@MP- Truly excellent. I will update your results later. A mate of mine is doing a new VP PC build later this year, for sure I will be pointing him towards this HW setup.

@MP- Also, can you confirm if the single previous Avg. FPS playback rate for region 1 has not changed from 8.3? If it has, can you supply the new one and update all 4 of your previous benchmarking results with the single value, thanks.

I had changed it already everywhere to 17.5

@MP- 👍

@MP- Is updated now.

@MP- Just one more thing. Can you also confirm that the two rendered out files, FHD and UHD are indeed 41 seconds duration?

The reason I am querying you on all of this is that I find it amazing that simply flashing the MB bios would have such an improvement. Anyway, do humour me, thanks.

 

The reason I am querying you on all of this is that I find it amazing that simply flashing the MB bios would have such an improvement. Anyway, do humour me, thanks.

I am in AMD world now, but In case of 9900K bios can change performance dramatically. I think it all stems down to Intel wanting to pretend it's chips were much more efficient then they were, so had a fake TDP of 95watts, when most bios's and motherboards on auto would deliver 150w, and 200w when overclocked
There's also a an all core maximum frequency that can differ from maybe 5 seconds to 30 seconds depending on bios setting and then throttle down. Some cheaper motherboards were locked to the 95 tdp, while others set to 95w but the majority left to auto

light blue =tdp setting or locked MB, dark blue - Auto

@lenard @MP- Maybe. Very interesting. I have a responsibility, which I take seriously, to all of the other users that went to the trouble of posting their results here to make sure, as much as is humanly possible, that the results here are ok. Human error is always a possibility. It has happened here previously with erroneously posted results, thankfully I got to the bottom of the few previous discrepancies. I will wait for MP to confirm definitely that his new results are error free, that he didn’t accidentally render out the region 1, or say another accidentally selected loop region. So my query about the rendered out clips duration, I forgot to ask this earlier.

Hi @JN- on a separate note, have you considered creating a template submission form (for example with google forms)? It would give you data already in the format needed for the spreadsheet and reduce the chance of user error. You could require an email address so you can ask follow-up questions.

@RogerS Thanks for the suggestion, in fairness to the users, they already have enough things to double check before posting their results. I only ever query in this way when the results are so standout, so this is the exception, on my part, but important nevertheless.

Anyway, waiting on MP to respond, bedtime.

It would make it easier for users to give scores. I was considering sharing to the Vegas Facebook groups but think it's a bit too tough to deal with the settings screenshots and then manual notepad entry.

@lenard @MP- Maybe. Very interesting. I have to make sure, as much as is humanly possible, that the results here are ok. Human error is always a possibility.

Yes, that's why I like the idea that his human error was with his bios, and he was running it in 165TDP mode, when he flashed the new bios, the default was to use all the power it needed, in all core mode the difference is 1Ghz per core (3.4 vs 4.4) . Also with X299 motherboards I was reading default actually is 165w, but as soon as you turn xmp on, bios guess's you know what you're doing and switches off the power limit. Certainly worth checking he did the benchmark ok, but if he did, the oddness with intel power limits may explain away what you're seeing

@JN- You are quite right - and I want to provide as much info as possible. Fora like this are very important to help users and creators. Really appreciate what you do.

I reproduced again today all tests and I do confirm with a minor change (FHD - VCE rendering is 00.29sec, not 30sec)

Basically, the CPU usage remains more or less steady in UHD rendering (I observed only 15-18% today) and in FHD rendering (35-50%) without any spikes and stuttering.

If you follow visually the rendering, you can still notice less speed at the sections where I had observed it before but after 25% of the project (after 00.07 - 'NEW: Dynamic Storyboarding workflow') the video preview runs very-very fast.

> Before resolving this:

- I had already tried all possible BIOS settings that might affect the CPU power management or performance, including XMP (had given minimal gains) and

- had tried maximum CPU OC (did not provide any improvements at all of rendering times).

- AMD 6800XT GPU OC had provided minimal gains of a couple of seconds.

- I had also tried the project in Win safe boot mode, I had uninstalled any other possible app that might interfere etc.

> Why the new BIOS firmware made the trick? (the new firmare was published on 19/1/2021 and by chance I noticed it a coupe of days ago)

As I wrote above: apparently, the i9 10980XE when in heavy load requires a lot of power (from 165 goes to 345W I think) and the motherboard prior to flashing was not able to provide it without stuttering - limitations.

