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

Jeff9329 wrote on 7/31/2007, 11:29 AM

Nice work willlisub.

I think with some major tweaking, we can get under 60 seconds for that test file as some are already in the 80 second range.

The new quad processors and especially the next 1333 FSB quad processors will bring HDV editing back to DV style real time or better editing.

It's funny, except for benchmarking and rendering, my Q6600 based machine feels no faster than my old P4 machine. I think on some simple tasks, it may even take a hair longer.

Oh yeah, and good for you on getting a boot out of the old drive. No such luck for me.

ScorpioProd wrote on 7/31/2007, 2:52 PM

Vegas 7.0d
Dual-Xeon 3.6GHz hyperthreaded system
4:51

LSHorwitz wrote on 8/7/2007, 8:42 PM

I would love to see a MacPro 8 core benchmark here. The impending release of "Intel V8" systems in the 3rd quarter of 2007 should show another 50 to 75% improvement over the current quad core systems based on Cinebench and other recently published benchmarks of the new 1333 FSB 8 core machines.

Rendering time for Rendertest-HDV-reg should come in around 70 to 75 seconds. The currently available 8 core MacPro should also be in that appropximate range.

Larry

xberk wrote on 8/10/2007, 6:10 AM

12:38 on my P4 3.2 with 1 gig of ram.
Looking forward to my new Q6600 by Labor day.
Fairly sure I'll use the Intel Mainboard D975xbx2 (bad ax 2) but the
P35 Gigabyte is starting to look better to me.
Not sure at all about a video card --- suggestions?

sred wrote on 8/12/2007, 2:07 PM

Pentium 4 3.00GHz, 1Gig RAM (Dell 8300 Desktop)
Vegas 7d (Build 192) - 17:05
Vegas 7e (Build 216) - 16:55

Core 2 Duo T7200 2.00GHz, 2Gig RAM (Dell E1705 Laptop)
Vegas 7d (Build 192) - 10:13
Vegas 7e (Build 216) - 10:02

My T7200 is running much slower than others listed above. I have Vegas set to 4 max threads (under Options->Prefs). However, when I am rendering the CPU usage is only 50% and basically only one core is taking the load while the other is idle. Is there some other setting that I need to adjust so it will fully take advantage of both cores? Thanks

EDIT: Okay, figured it out. In this thread (Subject: Quadcore utilizing only 50%?), Sunflux wrote: "looks like I need a MINIMUM of a 256mb dynamic RAM preview" -- so I set the Dynamic RAM Preview to 256 and both cores pegged right to 100%! http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=506615

I re-ran the test and now I get the following:
Dell E1705 Core 2 Duo Laptop T7200 2.00Ghz, 2 Gb RAM, Vegas 7e -- 5:16

This is much more consistent with the earlier posts:
PeterWright -- Vaio Core 2 Duo Laptop T7400 1 Gb Ram -- 5:04
gordyboy -- HP compaq nx7400 laptop T7200 Core 2 Duo running Vegas 7e -- 5:23

The strange thing is that setting my old P4 3Ghz to 256mb Dynamic RAM Preview slows the render time down by about 1 minute.

Jim H wrote on 8/12/2007, 6:48 PM

90 secs.

JoeMess wrote on 8/12/2007, 11:47 PM

11:06 on Athlon XP3200+ (Original 32 bit processor, not 64 bit later processor.) with 1 gig of RAM, NVIDIA 6600GT, and rendering to Maxtor SATA I drive. Not bad for such a long in the tooth machine.

Joe

jday wrote on 8/30/2007, 7:03 PM

I just got a new system for my video editing and still have my old one so I decided to compare their performance on the hdv rendertest.

Old system: Pentium D, 3.2GHz, 2MB RAM - 6 min. 20 secs.
New system: Q6600, 2.4GHz, 4MB RAM - 2 min. 13 secs.

