NEW Rendertest-HDV.veg

jrazz wrote on 5/11/2009, 7:58 AM

Hulk, I think you read my post wrong- my render speeds were cut in half (a little better than half) and that is without changing anything in internal prefs. Now the maximum default render threads is set to 16 and preview is set to 4- by default.

Edit: okay, I went back and looked and saw that I posted two different sets of results with a 4 month time gap. I must have upgraded something- just not sure what. So, it does look like my render times are the same as with 8.1.

j razz

Christian de Godzinsky wrote on 5/11/2009, 1:54 PM

Hi,

I'm not that over-enthusiastic about render time improvement, after my first and limited test!

Im running the following: A quad Core QX9650 @ 3,81GHz, 8G DDR3 @ 1600MHz, ASUS mobo, Vista x64.

John's new rendertest produces the following (at 8-bit processing):

VP8.0c: 1:22 (82 seconds)
VP8.1 : 1:21 (81 seconds)
VP9.0 (32bit) : 1:11 (71 seconds)

All tests at best quality at the project default settings and rendered as recommended. The impromement is a little more than 10%. That is ofcourse always welcome, but is not as drastical as a halving of the render time, as claimed elsewhere...

I still wonder if this release already utilizes the SSE4 instructions, which should increase the render speed?

I will test other combinations (32 bit processing and the 64 bit VP version) soon.

Christian

Porpoise1954 wrote on 5/12/2009, 8:10 AM

Just installed V9 32bit on my HP laptop - Intel Core 2 Duo 2.0GHz w. 3GB RAM - Vista Business 32bit

V8c does the Rendertest-HDV in 5:14

V9 does the Rendertest-HDV in 2:11

That's LESS THAN HALF the time!! To me, that's a pretty amazing improvement in any language! Maybe V9 is better optimised for lower end systems!?!

EDIT:
OK. Just installed V9 64bit on my PC: Quad core Phenom 2.50GHz, Vista Ultimate x64.

V9x64 does the Rendertest-HDV in 0:33

V8.0c does the Rendertest-HDV in 0:34

V8.1 does the Rendertest-HDV in 0:34

That kind of backs up my theory that there is more difference to be seen on lower end systems.

RevJonG wrote on 5/12/2009, 11:03 AM

On my New Laptop:

HP HDX18T 1200
Q9300 2.53GHZ 4GB Ram 2 X 250GB HDrives
Vista Ultimate 64

Vegas Pro 9 64 =1:39

Vegas 8c = 2:11

mdopp wrote on 5/12/2009, 12:10 PM

On my MacPro (2008 model with 2x 2,8 GHz quad core and 8 GB RAM running Vista Ultimate 64):

8.0b = 1:50 (4 Threads)
8.1 = 1:36 (4 Threads)
8.1 = 0:53 (8 Threads)
9.0(64) = 0:50 (8 Threads)

Edit: I should add that all of the above were made with Video Quality "15" and Render Quality "best" (i.e. the default values).

Hulk wrote on 5/12/2009, 12:16 PM

I just tested one of my computers with V8 and V9 and am showing no 32 bit rendering improvement with this rendertest. We have to be sure we are using the exact same testing methodology here.

1. "Render As" then for "Save as Type" select "Mainconcept MPEG-2"
2. Template should be "HDV 1080-60i"
3. Verify "rendering quality" is set to "best." This is in the "project" tab of the rendering dialog in V9 and "project properties."
4. Make sure "Video Quality" is set to 15 in the video tab of the rendering dialog.

My Core2Duo 3.0GHz results.

V8 - 3:36
V9 - 3:38

Finally there is no way "lower end" machines will show larger improvements than higher end machines. First of all this test is completely CPU bound. Forget about how much RAM you have, how fast your hard drive is, or what graphics card you have. Doesn't matter unless you have 30 applications open and Vegas is starved for memory.

Second, "low end" CPU's, if anything, have LESS instructions, cache, and generally higher multipliers (lower FSB) so if anything, per MHz will perform worse than higher end parts.

If your results are out of line with most others then I suggest you check my instructions and re-run the test before replying.

I apologize if I'm sounding like a "know it all." I ran a rendertest website for many years when I was a MediaStudio Pro user and got very familar with the ins and outs of reporting on such tests. With that being said I have been wrong many times in the past and wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong here. I'd just like to make sure we're all running the test in the exact same manner.

- Mark

Porpoise1954 wrote on 5/12/2009, 4:42 PM

Mark,

I didn't mean that V9 is better optimised for lower spec systems than higher spec systems - I meant that it seems to be better optimised for lower spec systems than V8 is (optimised for lower spec systems).

this is borne out by the fact that there is very little difference in the render times between V8 & V9 (32bit or 64bit) on my higher spec desktop PC, whereas on my laptop V9 renders in half the time it takes V8 to render (32bit).

