NEW: Rendertest-2010

LReavis wrote on 6/11/2011, 5:03 PM

"I continue to be a little skeptical of some of the results. In particular, there is a huge difference between rendering with the "best" and "good" setting."

Maybe, but from what I've read elsewhere, the 2600k may be faster than the 980x/970 at the same clock speed, so perhaps the significantly faster times reported above for the 2600k may be correct.

I just upped the RAM preview in Vegas 10 to 1.5 GB and got slightly better time:

1:47, or 107 seconds - with a clock speed of 4.172 gHz. Tested after reboot, best rendering quality.

Still not as fast as Kkolbo's 104 seconds, with his 980x water cooled at 4.27 - entirely as expected. I may yet pull up the heat sink, wipe off the paste and re-apply. Perhaps there really are bubble in the paste (result of my foolishly pulling up the heat sink to check the spread) that are interfering with heat transfer. This system boots nicely at 4.3 gHz - maybe higher if I up the voltage a bit more. Would be nice to run it nearer 5 gHz if better heat transfer would keep down the temps.

The reason I'm suspicious is that I got a huge boost in speed by overclocking the 940 with this same heat sink - about 60%, but not quite 30% with this 970. Of course, it could be that the 940 was unusually good, while this 970 is just so-so.

Maybe someone can affirm that the fast time for the 2600k really was obtained with "best" render setting?

Myerz wrote on 6/12/2011, 12:39 PM

I just came in at 210 seconds....

I did a re-boot and my rendering time dropped by almost 1 minute.

I noticed that in the data request page there's no request for how much RAM my Pc has. Isn't this a point of interest by most?

Steve Mann wrote on 6/12/2011, 3:01 PM

"there's no request for how much RAM my Pc has"

Good idea. I've added that field. Anyone who wishes to send me a message with the name or email you used when you entered the data, I can manually add your RAM for you.

I also increased the threads field. The max was 12-threads, it's now 24-threads.

I also took out the "look at" option because it was not working right. You can still download the CSV file.

Steve Mann

Grazie wrote on 7/18/2011, 3:29 AM

Oooh! - 158 seconds. I'm very pleased with "The BEAST!"

Previously it was 500 seconds.

Grazie

Zelkien69 wrote on 7/20/2011, 2:06 PM

New Laptop - HP DV7qe
i7-2720 @ 2.2Ghz on 4-cores 3.3Ghz on 2-cores
8GB Ram DDR3 1600Mhz
1GB ATI 6770 Video card (not that it matters)
Dual 750GB 7200RPM Drives with O.S. & Vegas on #1 and Media on #2

205 seconds.

I did run End It All before the render. Always seems to help.
Not bad for a laptop that cost $1400 (after the $600 off coupon that made it possible.)

megabit wrote on 8/9/2011, 12:36 PM

So I tested it with my "latest and greatest" Dell Precision M6600 i7-2920XM laptop, running several apps i the background (the most taxing one being Windows Backup to a fire-wire drive).

Took 190 secs. I'll repeat in a more optimized circumstances

Piotr

megabit wrote on 8/9/2011, 12:42 PM

OK, so after my Windows Backup (run at High Priority) completed,I rerun he test and it's now 167 seconds!

Frankythefly wrote on 9/13/2011, 1:09 AM

I have been trying to determine if SSD help in rendering, and I was forward from another thread to this one to conduct this test.

I am running a 2600k at stock settings
16 gigs GSkill at 1600
OCZ Vertex raided with a Corsair GT Running at 1000mb/s read/write

Results: 102 Seconds

I am going to try a modest overclock and see if it improves, I will also see if I can get 2100 mhz out of the ram.

Guitartoys wrote on 11/24/2011, 10:11 PM

Windows Version:7 64-bit
RAM:12GB
Processor:Dual Xeon Hex Core 3.46GHz
Video Card:Dual EVGA GTX 580 SLI
Sound Card:Native Instruments Komplete Audio 6
Video Capture:Direct F/W or Canopus ADVC110
DVD Burner:Plextor BD-R PX-B940SA
Add. Comments: LSI SAS 9265-8i - 4 OCZ Vertex 3 120GB SSDs in RAID 0, 4 WD Black 2TB in RAID 5. All water cooled
Three ASUS 26" displays, all 3-D capable.

38 Seconds

Steve Mann wrote on 11/24/2011, 10:27 PM

And the motherboard?

Guitartoys wrote on 11/24/2011, 10:30 PM

eVGA SR-2 M/B
Each Xeon has its own 6GB of RAM

jpasarela wrote on 11/25/2011, 8:27 PM

Windows 7 64-bit
RAM:16GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 mHz
CPU: I7 2600K @ 4.4gHz
Video Card: 2X Gigabyte GTX 570 OC SLI
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD5
Vegas 11 Pro

41 Seconds

cohibaman#1 wrote on 11/26/2011, 6:33 PM

Vegas 11 Pro
Windows 7 Pro 64-bit
CPU: I7 2600K @ 3.4gHz
RAM:16GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 mHz
Video Card: Diamond Radeon 6970
Motherboard: Asrock Fatal1ty Z68 Professional Gen3
WD 1TB Caviar Black Sata 3 64MB Cache System Drive
64GB Kingston SSD used for Intel Rapid Storage Technology cache
WD 2TB Caviar Black Sata 3 64MB Cache as storage drive

41 Seconds

ritsmer wrote on 11/27/2011, 4:24 AM

Did the test again with my old Mac Pro "Early 2008" model - but now with Vegas 11 /425 64 bit.

