VV7 render was slower than 6...

TeeJay wrote on 9/12/2006, 7:59 AM

I have no idea what benchmark tests are performed to garner an applications speed, but i just did a quick render test of my own and the outcome was not favourable to version 7.

I did not make any pre-judgements about the new version and amid all of the negativity, i decided to check it out for myself....

So, i did exactly the same thing in both 6d and 7a. I actually just dragged Chienworks 'reflected text' veg. onto the timeline and rendered it out as an mpeg2.
6d rendered out in 3:37
7a rendered out in 4:25
Now, we're talking about less than 6 seconds of vision here, how would those times differ with a long clip? I'm not sure that i'll bother to check it out........

Disappointed is all i can say!

Comments

Spot|DSE wrote on 9/12/2006, 8:15 AM

I would suspect you've got something else going on in there, as this contradicts what virtually everyone else has noted during both beta and release projects.
6 seconds would buffer perhaps differently, or fragmentation of disc might come into play.

bStro wrote on 9/12/2006, 8:19 AM

I seem to recall similar experiences when Vegas 6 came out, only for it to improve after users tweaked the default program preferences ("maximum number rendering threads," in particular, but also others).

We tune a program to our liking / for best performance as time goes on, and when we re-install the same program or install a new version, we forget that the new one hasn't yet been tuned.

Might not be the case, but I think it's a possibility. (I've been wrong before, of course. Two or three tmes just today, in fact. ;)

Rob

fldave wrote on 9/12/2006, 8:51 AM

Make sure your Options\Video tabs are similar, specifically, Dynamic RAM and Render Threads. Base V6 install sets Dynamic RAM to 16 or 64, which is the worst setting based on my tests. Set it to 128. Not sure what V7 out of the box install sets it at.

ken c wrote on 9/12/2006, 9:32 AM

thx fldave, that's very useful... any tip on best setting for number of render threads? what's fastest etc?

looks like default V7 sets dynamic RAM to 127.. odd to have that vs 128

great thread idea, eg bs do various renders to test V4-V7 speeds, for different projects. It would be interesting if Vegas 4 outdid V7 on render speeds. and test multicam complex renders vs simple one-clip renders etc, for a good representative sample.

thx,

ken

fldave wrote on 9/12/2006, 9:49 AM

Great to hear that VV7 avoids the 16 default setting! They must have duplicated my problem.

Here are my previous test comparisons, haven't downloaded V7 yet:

http://www.visualretreat.com/vegas/2005_V5V6_Compare.htm

wwaag wrote on 9/12/2006, 10:36 AM

Used "rendertest.veg" that I believe you can download from VASST. There are some threads showing results for various PC systems. In any event, I found the same thing as the original poster--v7 is slower. I did equate the video options for both versions. Results were that v6 took 93 sec, while v7 took 102 sec, about a 10% drop in speed. Doesn't look promising.

wwaag

ken c wrote on 9/12/2006, 11:25 AM

thanks for the tip, great idea to have a rendertest.veg... and we can develop new ones as well, to test various types of renders.. though our renders will differ due to machines + drive configs, tests done with the same source media on the same pcs should yield *very* valuable insights.

re upgrading, a great example is Win2000 vs WinXP... I like my win2k a *lot* better than the slower, newer winXP..

so let's all test, that's the answer. nice to see at least sony's trying a bit. Let's see if they can try a bit harder, like giving us a decent TITLER and more useful features in 7.0b

ken

Spot|DSE wrote on 9/12/2006, 11:27 AM

Just as an aside...rendering 108024f to WMVHD, Vegas 7 is nearly twice as fast as V6...using the same batch script as before.

Jay-Hancock wrote on 9/12/2006, 11:39 AM

Another good test is to do a real render on a complex, memory-hogging project. I found that Vegas 6 improved memory management a great deal compared to Vegas 5. A HD project that tanked in V5 continued on in V6 with a lot less memory consumption (you must examine both RAM used and Virtual Memory used).

This is no small thing. For a really complex project, improved memory management can mean the difference between a failed render and a successful delivery. I saw somewhere that V7 is supposed to have improved memory management (for .m2t source media, at least).

Of course we won't see this much unless we do some real renders (not just 6 second clips).

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 9/12/2006, 3:02 PM

My renders run same speed and faster (for those that are interested).

Dave