Does more RAM speed up Vegas rendering time? at DVinfo.net

David Delaney · September 24th, 2006, 08:59 AM

I have 1gig of ram in my system (dual core 3.0 p4) and I notice the difference when I used to render to my laptop - my new systemn is faster, but not that much faster (my laptop is 1.5 celeron, 512 ram). Is there a chart or a listing somewhere that shows the differences in rendering when adding more RAM? I am thinking up upgrading to 2 gig, but wonder if it is worth it.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · September 24th, 2006, 09:05 AM

More than one gig of RAM is only beneficial to Vegas if you use a lot of graphics/stills/static title cards from your graphic editor. More RAM is often good for other apps, but regarding render times, etc...Vegas doesn't use a lot of RAM for vid.

David Delaney · September 24th, 2006, 10:09 AM

Is there anything that will speed up rending times then?

Douglas Spotted Eagle · September 24th, 2006, 10:22 AM

knowing more specifics about your workflow and media is key to offering advice about rendering speeds. There are a lot of optimizations that can be achieved on a per-project basis, but as an overall whole, there are no "this will speed renders by XXX%" sort of answers.

If you're using a lot of graphics, then add RAM.
If you're using a lot of HDV, consider how you're allocating those files to the timeline.
If you're using downloaded media with a wide variety of less common codecs, consider converting them prior to using on the timeline.
If you're editing includes using DVD-based or CD-based media, consider transferring that data.

These are just a very few considerations when wanting to decrease render time.

Gian Pablo Villamil · September 25th, 2006, 08:52 AM

Actually, I found that boosting ram from 1GB to 2GB did improve rendering times.

I was editing an HDV project with some still image montages as well, and I noticed that Vegas was chewing up all the RAM, and hence hitting the virtual memory quite hard (lots of hard disk thrashing).

With 2GB, Vegas used up a lot of RAM, but the amount of paging to virtual was much reduced. Since disk access is a much bigger bottleneck, overall render times were much improved.

Vincent Croce · September 28th, 2006, 06:01 PM

Although moving to 2 gigs improved my render times also, the biggest jump for me was by going to a dual core processor. I went with the Athlon 64 X2, but since then Intel's released the Core 2 Duo and these blow the doors off all previous processors. I've also noticed a bit faster rendering since I upgraded to Vegas 7 from Vegas 6...Sony has apparently improved the utilization of dual core/multi processors with the new version.
Just my 2 cents.

David Delaney · September 30th, 2006, 08:17 AM

Well, I went from a Celeron 1.5 to a dual core and I didn't notice that much of a difference in rendering time, unfortunately even with 800FBS on my motherboard. I have 1 gig of RAM right now, and even if it help a little, I would like to upgrade to 2 gig....I just wish RAM wasn't so darn expensive!

Vincent Croce · September 30th, 2006, 08:35 AM

David- If you went with anything from the P4 D line (which from post 1 I see you did), I can understand not seeing much difference since that was a quick fix from intel to try to keep the excellent AMD X2 line from running away with the show. Intel basically threw a couple of P4 chips on a die, they didn't design them from the ground up to work well together but they were cheap. (Sort of how in the '70s, GM wanted to market some deisel engines for gas efficiency, but all they did was take a gas engine and modify it. They were crap. ) However, Intel has done it right with the Core2Duo...now AMD is playing catch-up.
As for ram being expensive, I've been in ram heaven since the prices are so low right now. Even ddr2 can be had for less than 100US for a gig (TigerDirect)...I would think that would translate into even less for you in CA, what with the good exchange rates and all.
Just curious, are you running hdd's with good transfer speeds in your desktop?
Keeping the media on a separate drive from the OS/Apps? Defragging often? Saying your prayers at night? I know, all the stuff you probably know already, but just checking on some of the basics...

