I realise there are many varialbes. I did download the file you refered to and rendered it. Took 1:41 to complete. Not sure if that's good or not.

You mentioned that there are many results posted, but I couldn't find any.

I certainly am curious about what others are experiencing with rendering speeds.

I did the same test . . . you sitting down . . . . it took 6:30!!!

Grazie

Well! Kinda makes me feel good. Don't know what to say? Hopefully your system is ancient to justify such results. What are your system details?

Oh . . . just the usual coal and oil fired 1ghzt, 256Ram, 7200 hd - y'know the type.

As long as I'm not doing anything important during the day OR I go to bed OR I don't use mire than 4 tracks [ ;-) ] I'm happy. I read the "typical" results data and I'm quite assured I'm in the . . . how do you New Worlders say . . . in the "ball park".

The test is quite processor demanding.

Grazie

http://www.sundancemediagroup.com/rendertest.htm
will get you to the summaries of the render tests. Hasn't been updated for nearly 2 months, so not a lot of fasst render times there. But enough to compare. Was that time using the template as set up? Or did you change anything? It's meant to be a proc killer benchmark test.

You asking me? Yes, I used your test and NO I didn't change anything.

Grazie

I didn't change a thing either. Just opened the veg file and rendered it.

I went to the page and got to see the results, however, how does one post their own results? I can't seem to find it. Perhaps that's why there haven't been any new result postings in months.

I ran the Render-Test, i dont think i did that bad, i did the test twice, one with Norton AntiVirus and Norton Internet Security Pro 2003 (Norton Internet Security 2003 Pro - Package).

With Norton: 2min:11sec:115millisec.
Without Norton:2min:11sec:445millisec.

Plus i run RazerBoomslang mousedriver, soundcard driver on the Tray.

Computer
Shuttle XPC SB51G
i2.4GHz@2.53GHz
Corsair PC3200(DDR400)@DDR333 (Computer doesnt support faster), 512MB
IBM Deskstar 14GB - ATA33, (an old disk from last century, lol)

Im quite happy about the results.

Frankie
Singapore

Test results:

My P iv 2,8c 1GB Ram

Render as: *.avi Pal 720*576

Time: 3:06

New machine with Sundance Rendertest, PAL 720 x 576: 2:40

P4; ASUS mobo, 3.2; 2gig RAM; XP Pro

. . . I'm very happy! :-)))

RAM Renders are fffaaasttt > > > >> t o o

Grazie

Okay . . you can all Scr r re e a m at me !!!

. . . okay dummy here . . shouldn't be allowed out on the streets of London without a chaperone 8-( . . . just read that I should have change the Media Properties of the media to PAL!!

. . . . I just knocked off another 70 seconds - HAH! It's now 1:30 . . . . .

Your most humbled . .

Grazie

Wow, Grazie, that puppy screams...

I did mine - 2:36 with an Athlon Barton 2500+ running at 2100MHz (roughly equivalent to their 3000+ model). Looks like it's ALL about raw clockspeed.

P4 3.06 512 MB RAM

Render as NTSC-DV avi

1:44

Mine was 2 min 6 seconds with a Standard Dell Dimension 350. P4 2.39 Ghz and 1GB of RAM.

Single rendertest: 2:00
Two simultaneous rendertests: 2:07 and 2:09
Three simultaneous rendertests: 3:17, 3:16, 2:15

[2.4 GHz dual xeon]

2:41- Athlon XP 2600, 512 DDR, gigabyte mobo

JL:

Very curious numbers. Since I'm assuming RenderTest primarily stresses the CPU, then the fact that both the one-instance and the two-instances showed about the same completion time implies that your system is bound not by the processor but rather by some other choke point; perhaps the disk. In other words, if you had a stone-slow CPU then the two-instance RenderTest could be assumed to take exactly twice as long as the one-instance test. Curious.

On my system I run a little program in the System Tray called "ABP Monitor." It shows a little graph indicating the percentage of time the CPU is working. If I run a couple of renders on two different instances of Vegas at the same time, the graph is at 100%, but if I try to run four instances simultaneously, the graph drops down, implying that all the disk thrashing (disk swaps for virtual memory) is causing the CPU to be sitting there doing nothing for much of the time.

riredale –

Not sure if there is a choke point or what. I ran the rendertests several more times, writing to single HD and various combinations of multiple internal and external (firewire) HD’s with no detectable change to render times.

Normal CPU usage for my system is somewhere near 50% to 55% for each processor during (single) renders within Vegas*. CPU usage goes to 100% during multiple renders, but does not drop (at least not for up to 4 simultaneous renders.)

Additional results:

Single rendertest 2:00 CPU=50%
2 rendertests 2:10, 2:10 CPU=100%
3 rendertests 3:17, 3:16, 2:15 CPU=100%
4 rendertests 4:23, 4:23, 2:19, 4:16 CPU=100%


*As a side note, the CPU usage goes up to 75% to 80% during (single) renders in DVDA. Not sure what’s going on to explain it.

As far as old disks go, I tried the render test writing to an older SCSI II zip100 drive. don't remember the precise results but they were comparable to my 1394 disk. Drive throughput isn't much of an issue it seems.

I did the test this way to demonstrate the point to myself. It was on a 750MHz PIII laptop so you can imagine that the render time was 11 minutes or so. Plenty of time to write to disk. If you're approaching 1:1 time then disk throughput and overhead probably matters a lot more.

Rob Mack

I clock in at 1:37 single render and 2:31 (each) on two renders with a 3.06 P4 and 1 gig 800 mhz ram.
I should be very happy, right? My problem is, in a 20 minute 3-video track, 2-audio track project it can take 3-4 seconds just to delete a clip and sometimes V4d won't respond at all for a minute or two (or not at all and I have to force it to close with a ctrl/alt/del).
Could this have anything to do with my NVidia GeForce4 MX 440 video card sharing an IRQ with USB host controller or my Ultra ATA storage controllers sharing USB host controllers?
TIA,
Randy