I had bought the motherboard rather cheap (<300EUR) in order to save some money, while it is a very basic one and apparently its summer firmware was not up to date for using with this CPU. Now I see the same firmware (901) is applicable to all Asus high-end X299 motherboards.

So now that you have one of the fastest vegas benchmark computers here, you'll still be left asking 'why won't vegas use my cpu' and nobody will be able to give you a good explanation. People with 3900x/3950x, even 8core cpu's see the wasted potential in a huge amount of GPU and CPU going unused. Common belief is the vegas core is a decade old and not optimised for such CPU's or GPU's, but you still have one of the fastest vegas computers

@MP- “and I want to provide as much info as possible” Splendid.

So ... “Can you also confirm that the two rendered out files, FHD and UHD are indeed 41 seconds duration?”

Thank you.

@RogerS

It would make it easier for users to give scores. I was considering sharing to the Vegas Facebook groups but think it's a bit too tough to deal with the settings screenshots and then manual notepad entry.

Understood. Maybe give them a link to the existing zip file? I wasn’t thinking of facebook when we started this. I am not a facebook user. The question arises, are all users that have contributed their data here in the forum to this thread ok with it being ported, or even linked to facebook? If the answer is yes thats fine then.

If there is no user issue with the above, and you think the wider audience would benefit, by all means run with it. 

What I mean by that is, I am not interested in changing my methology of acquiring and posting results from within the forum. If you wish to do the work, with a view to changing acquisition of data and sharing elsewhere then you can take over from here.

Hi JN, I don't want the benchmark data itself posted on Facebook. I want people who are not users of this forum but members of Vegas FB groups to contribute data. This thread is already accessible via Google Search and it is a public forum so there is no privacy issue.

Logistically though they'd have to become forum members and then deal with the difficulty of the .txt formats and proper render settings and on top of that different reporting for combinations of AVC/HEVC/UHD/FHD. It's too much.

I don't think the current approach scales and it would be more useful if there were more responses. The benchmarkers are mostly heavy users with custom systems, so I guess bragging rights is one motivation. I thought we could use more ordinary computers that reflected what more Vegas users actually use.

It's easy to create a google form that records data in the format of the spreadsheet you use. You could just cut and paste it all as a single row. I could create that for you if you don't know how, but if it doesn't fit with your methodology I don't need to bother.

@RogerS “This thread is already accessible via Google Search and it is a public forum so there is no privacy issue.”

Well that resolves the privacy issue, I guess. If any of what you are suggesting involves more work on my part, and not less then I'm not interested.

My offer to you still stands, if you want to do this, then take over this benchmarking project completely, otherwise I am ok with entering the data from within the vp forum as needs arise.

Its easy to overlook the obvious, but this is very much a minority interest. Even so, the 26 contributions so far is more than when done in, I think, 2012.

It would be of interest to know what the previous contributors think of this, and I don’t mean only the moderators.

Hi JN-, how is it more work to cut and paste a row of data from a spreadsheet than reformat it from the vertical format you are currently dealing with in this thread? You are cutting and pasting one line at a time, no? And there are numerous user errors forcing you go to back and verify if they meant FHD, etc. I see it as an alternate input method that saves time and reduces the error rate.

I think it is useful as a number of people complain VP is slow or they are not sure if their systems are working right. It serves as a reference for comparison. They'd benefit from this as much as the superusers who currently populate the benchmark chart.

Addition: it's fine to hold off on Facebook for now. They can join us here as well. It would be good to get more forum users here to participate and I think easing data entry would help.

@MP- “and I want to provide as much info as possible” Splendid.

So ... “Can you also confirm that the two rendered out files, FHD and UHD are indeed 41 seconds duration?”

Thank you.

I do confirm 41 sec.

@RogerS One more thing. When Kinvermark set the ball rolling on this, he got feedback from Magix that they may well roll out their own benchmarking project. Surely that would be the best way forward.

They, Magix, could well be able to add in the capability of properly monitoring the correct Avg. FPS values, in a way thats not possible, within my capabilities, with this project. That would add great value to it, and frankly, its a bit of guesswork getting the fps values, notwithstanding the efforts by all users who have done their best to do so.

@MP- “and I want to provide as much info as possible” Splendid.

So ... “Can you also confirm that the two rendered out files, FHD and UHD are indeed 41 seconds duration?”

Thank you.

I do confirm 41 sec.

Ok.