2 x Xeon quad cores
8 GB RAM
Geforce GTS 450 Graphics card
Windows 7 64 Ultimate
3 "normal" HDDs

Results:
Without GPU assist: 192 secs at 12 threads and 600 MB Preview RAM. CPU 99% GPU 3%
With GPU assist: 120 seconds at 3 threads and 70 MB Preview RAM. CPU 32% GPU 81% average.

If I compare with the last entries above (about 40 seconds) I start to think that a faster graphics card might improve the speed significantly - in this test, that is.
My daily work media (1080i AVCHD to 1080i mpeg-2, few FXs) renders with some 20-30 percent GPU only - and as the GPU has plenty of spare power in this case, I can not really imagine that a faster graphics card will improve the overall rendering speed.

dxdy wrote on 11/27/2011, 7:11 AM

What struck me about the reports 2 and 3 posts prior to this one, was the same CPU at two different clock speeds, but the identical result of 41 seconds.

Wi3Z wrote on 11/27/2011, 10:09 AM

Just did the test with and without GPU assist with Vegas 11.
with assist: 68 sec
without assist: 226 sec

Dell 8300 XPS
i7 2600 3.4gig
8 gig ram
AMD HD 6770 1 gig ram
Windows 7 home
1.5 tb 7200rpm HD

CPU usage is anywhere between 55 and 70% during the render with GPU assist. Don't know what the GPU is.
The computer is set up as bought from Microcenter for $949.00.
Have not had any crashes and using the lastest drivers from AMD.

I'm happy so far.

ushere wrote on 11/27/2011, 7:46 PM

reprise.

original - 286 sec
i7 / 920 / 6gb ram / (gts 240?) / win7 / 64bit

now 88 sec
i7 / 920 / 12gb ram / gtx 550ti / win7 / sp1 / 64bit

(WOW!)

LReavis wrote on 11/28/2011, 5:58 PM

@ Guitartoys

What do you get when you use CPU-only render?

Grazie wrote on 11/29/2011, 12:40 AM

I'm very impressed . . .

On "Render-Test-2010"

GPU off = 232 seconds

GPU on = 63 seconds

That's 3.7x faster with GPU engaged.

Video Card: 2GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 560 Ti

Windows Version: 7 64-bit

RAM: 16gb

Processor: Intel® Core™i7-2600k Quad Core 3.40GHz

IAM4UK wrote on 11/30/2011, 10:31 AM

Vegas 11 64-bit in Win7x64SP1
i7-960 stock speed of 3.20GHz
ASUS P6X58D Premium Mobo
12 GB DDR3
AMD Radeon HD 5750 (single)

Render with GPU assist: 76 seconds

FilmingPhotoGuy wrote on 11/30/2011, 10:41 PM

The "New Rendertest-2010" is so last year. It's time John for Rendertest 2012 before the the world ends.

TheRhino wrote on 2/8/2013, 1:48 AM

I started using V12.486 for some small paid projects. Just for kicks I decided to run Rendertest-2010 to see the difference between V12 & v10e on my aging 980X 6-core system with no GPU rendering capability.

V12 CPU only: 50 seconds with 70% or less CPU use during render
V11 CPU only: 50 seconds with 70% or less CPU use during render
V10e CPU only: 34 seconds with 100% CPU use during render

These tests were done with the recommended Rendertest-2010 HDV settings, video rendering quality set to BEST, and Dynamic RAM Preview set to 200. OS & Rendertest VEG are on a fast SSD. Target video was rendered to a fast RAID0 drive.

These results match my results for HD work. On my 980X I still do most projects in V10e because renders complete 30%-40% faster using 100% of the CPU throughout the entire render. The only time I switch to V11 or V12 is when I need to use a new feature not present in V10.

I have yet to see a GPU that will beat my 980X render speeds in V10e. However, I am disappointed that V11 & V12 do not use 100% of the CPU... Can anyone else confirm these results? For those using the new Sandybridge 6-core CPUs like teh 3930K, does V11 or V12 use 100% of the CPU?

JohnnyRoy wrote on 2/8/2013, 6:27 AM

> " For those using the new Sandybridge 6-core CPUs like teh 3930K, does V11 or V12 use 100% of the CPU?"

I have a stock Intel Core i7-3930K Sandy Bridge-E 3.2GHz and rendered with GPU turned on and off and here are my findings:

V12 CPU: 51 seconds with 50% or less CPU utilization 0% GPU
V12 GPU: 89 seconds with 20% or less CPU utilization 93% GPU

So in that particular test, my $800 Quadro 4000 takes 50% longer and my CPU's are no where near fully utilized. I wonder if the parent compositing that is used in the test is GPU accelerated? If not, it could explain the difference. Still, I'm not happy with the results.

~jr

john_dennis wrote on 2/8/2013, 11:37 AM

I was surprised to find the following results since this test is based on MPEG-2 and I'm using mostly AVC these days.

My system = i7-3770k, Video = On-die HD4000 adapter. Vegas Pro 12-486

CPU Only: 207 Seconds @ around 69% CPU

Screenshots here.