Steve

EDIT:
But on the laptop times, V9 takes over 4x PC time and V8 takes over 10x PC time

Hulk wrote on 5/12/2009, 7:18 PM

Steve,

I'm not saying that it is impossible but it is very unlikely.

Are you positive you didn't render at "good" on your laptop with V9 or some other such thing that would reduce render times?

Just run it again verifying all settings to be sure...

- Mark

xberk wrote on 5/12/2009, 8:06 PM

Mark --
I confirm.
I ran the rendertest using same settings as in your post above.
My 8.0c time was actually better than 9.0.
Running Vista 64 Quad Core Q6600 4 gigs of ram.
Testing in 32 bit using 9.0 32 bit.

9.0 = 3 min 50 sec
8.0c = 3 min 20 sec.

Not cool. The video quality in 8.0c seemed to default to 31. Putting it at 15 made all difference in rendering times.

neilslade wrote on 5/13/2009, 3:25 PM

My Results-- Q6450 ASUS P5KC 8 GB ram

I ran the tests twice to make sure.

SUMMARY:

The 32 bit version of 9.0 showed a small improvement rendering AVI to MPEG2 over 8.1 , but still quite a bit slower than the 64 bit version of 8.0 in XP64 OS which
is preferred for this type of rendering.

A bit of improvement on Cline's render test
9.0(64) 12 seconds faster than 8.1(64) from 1:42 to 1:30

AVI to MPEG2 (DVD Arch. 24P)- 8.0 in 64 bit systems still is the best,
but now only by a slight margin over 8.1 and 9.0(64)

The question of course, is this all worth a $250 upgrade with the other
changes in 9.0? I'm certainly not running to the store, but anyone buying Vegas for
the first time should be happy, as always.

Improved render times alone in 9.0 (64) should not be sufficient reason to upgrade unless you have so much money that you don't know what to do with it.

John Cline's HD Render test

9.0 XP64 8GB 1:30 8 threads

8.1 XP64 8GB 1:42

8.1 VISTA64 8GB 1:43

8.0 XP64 8GB 1:53

9.0(32) XP32 4GB 1:56 4 threads

8.0 XP32 4GB 1:59 8GB O/C 3.4 1:33

8.0 VISTA64 4GB 2:03 8GB 2:00

AVI to MPEG2 3 minute

8.0 XP64 8GB 1:13

8.0 VISTA64 8GB 1:22

9.0 XP64 8GB 1:25 8 threads

9.0 XP32 4GB 1:30 4 threads

8.1 XP64 8GB 1:34

8.0 XP32 4GB 2:01

Neil Slade
http://www.BrainRadar.com
http://www.EasyPaintYourCar.com
http://www.InkJetHelper.com
http://www.MyOwnPublishing.com

srode wrote on 5/13/2009, 6:24 PM

8.1 Vegas - 1:28 seconds
9.0 64 bit - 1:21 seconds

Q6600 at 3.33Ghz with 8GB ram

the real world speed difference for me is in rendering AVCHD (all my source material is this) with no recompression enabled - a 13 minute video 1920x1080 with 32 bit pixels and 9 transitions completed in just under 13 minutes - on 8.0 that would have taken well over an hour and 8.1 won't ven handle AVCHD to 1920x1080.

quoka wrote on 5/13/2009, 10:01 PM

Dual Quadcore Xeons. 8 GB Ram. 16 Render Threads.

8.1 64 bit - 54 seconds.
9.0 64 bit - 38 seconds.

Sounds too good to be true, buts real.

neilslade wrote on 5/14/2009, 12:29 PM

I appreciate hearing some differences that I am naturally missing. I'm limited
to my standard definition DVX100 video at the moment-- so maybe the big advantage
to V9 is in these other formats- which at present don't apply to my own situation.

I don't have 16 threads, i.e. limited to a single quad processor-- and may not be taking advantage of what V9 is capable of at present.-
Neil

zstevek wrote on 5/14/2009, 8:05 PM

8.1 Vista 64bit - AMD Phenom 9100e Quad-core (1.8 GHz): 6:35

9.0 Vista 64bit - same processor above: 5:01.

8 GB of Ram

Avanti wrote on 5/15/2009, 1:07 PM

Update:

With Vegas 9 and 64 bit Vista and 8 gig of ram, the render time is 1:41 a huge difference.

=============================================
old times:

I've run the hdv render test a few time on my Dell XPS 420 which has:
Intel Quad cpu Q9300 @ 2.5 ghz
4 mb ram
Vista 32 bit
Vegas 8.0c build 260
4 render threads
RAM preview 128
Nothing else running, no virus software, and Vista tweaked to run faster.

