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

Nx wrote on 1/7/2010, 6:17 AM

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

i7 920 2.66GHz, no overclocking
Asus P6T
Win 7 64
12GB RAM triple channel, 1600MHz

1:09

ritsmer wrote on 1/7/2010, 6:57 AM

With or without HT:

Some hundred posts above is a post from fausseplanete saying:

+++
Mac Pro, dual-quad (8 cpu) > BootCamp > XP-SP2 > Vegas 8.0c:

Tweaked the BootCamp render time down to:

1:12.

Achieved by setting Vegas threads min=4 max=7.

This is a non-standard number-of-threads for Vegas 8.0c, it can be defined via internal preferences (shift-Option-Preferences). Warning: playing with internal settings risks fouling up your Vegas system.

Note that the setting for max threads, namely 7, was 1 less than the number of physical cores. Setting it to 8 resulted in a staggering 45 additional seconds. Once again, more can be less...

The min threads setting of 4 reduced by only 2 seconds as compared to leaving it at its default of 1.
+++

So probably you have not only to switch on/off the HT but also experiment with what number of threads fits the available number of "processors". It seems that 45 seconds (nearly 40%) can be saved by only reducing the render threads by 1 in this case - and I have the same figures om my own Mac Pro - (Win 7 64 without BootCamp)

@John Cline: Time for a new NEW Rendertest-HDV v. 2 ? :-)

FilmingPhotoGuy wrote on 1/7/2010, 9:13 PM

I agree!
A new rendertest with a little more meat in it. When reporting your times also report your:

OS
Processor with any OC & RAM amount and speed
SV 32bit or 64bit
Any other configurations such as over clockings or memory settings.

ushere wrote on 1/7/2010, 10:24 PM

maybe a good idea. re-ran and i still get what look to be extraordinary fast renders - even compared to like set-ups:

maybe i'm missing something here in pal land?

open veg > check properties equal source material > render as mainconcept mpeg-2 / hdv 1080-60i / best

i7 (64bit) - 920 - 6gb ram / 32 bit - 49sec / 64 bit - 36sec / 9c

yeah, let's have a new render test please.....

ritsmer wrote on 1/8/2010, 12:24 AM

@ushere
You have HT on?
Number of render threads in Vegas?

ushere wrote on 1/8/2010, 12:50 AM

to be perfectly honest, i don't know the answer to either question.

i simply installed my main progs (all video / audio related) on the new box after getting it from my builder - turned it on and started editing.

at over 60 i'm no longer interested in what's going on inside the box as long as it works smoothly, and this box is as smooth as a baby's bottom, and much, much faster than any of my previous boxes - so i wasn't going to question what is going on.

ok - downloaded cpuz - 4 cores / 8 threads

not that that means anything to me. i gave up on the heavy tech stuff with my sinclair spectrum. had a bit of a play with my amiga's innards (trying to run broadcast titler 2). then started my own pro / post house and hired a computer whiz who did everything for me - and that's been my story ever since.

if it ain't broke, don't fix it - if it's broke, call in a specialist - at least that way i have some other than myself to shout at ;-)
leslie

Leggie wrote on 1/11/2010, 6:58 AM

Hi, thanks for the rendering test file, it looks useful.

I just tried rendering in 8.0c on a brand new build. It's got an AMD Athlon II X4 620 @ 2.6GHz with 4GB DDR3-1333 RAM, running Windows 7 x64.

The render time for renderhdv-test came in at over 10 minutes! Is there something drastically wrong with my system or with my configuration? I chose the HDV 1080-60i template under MainConcept MPEG-2.

I've only got the 128MB of Sideport graphics memory - is that likely to be holding things up?

Thanks,

Leggie

CorTed wrote on 1/11/2010, 4:33 PM

Got my new i7 build completed

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

i7 920 3.00GHz, (slight overclock)
Asus P6X58D
Win 7 64
12GB RAM triple channel, 1600MHz

64 Sec. (about double speed vs my Q6600 I replaced)

btw also got a 80G SSD.
There was no significant time difference when rendering to the SSD v.s. rendering to a 3g/s SATA drive.

Ted

Leggie wrote on 1/18/2010, 2:23 AM

Hi,

Thanks for the reply. I downloaded and installed Vegas Pro 8.1 and tried that: it rendered in 2:38, a much more respectable time. So I've got to track down what's wrong with the 8.0c configuration - strange, I don't remember changing much that would affect it.

Thanks,

Leggie

bhurst wrote on 2/9/2010, 12:46 AM

I just ran John's test (rendertest-hdv.veg) in 55 seconds using 9.0c (64-bit).

Windows Version: Vista 64-bit Home Premium
RAM: 12GB DDR3 1333MHz
Processor: 3.2GHz (i7 Extreme 965)
Video Card: ATI Radeon 4870X2 (2GB)

B

daryl wrote on 2/9/2010, 3:35 PM

Wndows 7, 64 bit, 12G RAM, i7950 3.06GHz (actually 3.07)

Test rendered in exactly 60 seconds, 9.0c 64 bit

Earl_J wrote on 2/12/2010, 7:22 PM

Well, well, well,
this thread just keeps getting longer and longer and longer...
* * *
I think I have the latest rendertest version... not that it matters; as long as we compare oranges to oranges, right?
* * *
On my XP Pro P4; dual core; 2.4 GHz; 2.5 GB RAM machine; Vegas 8.0c: 23:58 (I call it 24 minutes) - base from which to gauge the other render times.
* * *
On my new Windows 7 64-bit; Alienware i7 920; 2.67 GHz; 9.0 GB RAM: Vegas 8.0c: 4:03 (I call it 4 minutes) - 75% reduction in render time OR one-fourth the render time... my math is wrong, it is one-sixth the render time... Did I mention that English was my gooder subject in school? lol
* * *
On the Alienware machine as above running Vegas 9.0c: 1:11 - now, this reduction is near 75% over the base render time ... not the base time, the 8.0c render time... (sigh)
* * *
On the Alienware machine, 8.0c only ran the processors to about 30% using about 2.31 GB of the RAM , while 9.0c ran the processors at 96-100% using about 2.73 GB of RAM ... so it appears that 9.0c is optimized for multiple processors, yes?
* * *
I'm not sure I understand everything I know about these new-fangled machines and their software (grin)...
* * *
I'm more than satisfied with the speed improvements ... from 24 minutes down to just over 1 minute ... I like it...

