Athlon64 Quick Test

Sid_Phillips wrote on 12/31/2003, 6:24 AM

I was a very good boy this year and Santa brought me a custom-rigged system with an AMD Athlon64 3200+ processor. It only has 512MB of DDR3200 RAM and an 80GB 7200RPM drive (just the single drive), so it's not rigged for video production, but I thought it would be interesting to see how a Vegas project rendered on it versus my system at work.

The other system uses a P4/1.8GHz, 512MB of RAM, dedicated 160GB FireWire drive (7200RPM). It took 31:24 to render the project, which was very simple (couple of crossfades, couple of PSD graphics, all the captured video was cropped to fill the frame). The AMD system took 9:54 to render. That's over a 300% boost, not too shabby for a $1500 investment.

This isn't a scientific benchmark, of course. But it is a real-life project, so the results are very meaningful to me. Now if I can just get the company to buy me a new workstation that's similar...

I have to wonder, though: if Sony rewrote Vegas as a 64-bit application optimzed for the Athlon64, what would the improved render times be like? I have read early reports that 64-bit apps get a 200% boost for integer operations and 400% boost for floating-point operations. Would that translate into a 6-to-12 times performance boost? Would it result in renders that are actually FASTER than real-time?

Anyway, I just found it interesting that an un-optimzed 64-bit system resulted in a 300% performance boost. Of course, those running faster Intel or Pentium systems won't get that substantial of an increase...

But I did! :->)

Comments

busterkeaton wrote on 12/31/2003, 3:37 PM

There is a vegas rendertest that you can try. This would allow you to compare your machine against folks with a 3.2 pentium. It's at the sundance media group website.

You can search this forum for "rendertest" to find out what I am talking about.

MUTTLEY wrote on 12/31/2003, 4:36 PM

Outstanding, wish I had been a good boy ! ( or that me or my gf had the money ! )

The benchmarks I've seen on TechTv and they were all pretty promising, but hearing your " real world " experience says even more. I'd also love to know how good your previews are looking.

I've wondered for some time, even though there have been countless topics of upgrades, what exactly it would take to have smooth previews with effects, multiple layers, text, etc. I usually have to drop down to Draft (Auto) for any kind of smoothness if there's anything going on except the basic avi. Has anyone achieved Best ( Full ), is it possible ? And what would it take. Mayhaps the 64 will get us a bit closer.

Keep us posted !

- Ray

www.undergroundplanet.com

Bill Ravens wrote on 12/31/2003, 5:14 PM

Sid....

The rendering times with a "standard" render test will allow comparison with many different systems. Would you be kind enuff to report the render time you get with this file...

http://www.sundancemediagroup.com/help/kb/kb_files.asp?sort=4&cat=0&sw=1&author=1

TheHappyFriar wrote on 12/31/2003, 6:13 PM

The only bad part is that Vegas isn't made 64bit yet (maybe 5 will be!).

Hey, where did you get a copy of WinXP64-bit? I might want to upgrade to the AMD 64-bit chip, but can't find a copy!

Chanimal wrote on 12/31/2003, 7:11 PM

Santa also got me an AMD 64, with ATI 9700 pro, 1.5 gig of RAM, 5 harddrives (120 c, 200 - 250 rest), Audigy 2, etc.

Having a hardtime getting it configured, but will be excited to test when complete.

ArmyVideo wrote on 1/1/2004, 9:55 AM

Very interesting results... I'm currently in the Army, doing video for them full time and doing it for myself part time. In the near future (less than 2 years) I will be out and doing it for myself. I've been planning on starting slow in my local market (DC / Baltimore) and then moving the operation back home, hopefully with all the pieces in place. One of those pieces is a new rig I plan on building this year. Your AMD results have me rethinking my plan as far as that rig goes... I do have a couple questions though.
Since it's a new system, do you think part of the speed you are realizing is do to the limited number of other applications installed and running in the back ground compared to your older system? I know as my machine (P4 1.9 w/ 512mb) has gotten older, and more applications have been installed (it's far from a dedicated editing machine) I have lost some performance.
However, even with assuming you have fewer processor eating app's on your new system, your configuration seems to break many "rules"... especially by not only having your video files and OS on the same IRQ, they're on the same drive!
I am very interested in hearing how the performance holds up, and if tweaking the system and adding another drive (if you plan to do so) speeds up render time.
Thanks for sharing, and please keep us informed.

Happy New Year!
Brian

HPV wrote on 1/1/2004, 11:55 AM

This review at Tom's Hardware might be of interest to everyone. BTW, the Vegas team is on the record about working on a 64bit version of Vegas.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_64-35.html

Craig H.

Sid_Phillips wrote on 1/6/2004, 6:05 AM

Sorry I haven't replied earlier but I've been swamped with holiday activities and work. I just DL'd the Vegas test file, I'll render that tonight and post the results. As mentioned, this system is definitely not rigged specifically for video yet. It's a general-purpose workstation really geared towards video games *grin* but which I will be tweaking for video Real Soon Now.

