NEW Rendertest-HDV.veg


Kevin R wrote on 5/1/2010, 9:12 PM
Best time 0:57

Intel i7 965 3.20 GHz
Intel DX58SO
6 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Intel X-25E (x2) RAID0
WD1002FBYS (x2) RAID1

0:57 was with extraneous applications and services disabled, render to SSD.
1:00 was best without disabling services and render to HDD
xberk wrote on 5/1/2010, 9:43 PM
Intel i5-750 2.66 GHz
Gigabyte P55
8 GB of DDR3 - 1333 MHz
Raptor 10000 rpm WD740 main drive
Seagate 7400RPM data drives (no raid)
Win7 64 bit. Vegas 9.0d

84 seconds. Kevin's i7-965 is 32% faster.

This thread is so old I looked up my time on a P4 machine .. 12 minutes !!!
Long live the rendertest.veg

Paul B .. PCI Express Video Card: EVGA VCX 10G-P5-3885-KL GeForce RTX 3080 XC3 ULTRA ,,  Intel Core i9-11900K Desktop Processor ,,  MSI Z590-A PRO Desktop Motherboard LGA-1200 ,, 64GB (2X32GB) XPG GAMMIX D45 DDR4 3200MHz 288-Pin SDRAM PC4-25600 Memory .. Seasonic Power Supply SSR-1000FX Focus Plus 1000W ,, Arctic Liquid Freezer II – 360MM .. Fractal Design case ,, Samsung Solid State Drive MZ-V8P1T0B/AM 980 PRO 1TB PCI Express 4 NVMe M.2 ,, Wundiws 10 .. Vegas Pro 19 Edit

ritsmer wrote on 5/3/2010, 3:06 AM
2+ years old Mac Pro with 2 x quad Xeons @ 2,8GHz + Win 7 64 + Vegas 9.0d 64: 50 seconds.

Looking back at former results with earlier Vegas versions and Mac Pro's show that the guys at SCS have improved Vegas' performance quite a bit. Great.
jabloomf1230 wrote on 5/4/2010, 8:47 AM
@John Cline,

I just looked casually through the thread again. Has anyone posted a result using one of the new dual hexacore CPU (5600 series) workstations yet? I'm in the process of acquiring all the pieces to build one, but I'm waiting on the motherboard and a suitable case.

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 5/6/2010, 11:25 AM
Wondering if anyone has an AMD 1090t that they have tried (6core AMD proc for $300).

OGUL wrote on 5/6/2010, 11:55 PM
I have difficulties to find the test!
Where is it found? At which date?
ritsmer wrote on 5/8/2010, 1:00 AM
:-) It is some 500 entries above this - in the very first post.
LivingTheDream wrote on 5/17/2010, 10:35 PM
Just upgraded to Win 7-64 bit and added 3 more gigs triple channel ram. Had high hopes of seeing great improvement.

Running Vegas 8.0c for all tests, rendering to HDV 1080/60i at Best.

Old system (last week): Win XP 32 bit SP3, Core i7 920, 3GB Cosair XMS3 triple channel 1333. Best time at either stock speeds or OC'd to 3.1GHz:

1:42 (102 secs). 1:47 @ stock settings.

New system: Win 7-64bit, Core i7 920, 6GB Cosair triple channel. Best time at either stock speeds or OC'd to 3.1GHz:

same as above

E.T. after using b3t's memory hack: no difference. However, V8 did use 2.2GB of ram.

Then I used Shift-Preferences and adjusted Max Rendering Threads to 8 on the Internal tab. Best time:

1:19 (79 secs)

Instead of the CPU running at 50-60% load it was now doing 96-100%.

It's my guess I'd get better than 1:42 without needing to bump the threads up to 8 if I had V9 64b.

Former user wrote on 5/17/2010, 11:04 PM
We're running very similar systems. I'm running an ASUS P6T, i7 920, 12GB of Corsair tripe channel 1333. But I'm running VP9e (64-bit)

Render time is 1:10 (stock settings, didn't change max threads or anything). File output was 1440x1080 60i 25mbps bluray.
ritsmer wrote on 5/17/2010, 11:57 PM
In his post here from March 2009 fausseplanete found the following about number of threads

"On an 8-core machine (reported above), I tried more variations (what a slog-weekend that was!) and consistently found fastest performance when number of threads was 7, significantly faster than when it was 8."
bigrock wrote on 5/31/2010, 10:34 PM
So what happened the file seems to be gone.
John_Cline wrote on 5/31/2010, 10:43 PM
Try it again, I had to restore a backup of my website and I missed restoring that file.
kkolbo wrote on 6/6/2010, 10:10 AM
Just built a new system yesterday. Looks like the results are acceptable :)

Rendering to HDV -- 00:37,
37 seconds without changing any default settings in Vegas and I had task manager, Firefox, and Core Temp running as well.