I get slow render times of 4:09
On one render I watched the Resource monitor and it said the CPU was 100% but the memory was at 37%

video production austin

video production houston

JJKizak wrote on 5/16/2009, 6:22 AM

Upgraded from Q6600 to Q9650. 2.15 min. to 1.43 min. V9.0 32
2.15 min. to 1.22 min. V9.0 64
No overclocking. 8 gig 667 ram. V9.0 in Vista 64. Using defaults.
JJK

neilslade wrote on 5/18/2009, 9:33 PM

Today I rendered a real world project for me today-
24P standard Definition DVX100 footage of a Belly Dance Recital, 56 minute program with some Text Media, Chroma Blur effect, fades, audio volume fades, Brightness and Contrast Effect, and Saturation Adjust.

This was uncompressed AVI to MPEG-2 DVD Architect 24P Widescreen.

Per all my tests, I just used 8.0 in XP64-- render time was a fabulous 16 minutes.

Wow, barely time to eat my cheese sandwich.

neilslade wrote on 5/19/2009, 1:45 PM

Here's something to consider before you do your next project with the Trial Version of Vegas 9-- something that dawned on my when starting my new DVD-

Sony makes a 30 day fully functional version of V9 available for free- so say you've paid for 8.0 or 8.1 and you figure-- "Hey! I use the Trial version and do my whole new project on the 'best' new version! Yeah!!"

So you spend a couple dozen (or even less) hours using V9, and your project looks great. BUT 31 days later-- you've got to make a few changes.

You won't be able to open up the project in any earlier versions. To open the project, you will have to send $250 to Sony for the upgrade.

Think carefully- :-)

Neil

FilmingPhotoGuy wrote on 6/5/2009, 12:47 PM

Just upgraded to Intel i7 2.66 with 6gigs RAM, Nvidia 250 GTS. XP 64bit SP2. Rendered with Sony Vegas Pro 9.

I render the Rendertest-HDV in 9 seconds. All 8 cores shoot up to 80% till the jobs done. Please check that my settings are set according to the standard rendertest setting for this.

Save as type "MainConcept MPEG-2(*.mpg.......)
Render to HDV 1080-60i template.

Umm where do I set the quality to "Best"?

- Craig

eVoke wrote on 6/6/2009, 3:42 AM

I received a render time of 5:06 under 8.0c with the following specs

32bit System Specs:
OS: Win XP Pro SP3
Motherboard: MSI K9 SLI Platinum
CPU: AMD 64X2 Dual Core 6000+ @ 3GHz
RAM: G.Skill DDR2 800MHz 4GB [4x1GB]
GPU: XFX Nvidia GeForce 8600GT dual DVI

I'll post render times under Pro 9 with my Quadcore 64bit machine later on this weekend

Thomas wrote on 6/7/2009, 11:26 AM

Coming from P4 2GHz now working on Core 2 Quad 9550 at 2.83GHz gives me an acceleration by 18.8 :-) ... at a "reasonable" investment and non profit use.

Vegas Pro 9 32Bit on P4 2GHz: 29:26
Vegas Pro 9 32Bit on Core 2 Quad 9550: 1:58
Vegas Pro 9 64Bit on Core 2 Quad 9550: 1:34

neilslade wrote on 6/12/2009, 8:14 PM

As I've reported earlier, some types of rendering actually still render noticably faster on good old 8.0c.

I recently finished a one hour DVD project-- AVI SD widescreen from a DVX-100 Panasonic camera- I rendered it to MPEG-2 for DVD architect.

I rendered both in Windows XP64--- now, this is in keeping with my previous findings, and it surprised me not-- All settings were the same, although I could render more threads in Vegas 9---ready?

One Hour SD 720X480 AVI to MPEG2 DVD Architect

Vegas 9 23:18
Vegas 8 17:24

Don't throw out V8 yet-- as for me, I'll continue to keep V8 as my main system as AVI to MPEG2 is my main use for Vegas at present, and since you can't render V9 projects in V8

John_Cline wrote on 6/12/2009, 10:15 PM

There are a couple of things that can affect the speed of an MPEG2 render; one is the video rendering quality setting and the other is the "video quality" slider setting in the Main Concept MPEG2 custom settings. Were both of these settings set the same for both render tests?

FilmingPhotoGuy wrote on 6/14/2009, 4:38 AM

You're right John. My earlier render of 9 seconds changed to 1:09 when set to BEST.

SV9 should be faster because it now uses multiple processors (if available) Rendering your "rendertest-hdv" all 8 processors sit on 100% but using SV8 it never did.

- Craig