I tried this test with AMD and 3000 series GPU, I can not complete because GPU dedicated memory fills up completely when loading project. This is with default settings, ways to fix is to turn GPU decoding off, or tick Enable Legacy AVC decoding.

Has this been reported before? Hardware decoding not possible on V17 or V18 for this project

@FernC I could only complete the UHD test on my Acer i7-6700HQ laptop until after I set Dynamic Ram preview to zero and increased the built in ram from 16 to 32gb, That test also used VP16, which may not be available to you.

If you can do a FHD test thats fine. The Nvidia RTX 3000 series cards are currently not optimised for non trivial projects within VP such as this 4k project. This shows up in the poorer than expected Nvenc HW encode test, CPU encode will be fine. They do perform as expected for Nvenc HW encoding with trivial projects that have say no FX in the project.

If this is improved in a future VP version then any users that have already posted 3000 series card results can update their test results again, if they wish to do so.

The reason users wished to have a UHD, 4K project like this to do benchmarking with was that the FHD version, and similar like the older Red Car test, were insufficient to properly test playback, as modern powerful machines would often easily give full FPS playback with those FHD projects. It did mean though that older machines like my Acer laptop then struggled with the 4k project, when attempting to render at UHD.

I tried this test with AMD and 3000 series GPU, I can not complete because GPU dedicated memory fills up completely when loading project. This is with default settings, ways to fix is to turn GPU decoding off, or tick Enable Legacy AVC decoding.

Has this been reported before? Hardware decoding not possible on V17 or V18 for this project

@FernC Here's something else you can try that might be helpful if it narrows the issue with the 3000-series Nvidia boards. I just uploaded a couple of modified SampleProject Vegas project files that mute out or replace the footage and some of the generated media. If one of those is the culprit, knowing that might be helpful to Vegas developers fixing the problem. Hopefully the problem is not pervasive. The zip is on a google cloud drive here and contains an explanatory text file:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h9QJ2g9ClnqO7H1XvKb2CdN196o_rEFG/view?usp=sharing

@Howard-Vigorita This isn’t a general discussion thread, I have asked other users to mostly keep their contributions here in this thread to their results for this Benchmarking project. Thats why its called “Benchmarking results continued” They have mostly done that and I thank them for that, it prevents it rambling all over the place. Of course that's my preference and I can only ask that.

FernC posted here because, as I understand it, he was attempting, has the intention, to complete the results and post here but couldn’t.

You have already removed your results from this project and have made clear your dislike of the methods that I have used. You have no wish to post your results here. Anyone else that is unaware of your antipathy towards this Benchmarking project by you only have to look at your posts from pages 4/5 onwards in the original Benchmarking project that this continues on from.

I fail to understand why you continue to post here, given your stated dislike of my methodology. I do understand that when you lost the users vote to host the benchmarking project to JV's that you were disappointed, and so you are now doing what is best for you, making up your own Benchmarking projects, good luck with that, but please accept that my preference going forward is for users to post their results here. It goes without saying that users may also wish to contribute to your own benchmarking projects, in which case you can use it also for a general discussion on benchmarking if that’s appropriate.

@JN- Just participating in a discussion of a specific problem running the benchmark which I also use and support. Participated in by yourself and others. But I can understand your wanting this thread to only contain posts of results and not discussion about them... in that case we really need a related thread for the discussion. I think you would probably be the most appropriate host for that. Or perhaps the admins could split off off all the discussion posts here into another thread to separate them from the timing posts and unclutter this one.

User Name: IAM4UK
Machine:  Cinema PC
VP Version:  18
VP Build Number:  527
CPU: Intel i7 11700K
Cores:  8
GPU:  AMD VEGA_64 Frontier
iGPU:  UHD 750
OC:  No
Render Frame Size:  FHD 1920x1080
HW Acc:  AMD
Render as:  Magix AVC
Encode Mode:  VCE
Render time:  1:12
AVG FPS (Region 1):  11.08 fps

User Name:  IAM4UK
Machine:  Cinema PC
VP Version:  18
VP Build Number:  527
CPU:  Intel i7 11700K
Cores:  8
GPU:  AMD VEGA_64 Frontier
iGPU:  UHD 750
OC:  No
Render Frame Size:  FHD 1920x1080
HW Acc:  OFF
Render as:  Magix AVC
Encode Mode:  Mainconcept AVC (CPU)
Render time:  1:17
AVG FPS (Region 1):  11.08 fps

User Name:  IAM4UK
Machine:  Cinema PC
VP Version:  18
VP Build Number:  527
CPU:  Intel i7 11700K
Cores:  8
GPU:  AMD VEGA_64 Frontier
iGPU:  UHD 750
OC:  No
Render Frame Size:  UHD 3840x2160
HW Acc:  AMD
Render as:  Magix AVC
Encode Mode:  VCE
Render time:  2:27
AVG FPS (Region 1):  11.08 fps

User Name:  IAM4UK
Machine:  Cinema PC
VP Version:  18
VP Build Number:  527
CPU:  Intel i7 11700K
Cores:  8
GPU:  AMD VEGA_64 Frontier
iGPU:  UHD 750
OC:  No
Render Frame Size:  UHD 3840x2160
HW Acc:  OFF
Render as:  Magix AVC
Encode Mode:  Mainconcept AVC (CPU)
Render time:  3:02
AVG FPS (Region 1):  11.08 fps        

@IAM4UK Hi, thank you for posting your results. Just saw them now.

Please update the avg. fps value to a single same value for all 4 tests, it cannot be otherwise once users don't change the project properties.

Not sure if HW Acc. can be CPU, will look at that later. Update: Currently can be Amd, Intel, Nvidia and OFF.

