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 1/27/2020, 7:40 PM

@james-ollick 👍

Sassylola wrote on 1/27/2020, 8:36 PM

Has anybody else have Vegas not responding while playing region 1? I see Rob has. He also has a RTX 2070 super like I did.

I would preview the region looping it, it would run fine, then i run it again and vegas would not respond. My play head ( scrubber ) would still be moving inside the region, but the preview window would show the frame that it was stuck on. Thanks

JN- wrote on 1/28/2020, 5:44 AM

Hi James -Olick. Before I post your results, just one more thing. Can you check that you weren't accidently rendering out only the loop section of region 1 instead of the full length project? thanks.,

Since I only enter a single FPS value, I'll average your several different values, or you can update with only one value.

james-ollick wrote on 1/28/2020, 7:19 AM

Hi James -Olick. Before I post your results, just one more thing. Can you check that you weren't accidently rendering out only the loop section of region 1 instead of the full length project? thanks.,

Since I only enter a single FPS value, I'll average your several different values, or you can update with only one value.

Yes I only rendered the section between the 2 markers. I thought that was what was indicated on the screen shot.

I can do the full length project if you need that. You can average the FPS.

JN- wrote on 1/28/2020, 7:24 AM

@james-ollick Thats great James, sorry if there was any confusion. I’ll add a comment to my 1st. post in this thread to clear this up for future posters.

Let me know when you’ve updated your data, I have it already entered in my ss ready to go, except for the render times.

Sassylola wrote on 1/28/2020, 7:32 AM

Ok, ran Region 1 test with my old Sapphire R9 380. Got 1 to 6 fps but Vegas stopped responding after about 6 loops. This also happened with a RTX 2070 Super. Render with both cards enabled worked without problems.

My defective Radeon Vll would run the loop a few times and my whole system would crash causing a reboot.

Could this be hardware related? I do have a Brand new 850w Power Supply. I have 2 separate PCIe cables from the power supply feeding the VC.

JN- wrote on 1/28/2020, 7:40 AM

@Sassylola If you can use VP16 without these issues? then that would eliminate the hardware as the problem. I also use an 850W PSU, its plenty strong enough.

If you need to you can download a trial version of VP16, quicker than going through your hardware.

Sassylola wrote on 1/28/2020, 8:37 AM

With VP 16 GPU enabled Vegas will stop responding. With GPU off I looped it for 3 minutes and had no problem. The fps were slow 0.53 to 0.561. But it played in the preview window, choppy. But Vegas stayed running.

I did a stress test on my R9 380 with GPUz for 20 minutes. GPU was loaded 100% in test worked fine passed test. If it was a PSU I don't think it would pass that test.

I just read a post from musicvid that the not responding in Vegas in a known issue?

JN- wrote on 1/28/2020, 9:01 AM

@Sassylola Nick hopes suggestions here ... and here. See section 9 in the second link, i.e. resetting VP.

JN- wrote on 1/28/2020, 9:19 AM

Hi @Sassylola If none of Nicks above suggestions work and you have the latest Studio graphics drivers installed (use DDU if necessary) maybe open a separate thread for this issue, as more users will likely see it and contribute.

james-ollick wrote on 1/28/2020, 4:15 PM

@james-ollick Thats great James, sorry if there was any confusion. I’ll add a comment to my 1st. post in this thread to clear this up for future posters.

Let me know when you’ve updated your data, I have it already entered in my ss ready to go, except for the render times.

I edited my 1st post and added (only between the markers). I wonder if others made the same mistake that I did? There are some really good render times listed. I will edit my original post adding the full project render times as soon as I can.

JN- wrote on 1/28/2020, 4:34 PM

@james-ollick Aok James. Hopefully this will highlight the issue for any other users, and i’ve added the comment on the opening post in this thread. I’ll also add a comment in the users data input items in the downloadable zip. (is done now). Take your time re: updating your posted data. Thanks.

james-ollick wrote on 1/28/2020, 5:24 PM

@james-ollick Aok James. Hopefully this will highlight the issue for any other users, and i’ve added the comment on the opening post in this thread. I’ll also add a comment in the users data input items in the downloadable zip. (is done now). Take your time re: updating your posted data. Thanks.

All done 🙂 See the additions on my original post.

JN- wrote on 1/28/2020, 5:44 PM

@james-ollick Excellent. I’ll post soon and let you know. Maybe it makes more sense to post the best FPS 7-11 average. = 9. I’m actually at a loss as to how its possible to get different FPS for the same PC? I mean the project properties don’t change, so how do you get different values? 3-6 & 7-11.

Marco. wrote on 1/28/2020, 5:55 PM

Dependend on the RAM preview setting, each playback cycle could improve the playback. For such a test best is to ensure RAM preview is set to zero or at least to a very low value.

JN- wrote on 1/28/2020, 6:05 PM

@Marco. Ok. I'm not sure why I didn't think of that. I'll make that suggestion in the user data input and other locations.

Try not to delete this post.

JN- wrote on 1/28/2020, 6:12 PM

@james-ollick Hi James I've updated your testing. Do let me know if you require any modifications.

As usual the screenshots are updated in the first post in this thread and also in the ZIP with the 3 updated spreadsheets.

james-ollick wrote on 1/28/2020, 6:30 PM

@james-ollick Hi James I've updated your testing. Do let me know if you require any modifications.

As usual the screenshots are updated in the first post in this thread and also in the ZIP with the 3 updated spreadsheets.

I went back and set the RAM preview to 0, it was at 20000. However, it made no difference in the playback FPS.

I also noticed that the Preferences Video Tab had the "GPU acceleration of video processing" set to my AMD processor on the RX580 GPU card. I set it to Intel UHD 630 and the playback was less than 3 FPS.Needless to say, I will be leaving on the RX580.

JN- wrote on 1/28/2020, 6:39 PM

@james-ollick Absolutely, the iGPU is hardly ever a match for a dedicated GPU.

james-ollick wrote on 1/29/2020, 2:47 PM

AMD GPU users like me will need to compare results once Vegas adds AMD support back in.

JN- wrote on 1/29/2020, 4:51 PM

@james-ollick Indeed James, interesting to see whether it will be in VP18 or one of VP17 updates.

bitman wrote on 1/31/2020, 8:37 AM

User: bitman

@JN- I redid the test on VP16 and VP17 as I have upgraded my CPU to a i9-9900K on the same motherboard, with the same memory and nvidea video card (RTX2080ti)

Machine: OB, CPU: i9-9900k, Cores: 8, GPU: RTX-2080ti, iGPU: UHD 630, OC: No,

HW Acc.: Nvidia (studio driver 441.66), Encode mode: Nvenc, Render As: Magix Avc,

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

VP version: 16 (VP Build number: 424)

Render frame size: FHD: Render time: 00m:49s, FPS: 10 to 16 (so around 13)

Render frame size: UHD: Render time: 01m:27s, FPS: 10 to 16 (so around 13)

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

VP version: 17 VP (Build number: 387)

Render frame size: FHD: Render time: 00m:50s, FPS: around 11

Render frame size: UHD: Render time: 01m:21s, FPS: around 11

JN- wrote on 1/31/2020, 8:57 AM

@bitman Congrats on the upgrade, I’ll get back shortly with the update.

JN- wrote on 1/31/2020, 9:21 AM

@bitman I've updated your latest results.

1 2 3 4 … 15

of 15