NEW Rendertest-HDV.veg

John_Cline wrote on 5/8/2007, 9:50 AM

I ran the rendertest.veg file today on my QX6700 Quad machine to see if there was any difference between Vegas v7.0d and v7.0e. I had been getting 14 second renders in 7.0d, but I am now getting consistent 12 second renders in v7.0e.

Since the render times were getting close to the 10-second range and Vegas only reports render times in 1-second increments, I thought that perhaps it was appropriate to increase the "time resolution" of the test by making it a bit more "intense," so I modified the original rendertest.veg file for HDV. I increased the resolution of all the generated media and set the project properties for "HDV 1080-60i" and rendered it out as HDV using the default MPEG2 "HDV 1080-60i" template at the "Best" render setting. My machine rendered it in exactly 120 seconds.

If anyone else wants to try the new, modified test file and report their results back to this thread, I have uploaded the VEG file to my web site:

rendertest-hdv.veg

John

Back to post

Comments

Mahesh wrote on 6/15/2009, 1:37 AM

Core 2 Duo with 4Gb Ram

REndertest HDV-NTSC set at Best
threads=2
V9 - 141 seconds
V8 - 244 seconds

threads=4
V9 - 243 seconds
V8 - 244 seconds

Render to AVI by changing 'REndertest HDV-NTSC set at Best' to 720 x 480 NTSC.
V9 - 28 seconds
V8 - 17 Seconds.

( edit)
I mainly work in SD but to use V9 to its full potential, I am about to upgrade to i7 quad core.
(Edit again to clarify SD render )

Leopardman wrote on 6/28/2009, 2:47 AM

Core 2 Quad Q6600 clocked to 2.55Ghz
4Gb Ram
Vista 64 SP2

Preview Ram set to 700Mb
2 x Raid 0 drives plus O/S on seperate Sata drive
Render set at Best

Rendered to NTSC PAL mpg videostream

Vegas 9 64-bit
28 seconds

Vegas 9 32-bit
39 seconds

Spotted Cat Productions

musicvid10 wrote on 6/28/2009, 9:35 AM

If these times get much lower, we're going to need a new Rendertest to really stress the new processors on 64 bit OS.

neilslade wrote on 7/8/2009, 12:32 PM

I absolutely checked and double checked all my settings-- exactly the same in all my tests, on multiple occasions.

To repeat, 64 bit operating systems were faster than 32 bit systems, this is clear.

But my most recent project, rendering an hour long 720X480 AVI (from SD DVX-100 footage) version 8.0 slays version 9.0--- everything the same.

This does not come as a huge shock to me, as we often see "new improved" technology getting bogged down in "upgrades".

Hour Long video AVI to MPEG2 DVD Architech Good setting-- a few effects added.

Vegas 9 23:18
Vegas 8 17:24

Now, we're only talking about SIX minutes-- a 30% slow down on something that's finishing up in less than 25 minutes on V9. I don't think this is anything to really be concerned about, even if one's made the switch.

But in my opinion, if V8 is working for you- it should not be assumed that you are going to get $500 worth of improvements- if any- for upgrading. I think one really needs to asses one's actual use, needs, and improvements before making Sony that much richer.

I love Vegas, and for me it's the best thing out there. But I am always cautious about expensive upgrades, and in the case of Vegas, I look at new versions with more than a grain of salt.

Melachrino wrote on 7/12/2009, 9:04 PM

Since this thread pushed me to update my PC I will contribute my speed test results.

Before> HDV Speed Test File> Vegas 8.0c P4 2.6 GHz Hyperthread HP Windows Xp : 19 minutes 35 seconds.

Now> HDV Test File> Vegas 8.0c AMD Phenom X4 Quad 910 HP Windows Vista 64 bit 8GB DDR : 2 minutes 47 seconds.

I wonder what Vegas 8.1 will do ....

