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

jetdv wrote on 8/12/2022, 8:25 AM

Just decided to try this out on VP 20. Here's my results:

Username: JETDV
Machine: Sager
VP version: 20
VP Build number: 139
CPU: 12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-12700H 2.30 GHz
Cores: 14 (20 threads)
Ram: 64GB
GPU: RTX-3060 (Laptop)
iGPU: Iris(R) XE Graphics
OC: No

Render frame size: FHD
HW Acc.: None
Encode mode: CPU
Render As: Magix Avc
Render time: 01:19.79

Render frame size: FHD
HW Acc.: Intel
Encode mode: QSV
Render As: Magix Avc
Render time: 00:43.3

Render frame size: FHD
HW Acc.: Nvidia
Encode mode: Nvenc
Render As: Magix Avc
Render time: 00:43.89

Render frame size: UHD
HW Acc.: None
Encode mode: CPU
Render As: Magix Avc
Render time: 02:07.70

Render frame size: UHD
HW Acc.: Intel
Encode mode: QSV
Render As: Magix Avc
Render time: 01:10.64

Render frame size: UHD
HW Acc.: Nvidia
Encode mode: Nvenc
Render As: Magix Avc
Render time: 01:11.88

FPS: 8-12 (with bounces lower and higher but generally in that range)

RogerS wrote on 8/12/2022, 8:37 AM

@jetdv Thanks for this!

To reduce bottlenecks and improve data consistency, all results are now collected online.

Since you're doing multiple ones, if you want to bypass the collection form and just give me the fields in this format (Excel sheet or Google Sheets) I can incorporate it into this spreadsheet for you. You can PM me a file.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b3ggVifKsuT-cp2kQHjum_KnQ4-2jBmUIvzmu7BQZ34/edit?usp=sharing

Yelandkeil wrote on 8/12/2022, 12:37 PM

Once promised; here also 4 render results. None practical demands rejected.
Thanks.

Username: Yelandkeil
Machine: OB
VP version: 20
VP Build number: 139
CPU: Ryzen9 5950x
Cores: 16
Ram: 64GB
GPU: XFX RX 6900 XT
OC: No

-----------------------------
Render frame size: FHD
HW Acc.: AMD
Encode mode: VCE
Render As: Magix AVC
Render time: 00:00:30

Render frame size: UHD
HW Acc.: AMD
Encode mode: VCE
Render As: Magix AVC
Render time: 00:00:56

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

Render frame size: FHD
HW Acc.: AMD
Encode mode: VCE
Render As: Magix HEVC
Render time: 00:00:29

Render frame size: UHD
HW Acc.: AMD
Encode mode: VCE
Render As: Magix HEVC
Render time: 00:00:56

RogerS wrote on 8/13/2022, 2:10 AM

@Yelandkeil Please upload the results using the form on the first page of this thread. The results won't be part of the comparison if you just paste them in here.

Alternatively, if you send me (message me a file) results formatted exactly the same as the results spreadsheet I can also enter them that way.

RogerS wrote on 8/13/2022, 9:14 AM

@jetdv @Yelandkeil Please check the results sheet- I tried to add your other results. They should be together at the bottom. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b3ggVifKsuT-cp2kQHjum_KnQ4-2jBmUIvzmu7BQZ34/edit?usp=sharing

jetdv wrote on 8/13/2022, 9:33 AM

@RogerS, Thanks. Just one small update. I believe all of my column "N" should be NVidia. That's what the Preferences is set to (I got it wrong on the first entry). But the File I/O tab indicates Intel.

RogerS wrote on 8/13/2022, 9:47 AM

N column is for preferences/video. That looks like it is NVIDIA for you so if you didn't change it between renders it should be NVIDIA for all and I can update it.

For File i/o, this benchmark predates selectable decoding, though now I think I'll add such a field going forward. Some users made comments about decoding in comments but it's not a great way to compare anything.

Yelandkeil wrote on 8/13/2022, 10:55 AM

😁😁😁

@RogerS, thank you thank you!

I did one, sent it, but saw the formular back to blanco and lost all my confidence.
I must go mad if jobbing in a statistic office.

So, I see the rendering drops from 01m40s to 00m56s and enjoy the other benefit day after day.
That's the power of 969Euro. 😎😎
Profit from VEGAS, too! 🏅🏆

Howard-Vigorita wrote on 11/7/2022, 10:26 PM

Just posted the numbers for an Intel Arc a770. I benchmarked it as a solo gpu with monitor plugged into it. Selected it in both video and i/o prefs, and over-volted it at +125mv for optimal performance. Overclocking had no effect on performance so I left that alone. Seems to do pretty well for a moderately priced solo card. As a 2nd gpu (the way I'll be using it), the performance encoding and decoding qsv is about the same as the Arc a380 which goes for less than half the price.

COJMM01 wrote on 2/10/2023, 8:21 PM

Just posted the numbers for an Intel Arc a770.

Thx for posting your results with the A770. Intel has released new drivers that supposedly netted massive performance gains, albeit focused on DX9. However, I'm not sure if there were any other changes that may potentially impact Vegas Pro. If it's not too much trouble (and provided you still have the A770), is there any chance you can rerun the test with the updated drivers to see if there are any improvements?

Howard-Vigorita wrote on 2/11/2023, 12:41 PM

Sorry, away from home till Spring. I think Vegas accesses the gpu directly via the gpu-maker drivers... I list the driver versions in my signature. The one with the a770 is the 11900k machine.

RogerS wrote on 8/1/2024, 10:02 PM

Benchmark admin note: I updated the input forms for both the VP 16+ and VP 20+ benchmarks to allow data entry for VP 22. Links to download on the first page and in my signature.

Interestingly the VP 16 one performance seems to not differ much pre and post video engine upgrades (VP 21.300 and newer) but the 20+ one is slower in the new engine as not all the GPU-enabled functionality seems to be enabled yet. Its biggest benefits are in media decoding but neither of these benchmarks use challenging media.