 1.34 GHz
Dhrystone: 55229 MIPS
Whetstone: 40650 MIPS
Int: 7.19 GB/s
Float: 7.17 GB/s

Not sure if this info translates to Bios setting changes required, but it sounds like you are more up on things than me.

Brian

Christian de Godzinsky schrieb am 10.04.2008 um 08:01 Uhr

Hi Brian,

It still doesn't compute! Nor does it explain the render time difference this rendertest on our systems (almost 50% difference). The clocking and memory would only approximately explain an 18% difference in render times...

However, you HAVE a fast system, whatsoever. You probably also want the best return of your investment (as I did), and therefore not running at max possible render speed is frustrating. I have at this point no explanation for you. Don't stop experimenting, however...

Independent of this, I sincerely hope that SCS will use the new SSE4 instructions (first included in the QX9650), that would further improve the render speed - even radically. That would be good news for us that spent a fortune on this new 45nm CPU :)

regs,

Christian

Vorherige Seite

1 … 7 8 9 … 21

von 21

Nächste Seite