NEW Rendertest-HDV.veg

Back to post

Comments

Guy Bruner wrote on 5/8/2007, 7:34 PM
"Are you rendering to a standard NTSC DV .AVI file "

Nope. It was set for HDV 1080. Ah, NTSC DV renders in 12 sec. Ok. That's better. Back to apples to apples.

I just run up the clock since multiplier won't let me do anything but lower it. It's on the stock HSF, BTW. I just love these core 2 processors!
Spot|DSE wrote on 5/8/2007, 8:06 PM
Actually, there is a second rendertest for HDV, but back about 18 months ago, it brought 80% of the systems that tried to render it, to their knees.

Thanks for this file John. I'd love to see it on the VASST site if your'e up for it.
John_Cline wrote on 5/8/2007, 8:26 PM
"I'd love to see it on the VASST site if your'e up for it.

Of course, Spot, it is, after all, based on your original rendertest.veg file.
Cheno wrote on 5/8/2007, 8:34 PM
2.66 Quad Core / 2 Gigs Ram

124 seconds

rockin!

blink3times wrote on 5/8/2007, 9:20 PM
"Core 2 Duo E6700 2 Gb Ram 4min.00

Interesting - Duo Core exactly twice the time of John's Quad Core!

Vaio Core 2 Duo Laptop T7400 1 Gb Ram 5 min.04"
====================

I must say, I'm a bit surprised by these numbers. I'm running a Intel D950 (granted I have it over clocked by quite a bit... to 4Ghz), but it seems to be faster than even some of the core 2 duo's!?

Are you sure this time is correct... seems a bit long!?

I'm rendering as 1080i MPG. My first test (noted above is 2:11... I just did the test again to make sure and it came out about the same... 2:09
PeterWright wrote on 5/8/2007, 9:35 PM
Yes, I'm rendering to MPEG2 - the "HDV 1080-60i" template.

Render quality is Best (Auto) - but this should be the same as it's set in Project properties.

From the comparison with John Cline's machine above it seems about right.

It seems your overclocking is working - hope you don't wear out the pendulum.
riredale wrote on 5/8/2007, 10:07 PM
12:10 for my system BUT the dual-processor is only working at 52-53%. Why?

AMD x2 3800 (2GHz) overclocked to 2.6GHz, 1GB dual-channel ram, Vegas 7d.
john-beale wrote on 5/8/2007, 10:23 PM
If Vegas seems slower than it should be on your multi-core or multi-proc system, look at Options->Preferences on the "Video" tab, there is a setting for "Maximum number of rendering threads". Mine is currently set to 4. I believe if there are fewer threads than processors, Vegas won't use your hardware efficiently.
blink3times wrote on 5/9/2007, 3:05 AM
"Yes, I'm rendering to MPEG2 - the "HDV 1080-60i" template.

Render quality is Best (Auto) -...."
==========================

There's the difference... Render quality set to best. I didn't think for a minute I would be faster than a core 2 duo.

With RQ set to best I get:
4:42
ECB wrote on 5/9/2007, 3:38 AM
QX6700 - 119 seconds.

Ed
fldave wrote on 5/9/2007, 5:09 AM
AMD X2 Dual Core 4400+; 2GB RAM; Vegas 7.0d

7:06 to .avi
7:16 to .m2t
rs170a wrote on 5/9/2007, 5:14 AM
I believe if there are fewer threads than processors, Vegas won't use your hardware efficiently.

You're absolutely correct.
When I first ran the test, I had forgotten that I had dropped it down to 1 thread for another test and it took over 12 min.
I changed it back to 4 and it took 2 min.
Much better :-)

Mike
winrockpost wrote on 5/9/2007, 6:24 AM
E6600 4:18
athlon 2700 21:30

What i really like about Vegas,, it will run on pretty much anything,,the old athlon will even edit hdv,, if you have the time .
keeps people in the game even without having to throw money at it all the time,,,,
Guy S. wrote on 5/9/2007, 10:24 AM
Exactly 2 minutes on dual processor, dual core Xeon system (HP XW-8400).

Playback performance from timeline is only slightly faster than my old P4 system, however, which is really disappointing.

