I think you were overlay optimistic about your new system.

I have the same CPU and it's amazingly fast, but it's only 5x the processing power of your old CPU. Certainly Windows will boot and apps will load much faster on your M.2 SSD rig, but there's little else that will have an impact on video editing.

I'm not clear if "render" means using the Render Preview tool to make the timeline preview more fluid or actually producing the video, but if you're only seeing a 2x improvement that implies that some of the effects and/or edits are limited by processing bottlenecks that aren't CPU-related.

Your new RX 5600XT supports both AVC and HEVC hardware encoding, but your old GT(X?) 730 wasn't doing anything to help as it doesn't have the required nVidia hardware encoding that PD uses (NVENC). FYI there's no GTX 730 listed on the nVidia site:



The length that your timeline can be played back before stopping seems like the best way to see how much more powerful your new system is, but that comparision only works with the exact same project.

If you'd like to share the project so other people can test it out, use Pack Project Materials under PD's File menu and upload everything to a folder on One Drive or Google Drive. See this FAQ for more details, and you may want to swap out any clips that you don't want publicly shared.

You can also get smoother timeline preview be reducing the preview resolution to Full HD or HD.

Note that some effects, transitions and other edits may take more procesing power than your system is capable of to apply the edits in real time. In that case, using Render Preview or using the Range Select tool and replacing that section with the produced clip will be the best approach.

YouTube/optodata

DS365 | Win11 Pro | Ryzen 9 3950X | RTX 4070 Ti | 32GB RAM | 10TB SSDs | 5K+4K HDR monitors

Canon Vixia GX10 (4K 60p) | HF G30 (HD 60p) | Yi Action+ 4K | 360Fly 4K 360°

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

That is a typo on my old graphics card. It should read GT 730, no X.


The Render Full Preview on the old system was done in the Produce screen. It was estimating ~15 minutes at first but I walked away and the final time was shown as 10:03 when I came back. The new system render was done the same way (corrected 1/10/21).


I have not worked on a new project with the new system yet. I probably will be doing more Render Preview more to look at segments since it is fast enough now to use in small doses.


I'll give the lower res preview setting a try. Thanks.

Quote
The Render Full Preview on the old system was done in the Produce screen. It was estimating ~15 minutes at first but I walked away and the final time was shown as 10:03 when I came back. The new system render was done off the Edit screen using the new Render Preview button to the right. It went to the Produce screen, rendered and came back to the Edit screen. I timed it with my phone.

If you are trying to compare produced times of a file produce operation in the "Produce" room with a "Render Preview" in Edit mode, you can't do that. The "Render Preview" is limited to partial CPU power.

Do like productions with format, bitrate, profile, and other pertinent settings for a direct comparison of CPU encoding differences.

Jeff

Quote

If you are trying to compare produced times of a file produce operation in the "Produce" room with a "Render Preview" in Edit mode, you can't do that. The "Render Preview" is limited to partial CPU power.

Do like productions with format, bitrate, profile, and other pertinent settings for a direct comparison of CPU encoding differences.

Jeff

I went back and ran the Render Full Preview on the new PC in the Produce screen. I got the same 5:24 so maybe I did do it apples to apples and updated the time before I posted here. It is a full render and not just a preview on the edit screen.

I just tried some changes to the preview rendering setting under Display. I was already set at HD for my previous testing. Going to Full HD made my test video stop at 13 secs. Reg HD was 1:09 as reported in my table. The lower setting of High Preview Res allowed the preview Play on the Edit screen to play all the way through on the new PC. The syncing looked good with the audio as best I could tell. The video was quite fuzzy looking. But I can see where this setting could be used for testing future project along with non real time previews (they have good video but no audio) and full renders.

No matter how fast is the CPU or the GPU, at some point some other latencies will become the bottleneck.
You can check in Windows Task Manager > Performance the usage of CPU and GPU and you will see that none of those are at 100%, they are "waiting" for something else to happen. Don't know if is the RAM memory, the PCIe bus or something else...