When I ran the test, I had already installed Micro$oft Office, QuarkXpress, Photoshop, Premiere, Illustrator, InDesign, Flash, Sound Forge and about a bazillion games. The hard drive had not been defragged. I just copied the DVD to my drive, loaded up the VEG and rendered. Just about the most sub-optimal system you can imagine, and I *still* got a 317% improvement.

I don't have a copy of the 64-bit version of Windoze, those claims to improved speeds came from either PC World, PC Magazine, or some other company that has seen some extremely early alpha research. That's why I would love to see what Sony has to say about developing a 64-bit version of Vegas. Combined with 64-bit hardware drivers it has *got* to be a huge boost to the program. Wouldn't it be nice to get something like 2 or 3 times the performance from just an OS and software upgrade, rather than having to build an entirely new system?

But I'll run the standard test tonight, definitely with the system still completely unoptomized. Understand that I'm not cheerleading for AMD by a long shot, I am just a 64-bit proponent because I think it's going to make a huge difference in the type of work we do (as opposed to office applications) and becuase it's going to make my games *realy* hot!

Bill Ravens wrote on 1/6/2004, 6:39 AM

In all the tests and benchmarks I've see, 64 bit AMD machines, in video rendering operations, do a nominal 2-5% better, over the 3 Gig Intel P4's. That's a lot of money to spend for a 3% improvement.

I bit off on the dual CPU arguement, a few years back, built myself a new AMD duallie. In the end, it was expensive to build up, expensive to upgrade, and AMD's were not as stable with Microsoft OS's as Intel chips. Maybe there's a lesson in there, maybe not.

Please understand, I'm not trying to rain on your parade. I 've only become somewhat jaundiced at wild performance claims. As a poin of reference for you, my current system is a 3 Gig P4, 800 FSB on a P4P800 Deluxe mobo. The Vegas4 rendertest is giving me render times of 1:29. I'd be most interested in what you get with your Athlon-64.

Chanimal wrote on 1/6/2004, 12:52 PM

Sid,

Regarding the cost, my AMD 64 chip was the latest 3,000 version with only 512 cache instead of 1 meg. The reviews showed it was only about 5-7% slower than the 1 gig version. However, it was only $219 at newegg.com!! This was much cheaper than a 3.0 or 3.2 P4. Plus the memory was cheaper.

The price is what drove me to upgrade.

I haven't done a comprehensive test yet on render times. However, I have noticed that I can now preview at twice the previous size while still retaining 22-29 frames per second. I'm not sure if this is the AMD, or the fact that my new motherboard has 8x AGP (which my ATI 9700 pro supports), versus the previous 4x AGP.

I'll post my times when I get them.

PH125 wrote on 1/6/2004, 1:15 PM

cool, I can't wait for my Athlon64 computer to come. Damn UPS! I heard on some sites though that the p4 still outperforms the Athlon64 on apps such as 3ds max, etc. But once the 64 bit thing starts kicking in, and Intel gets scared, us AMD users will have a BIG advatage! I just hope that Veg 5 comes with a 64 bit option.

TheHappyFriar wrote on 1/6/2004, 6:45 PM

On the Screen Savers (www.thescreensavers.com) they announced that the latest AMD 64 bit (AMD 64- 3400) outperforms all the P4 chips and is cheaper. They have links to reviews.

Man, I thought that Pc would NEVER get 64-bit a year ago. It's about time! :)

shogo wrote on 1/6/2004, 8:52 PM

"In all the tests and benchmarks I've see, 64 bit AMD machines, in video rendering operations, do a nominal 2-5% better, over the 3 Gig Intel P4's. That's a lot of money to spend for a 3% improvement.

I bit off on the dual CPU arguement, a few years back, built myself a new AMD duallie. In the end, it was expensive to build up, expensive to upgrade, and AMD's were not as stable with Microsoft OS's as Intel chips. Maybe there's a lesson in there, maybe not.

Please understand, I'm not trying to rain on your parade. I 've only become somewhat jaundiced at wild performance claims. As a poin of reference for you, my current system is a 3 Gig P4, 800 FSB on a P4P800 Deluxe mobo. The Vegas4 rendertest is giving me render times of 1:29. I'd be most interested in what you get with your Athlon-64. "

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What template do you use, just the regular NTSC DV I used that and got 1:35 with p4 3Ghz (though the motherboard supports 800 I have a 533 FSB CPU not the P4 3c) 1 Gig dual channel DDR400 memory. I don't think the Athlon 64 will do quite as well, but I would loved to be proved wrong as I really like AMD. I went with the P4 for video editing as it seems to really shine in this area, where the Athlon tears the P4 in most gaming benchmarks I have cooled off on gaming so that decided it for me. I really hope the Athlon 64 does well because Intel needs good competition to keep the market affordable!

Sid_Phillips wrote on 1/7/2004, 6:51 AM

For anybody following this thread, I've posted the results of my very informal tests under a new topic "Athlon-64 Render Test."