Benchmarking

Former user wrote on 7/16/2019, 2:27 PM

Moderator's note:

This thread has been closed, and discussion continues here:

https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/benchmarking-results-continued--118503/

------------------------------------------------------

Magix Sample Project 4K link ...

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qoaym1jgpgo8l05/AABec7Jhg_c3jTDJZNxDXB1Wa?dl=0

A user data input file, spreadsheet, render templates for FHD and UHD, etc are also at this location.

Templates and User data input with examples ...

The above are Magix Avc h264 templates, for Hevc use them also, same data rates etc, just change the “Render As” to Magix Hevc.

The spreadsheet and the spreadsheet screen captures below are updated in the download link location as new results come in. If i’m away from my PC it might be a while.

Spreadsheet screen captures ...

[1] Sorted on user name and [2] Sorted on render times

[3] Sorted on render times (FHD) [4] Sorted on render times (UHD)

[5] Sorted on Average FPS

The [n] items are there simply to easily reference a particular screen capture in discussions.

There's a single region marked out on the project, region 1. Please use it to check the Min. and Max. fps playback rates, and so get the average. This was added later, so if you have previously downloaded the zip, no need to do again, I've uploaded the project file as a single separate download. The same updated .veg is also in the zip. If possible give your playback rates in the form min-max e.g. 7-14. If you have say full playback, 25fps I'll enter it as 25-25, with a view to assist in sorting on the FPS column, not possible at the moment.

The following may be of little interest but I'll include it anyway.

Comments

Grazie wrote on 7/19/2019, 9:38 AM

@Former user Reposted:

fr0sty wrote on 7/19/2019, 4:14 PM

User name       : fr0sty
Machine           : OB
VP version       : 16 (b424)
CPU           : Ryzen 7 1800x
Cores           : 8 (16 thread)
GPU           : Radeon 7
OC           : No
Render frame size   : 3840x2160
Encode mode       : AMD VCE Default Main Profile 25fps UHD 50mbps max 28mbps min
Render time       : 1:48
FPS           : 8 min 19 max
Comments       : Perhaps add RAM and Windows Version too?

fr0sty wrote on 7/19/2019, 4:21 PM

User name       : fr0sty
Machine           : OB
VP version       : 16
CPU           : Ryzen 7 1800x
Cores           : 8 (16 thread)
GPU           : Radeon 7
OC           : No
Render frame size   : 1920x1080
Encode mode       : AMD VCE Default Main Profile Internet HD Template
Render time       : 0:51
FPS           : 14 min 24.9 max
Comments       : For FPS I changed project settings to FHD

BruceUSA wrote on 7/19/2019, 10:38 PM

Here is mine FHD entry. Frame rate bouncing mostly 21-25. I also try to run the 4K project but unable to open the veggie. See attach pic below, keep giving me error in opening the file.

Grazie wrote on 7/19/2019, 10:47 PM

@BruceUSA - Hi Bruce. Now THAT'S interesting. The low GPU usage and gradually climbing mirrors my experience too. And, I would say, that for me this whole Benchmarking process is to garner/collate DATA to determine, amongst other things, just how efficient the VP GPU acceleration engine is at using GPU Cards muscle.

Comments?

BruceUSA wrote on 7/19/2019, 10:50 PM

Grazie. I think because of the old FX that is not really trulyGPU Acc. I am really hoping VP17 will get all the native FX with GPU acc would be nice.

Grazie wrote on 7/19/2019, 11:06 PM

@BruceUSA - So OLD FXs used in this Benchtesting will fundamentally skew the results? Regarding old FXs what BT approach wouldn't? For us to use ONLY GPU Accel compliant FXs? If this is true, and I have no way to confirm or deny this, we should only be using those FXs that would comply. Would that be true?

fr0sty wrote on 7/20/2019, 12:27 AM

Likely. I don't see CPU bottlenecks holding things back, as if they were, Grazie's 10 core I9 would smoke my older 8 core first gen Ryzen 1800x, especially since it is more powerful at >4 core tasks. However, render time on his machine is exactly the same as it is mine, and it's my Radeon 7 GPU that is likely making up the difference.

JS2019 wrote on 7/20/2019, 5:08 AM

Hello,

Here are my results,

User name  :JS2019
Machine   :DELL G5
VP version  :16 (B424)
CPU   :Intel Core i7-8750H CPU @2.20GHz 2.21GHz
Cores   :6
GPU   :NVida GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design/Intel UHD Graphics 630
OC   :No.
Render frame size :HD 1080(1920x1080)
Encode mode  :NVENC
Render time  :01.07
FPS   :13 to 21.5
Comments  :

Regards

JS2019

BruceUSA wrote on 7/20/2019, 8:21 AM

Here is my 2nd system, 2nd Gen i7 4930K with R9 290X result.

Former user wrote on 7/20/2019, 8:47 AM

@BruceUSA Duly noted and updated in my first post in this thread.

TheRhino wrote on 7/20/2019, 9:00 AM

Here are my results, updated to show FPS on Region 1:

User name: The_Rhino
Machine: OB
VP version:16 (B424)
CPU: 9900K OC to 4.9 GHz
Cores: 8
GPU: Vega 64 Liquid Cooled
OC: Yes @ 4.9 GHz
Render frame size: HD 1080 (1920x1080)
Encode mode: AMD VCE
FHD Render time: 0:48; UHD Render Time = 1:39
FPS: 13.25 average (9-17.5)
Comments: CPU Useage=7%-36% & OC to 4.9Ghz; GPU=19%-28% & OC to 1750 Mhz.

