Vegas Pro 14 rendering on 16-core / 32 thread monster setup

bravof wrote on 10/6/2016, 2:48 AM

Hi,

I have upgraded my PC from a beefy 4790K (4 Ghz 4 core) machine to a crazy dual CPU Xeon E5-2670 for a total of 16 core / 32 thread @ 2.6 GHz. So from fast 4 cores to slower 16 cores.

I did not do a fromal benchmark but here are my findings for those considering such an upgrade:

 

Rendering is faster... but not much faster. I tried Main Concept, Sony AVC and (my favorite choice) libav H264. 

Each core runs at a lower speed and not all cores are utilised and even when utilised, cores seem only to run at half power:

http://prntscr.com/cqfg74

So at best I get about 16 to 20 threads working for a total processors efficiency of 40-45%. The GPUs are barely used during rendering so not the bottleneck. 64 GB EEC memory, 15% utilisation, also no bottleneck.

 

I have the feeling I gained maybe 30-50% rendering time. 

 

But editing in Vegas Pro feels a bit slower. There, the 4 Ghz really helps with editing speed vs the native 2.6 GHz. I do get immediate full preview like before in best, but it just does not feel as snappy.

 

So in conclusion the upgrade is not a clear win and below my expectations. Niether the rendering nor the editing are designed to make full usage of so many (slower) cores.

If I were to build another editing maching I would probably go with a sensibly priced 6 core 4930K, 5820K or 6800K.

Comments

Wolfgang S. wrote on 10/6/2016, 4:29 AM

Or one takes an i7 5960X what has 8 cores, and can be overclocked with water cooling to more then 4 GHz as I did. My experience was here also that the upgrade stayed below my expectations, but maybe that is the better choice because Vegas still benefits from high Ghz figures.

Musicvid wrote on 10/6/2016, 11:40 AM

Limit the renderer to 6-8 cores, and you actually may see an increase in speed.

bravof wrote on 10/6/2016, 12:38 PM

Or one takes an i7 5960X what has 8 cores, and can be overclocked with water cooling to more then 4 GHz as I did. My experience was here also that the upgrade stayed below my expectations, but maybe that is the better choice because Vegas still benefits from high Ghz figures.

haha: note that I said "sensibly priced" which the 5960X is not :)

bravof wrote on 10/6/2016, 12:39 PM

Limit the renderer to 6-8 cores, and you actually may see an increase in speed.

Interesting. I'll give it a try.

Wolfgang S. wrote on 10/6/2016, 12:50 PM

And a Xeon cheaper? ;)

True is, that the 8core processor is priced 40% lower but performs better with Vegas.

I am not so sure who will say now "haha". 

 

 

 

Rich Parry wrote on 10/6/2016, 11:46 PM

I have had dual Xeons with a total of 24 cores for nearly a decade, 2.26.GHz. Paid nearly $4,000 just for the CPUs. I have been very disappointed. I did lots of tests years ago, I don't have numbers to share, but the results are poor. I just live with it. It isn't bad, just not what I expected.

I thought it was better to have more cores than speed, so I got CPUs (2.26 GHz), but have since decided a faster clock speed is more important than more cores.

Wolfgang S. wrote on 10/7/2016, 2:10 AM

 but have since decided a faster clock speed is more important than more cores.

That is the point! For Vegas clock speed is still king!

john_dennis wrote on 10/7/2016, 4:05 PM

I'm currently assembling parts for my quad-annual system replacement and I'm holding at a six core i7-6850 because Vegas strands CPU capacity, (after the 6850, the core clock speeds start to drop). Stranded capacity has been my frustration with every version of Vegas since 8. With respect to my 4K future, I rendered a 4K clip from a Sony RX10iii to Sony XAVC, Sony AVC Internet and I frameserved to Handbrake. In this clip, see for yourself which encoder makes good use of all that money that's spent on hardware.