Until that time... Earl J.

amendegw wrote on 2/13/2010, 5:06 PM

FedEx just delivered my new laptop (from Costco). Here's the specs:

Dell Studio 15 Laptop
Core i7 720QM 1.6GHz
4GB DDR3
512MB ATI Graphics
500GB 7200rpm Drive
Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit)

Rendertest-HDV gave me a 2:57 using V9.0c 32bit.

Not bad for a laptop. A quick search thru this thread indicated only 2 faster laptops (but I question whether a Intel Core 2 Duo 2.0GHz w. 3GB RAM can produce a 2:11 - wrong render settings?).

...Jerry

rendernow wrote on 2/21/2010, 5:13 AM

Vegas 9.0c
MainConcept MPEG-2, HDV 1080-60i
Rendering quality: Best

i7 920 2.8GHz, (slightly above stock), HT enabled
Asus P6T Deluxe v2
6GB RAM DDR3 triple channel, 8:8:8:20
Sapphire Radeon X1650 256 MB
Win 7 64-bit Home Premium

Vegas settings: XDCAM Explorer disabled ("Internal" Tab in Preferences), other than that, no changes.

Rendered completed in : 1:07

Cheers

TLF wrote on 2/21/2010, 6:22 AM

Self-build Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6600 @ 2.40GHz
Gigabyte mobo
8GB DDR2 RAM
Vista Ultimate x64

Vegas 9.0c
x32 - 2:44
x64 - 2:38

Not bad, I guess.

Melachrino wrote on 2/21/2010, 3:02 PM

I too am stumped at the relatively long HDV render time in my HP e9120y PC.

AMD Phenom II x4 910 Processor, base speed.
8GB DDR3 system memory
1TB harddrive
ATI Radeon HD 4350 graphics card.
Windows 7 Home premium 64bit
Vegas 9.0c 64bit
Threads 16
Dynamic RAM 350 MB

Render time : 10 minutes.

Obviously, there is a wrong setting somewhere. Or is there ?

Melachrino wrote on 2/22/2010, 7:47 AM

Now I am even more stumped.
Based on comments by others, I ran the speed test again, this time I monitored the performance and waited for all initial PC housekeeping to end.
The new render time is 2:31, or 151 seconds, much more in line with comparable results.
Performance showed all 4 CPU's to hit 100% while rendering.
Clock speed is 2.3GHz.
I have no idea what I did differently to improve the result from 10 minutes to 2 minutes and this is bad because I may get a turtle in another project and will not know how to fix it ...

Former user wrote on 2/22/2010, 12:35 PM

1:08 to mt2s
1:07 to standard BluRay mt2
1:06 to XDCAM Mp4 (most people don't care, but I export to it for clients)

Vegas 9.0c 64-bit
Win7 x64
ASUS P6T Deluxe MB (not overclocking)
12GB DDR3 RAM
i7 920CPU @ 2.93 GHz
ATI 4870 Video

AVGod wrote on 2/25/2010, 9:37 AM

This was interesting. I learned that it made very little difference whether I rendered to my OS drive, my dedicated video drive, or an eSATA storage drive. All tests were within two seconds of one another. Also, I learned that I must have done a decent job building this computer!

I'm running with the following:
Core i7 920 set for performance mode (barely any overclocking at all)
12 GB RAM
Windows 7 64-bit
Vegas 9.0c

At "BEST" all tests were between :64 and :66
At "GOOD" all tests were between :32 and :34

Thanks for doing this!

bhurst wrote on 3/4/2010, 2:08 AM

Interesting! I ran the test but changed the output to progressive instead of interlaced, using the Blend deinterlace method. Times were ...

Best: 29 sec
Good: 13 sec

Windows Version: Vista 64-bit Home Premium
RAM: 12GB DDR3 1333MHz
Processor: 3.34GHz (i7 Extreme 965 w/ TurboBoost enabled)
Video Card: ATI Radeon 4870X2 (2GB)

Xander wrote on 3/24/2010, 9:29 PM

Rendered as is directly to standard render profiles:
HDV: 39 seconds
AVCHD: 43 seconds

Processor: Core i7-980X
RAM: 24GB DDR3 1333 MHz
Video Card: Nvidia FX4800

John_Cline wrote on 3/25/2010, 12:30 AM

"I ran the test but changed the output to progressive instead of interlaced"

Then your results don't mean anything compared to the hundreds of test reported on this thread.

IAM4UK wrote on 3/28/2010, 11:08 AM

Just upgraded my machine, so I ran this test.

Render .avi as defaulted (HDV): 30 seconds
Render .mt2s as Sony AVCHD: 63 seconds

New system innards:
Intel Core i7-960 at stock speed (3.2 GHz by 8 threads)
12 GB DDR3 1333 RAM
Intel X-25M SSD for boot and program drive
Seagate Barracuda 7200rpm 1TB drive dedicated to only video files
ATI Radeon HD 5770

John_Cline wrote on 3/28/2010, 11:40 AM

Guys, the ONLY way to get results that can be compared to everyone else is to render the test using the default MPEG2 "HDV 1080-60i" template at the "Best" render setting.