David Delaney · September 30th, 2006, 09:22 AM

Yeah, I have the D series, lucky me.
As for RAM, $130.00 Cdn gets me 1GIG of APacer DDR400 ram. Still alot of money when I want to buy audio/lighting equipment for my film-making habit.
As for my CPU, I wonder if I can overclock it or if there is anything to make this thing go faster, alas, I might have to upgrade again and throw the $250.00 down the drain I paid for this processor.

Chris Barcellos · September 30th, 2006, 12:32 PM

I am a bit discouraged thus far, with Vegas 7. I just went the upgrade route, buying 6 from BH and then upgrading on line. Great deal.

Over the last several months I have been on this board, Vegas seems to be the consensus best in terms of PC editing... However, at least with render times, my Premiere Pro 2 seems to be a lot faster. This was in DV, and I selected best for both renders of identical footage.... Technically, I have no idea if Premiere is providing less in the render, but I haven't seen the advantage yet. Comments please. I am trying to understand if there is a difference in the output between the two.

I am beginning to learn to like the Vegas GUI, but am still concerned that I am losing speed... I have heard that Premiere Pro might be using the video card as well as processor. (I have Dual Core AMD 3800+, 2 gigs mem, and an ATI X700 PCI Express video card with 256 meg.

Glenn Chan · September 30th, 2006, 02:44 PM

Don't render "best" in Vegas... it's usually unnecessary and significantly increases render time.

Quote:

I am trying to understand if there is a difference in the output between the two.

There may be really subtle differences in output. The actual filters you use will make a bigger difference though.

2- David, benchmark your system against the rendertest.veg results that are available. Your system should come in about 44-45 seconds.

Rendertest (the old one with lots of results)
http://www.vasst.com/resource.aspx?i...c-a7f431ebd02d
Do the rendertest at BEST quality, not good. The results below are for BEST mode.

39s - AMD X2 4600+
SOURCE: JohnnyRoy @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/for...3138&Replies=4

*39s/74s - AMD X2 4400+ (Toledo core, 2X2.2ghz, 2X1MB cache, no dual channel memory, Vegas 6.0b)
SOURCE: philfort@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/for...447&Replies=26

*39s - AMD X2 4400+ overclocked to 2420mhz
SOURCE: Jayster @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/for...5519&Replies=0

*40s/76s - AMD X2 4400+ (Toledo core, 2X2.2ghz, 2X1MB cache, no dual channel memory, Vegas 6.0b)
SOURCE: TheRhino@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/for...239&Replies=61

44s - Pentium D 3.0ghz
SOURCE: GMElliot @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/for...ssageID=454055
see also: http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/for...3138&Replies=8 (45s)

47s - Core Duo 1.83Ghz (laptop)
SOURCE: FrigidNDEditing @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/for...7142&Replies=3
SOURCE: GMElliot @ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/for...ssageID=454055

*75s - P4 3.6ghz overclocked from 3.0 Pentium. A new 5xx-series 3.6ghz should be as fast or slightly slower.
SOURCE: Stormcrow@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/for...239&Replies=57

78s- AMD64 3700+ (san diego core??? [2.2ghz, 1MB cache], vegas 6, dual channel RAM)
SOURCE: Charley Gallgher@ http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...8&page=2&pp=15

*78s- P4 3.2 overclocked to 3.8ghz (Northwood core???, 800FSB [it's overclocked, so the FSB is actually higher])
SOURCE: jamcas@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/for...ssageID=256422

79s- AMD64 3400+ (unknown core, Vegas 6)
SOURCE: Charley Gallagher@ http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...8&page=2&pp=15

89s- 3.0E Pentium Prescott (865 chipset, dual channel RAM, Vegas 5)
SOURCE: Glenn Chan@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/for...239&Replies=57

90s - 2.8ghz Pentium (Prescott)
SOURCE: TalawaMan@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/for...ssageID=262716

90s - Opteron 246 2.0ghz X 2 (dual channel memory, old 2004 core, *VEGAS 5*)
SOURCE: rohde@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/for...ssageID=256422
*Please keep in mind Vegas6 has optimizations for dual processors, while Vegas 5 does not.