LReavis wrote on 8/29/2009, 4:21 PM

almost 2 years ago I posted here that I was running a Q6600 with G0 stepping at 3.148 gHz with core temps reaching no more than 54 degrees C. Since then, dust has impaired my cooler (probably) and now have to run at 2.7 gHz with temps approaching 60 degrees under heavy rendering.

I thought maybe it was time to build a new system, but want to wait for USB3 on motherboard, and faster CPUs (I was getting 1:48 rendering at my highest OC speed - probably I could double the speed with a new system - but not worth the time spent getting everything installed, debugged, etc.). Although I have paid for Win7 and will upgrade to 64 bit come Oct. 22. In the meantime . . .

I'm thinking maybe water cooling is the way to go to get my speed back up and temps down. In suggestions for the cooler?

John_Cline wrote on 8/29/2009, 4:31 PM

"dust has impaired my cooler (probably)"

Uhhh, why don't you blow it out with a can of compressed air?

Christian de Godzinsky wrote on 8/30/2009, 4:20 AM

Hi,

A quick rendertest update after switching to WIN7 (x64) and VP 9.0b

Render time: 1:11 or 71 seconds
===========================

This was 1:22 = 82 seconds (on Vista x64 and VP8.0c 64 bit) before upgrading to VP9.0b and WIN7

My configuration is as follows:
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate, X64
Mobo: ASUS P5E3 DeLuxe Wifi-AP, Bios 0903
CPU: Intel Quad Core 2 Extreme QX9650 @ 3.80GHz
GPU: NVIDIA Geoforce 8800GT 512MB DDR3
DRAM: 8GByte @ 1600MHz (2 x 2GB DD3, Corsair TWIN3X4096-1600C7DHXIN)
Internal HD: Total 1TB (2 x 500GB Samsung HD501LJ SATA 2.0

Seems that the latest upgrades are really worth installing...

Christian

ritsmer wrote on 8/30/2009, 7:42 AM

Is "VP9.0c" Vegas 8.0c or is it Vegas 9.0a ?? :-)

rs170a wrote on 8/30/2009, 7:52 AM

"dust has impaired my cooler (probably)"

Uhhh, why don't you blow it out with a can of compressed air?

It could be that the heat sink paste has broken down.
After blowing my machine out earlier this year and temps still not coming down, I took it in, had it checked out and that's what the problem was.
A fresh application of some good paste and temps were back to normal :-)

Mike

Christian de Godzinsky wrote on 8/30/2009, 11:39 AM

Sorry ritsmer for my typo, I have now corrected it.

So, before when I had Vista Ultimate x64 and VP8.0c 64 bit) the render time was 82 seconds... Sorry for the confusion...

Christian

LReavis wrote on 8/31/2009, 12:54 PM

thanks rs170- I have a can of air and considered it, but previous attempts with other computers have yielded only modest improvement. I didn't know that paste could deteriorate - I'm using Arctic Silver.

I'm thinking that if I have to go to all that trouble to take off the cooler, I might as well install a water system - if I can find one that works well and is not too expensive. I figure it'll be a long-term investment that (hopefully) I can transfer to my next computer. That's why I'm looking for recommendations from those who have had good long-term experiences with one.

Former user wrote on 8/31/2009, 3:26 PM

1:05 on my brand spankin new:

i7 940 (2.93 Ghz)
12 GB RAM
Vista 64
Vegas 9.0b 64-bit

I thought the time was off, so I did it again. Flushed the cache and started from scratch. Best quality, 100% resolution render. 65 secs again. Zooom! :-)

ps: yes, I'm having a lot of fun working these days

overyonder wrote on 11/1/2009, 8:25 PM

51 seconds

i7 920 over-clocked to 3.6 (amazingly simple to do)
6GB RAM
Win 7 64
Vegas 9c
after-market cpu cooler

The settings for this test can be confusing:
John C. says he uses the default 1080-60i template, but others have suggested that the "slider" should be set to max (15} . ???
MainConcept MPEG-2 defaults to a m2t file when you use that template... is that the right file type?