I'm away from PC now but will notify you later when I have updated all of your updated results.

I see that you and JaredF have the new UHD 750 and i7-11700k CPU, nice.

If you are having trouble getting the Intel QSV encoder to work, you can try some of this, though you may have done so already.

In Options/Preferences/File I/O uncheck Enable legacy AVC and hevc decoding. Hardware decoder to use you can experiment with, probably doesn't matter.

Under the "General" tab confirm "Enable QSV encoding ... " is checked.

Under the "Video" tab experiment with the two options (GPU Acceleration of Video Processing) that you should have, AMD and Intel GPU's.

Thanks for the info, @JN-
I changed "(CPU)" to "OFF" for the HW Accel lines that reflected CPU renders. I averaged the averages of fps; I had not understood those instructions, I guess (but I did use only the Region you specified).
These benchmarks make sense to me; however, I also just did some "new" 4K Red Car benchmarks, and only 1 of my 4 results made any sense on that project.
The bottom line for me on my upgraded CPU (replaced i7-6850K) is that my preview performance is much better (I still render to MagicYUV intermediates for this purpose), and my render speeds for typical 1080p24 AVC outputs are fast enough for time-constrained projects.

@IAM4UK “I averaged the averages of fps” Great. This has occurred with several users.

Do you want to do a QSV fhd/uhd render? or is it N/A.

@IAM4UK I have updated the SS's only at the download location. Can you let me know if you are going to do the QSV HW renders? Then I will update the Screenshots.

I suspect that the Nvidia 3000 series GPU's (with respect to Nvenc encoding) may not be fully optimised for non-trivial projects such as this Benchmarking project. They appear ok for trivial projects.

If I find that with a subsequent VP version/build that that changes it's my intention to "tag" (if that's the correct term) all users here that have Nvidia 3000 series cards and have submitted results. They might be interested in updating their Nvenc results, or not.

@IAM4UK

Do you want to do a QSV fhd/uhd render? or is it N/A.

@JN- I will not be doing the QSV renders.

Even following the earlier instructions about File I/O and General settings, QSV is not available among certain render profiles. It may be because I don't hook up the mobo PCIe power, and only hook up the VEGA_64 GPU PCIe power? Or maybe the default is for onboard video to be disabled when dedicated GPU is present? I don't know, but am not bothered by using the VCE-capable VEGA_64 instead of QSV.

@IAM4UK Aok, thats perfectly fine. I’ll post here later when the screenshots are updated and done. Thanks.

@IAM4UK All updated now.

Note that clicking on the two screenshot "results" (sorted on render speed and highest FPS) in the 1st. post in this thread may leave it hard to make out details, depending on viewing device.

If this is the case then, after clicking the screenshot, select it and drag it upwards to automatically create a new tab in your browser, with the screenshot. You can then also zoom the screenshot within your browser (typically CTRL and +) it should be much easier to see then.

Of course the spreadsheets and screenshots are also available in the zip. Note that these files are also located outside of the zip file but within the Benchmarking download folder location. This enables viewing on a device, such as an iPad etc that otherwise may not allow viewing of the files inside of the zip.

i tried to download the project sample but it says file has been deleted

i tried to download the project sample but it says file has been deleted

@ScorpioOfShadows Please try the first page of this thread again. There are new links to download the project and to upload data using an online form (multiple submissions for different render resolutions, etc. allowed).

i tried to download the project sample but it says file has been deleted

@ScorpioOfShadows Please try the first page of this thread again. There are new links to download the project and to upload data using an online form (multiple submissions for different render resolutions, etc. allowed).

It worked. Thank you

After installing V19 I ran all of the benchmarking tests on my 9900K/VEGA 64 & 11700K/VEGA 56 systems & got about the same render times as before for both VCE & QSV renders... However, as others noted elsewhere on the forums, I'm getting slightly better Preview performance & pre-render appears to be able to use more RAM and generally works better than before. My VEGAs are older, so I'm interested if anyone is seeing improvements with the newer AMD & Nvidia GPUs...

Feel free to submit your results if you like.
In other threads Howard and I also found minimal differences between 18 and 19 making re-benchmarking not so interesting at this point. If future builds of 19 come out with some performance improvements it would be good to redo.

In a project I was just testing with VP18 39seconds, VP19 29 seconds, VP19 is using 100% CPU while VP18 only maxes out in the 80's . File is 4K60AVC, with 10 BCC transitions , rendered to 1080P60. I don't think the transitions are important, the increase in CPU happens in area without transition or any GPU effect. This is why with your benchmarks you guys may not be seeing any changes. If every part of your project has a GPU effect applied the results may stay the same.

To check I could add a lut to both and see if speeds are now the same

This thread is for one particular benchmark project. Please find it on page 1 and you can submit results for both VP 18 and 19. Howard does tests with other benchmarks as well ("Red car"). Techgage uses MedianFx to really push the CPUs. There are many approaches to assessing performance, but let's focus on this particular benchmark in this thread.

If I did those benchmarks I have no doubt I'd agree with the results you guys are seeing, no change, but there is change only you're not seeing it with the benchmarks you choose. They are good benchmarks though more representing real world, but for some people who are doing basic cuts and transitions without coloring they may see an advantage with VP19 of 25% increase in render performance

Guys you have to change up your benchmarks you're not giving VP19 the accolades it deserves

VP19 in my benchmark test 29 seconds, with Track FX Vegas Autolooks Conception 32 seconds

VP18 same project 39 seconds, with Track FX Vegas Autolooks Conception 54 seconds

This are huge improvements, and the most amazing I was still getting 100% CPU with the Autolooks GPU processing engaged. I thought that would reduce CPU, but it didn't. These are ground breaking performance increases and these benchmarks are blind to them