93s - AMD64 3200+ (2004, so probably old core)
SOURCE: PH125@ http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.co...ssageID=256422
99s is Sid Phillip's report in the same thread.

95s - AMD64 3000+ (2.00ghz, 512kb cache, single channel, socket 754, 2004 core)
SOURCE: ibliss@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/for...ssageID=256422

114s - Pentium-M 1.7ghz laptop
SOURCE: The_Jeff@ http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/for...ssageID=262716

128s - Sempron 2400+ 1.4ghz (Palmero core, S754, 256KB cache)
SOURCE: Glenn Chan

Athlon XP: There are results if you look around. They aren't as fast as Pentiums or AMD64.

Platforms that support dual channel can run a few percent slower when running memory single channel. See Glenn Chan's (that's me) benchmarks at
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=18841
Systems with 2 pairs of identical RAM may also perform slightly faster.

Northwood-core Pentiums are about 6% slower than Prescott-cores (the 5xx series). Northwoods are typically faster at everything else, and consume less electricity.

Overclocked systems are not necessarily stable. As well, they may perform slightly better or worse than a stock system running at the same clock speed. Overclocking on Intel/Pentium platform implies an increase in FSB speed, and an increase or decrease in RAM speed (depends on the RAM they use).

Vegas 6 results may differ from V5 results. see http://www.sonymediasoftware.com/for...239&Replies=57
Johnmeyer writes:
My results on the old render test, using a 2.8 GHz P4, no hyperthreading:

Vegas 6.0b 1:46
Vegas 5.0d 1:43

---

These results are for the original rendertest.veg, not the new one. You can download it from:
http://www.vasst.com/resource.aspx?i...c-a7f431ebd02d

Seth Bloombaum · September 30th, 2006, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

...Over the last several months I have been on this board, Vegas seems to be the consensus best in terms of PC editing...

Well, nothing against Premiere, Final Cut, or xPress, etc. People are doing great work with all these editors. I find that the workflow Vegas supports is very efficient for my work, and, the interface is very understandable. Hopefully, you'll find similar results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn Chan

Don't render "best" in Vegas... it's usually unnecessary and significantly increases render time.

There may be really subtle differences in output. The actual filters you use will make a bigger difference though...

Seconding what Glenn wrote. As I understand it, "good" quality is fine for all renders of standard definition to standard def.

"Best" rendering quality will sometimes improve quality when rescaling, e.g. from HDV on the timeline to standard def for DVD, or from standard def on the timeline to 320x240 for web, etc. But it is worth rendering a short test to see if "best" actually benefits your project, because render times do go up dramatically.

September 24th, 2006, 08:59 AM	#1
David Delaney Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Niagara Ontario Canada Posts: 1,121	Does more RAM speed up Vegas rendering time? I have 1gig of ram in my system (dual core 3.0 p4) and I notice the difference when I used to render to my laptop - my new systemn is faster, but not that much faster (my laptop is 1.5 celeron, 512 ram). Is there a chart or a listing somewhere that shows the differences in rendering when adding more RAM? I am thinking up upgrading to 2 gig, but wonder if it is worth it.

September 24th, 2006, 09:05 AM	#2
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	More than one gig of RAM is only beneficial to Vegas if you use a lot of graphics/stills/static title cards from your graphic editor. More RAM is often good for other apps, but regarding render times, etc...Vegas doesn't use a lot of RAM for vid. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

September 24th, 2006, 10:22 AM	#4
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	knowing more specifics about your workflow and media is key to offering advice about rendering speeds. There are a lot of optimizations that can be achieved on a per-project basis, but as an overall whole, there are no "this will speed renders by XXX%" sort of answers. If you're using a lot of graphics, then add RAM. If you're using a lot of HDV, consider how you're allocating those files to the timeline. If you're using downloaded media with a wide variety of less common codecs, consider converting them prior to using on the timeline. If you're editing includes using DVD-based or CD-based media, consider transferring that data. These are just a very few considerations when wanting to decrease render time. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

September 28th, 2006, 06:01 PM	#6
Vincent Croce Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Fort Myers, FL Posts: 263	dual core... Although moving to 2 gigs improved my render times also, the biggest jump for me was by going to a dual core processor. I went with the Athlon 64 X2, but since then Intel's released the Core 2 Duo and these blow the doors off all previous processors. I've also noticed a bit faster rendering since I upgraded to Vegas 7 from Vegas 6...Sony has apparently improved the utilization of dual core/multi processors with the new version. Just my 2 cents.

