Are these rendering speeds accurate?!

[Jordan Brindle]

Hi guys,

I recently upgraded my rig to;

Sony Vegas 10, 64 bit
Windows 7 64 Bit
i7 950 @ 3.60ghz
6GB Dominator Ram
ATi6950 2048 Mb GPU
120GB SSD
1TB HDD

To render 10 minutes of raw .m2t files into Pal DV Widescreen 720x576.avi files is going to take 6:30 seconds. I am rendering from Sony Vegas located on my SSD drive (3Gb/s transfer rate) to my 1TB HDD (6gb/s transfer rate).

CPU Usage is at 90-95%, ram 4.55 GB.

It's been a good 8 months or so since i last edited anything, so i may have lost my perspective, but i was hoping to see some faster results.

What do you guys think?

Is there a better format/test to render with to give you a better idea of the rendering speed?

[Mike Kujbida]

I don't work with m2t files so I can't comment on your speed question.

I will say that it's never a good idea to put any assets (be they video, audio or anything else) on your C drive which is what your SSD is (right?).
That should be exclusively for your programs and nothing else.
Do all your rendering work on your second drive.
Some folks prefer to have a 3-drive system with all the raw material on drive D and the edited material going to drive E.
There's a very minor speed improvement with 3 drives vs. 2 but your pocketbook will have to decide if you want to go that route.

[Jordan Brindle]

Originally Posted by Mike Kujbida

I don't work with m2t files so I can't comment on your speed question.

I will say that it's never a good idea to put any assets (be they video, audio or anything else) on your C drive which is what your SSD is (right?).
That should be exclusively for your programs and nothing else.
Do all your rendering work on your second drive.
Some folks prefer to have a 3-drive system with all the raw material on drive D and the edited material going to drive E.
There's a very minor speed improvement with 3 drives vs. 2 but your pocketbook will have to decide if you want to go that route.

Well Vegas is on my SSD drive, but all my files/temp folders/renders/edits are on the 1TB HDD. My SSD is reserved for programs and nothing else.

[Mike Kujbida]

Apologies for the confusion.
In the original post, you said "I am rendering from Sony Vegas located on my SSD drive..." and I took that to mean that the video files were on drive C.

[Jeff Harper]

Vegas is downconverting, so yes your render time doesn't sound too far off. With your killer processor I too would expect faster results too, just because.

HD is a bear, isn't it?

[Jeff Harper]

Ouch, your processor is not 6 core as I thought. Forgive me for asking what is none of my business: Why didn't you go to a 970?

It's not overclockable much, but those extra cores, I would love to have them. I am considering dropping the $$$ for one myself as an incremental upgrade from a 920.

Anyway, your render times definitely do sound about right. If the 960 is overclockable, let it rip. My 920 does 3.2 with ease, so if your chip and motherboard are built for it you could probably get some decent, if not earth shattering improvment.

[Jordan Brindle]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Vegas is downconverting, so yes your render time doesn't sound too far off. With your killer processor I too would expect faster results too, just because.

HD is a bear, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Ouch, your processor is not 6 core as I thought. Forgive me for asking what is none of my business: Why didn't you go to a 970?

It's not overclockable much, but those extra cores, I would love to have them. I am considering dropping the $$$ for one myself as an incremental upgrade from a 920.

Anyway, your render times definitely do sound about right. If the 960 is overclockable, let it rip. My 920 does 3.2 with ease, so if your chip and motherboard are built for it you could probably get some decent, if not earth shattering improvment.

Thank you jeff.

Yeah its overclockable, i have the perfect board for it, only i skimped out on a non-stock cooler, and am using the basic, crappy intel fan hehe. I'll look into overclocking at some point.

In the mean time, does anyone else have any input? Is there a way to optimize Vegas with my chip?

[Jeff Harper]

Jordan, it's processor, processor, processor. Vegas isn't configuable, unfortunately. You're getting 95% cpu load, that's as good as it gets.

[Jordan Brindle]

Overclock it is then! Hehe! Thanks mate, take care.

[Jeff Harper]

Wish there was another answer, but speeding up Vegas is a common desire, and we've all had to face the ugly truth, it comes down to the hardware.

[Jeff Harper]

Jordan, I had an issue months ago and stopped overclocking, and I never bothered to go back and reset my settings to the OC'd version.

Yesterday I had to convert a lot of footage using Cineform, and decided to go back to 3.6, up from 2.67 stock.

What a difference, it is much faster. So if you can squeeze about 1gHz more out of your processor, you would likely be happy with the results.

[David Wayne Groves]

With my i7core 920 2.67Ghz, 12Gig DDR3, GTX 295, 3-1TB Hds, Windows 7 64Bit, Vegas 10d 64Bit, I just processed a 1 Hour 35 minute Multicam video shoot using the new Cineform Neo software for realtime color Correction, I applied transitions and fades from within vegas.
Render time to Bluray was 42 minutes, I was not pleased with video noise from one of my cameras so I applied the noise reduction plugin from Newblue to the project, and my render time jumped to 26hrs...ouch....but it looked a lot better, so certain plugins play a big role your render time...

[Jordan Brindle]

Originally Posted by David Wayne Groves

With my i7core 920 2.67Ghz, 12Gig DDR3, GTX 295, 3-1TB Hds, Windows 7 64Bit, Vegas 10d 64Bit, I just processed a 1 Hour 35 minute Multicam video shoot using the new Cineform Neo software for realtime color Correction, I applied transitions and fades from within vegas.
Render time to Bluray was 42 minutes, I was not pleased with video noise from one of my cameras so I applied the noise reduction plugin from Newblue to the project, and my render time jumped to 26hrs...ouch....but it looked a lot better, so certain plugins play a big role your render time...

What the hell? How did you get that so quick? Is that the cineform neo codec at work?

[Dale Guthormsen]

Jordan,

I am using the same processor I7 920 and all that and I have to say that my render times are reasonably fast!! I always burn blu ray and sometimes I am shocked at how quickly it all finishes out!! I always use color grading and severalfx tools. for Noise I use Neat and it can really bog things down, so I render them independantly in a second instance of Vegas and then put them back in the timeline, then render times go back to normal.

[David Wayne Groves]

Originally Posted by Jordan Brindle

What the hell? How did you get that so quick? Is that the cineform neo codec at work?

Yes, the color correction from Neo using Firstlight is realtime in the codec, so vegas does not have to make any corrections at all when rendering the footage.
Please note the project render using the Neo color correction only had Vegas fades and transitions between cameras thus the fast render time..
I have to say the upgrade to Neo from neoscene was one of the best things I could have done, firstlight is awesome ...so if you have neoscene by all means pay the 170.00 for the upgrade, its well worth it...check out the demo here...http://support.cineform.com/entries/...video-tutorial