Former user wrote on 11/27/2002, 10:20 PM
I downloaded and tried out the render speed test veg file. Is there any sort of reference that shows what is a decent render time? My system rendered it in 2 mins 16 seconds. That about average?
Spot|DSE wrote on 11/27/2002, 11:42 PM
you are faster than average. I think SOFO's engineers have been using the posted times to test for optimizations. It's a good idea to post machine spex so folks can compare. On the COW we had over 100 folks run this little test. Average speed was just over 4.00 on a PIII1.4 gig. processor speed didn't make the difference, RAMBUS, SCSI, and a few other tricks make the difference. No one has broken the 2.00 mark yet, but a few systems, one as slow as a 1.4 gig w/rambus, scsi, tweaked by PC Nirvana came in at 2.02, and that's the best time I've seen yet.
vonhosen wrote on 11/28/2002, 1:52 AM
Gigabyte GA-8IHXP
P4 2.53Ghz (533)
512Mb RAMBUS (1066)
Western Digital SE hard drives
Radeon 9700 Pro
Win XP Pro
(No tweeks)

AlexB wrote on 11/28/2002, 3:31 AM
Just for fun:
P4 2.4 (533) on MSI845E MAX2-BLR, W2000
512 MB DDRAM, RAID,SCSI,ATA100 - identical times, no matter which drive:2.12
turned up Processor speed by clock (software tuning tool with the mainboard):
2.8 GHz (18x156): 1.53! honestly
(froze at ~ 3.0 GHz, 166 MHz bus clock)
so I think there is some influence of CPU speed on results.
Thank you SPOT for the sharing site!
Former user wrote on 11/28/2002, 6:50 AM
P4 - 2.4ghz
512meg RAM DDR 2700
Asus P4S8X mobo
80 WD ATA100 system drive
Fastrak TX2000 RAID w/ 4 x 80 WD ATA100 8meg cache
Gforce4 Ti4600 video card
WinXP Pro
Spot|DSE wrote on 11/28/2002, 10:29 AM
Yes, there is influence by proc on speed, but it's not as monstrous as some think. a jump from a 1 gig to a 2.4 gig for instance, doesn't provide for half the render time.
This file for testing is DEFINITELY hard on a processor, I made it that way for testing speed. As long as everyone creates/renders with the project settings I spec'd, it's a hard render no matter what, because it's all generated media, it's got blur, and it's at best. Plus a few other little do hickey's in there..:-)
More files posted already.
salad wrote on 11/28/2002, 11:56 AM
AMD multipupose PC:
Win XP home w/SP-1
700 MHz AMD slot A CPU
Genereic MoBo using AMD 751 chipset
latest AmMegatrends bios(not really tweakable)
20 GB 7200 ata 66 Quantum master & 40 GB 7200 ata 100 WesDigital slave
Nvidia(Riva)TNT2 M64 AGP / Philips CDRW
SB Live Plat., Pinnacle 1394, & modem PCI cards
Usually scores low running Sandra benchmarks

Time: 7:16 rendering to master - 7:19 rendering to slave


Custom built multimedia PC:
Win XP Pro w/SP-1
1400 MHz AMD socket A CPU
Epox 8KHA+ Mobo with VIA KT266A chipset
latest bios and drivers thru out system
512 MB DDRAM - using aggressive DRAM timings/settings in bios
30 GB 7200 ata 100 WesDigital master & 120 GB(WD special edition)7200 ata 100 slave
Nvidia GForce 3 Ti 200 4x AGP
Generic 1394 (only PCI card installed)Nothing connected to ports for tests.
M-Audio Quattro USB Audio/MIDI interface device - left disconnected for tests.
Toshiba DVD ROM/CDRW combo drive

Time @ default cpu speed: 3:42 rendered to slave, 3:41 rendered to master
Time @ cpu OC'd to 1.63 GHz: 3:12 rendered to slave, 3:14 rendered to master
Defragged & rebooted between tests - ran several times.