September 30th, 2006, 12:32 PM	#10
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	I am a bit discouraged thus far, with Vegas 7. I just went the upgrade route, buying 6 from BH and then upgrading on line. Great deal. Over the last several months I have been on this board, Vegas seems to be the consensus best in terms of PC editing... However, at least with render times, my Premiere Pro 2 seems to be a lot faster. This was in DV, and I selected best for both renders of identical footage.... Technically, I have no idea if Premiere is providing less in the render, but I haven't seen the advantage yet. Comments please. I am trying to understand if there is a difference in the output between the two. I am beginning to learn to like the Vegas GUI, but am still concerned that I am losing speed... I have heard that Premiere Pro might be using the video card as well as processor. (I have Dual Core AMD 3800+, 2 gigs mem, and an ATI X700 PCI Express video card with 256 meg. __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

September 24th, 2006, 10:09 AM	#3
David Delaney Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Niagara Ontario Canada Posts: 1,121	Is there anything that will speed up rending times then?

September 25th, 2006, 08:52 AM	#5
Gian Pablo Villamil Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: New York, NY Posts: 138	Actually, I found that boosting ram from 1GB to 2GB did improve rendering times. I was editing an HDV project with some still image montages as well, and I noticed that Vegas was chewing up all the RAM, and hence hitting the virtual memory quite hard (lots of hard disk thrashing). With 2GB, Vegas used up a lot of RAM, but the amount of paging to virtual was much reduced. Since disk access is a much bigger bottleneck, overall render times were much improved.

September 30th, 2006, 08:17 AM	#7
David Delaney Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Niagara Ontario Canada Posts: 1,121	Well, I went from a Celeron 1.5 to a dual core and I didn't notice that much of a difference in rendering time, unfortunately even with 800FBS on my motherboard. I have 1 gig of RAM right now, and even if it help a little, I would like to upgrade to 2 gig....I just wish RAM wasn't so darn expensive!

September 30th, 2006, 08:35 AM	#8
Vincent Croce Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Fort Myers, FL Posts: 263	David- If you went with anything from the P4 D line (which from post 1 I see you did), I can understand not seeing much difference since that was a quick fix from intel to try to keep the excellent AMD X2 line from running away with the show. Intel basically threw a couple of P4 chips on a die, they didn't design them from the ground up to work well together but they were cheap. (Sort of how in the '70s, GM wanted to market some deisel engines for gas efficiency, but all they did was take a gas engine and modify it. They were crap. ) However, Intel has done it right with the Core2Duo...now AMD is playing catch-up. As for ram being expensive, I've been in ram heaven since the prices are so low right now. Even ddr2 can be had for less than 100US for a gig (TigerDirect)...I would think that would translate into even less for you in CA, what with the good exchange rates and all. Just curious, are you running hdd's with good transfer speeds in your desktop? Keeping the media on a separate drive from the OS/Apps? Defragging often? Saying your prayers at night? I know, all the stuff you probably know already, but just checking on some of the basics...

September 30th, 2006, 09:22 AM	#9
David Delaney Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Niagara Ontario Canada Posts: 1,121	Yeah, I have the D series, lucky me. As for RAM, $130.00 Cdn gets me 1GIG of APacer DDR400 ram. Still alot of money when I want to buy audio/lighting equipment for my film-making habit. As for my CPU, I wonder if I can overclock it or if there is anything to make this thing go faster, alas, I might have to upgrade again and throw the $250.00 down the drain I paid for this processor.