Benchmarking results continued

JN- wrote on 1/18/2020, 12:56 PM

Continued from the now locked “Benchmarking” thread ...

Moderator's Note August 2021:

Project sample for this benchmarking project can be downloaded here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3i4xgnhl9fmc0je/BenchmarkProject4K.zip?dl=0

(Project works in Vegas Pro 16 and newer).

The participant's benchmark entry has been changed via Google Form:

Submit your result here : https://forms.gle/2gnzmv93Ar8P1tkx8

And view the result here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b3ggVifKsuT-cp2kQHjum_KnQ4-2jBmUIvzmu7BQZ34/

Thank you user @RogerS for continuing mantaining this benchmark system.

Please message him if you have questions or problems regarding the render benchmark.

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

Note that the render time results are for the full project duration, the average FPS value is for the “Region 1” duration only. Please enter only the same "Average FPS" value for all of your different encoder and frame size entries.

Don't change the Project properties. Whether checking your FPS/rendering UHD or FHD, leave as is.

Templates and user data input with examples … Use similar for Nvenc, QSV, VCE, and CPU encoders.

The data rates of the 2 templates below is 24/12 for FHD and 50/28 for UHD. So irrespective of which encoder you're using, just use those data rates..

Set the Intel QSV quality slider to 4, default. If this range of 1 to 7 changes in the future leave it at whatever the default is.

My rendered out file sizes on disc. You should get somewhat similar, but not necessarily the exact same results.

FHD size = 48.9 mb ..... Data rate = 9,583 kbps ... Nvenc encoding

FHD size = 50.8 mb ..... Data rate = 9,971 kbps ... Cpu encoding

UHD size = 114 mb ..... Data rate = 22,611 kbps ... Nvenc encoding

UHD size = 117 mb ...... Data rate = 23,308 kbps ... Cpu encoding

If your output file sizes and data rates are not similar, then check that you are using the correct render template settings.

Sample User Data Input with example, text file is in the ZIP file …

Use the instructions in the screenshots below to get the Average FPS value …

If possible set the Dynamic ram Preview to zero while doing so.

Note that the region 1 section above is only used to get the average FPS value, do render out the full length project to get the various render times.

The older "Benchmarking" thread.

Back to post

Comments

JN- wrote on 2/23/2021, 3:12 AM

@Grazie “Well, MainConcept = CPU.” Well, given you and I know that, please update your post accordingly.

”I’ll reconfirm all four, again, I’m not expecting a difference” No need to do any again if you have one of the rendered out files still on disc, simply confirm its duration. If you have deleted them then do any one again and confirm the duration to me.

Grazie wrote on 2/23/2021, 3:26 AM

@JN- I've edited MainConcept to CPU - OK? I've redone all four Renders, I was able to shave 1 second off of the last render, otherwise they are the same.

User name: Grazie
    Machine: MONSTA2!
    VP version: 18
    VP Build number: 434
    CPU: i9-10900X CPU @ 3.70GHz
    Cores: 10
    GPU: EVGA RTX 3080 XC3 Ultra 10GB
    iGPU: NONE
    OC: No
    Render frame size:UHD
    HW Acc.: Nvidia
    Render As:Magix AVC
    Encode mode:NVENC
    Render time: 00:01:15
    FPS:11
    Comments:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

User name: Grazie
    Machine: MONSTA2!
    VP version: 18
    VP Build number: 434
    CPU: i9-10900X CPU @ 3.70GHz
    Cores: 10
    GPU: EVGA RTX 3080 XC3 Ultra 10GB
    iGPU: NONE
    OC: No
    Render frame size:UHD
    HW Acc.: Nvidia
    Render As:Magix AVC
    Encode mode:CPU
    Render time: 00:01:40
    FPS:11
    Comments:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

User name: Grazie
    Machine: MONSTA2!
    VP version: 18
    VP Build number: 434
    CPU: i9-10900X CPU @ 3.70GHz
    Cores: 10
    GPU: EVGA RTX 3080 XC3 Ultra 10GB
    iGPU: NONE
    OC: No
    Render frame size:FHD
    HW Acc.: Nvidia
    Render As:Magix AVC
    Encode mode:NVENC
    Render time: 00:00:45
    FPS:11
    Comments:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

User name: Grazie
    Machine: MONSTA2!
    VP version: 18
    VP Build number: 434
    CPU: i9-10900X CPU @ 3.70GHz
    Cores: 10
    GPU: EVGA RTX 3080 XC3 Ultra 10GB
    iGPU: NONE
    OC: No
    Render frame size:FHD
    HW Acc.: Nvidia
    Render As:Magix AVC
    Encode mode:CPU
    Render time: 00:00:51
    FPS:11
    Comments:

RogerS wrote on 2/23/2021, 3:29 AM

Well, MainConcept = CPU. I’ll reconfirm all four, again, I’m not expecting a difference. Why are you asking? Are they too high or low?

Duration= length of the clip when you load it in a media player to be sure the whole thing was selected.

It's surprising that your CPU render was faster than GPU for UHD but not for FHD, but certainly possible.