Guy
John_Cline wrote on 5/9/2007, 10:39 AM
I re-ran rendertest-hdv.veg on my QX6700 machine, this time making sure that there wasn't anything going on in the background. It rendered in 117 seconds. Anyway, it looks like the Intel Quad-cores have the best render times coming in at somewhere between 115 to 120 seconds. I wonder how the upcoming multi-core processors from AMD are going to do?
kimgr wrote on 5/9/2007, 1:44 PM
<quote>
What's interesting to me is that the Vegas code is apparently fully optimized for multiple processors and really does scale proportionately to the number of cores and speed of the processors. This is not something that can be said of all multi-processor software. Good job, Sony!
</quote>
That only seems to be true when you render. Vegas (still) has the worst reatime-preview performance of any NLE I've tried :-(
gordyboy wrote on 5/9/2007, 2:27 PM
My HP compaq nx7400 laptop T7200 Core 2 Duo running Vegas 7e was 5:23.

My old computer couldn't even finish the old rendertest so very pleased with this.

gb
RNLVideo wrote on 5/9/2007, 6:47 PM
MacBook Pro laptop, 2.16 GHZ w/ 2 GB Ram running Vista Ultimate under Bootcamp: 5:25 using Vegas 7.0D

Rick
Erni wrote on 5/9/2007, 8:51 PM
5:01
Vegas 7.0e
E6420 without overclocking
2GB RAM

Ernesto
DigVid wrote on 5/10/2007, 3:40 AM
Vegas 7.0e
3-GB Pentium 4
2-GB RAM

Max rendering threads 4

17:33

- very slow, but sure... ;-)
Guy S. wrote on 5/11/2007, 8:27 AM
<<Vegas (still) has the worst reatime-preview performance of any NLE I've tried :-(>>

I thought so too...

Just installed Adobe Production Bundle on my new system with very high hopes of better/faster realtime editing. What I found, however, is that even on a super-system (quad core, Quadro 1500, 4G RAM, G-RAID array), Premiere Pro 2.0 is FAR more sluggish than Vegas in some cases -- applying color correction, for example.

In Premiere, it takes a full second to update the external (OHCI) preview while adjusting any of the color controls. This lack of realtime feedback means undershooting/overshooting when making adjustments -- definitely not fun.

Also, when the cc'd clip is played back, Premiere automatically reduces the quality to maintain the framerate, and Premiere's reduced-quality playback looks worse to me than that of Vegas.

Here's another item: Vegas can display the monitor window contents full-screen on a secondary Windows display. I just discovered that with the Quadro FX 560 and 1500 drivers set to Dualview mode, and with the card connected to my Sony NTSC broadcast monitor, I get a very nice looking video output that makes color correction easy -- and completely realtime. No lag, 29.97fps, completely interactive while the timeline plays.

Premiere cannot do this (the Instensity/Intensity Pro cards may provide an adequate solution).

I had intended to switch back to an all-Adobe workflow, but at this point I will not.
PeterWright wrote on 5/11/2007, 8:38 AM
Is this the only thread on the internet where the big spenders say "Hey, guys, mine's shorter" and the rest say "Gee, I'm outa luck - mine's much longer ..."
jimmyz wrote on 5/12/2007, 10:37 AM
4:08 mpeg 2 hdv template

e4300 on asus p5ld2 @ 2.7 oc
2 gig ram
400 gig sata hd only one
vegas 7e

I can overclock to3.0 but my temps climb after awhile (stock cooler)

My old system amd athlon xp 1800+ 384mb ram

Is mine the longest ?

31:28
blink3times wrote on 5/12/2007, 3:28 PM
<<Vegas (still) has the worst reatime-preview performance of any NLE I've tried :-(>>

"I thought so too...

Just installed Adobe Production Bundle on my new system with very high hopes of better/faster realtime editing. What I found, however, is that even on a super-system (quad core, Quadro 1500, 4G RAM, G-RAID array), Premiere Pro 2.0 is FAR more sluggish than Vegas in some cases -- applying color correction, for example."
===================================

Believe it or not, Vegas is far better than most NLE's at realtime playback. Even with Avid Liquid, the time line needs some kind of pre rendering before play back can be achieved. I have not tried Speededit yet but it is said that it MAY be one of the few programs that is better for real time playback than Vegas.