Former user wrote on 7/20/2019, 9:11 AM

👍

TheRhino wrote on 7/20/2019, 11:01 AM

Old Xeon System, updated to show FPS on Region 1:

User name: The_Rhino
Machine: OB
VP version:16 (B424)
CPU: Xeon 5660 OC to 3.9 GHz
Cores: 6
GPU: AMD RX 570
OC: Yes @ 3.9 GHz
Render frame size: HD 1080 (1920x1080)
Encode mode: AMD VCE
FHD Render time: 1:38; UHD Render Time: 2:48
FPS: 4.25 average; (2.5 - 6)
Comments: Vegas CPU=15%-39%, GPU=0%-15%. No background tasks disabled.

Former user wrote on 7/20/2019, 11:40 AM

@TheRhino Is updated.

BruceUSA wrote on 7/20/2019, 3:17 PM

I know there are a lot more Vegas users on this forum. Don't be shy, show us your system, how does its perform? I am really interested in seeing the Intel 18 cores @4.6ghz i9 9980XE know as (Tripleflip) are you still around? and the older 8 cores intel chip, 5960X, 9800X users. We need more users input data to better analyze what Vegas like best for hardware.

fr0sty wrote on 7/20/2019, 3:19 PM

Quite interesting that a first gen threadripper and Radeon FE are able to keep pace with an i9 9900k with a RTX 2080Ti attached... It even outruns my 1st gen Ryzen/Radeon 7 combo, which is a far more capable GPU. and my aging ryzen 7 coupled with a Radeon 7 keeps up with Grazie's Monsta... Looks like all AMD is the way to go with Vegas.

BruceUSA wrote on 7/20/2019, 3:38 PM

Quite interesting that a first gen threadripper and Radeon FE are able to keep pace with an i9 9900k with a RTX 2080Ti attached... It even outruns my 1st gen Ryzen/Radeon 7 combo, which is a far more capable GPU. and my aging ryzen 7 coupled with a Radeon 7 keeps up with Grazie's Monsta... Looks like all AMD is the way to go with Vegas.

frosty, Look at the frame rate very different. its start at out at 7 frames and bumping up all the way to 21-25 frames most of the time to the end.

Former user wrote on 7/20/2019, 4:10 PM

@BruceUSA and other contributors, I thought it might be a good spot to take the opportunity to repeat the suggested method for measuring playback FPS.

Theres a small roughly 6 seconds region inserted in the project. The idea is to measure the playback FPS within this region only, Min. & Max. This can be more easily done by making a time selection for Region 1, pressing 'Q', make it colour blue, to loop.

I found that measuring FPS over the total project varied too much so shortly after the testing was up and running I introduced this method.

If any users haven’t done it this way, because they weren’t aware, by all means do post here any updated FPS values and i’ll change accordingly.

Its also important to make sure that “Adjust size and quality for optimal playback “ is unchecked and that playback is at Best/full.

I've just now added some of the last paragraph comments as region name to make it clearer, and updated the project at the download location. I have previously checked out this change with @j-v.

These suggestions are also at the bottom of the spreadsheet.

BruceUSA wrote on 7/20/2019, 5:12 PM

Done as instructed. Adjust size and quality for optimal playback is unchecked. I did not realized this feature. I look into it and it is unchecked. A small section you are talking about. I got 7-12 frames the rest pretty much running at 21-25.

Former user wrote on 7/20/2019, 6:26 PM

@BruceUSA Aok. Can you give me your updated FPS values for both your machines, if it’s convenient, no hurry. 7-12 is I assume for the beast🤪

BruceUSA wrote on 7/20/2019, 6:50 PM

JN. Both system is correct as is. There is no change in any other settings. no disable anything. A specific section that slowing down the frame rate for 4930K is 6-10 as low as I can see after rerun many times. 7-12 is for the TR.

Kinvermark wrote on 7/20/2019, 9:56 PM

@Former user Thanks for keeping this project rolling!

My test render contribution(s) from the low end of the scale:

User name  :kinvermark
Machine   :OB
VP version  :16 (B424)
CPU   :i7-980x
Cores   :6
GPU   :AMD Rx-580
OC   :No
Render frame size :UHD
Encode mode  :VCE
Render time  :2:18
FPS   :5-9
Comments  : I also ran CPU only renders (see below). Quality same, but much slower!

Additional renders (all other columns same)

Render frame size :UHD
Encode mode :CPU
Render time :4:51

Render frame size :HD
Encode mode :VCE
Render time :1:03

Render frame size :HD
Encode mode :CPU
Render time :1:24

GJeffrey wrote on 7/21/2019, 5:19 AM

User name       : GJeffrey
Machine           : OB
VP version       : 16 (b424)
CPU           : i7 3930K
Cores           : 6 (12 thread)
GPU           : GTX 1070ti
OC           : No
Render frame size   : UHD
Encode mode       : Nvenc default UHD
Render time       : 1min52s

Machine           : OB
VP version       : 16 (b424)
CPU           : i7 3930K
Cores           : 6 (12 thread)
GPU           : GTX 1070ti
OC           : No
Render frame size   : FHD
Encode mode       : Nvenc default FHD
Render time       : 1min02s

1 2 3 4 … 10

of 10