This data entry process has no way to limit user input, so he was asking you to modify the response to save further manual edits.

Grazie wrote on 2/23/2021, 3:30 AM

@JN- - Ah, just seen your last post! No worries, I just got on with the job inhand and did them ALL again. Can I go and catch up on some sleep now? I hope my efforts are now in order - yeah?

Grazie wrote on 2/23/2021, 3:38 AM

Duration= length of the clip when you load it in a media player to be sure the whole thing was selected.

@JN- and @RogerS I can do better than that! How about a SCRENGRAB of the evidence of Rennder and so on:

So, that'll be 41 seconds then - yes?

This data entry process has no way to limit user input, so he was asking you to modify the response to save further manual edits.

@RogerS - Always willing to learn. 😉

JN- wrote on 2/23/2021, 3:42 AM

@Grazie “ I hope my efforts are now in order - yeah?”

No, not yet. They will be when you complete #2 as requested. i.e. duration of output clip in hours, minutes and seconds. Without that information I cannot post your results.

I can’t understand why you won’t post that information here?

RogerS wrote on 2/23/2021, 3:45 AM

It says 00:00:41 in the screenshot above (from Windows Explorer?)

RogerS wrote on 2/23/2021, 3:46 AM

Is it normal that FHD and UHD are the same file size? Wouldn't have expected that either.

Grazie wrote on 2/23/2021, 3:48 AM

@JN- and @RogerS and INTO the Project it is 41:21, the same length as I have the project running at:

So there you have it.

JN- wrote on 2/23/2021, 3:56 AM

@Grazie quote from @RogerS “It's surprising that your CPU render was faster than GPU for UHD but not for FHD, but certainly possible.”

Please do the UHD renders again. Those figures don’t look right, I would expect the nvenc encode to be faster than the Cpu encode, best to confirm one more time before I post results, thank you.

Grazie wrote on 2/23/2021, 3:57 AM

@JN- And the Duration of the Project is 00:00:41.21

Grazie wrote on 2/23/2021, 4:01 AM

Please do the UHD renders again. Those figures don’t look right, I would expect the nvenc encode to be faster than the Cpu encode, best to confirm one more time before I post results, thank you.

@JN- - Please check my UHD Nvenc Render template:

JN- wrote on 2/23/2021, 4:14 AM

@Grazie @RogerS Thanks for all of the hand holding Roger.

This is a screenshot of my FHD and UHD rendered output files sizes. The render template you show is correct.

The size of your FHD rendered out file is too big, so it's more likely you are using the wrong template for FHD rendering.

Grazie wrote on 2/23/2021, 4:29 AM

@JN- - I can't see your file sizes. Please enlarge.

Here is my FHD NVENC:

JN- wrote on 2/23/2021, 4:33 AM

@Grazie “I can't see your file sizes. Please enlarge” I can, I’ve used an ipad and a laptop to confirm viewing ability, click on them and they open, screenshots are meant to be clicked on, not read as is.

Thats the wrong FHD render template.

Render templates are viewable in my first post in this thread, and also available as jpegs in the zip file you would have downloaded to do this banchmarking.

My rendered out file sizes on disc.

FHD size = 48.9 mb.

UHD size = 114 mb.

Grazie wrote on 2/23/2021, 4:45 AM

@JN- - I did click on it, I know they must be clicked on, I've doing this for many years. Getting back to the FHD template, you can actually see what I've done wrong? I'll go and recheck.

JN- wrote on 2/23/2021, 4:49 AM

@Grazie Ideally, whenever you manage to get it right, in this benchmarking thread, edit, update your existing results rather than keep adding new sets, or even delete previously incorrect results.

This makes it easier and better for other users who may be looking at the results here as well as the Spread sheets/screenshots, that's if we ever get there.

JN- wrote on 2/23/2021, 4:51 AM

@Grazie "you can actually see what I've done wrong?" Yes. The sample templates are located in two locations.

Grazie wrote on 2/23/2021, 4:56 AM

@JN- I saw it before you posted - apologies. Now set 24 and 12. For render time not much better, now 45 secs render but the size is halved 49,753KB.

So, still have this speed quandry.

RogerS wrote on 2/23/2021, 4:56 AM

Grazie, for your FHD template the bitrates look wrong- it is 24,000,000/12,000,000. It looks like you're using UHD bitrates for FHD.

[We posted at the same time- you figured it out. Your UHD one looks fine]

Grazie wrote on 2/23/2021, 4:58 AM

@JN- What do you mean:

The sample templates are located in two locations.

Grazie wrote on 2/23/2021, 5:01 AM

Grazie, for your FHD template the bitrates look wrong- it is 24,000,000/12,000,000. It looks like you're using UHD bitrates for FHD.

@RogerS - Look above I've now reset them to 24 and 12 .

Grazie wrote on 2/23/2021, 5:04 AM

@JN- and @RogerS I've got and renedered the Correct Templates for each. I've made the HOURS MINUTES and SECONDS format for you @JN- - yes?

Grazie wrote on 2/23/2021, 5:09 AM

@JN- and @RogerS Here's that adjusted FHD Template:

1 … 9 10 11 … 15

of 15