Fun test & thanks SPOT
Happy Thanksgiving All!
watson wrote on 11/28/2002, 1:58 PM
Intel D845PESV M.B
2.4 P4
W.D 7200 IDE
Matrox G550
Render to AVI = 2.14

Interesting test. I was wondering what render time is usual on a P-4 system.
I'm going to compare this to my Dual AMD 1900 system.
MyST wrote on 11/28/2002, 4:37 PM
WinXP Home
850 Athlon T-Bird
512 RAM
Chaintech 7AJA MoBo Via 133
40 Gig Quantum 7200RPM
ATI 7500 Radeon latest drivers

6:32 min.
jordonringel wrote on 11/28/2002, 5:16 PM
1.8a at 2.0, 512ddr, seagate 80gig 7200, win xp pro w/ sp1, 2:39
Spot|DSE wrote on 11/28/2002, 8:13 PM
Good speeds for those faster PIII's, and GREAT speeds for the P4's...The 2 minute barrier was broken by a guy that has the new Xeon HT's, I don't know the model, but assume it's a 2.8 or so. Single proc.
Keep in mind, Vegas only really benefits from dual procs when there is LOTS of audio, or when there are multiple instances open.
nanjil wrote on 11/28/2002, 9:04 PM
stock hp 751x athelaon 2000 xp
windows xp home -sp1
2:57 min
fetch wrote on 11/29/2002, 2:04 AM
I'm missing out on all the fun, can someone point me in the right direction for the setup templates to be used to run this test please.
ie are we rendering as mpg, avi? etc..

Finatic13 wrote on 11/29/2002, 1:43 PM
can someone tell me what were eant to be rendering it to??? dv, mpeg 1, 2 etc?
salad wrote on 11/29/2002, 2:56 PM
Render using the "NTSC DV" template.

Also: SPOT said...."Good speeds for those faster PIII's.."
What PIII's? Is there a link to more test results?
AlexB wrote on 11/29/2002, 6:44 PM
You could search the Cow for "rendertest"

COW VV3-forum

Found my own overclocking test notes:
2:12 @ 2.4 GHz P4(533)
2:01 @ 2.6 GHz
1:57 @ 2.7 GHz
1:53 @ 2.8 GHz

on my dual PIII 1.0GHz/ 1GB SDRAM MSI 6321 had 6:xx

SPOT: any way we could see a summary of the results?
The test sure is lots of work for the cpu!

Spot|DSE wrote on 11/29/2002, 9:00 PM
There are nearly 80 test results, I started to compile them, and then folks started changing the properties of the file, and that completely obviated the testing. Somebody had said they were keeping an Excel file, I don't recall who....I know the boyz from SOFO were writing down some of the results as well. I just gave up when people started posting "I changed the render from best to good and got this time" or "I turned off the gaussian blur and got this faster time."
The whole point of the exercise was to blast the proc with a nasty project that would really show render time at a fair baseline for all machines....
I'll see what I can dig up and will post on the Sundance Media Group site.
Spot|DSE wrote on 11/29/2002, 9:22 PM

Then navigate to the files page, and you'll see next to the rendertest, a link to a summary of times that were collected. I can add these times as well, if y'all would like.

AlexB wrote on 11/30/2002, 7:45 AM
Thank you, SPOT, that's a good overview! No changes in the .veg settings in my tests, tried it again just now to make sure. It was 2:13 now @2.4 GHz, so obviously I didn't make too many mistakes building this machine.

Spot|DSE wrote on 11/30/2002, 12:57 PM
Just use the template settings that are there, rendering to NTSC-avi
SonyDennis wrote on 11/30/2002, 1:21 PM
Whaa. My home machine, a Sony VAIO w/ 1.6G P4, swings in around 3:36. Probably not such a bad thing if the developer's don't have the fastest machines <g>.
riredale wrote on 11/30/2002, 2:38 PM
Just don't make any editing mistakes and you'll never have to re-render!

(Rendering once on a slower machine beats the pants out of rendering three times on a screamer...)
Spot|DSE wrote on 11/30/2002, 3:01 PM
(Rendering once on a slower machine beats the pants out of rendering three times on a screamer...)
Wiser words have never before been uttered......Not by anybody in video, that is. :-)
I wonder when the "talent" ability reaches the "computeability" in our world?