NEW Rendertest-HDV.veg


Jeffrey Cline wrote on 5/13/2007, 6:36 AM
I ran the new test on the HP wx8200 workstation that I am using on-site with the following results.

HP wx8200
Dual Xeon 3.4 GHz
3 GB of Ram
Vegas 7.0e

5:52. That's 352 seconds!

This is a workstation that is running Avid Adrenaline HD normally, but I use Vegas to mix audio on the features that we edit on location.
JJKizak wrote on 5/13/2007, 7:59 AM
AMD X2 4600, XP PRO SP2 all updates, 4 GIG RAM, V7.0E
4 threads

6 minutes 37 seconds
Note: If you import the veg from media manager it will take forever. If you open it then it is fine.
UKAndrewC wrote on 5/15/2007, 6:16 AM
Just wanted to say thanks for posting this test, it made me realise how slow my rendering was.

Previous speed with P4 3,2GHz 12:30 mins

With new Core 2 Duo E6600 2:26 mins

Going to play with over-clocking now

riredale wrote on 5/26/2007, 2:10 PM
About twenty replies up on this thread, I mentioned that my system was only able to render in 12:10 but that the dual-core processor was showing only about 50% utilization.

I found the issue.

Go into Options/Preferences/Video. Under "Dynamic RAM Preview" if you have put in "0" then Vegas will render at 50% no matter how many threads you have listed under "Maximum number of Rendering Threads." If, instead, you put in ANY NUMBER for Dynamic Ram Preview then Vegas will use 100% of the dual-core processors. Curious, eh?

My old time: 12:10
My new time: 6:21

Vegas 7d, AMDx2 3800 (2GHz) o'c to 2.6GHz, 2GB DDR3200 DRAM. Incidentally, RamPage shows Vegas needs ~400MB to run this Rendertest, so the extra 1GB of ram I installed a couple of days ago wasn't used at all for this render. It sure comes in handy when I run multiple instances of DeShaker on Pass2, though...
blink3times wrote on 5/26/2007, 2:40 PM
I just upgraded from a D950 to a Q6600 quad core...

My old time: 262 seconds
My new time: 122 seconds
(version 7d)
LSHorwitz wrote on 5/28/2007, 9:38 AM
I wonder if anybody has tried benchmarking this rendertest-HDV.veg using the Apple MacPro Quad Xeon 3.0, which uses the Woodcrest processors. It would be interesting to see how it compares to the QX6800s, which I believe have a slower front side bus and RAM.

DSCalef wrote on 5/30/2007, 12:56 PM
I wound up with 121 seconds.

That was after I shut down MS Outlook, IE Explorer, AVG, Sqlserver, and a couple other processes that I knew were not part of Vegas 7.0e. Prior to the shut down of those items I was at 143 seconds. So I gained 15%+

My system is an Intel Quad Core2 Duo QX6700 Extreme with 2.66 processors, an Intel D975XBX2 motherboard, BFG NVidia 8800 GTS 320mb videocard, 2gb memory, 3 hard drives, 2 are SATA that I use to render from one drive to the other. Windows XP SP2.
blink3times wrote on 5/30/2007, 3:47 PM
You should try a bit of overclocking. I've got the same board as you and it's a pretty good overclocker. I now have my Q6600 OC'ed to 3Ghz and I'm hitting 108 seconds. You could probably get a bit better with the QX6700.
DSCalef wrote on 5/30/2007, 10:09 PM
I have been building pc's since the early 80's. I have never had the courage to overclock and wouldn't know where to begin.

I have thought about it...... Any suggestions on where to start with this board?
blink3times wrote on 5/31/2007, 3:10 AM
Just go to PERFORMANCE in the bios settings, go to cpu performance, change the cpu setting from automatic to manual and bring up the FSB number. Bring it up to 280 to start, then test. Jump it up a couple points each time you have a successful boot (boot right into windows and make sure it's working). Sooner or later windows will start failing. At this point back off the setting a bit.

Make sure your bios version is up to date though, and watch your cpu temps.... the more you OC, the hotter it will get.
riredale wrote on 5/31/2007, 10:11 AM
There's all kinds of useful information about overclocking out there. You might want to start by Googling "overclocking xxx" where xxx is your motherboard.

In my case, I've found that the little AMD 3800x2 chip which normally runs at 2GHz can be goosed up to 2.6 (a %30 boost) with no adverse effects. From what I've heard the Intel dual-processor chips can be boosted even more.

A couple of suggestions:

(1) Don't overclock your internal accessory bus.

(2) Don't overclock your video card--it makes no difference to Vegas, and you can save that project for another day.

(3) Ditto for the ram. There are a dozen settings a hacker can tweak, but your biggest bang for the buck is with the processor.

(4) Download "StressPrime 2004," a free program. It's a slight variation of the "Prime95" program that really runs the processor and ram hard. The benefit to StressPrime2004 is that it has a very clean and friendly user interface. The benefit to these Prime utilities is that they work the system very hard and also know what the outcome of the computations should be, so if something messes up it will immediately flag you. After you raise the clockrate you run this program overnight. If it runs all night, you're good to go.

Don't worry about destroying your system--if it fails with the StressPrime program just reboot into the BIOS and lower the settings a bit. The increased heat/voltage/frequency on the processor(s) may lead to a shortened life, but we're talking maybe 10 years rather than 50, so it doesn't keep me awake at night. In any event if you think your processor is running too hot you can invest $40 in a super-duper heatsink that will dramatically lower the temperature.