Almost 3 times faster and the "old" system is just barely a year old.

xberk wrote on 8/31/2007, 8:10 AM

JDAY Curious which video card you have in your new system?

jday wrote on 8/31/2007, 11:36 AM

xberk, My new system has an nVidia 8600GT (256MB). My old system has an nVidia 7800GTX.

rs170a wrote on 8/31/2007, 11:50 AM

JimH, what are your system specs that let you do this in only 90 sec.?

Mike

xberk wrote on 9/2/2007, 7:27 PM

Jday -- just built my Q6600. I used the GIgabtye 8500GT video card.
Rendertest-HDV.veg is coming out consistently at 2 min 8 seconds.
4 gigs of Ram .. Gigabyte P35C mainboard -- Should we conclude that the Video card does not effect rendering times?

jday wrote on 9/2/2007, 8:47 PM

xberk, pretty similar setup to mine and pretty similar results (you got me by 5 seconds). That could have something to do with your raptor main drive (I don't know). Overall, I'm very satisfied with the Q6600.

LSHorwitz wrote on 9/2/2007, 9:26 PM

The MacPro 8 core does it in 111 seconds. This is not significantly better than the MacPro 4 core, and should be considerably faster.

Since I am using Windows XP Home, I strongly suspect that I am not getting the 2nd set of 4 cores to take any of the rendering workload.

I did bump the Vegas Internal Preferences RENDERTHREAD count from 4 to 8, but this makes no difference in my results. I am guessing I would need either XP Professional or possibly the 64bit version of XP to see all 8 cores humming.

Any opinions would be very welcome. Thanks.

Larry

Rich S wrote on 9/4/2007, 3:00 PM

Vegas 7.0e

Standard HP m7480n. Pentium D 930 3 GHz dual core; 2 GB RAM

4:00

Rich S

JoeMess wrote on 9/4/2007, 8:27 PM

Upgraded my HP notebook listed earlier to a Turion ML-37 from a Sempron 3000, and brought memory up to a gig. (Based upon shared memory configuration 896 megs realized for apps.) Render time went from 20 minutes to 16:28.

Joe

jerry214 wrote on 11/5/2007, 10:46 AM

PP with CineForm (Aspect or Prospect) will run several tracks of HD in real time. Cineform rewrote the preview engine of PP for their codecs. For playback of HD it surpasses Vegas. Rendering a file, however, Vegas is better and faster. Of course PP is 10 bit and Vegas 8.

LReavis wrote on 11/5/2007, 11:51 AM

when I ran the test on my new core2duo a few months ago, I remember it requiring around 4 min. (my e6400 is overclocked to 2.8 GHz). However, since then I upgraded to Vegas 8 and last night I got 2:25 (145 seconds). Has anyone else noticed faster rendering with VV8? As I recall, the CPU load was running around 85% or 90% last night, but I don't know what the load was under Vegas 7.

My rendering speed for the original rendertest has remained about the same: 24 seconds. It was 22 seconds before, but that was when I had 3 GB or Corsair RAM; in the meantime, another stick went bad and I'm running with 2 GB, which always adds a couple of seconds to my time. I'm expecting replacement sticks from Corsair so that I'll again have a full 4 GB RAM in about 2 months (they are slow - based on my experience with a previous bad stick). Once I get 4 GB I'll post new times.

I have purchased a Q6600 quad core CPU and plan to install it this week; I'll post revised test times as soon as I run them.

willlisub wrote on 11/5/2007, 8:44 PM

I re-ran the test, and as I had last summer. Got the same results with V7. 1:44 on my q6600.

Also ran on a new laptop 2.4 GHz core 2 / 2 GB ram / Vista Home Premium. 4400 rpm internal drive

2.4 Core 2 Laptop
V8a Vista Home Premium render time 4:54

Q6600 OC'd to 3.07
v7 XP Pro 1080i mpeg out render time 1:44
v8a XP Pro. 1080i mpeg out render time 1:52

Interesting math.