I just put this box together and am still using my system drive for everything until my new drives arrive, so maybe better times then.

xberk wrote on 11/1/2009, 11:40 PM

Just did a build on an i5-750. 8 gigs of Ram. Gigabyte motherboard. P55. Win7 64 bit. Vegas 9.0c .. I'm a bit surprised that I didn't get closer to the 51 seconds posted above on the i7-920 overclock. Still my time is about twice as fast as my Q6600.

1:59 .. default 1080-60i template MPEG-2

overyonder wrote on 11/2/2009, 6:17 AM

Elaboaration on my post above -

Settings for test : For some reason, when I used the settings the first time, I got a .mpg extension to my render, and the slider default looked like it had been at half-way point... I try to duplicate those settings now and can't. So, I'm confirming that in the default 1080-60i tab, the slider is at max, and the extension for the render should be m2t. (And Project Prop set at "Best" render)

51 seconds

i7 920 O'C'd to 3.6 gh
Win 7 64
6 gigs RAM
after market cooler

At stock speeds I get 1:06, and (20 degrees C cooler)

Tom Pauncz wrote on 11/2/2009, 8:01 AM

Just got around to doing this on new system using 32-bit Vegas Pro 9.0c..

Specs: i7-860 2.8GHz (no OC), 4GB RAM, nVidia 9800GT 1GB, Asus P7P55D Pro MoBo, WinXP32-SP3.

With default 4 render threads:
To MPEG2 direct - 104sec
To AVI - 47sec
AVI -> MPEG2 - 18sec

With 8 render threads:
To MPEG2 direct - 83sec
To AVI - 37sec
AVI -> MPEG2 - 20sec

Tom

drewU2 wrote on 11/5/2009, 7:16 PM

Just ran the first test with my new pc...here's the specs and results...

Dell Studio XPS 435
Intel i7 940 2.93 (4 cores running at 8 threads)
6gb ddr3 triple channel
2tb 7200rpm hd (2x500gb + 1x1tb)
1gb NVidia GT220 ddr3
Sony Vegas 8.1 64-bit

mpeg2 HDV 1080i - 65 seconds

xberk wrote on 11/10/2009, 6:52 PM

rendertest-hdv.veg
..set the project properties for "HDV 1080-60i" and render it out as HDV using the default MPEG2 "HDV 1080-60i" template at the "Best" render setting.

For clarity in these tests, can you update which template in 9.0c we should use John? I'm getting 84 seconds on my newly built i5-750, 8 gigs ram, Win7 with 9.0c.
If I'm using the right template, that time impresses me for the money spent on the new build. As a practical matter in real world use my typical renders are more than twice as fast as my Q6600 was giving me. A real pleasure!

ushere wrote on 12/31/2009, 6:19 PM

i7 - 920 - 6gb ram

@ 32 bit - 49sec

@ 64 bit - 36sec

9c

leslie

i took the render test from the link just above this post, loaded it into both 32 / 64bit and rendered. seems rather fast compared to others - did i miss any other settings i should have made?

Jeff_Smith wrote on 12/31/2009, 7:13 PM

Save as type: MainConcept MPEG-2
Template : =HDV 1080-60i
Vegas 9.0c
Properties rendering quality: Best

i7 950
Asus P6T
Win 7 64
6GB RAM

55 seconds

FilmingPhotoGuy wrote on 1/5/2010, 9:39 PM

To Jeff Smith:

Try turning off hyper threading in the CMOS so you'll only be running 4 processors ISO 8 and see if you get even better results, I did.

FilmingPhotoGuy wrote on 1/5/2010, 11:09 PM

After disabling HT
4 cores = 1:49

Enabling HT
8 cores = 2:10

Jeff_Smith wrote on 1/6/2010, 8:15 AM

I went into the Bios advanced tab, disabling the HT made it a few seconds slower. I read somewhere about turning off turbo and speed stepping and keeping HT on. I think I will just keep it as is.

1 … 17 18 19 … 21

of 21