You can monitor CPU temp with a freeware program such as Motherboard Monitor.

Keep in mind that you void any Dell or HP warranty by doing this. Since I have been building my own stuff for the past 7 years, I don't have any warranties to worry about.
blink3times wrote on 5/31/2007, 11:21 AM
"Keep in mind that you void any Dell or HP warranty by doing this. Since I have been building my own stuff for the past 7 years, I don't have any warranties to worry about."


Yes.... don't overdo it! I had a D940 dual core, stock 3.2Ghz OC'ed to 4.8Ghz. Worked great for 2 months.... was real fast too........ then it burned up!

But you should be able to get at least a 20% increase with the stock fan and voltages, just by increasing the FSB
Zion wrote on 5/31/2007, 12:50 PM


(2) Opteron 270HE (55watts Low Powered) 2.0 Quad Core

Win XP64

Vegas 7.0e

Ram 8GB PC3200
riredale wrote on 5/31/2007, 1:36 PM
I should have added a data point about my own situation regarding heat. Asus A8V motherboard, AMD 3800x2 processor, stock heatsink/fan. MotherBoardMonitor initially showed about 45C idle, 52 full load with stock settings. Now, with a 30% boost in frequency and a 0.1v boost in cpu voltage, MBM shows about 50 at idle, and full load of about 61C. By pushing further I learned that at about 65C the cpu stops working but will work fine under that, so I have a reasonable margin. I have also learned that the max temperature will creep up about 1 degree each month due to dust, so it serves as a reminder to vacuum the case.

If I buy one of the aftermarket air coolers, I would expect a 10C drop, but I don't think there's a need at my settings.
DSCalef wrote on 5/31/2007, 11:39 PM
Thanks blink3times and riredale!

The Intel D975XBX2 has two utilities that do the work of setting up overclocking for you. I am running the Quad core Duo 2 2.66 mhz chip at 3.192 mhz based on their suggested settings. If I go higher, it fails. But that's 10% bringing me to a 202 second render time from 221. Great. I'm happy. May tweak some more when I have time.

I appreciate the advice that served as a kick in the pants to try it.
vitalforce wrote on 6/28/2007, 2:56 PM
Mac Pro quad with two 2.66 Intel dual core Xeons. 2GB RAM.
Vegas 7.0e

First time was not right, consistently 7:35 until I remembered I had dynamic RAM preview set to zero because I sometimes use the Boris FX plugin. By setting dynamic RAM preview to 64MB or higher, render was 2:02. Seems like zeroing RAM preview results in less than full use of all 4 cores. 2 minutes--wowie.

Just for the record, this Mac is running XP Pro SP2 via Boot Camp and seems to use the hardware drivers just fine.
Steve Mann wrote on 6/28/2007, 9:11 PM
"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!

That only seems to be true when you render. Vegas (still) has the worst reatime-preview performance of any NLE I've tried :-("

Isn't most of the work performed during rendering done by the CODEC?
John_Cline wrote on 6/28/2007, 9:28 PM
"Isn't most of the work performed during rendering done by the CODEC?"

Not necessarily. Running the "rendertest-hdv.veg" file, Vegas is doing most of the work. If you're just transcoding from one format to another with no effects at the same image size and frame rate, then the codec will be doing most of the work.

Most NLE's will scale image quality to maintain a given frame rate. Vegas will scale frame rate to maintain a given image quality. All I can say is that my opinion and experience with Vegas' preview is significantly different than yours.

Illusioneer wrote on 6/29/2007, 8:17 AM
AMD 4200+ (dual core) 3MB RAM

First time round 7:06
Second time 3:46
Third time 7 minutes again

I will try to investigate why the discrepancy
Illusioneer wrote on 6/29/2007, 9:52 AM
Unable to reproduce the short render :-(
bigrock wrote on 6/29/2007, 10:31 PM
I'm rendering it on my good old Vic 20, it's predicted to be done several weeks after the asteriod that is supposed to hit the planet in 2036 wipes us all out. I'll report back at that time with the final render numbers, I'm sure they will be hot.
MacVista wrote on 6/30/2007, 4:04 AM
Thanks for the test John, very useful.

Mac Pro Quad 3.0 Ghz 8gb Ram
Running windows Vista ultimate 64bit
Vegas 7.0e

1:50 (110 secs)

Processors maxed out at 100%
RAM usage maxed at around 2Gb

My previous PC (P4 3.2ghz, 3Gb ram) takes 11:04 (664 secs)
so the Mac is roughly six times faster.
John_Cline wrote on 7/1/2007, 10:35 AM
Just for fun, I overclocked my 2.66Ghz Quad to 3.0Ghz and the HDV rendertest completed in 1:47 (107 seconds), then I overclocked it to 3.73Ghz and the render completed in 1:25 (85 seconds!!). I've been running it at 3.73Ghz since yesterday and just finished rendering a lengthy HDV project and, so far, it seems stable. However, overclocking has always made me nervous, so I'll probably going to kick it back down from 3.73Ghz. 3.0Ghz sounds good.

Phil_A wrote on 7/2/2007, 12:30 AM
HEY!!! My Asus Striker Quad 2.66 got 'er done in 122 secs.!!!

So cool, I have to go wash my shorts!