Rendering to 15Mbps AVC Blu Ray 1440 60i -- 00:41
41 seconds, same condition as above

Rendering to 16Mbps AVC Blu Ray 1920 60i -- 00:27
27 seconds same conditions as above
John_Cline wrote on 6/6/2010, 11:30 AM
For what it's worth, the results of performing the "Rendertest-HDV" benchmark test will not be a valid comparison to all the other results if you render to anything other than the "HDV 1080-60i" MPEG2 template at the "Best" setting.
kkolbo wrote on 6/6/2010, 12:38 PM
For what it's worth, the results of performing the "Rendertest-HDV" benchmark test will not be a valid comparison to all the other results if you render to anything other than the "HDV 1080-60i" MPEG2 template at the "Best" setting.

I just ran it again with the browser in front making sure that it was set to the Sony stock template for HDV 1080-60i MPEG2 with the project setting to BEST.

37 seconds is the repeatable value.


John_Cline wrote on 6/6/2010, 1:17 PM
In May of 2007, my then state-of-the-art QX6700 Quad-core processor could render this test in 120 seconds, three years later we are now down in the 30-40 second range. This is good.
ritsmer wrote on 6/6/2010, 2:02 PM
@kkolbo: your new system is the one shown in your system specs?
Sounds more than great.
Does the new system give faster preview i.e. during many tracks at a time and transitions with FX'es applied to the media - compared to your "old" system?
kkolbo wrote on 6/6/2010, 3:32 PM

Yes the system shown in my specs is the new system. Yes it does improve the preview but only marginally with some MPEG 4 stuff, especially if it is in a QT wrapper.
Preview of most other HD formats is quite good. The real improvement is in load times and renders. For most AVC and MPEG4 source I use Cineform for quality reasons, so it is not an issue. If I am using native .h264 that is giving me preview problems, it is only in the transitions, and I just RAM render large sections.
kkolbo wrote on 6/10/2010, 7:32 PM

I couldn't resist. I tweeked the system a little. Now, even with background processes running and 4 applications open ...

34 seconds every time :)

Vrooom, Vrooom ...
Randy Brown wrote on 6/12/2010, 12:11 PM
25 seconds here!!!! woo-hoo....wait is there supposed to be video after rendering?
Seriously what am I doing wrong?
The file properties shows 17.9 mb .avi after render but in WMP there's no video.
John_Cline wrote on 6/12/2010, 12:22 PM
Sorry, but you shouldn't have an AVI after rendering this test, you should have an M2T file. Choose "MPEG2" and the "HDV 1080-60i" template. Read the very first post in this thread.
Randy Brown wrote on 6/12/2010, 1:04 PM
oh yeah...sorry, I'm very new to HD

Processor: Q8300 2.5 ghz
RAM: 8 gb
Vegas 8 (32 bit version)
Windows Version: 7 64-bit
mark-woollard wrote on 7/7/2010, 2:19 PM
Save as type: MainConcept MPEG-2
Template : =HDV 1080-60i
Vegas 9.0e 64
Properties rendering quality: Best

i7 930
Asus P6T SE
Win 7 64

50 seconds

LReavis wrote on 7/14/2010, 3:19 PM
Q6600 slightly overclocked to 2.7 gHz, on an Asus P5B with 8GB RAM - Vegas 9e-64bit, HDV-1080-60i preset, with Main Concept Video quality slider all the way to the right, with the Quality in the Projects tab set to "best": 1:43 (103 seconds); and that's with CPU-Z and CoreTemp and Firefox also running. That seems a bit fast - am I missing something?

It's been 3 years since I bought this CPU (and I wasn't an early adopter), and it's disappointing to see that a similarly priced CPU, such as the i7 930, now can only cut my time in half. I was hoping for more.