NEW Rendertest-HDV.veg


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.
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

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 users 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.