There has been a lot of comments on v23 rendering. On my PC, a render takes at least twice as long as v22 (all presets, plug-ins and other factors being the same AFAIK), The legacy titler tool moves text to the right (0.250).

....... On my PC, a render takes at least twice as long as v22 (all presets, plug-ins and other factors being the same AFAIK),

That's why I haven't upgraded to VP23.

When testing the Trial of VP23 rendering took twice as long as VP22, my projects are 10 - 30 simple MP4's trimmed & crossfaded to make a 20min video, VP22 will render it in 10mins or less, I'm not spending money upgrading to VP23 & then having to wait 40mins for my project to render 👎🤦‍♂️😒

....... On my PC, a render takes at least twice as long as v22 (all presets, plug-ins and other factors being the same AFAIK),

That's why I haven't upgraded to VP23.

When testing the Trial of VP23 rendering took twice as long as VP22, my projects are 10 - 30 simple MP4's trimmed & crossfaded to make a 20min video, VP22 will render it in 10mins or less, I'm not spending money upgrading to VP23 & then having to wait 40mins for my project to render 👎🤦‍♂️😒

Hi @Gid

I've only found VP23 (purchased) faster to render.

I think I may have asked this of you previously?

Anyway.

It might help resolve this issue for you if you made a sample test set of your files/project that you know is slower then users like myself can report back to you if its also slower.

Ideally with only fx (if used) that are common to all users.

I have vp22 and vp23 installed on my laptop and main PC so easy to compare

Both purchased, not trial versions, in case that matters.

Do also include screenshot of render template to use plus screenshot of project properties.

If @HelgeK or @rraud can do similar then fine.

If a single clip without any fx still has the slowdown then that's even easier to test than a complex project.

Of course different users will have different pc's but a test like this would help narrow it down to perhaps specific HW that's (?) not optimised in vp23.

That's a good idea for isolating what Fx or media types are causing slowdowns (beyond that which we already know).

If @HelgeK or @rraud can do similar then fine.

If a single clip without any fx still has the slowdown then that's even easier to test than a complex project.

Of course different users will have different pc's but a test like this would help narrow it down to perhaps specific HW that's (?) not optimised in vp23.

 

My problem is that when rendering in VP22, I can get the CPU and GPU to run at 100%, depending on the chosen method. However, in VP23, both the CPU and GPU are running at a maximum of 7% each, no matter which method I choose.

@HelgeK Could you do the two benchmarks in my signature on 22 and 23 and see if they also have this issue.

Perhaps reset 23 before starting the test: https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/faq-how-can-i-reset-vegas-pro-to-default-settings--104646/

The benchmarks don't eliminate/test users own media type.

It's still preferable for users to make available the media/projects that are causing slowdown.

That way perhaps some commonality can be determined with respect to media type, fx used, etc. The issues causing the slow rrender can then attempt to be isolated.

This test approach will only work if there is indeed found to be a user rendering difference with the benchmarks.

If the user is reporting 7% CPU usage with a benchmark then we know the media isn't the issue. That's why I replied what I did to this post while echoing what you wrote about media and project files above.

Different tools to make the diagnosis.

This is my experience with a sample (normally difficult to playback) 26 second duration hevc clip (AV-Support).

I added 3 of same and trimmed to 60s duration external to VP to make a 60 second test clip. I rendered out to AVC 50 fps h264.

My main PC can do HW encoding to AMD (iGPU), QSV and Nvenc.

It's of limited use as it's not reflecting users PC's here.

Anyway FWIW ...

Using VP22 and VP23 and default render templates for AMD. QSV and Nvenc.

All 3 HW renders were within 1 second of each other for VP22 and VP23, that is a render time of ~ 60 seconds for 60s input file.

The only outlier was VP22 Nvenc rendering of 79 seconds, as was expected.

Anyway.

It might help resolve this issue for you if you made a sample test set of your files/project that you know is slower then users like myself can report back to you if its also slower.

Ideally with only fx (if used) that are common to all users.

@johnny-s Hi, as in my post I found it's all media with no fxs, so providing a test sample would be pointless, I must point out that on my post there's 4 other people who have slower rendering + there's been at least two other posts, inc this one, that have said they're getting slower times.

@Gid By all media you mean no matter what media you use?

So If I provide (via dropbox) the 60 second sample plus sample render templates I used (defaults all) then you should get slower render times for VP23?

Let me know and I can do.

Link Here

@Gid I'm not doubting the slow rendering but simply trying to establish where the issue lies.

Meant to say that I had Nvidia in I/O for HW decoding on all of above tests.

So I just changed that to AMD decoding and rendered out using AMD HW encoding. Still within 1.5 seconds (actually faster than before) of previous render times. Am not yet using beta version.

@johnny-s My trial of VP23 has ended but yes I tried multiple formats, they rendered at different speeds but all were slower than VP22,. Some drastically slower & the fastest was fast enough to be even slightly satisfactory.

I don't believe we as mere users can determine a cause to this issue, what does interest me tho is that there are multiple reports of slower rendering speeds (& other rendering issues), yet there's no response from the Vegas team, absolutely zero & also very little input from the more reg senior forum members.. 'Silence speaks a thousand words'

PS. I've been editing videos for 20+yrs, I have VP18 - 22, I've 430 videos on YT the majority of which are 20mins ish, these are made from 10-30 clips each, that makes thousands of clips/events edited. This isn't a user, media or PC problem, this is a Vegas problem.

I did another test with the same files as before, but decided to turn on Resiz-Bar in the BIOS.

Yes, VP22 still renders faster, but slightly. The FPS difference isn't much to write home about. My GPU drivers are up to date. But note the huge amount of RAM VP23 was consuming. I'll test later after a computer restart.

@Gid

"This isn't a user, media or PC problem, this is a Vegas problem."

I suppose if that is the case then the next update before year end may fix things. If not then all you can do is purchase VP23 (your trial has expired) and do some more testing?

I still think it would be useful at this time for @HelgeK and @rraud to consider making available samples that they consider problematic, as requested earlier.

I updated to beta 302 anyway.

Did a CPU render (HW decoding = Nvidia) also. Using similar render template for VP22 and VP23. The VP23 output a bigger file and higher data rate.

However VP23 was faster to render .. VP22 2m:16s vs VP23 1m:56s. So nice improvement.

@johnny-s I'm not going to purchase VP23 with the hope they'll sort it out, I'm ok carrying on with VP22.

I've been on this forum longer than my profile says, I know that the type of comments I've made about this & reading the other posts that under normal circumstances we would have been picked up on & some may have been chastised for those negative comments by a few of the other reg forum members, but their silence on this spks for itself.

There is def an issue & for whatever reason those in the know are keeping stumm about it.

I updated to beta 302 anyway.

Did a CPU render (HW decoding = Nvidia) also. Using similar render template for VP22 and VP23. The VP23 output a bigger file and higher data rate.

However VP23 was faster to render .. 2m:16s vs 1m:56s. So nice improvement.

Good for you, there's others that have stated faster render times, some have much faster render times, but there's quite a few of us who are getting slower times, some much slower times ..

I'm not losing any sleep over the few extra minutes for rendering on my end. But yes, it is an advertising point that was made. And reading the computer specs of those that report an increase in rendering performance, I am left with a big "?" on my mind. Some with the same hardware report otherwise.

But I do like the new UI and other feature. But I also fully understand @Gid taking a "wait and see" approach. I've always could not resist being an early adopter. I await the next patch, and I hope it is sooner rather than later.