1. 3.07 GHz x 4 cores = 12.28
2. 2.4 GHz x 2 cores = 4.8

Processors Speed Ratio
12.28/4.8 = 2.56

Rendering Speed Ratio
294 seconds / 112 seconds = 2.63

Sort of interesting that the are almost the same. 2.56 for total core processor speed and 2.63 for the actual rendering time it took.

I did not use my array on the Q6600, just the internal 7200 RPM drive.
The notebook was rendered to the 4400 rpm drive.

Wes C. Attle wrote on 11/7/2007, 7:47 AM

Hmm, 2:56 on my old Opteron 285 system. Almost on par with the latest QC from Intel. Not bad.

Guess I won't be upgrading to Penryn quad-core after all.

LReavis wrote on 11/7/2007, 5:55 PM

new q6600 quad core cpu arrived, with new G0 stepping (it runs a little cooler, and perhaps a little faster?). Installed on my old Asus P5B motherboard without even taking it off the shelf or disconnecting any wires except power. I paid about $290 w/shipping from ebay (I chose ebay so that I could be sure to get G0 stepping, as Newegg and others don't seem to guarantee which stepping you'll get; seach for G0 stepping, being sure to type a zero, not an "O").
Instead of using the stock cooler, I chose the $19 Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro from Newegg - mainly because it requires no backing plate to be installed on the motherboard, and comes complete with cooling paste pre-applied. Everything installed in 10 minutes or so. I plugged the power cord in and booted. Everything worked great, but I had to press F1 to get it to boot because the BIOS was too old to recognize late-model CPUs.
Before upgrading the BIOS, I overclocked to 3148 MHz (350x9), with default CPU voltage. All went well, and Core Temp.EXE beta .94 shows an idle temp of 38 degrees C on Core #0 - the hottest of the 4 cores. I ran the rendertest-hdv 3 times and got 1:44, 1:45, 1:45 times, with highest temp reaching 54 degrees C (again on Core #0). This is better than twice as fast as with the old Core2duo cpu.
I boosted up the voltage a couple of notches and set the speed to 370MHz x 9, but it wouldn't boot. I put all back as it was - I figured it would be nice to have the extra headroom with highest temp reaching 54 degrees.
Then I upgraded to BIOS and uninstalled Pivot Pro (it wouldn't open anyway - apparently too many changes to my system), and got rendertest time of 1:48 (3 seconds longer - go figure). The old Rendertest (DV) gives me 13 seconds, almost twice as fast as the 24 seconds I got with core2duo. This system has been totally stable at this speed/voltage (so far!). During rendering, Task Manager shows all 4 cores at 100% utilization most of the time.
Incidentally, I think I posted erroneous times for my old core2duo a few days ago. I ran the rendertest this morning and got 3:58, which is about what I remember getting last summer. I must have accidentally clicked on the Blu-Ray preset intead of HDV-1080i. Core Temp.EXE showed a temp of 67 degrees, with stock cooler, on one of the 2 cores of the core2duo while under full load during rendering (2.8 GHz, CPU voltage set a couple of steps above default to 1.2875 volts).
I'm running with 2 GB RAM, and am expecting another 2 from Corsair any day now (I had to return a pair of twins, as one had failed). Based on past experience, the extra RAM should improve performance slightly. We'll see.

herb wrote on 11/7/2007, 6:17 PM

Mac Pro Quad 2.0 Ghz 2gb Ram
Running windows XP Pro SP2 using boot camp
Vegas Pro 8.0a

I rendered the hdv.veg file in 1:56 seconds in 1080i 60

Herb

Erni wrote on 11/20/2007, 9:12 PM

Vegas Pro 8a

E6750

Asus P5K DeLuxe

1GB RAM Kingston 800

1080/60i

4:05

byGeorge wrote on 11/21/2007, 7:06 AM

Q6600 stock
4G RAM
8600GTS

7d - 2:11
8a - 2:12

George

1 … 4 5 6 … 21

of 21