Mojobari.
fwiw.
here's little test we've done previously GTX960 Performance Comparisons . follow the instruction and compare your results to others.

happy happy joy joy

PepsiMan
'garbage in garbage out' 'no bridge too far'

Yashica Electro 8 LD-6 Super 8mm
Asrock TaiChi X470, AMD R7 2700X, W7P 64, MSI GTX1060 6GB, Corsair 16GB/RAM
Dell XPS L702X i7-2860QM, W7P / W10P 64, Intel HD3000/nVidia GT 550M 1GB, Micron 16GB/RAM
Samsung Galaxy Note3/NX1

Quote Mojobari.
fwiw.
here's little test we've done previously GTX960 Performance Comparisons . follow the instruction and compare your results to others.

happy happy joy joy

PepsiMan
'garbage in garbage out'

I'll try it. Does it matter that I have a AMD Radeon RX 5600XT Graphics card? Will the same load utility work?

Also, is the test is for 10 videos on the same track. ot 10 separate tracks?

Quote No matter how fast is the CPU or the GPU, at some point some other latencies will become the bottleneck.

True, and I've posted about bottlenecks before in other Forum Indexes here.

Just popping in to say that I recently upgraded from an i3-8400 to an i5-9400, and after doing so, SVRT (for the videos that I edit) used nearly 100% of all six cores. (This in PD 18, 1080p.) So I'm a happier camper.

(As it goes to latencies, my memory speed jumped from 2400 to 2666 MHz with the CPU change (although CL wait state jumped from 15 to 16). And the i5-9400 has more cache, and something called "unified" cache, which is supposed to be better than what I had before. Hard to believe that these small changes eliminated memory bottlenecks. But the data is what it (they) are.)

Quote Just popping in to say that I recently upgraded from an i3-8400 to an i5-9400, and after doing so, SVRT (for the videos that I edit) used nearly 100% of all six cores. (This in PD 18, 1080p.) So I'm a happier camper.

Probably irrational euphoria, never should SVRT utilize 100% CPU resources, basically it’s not being utilized then.

Jeff

Quote

Probably irrational euphoria, never should SVRT utilize 100% CPU resources, basically it’s not being utilized then.

Well, to be more accurate on my part, it's the part of SVRT where PD has to re-encode parts of the video that don't fit the majority profile I've chosen. (As when I merge an old Intro/Outro recorded at 720p with a new recording of a movie taken at 1080p.)

Quote Mojobari.
fwiw.
here's little test we've done previously GTX960 Performance Comparisons . follow the instruction and compare your results to others.

happy happy joy joy

PepsiMan
'garbage in garbage out'

Looks like Kite Surfing.wmv is no longer loaded as a PD 19 sample clip. I get jpgs and mp4 files about Landscape, Sketeboard, Sport, Travel...

Yeah, that clip went away years ago. You can download the attached version here to use in the test project.

Thanks. I searched but could not find that clip on the web.

I'm not sure my testing can be compared apples to apples to the ones made in 2015 yet. My rendered file sizes are coming out at 115 and 146 Mb vs 422 & 591 Mb for others in the spreadsheet results. So my render times are 15 and 7 secs. I did use 10 clips end to end.

I am using PD19/365 vs PD14. Maybe it has different default res and frame rate settings for H.265 & H.264 rendering than PD14.

Quote Thanks. I searched but could not find that clip on the web.

I'm not sure my testing can be compared apples to apples to the ones made in 2015 yet. My rendered file sizes are coming out at 115 and 146 Mb vs 422 & 591 Mb for others in the spreadsheet results. So my render times are 15 and 7 secs. I did use 10 clips end to end.

I am using PD19/365 vs PD14. Maybe it has different default res and frame rate settings for H.265 & H.264 rendering than PD14.

Produced using wrong profile or possibly used your AMD GPU for encoding which many have traditionally shown high end bitrate issues.

Jeff

If I select the highest option in the Profile name/Quality list, I get rendered file sizes that look comparable. Like 598 MB for H.264 and 433 Mb for H.265. Both rendered in 54 secs for me so that seems comparable.

Quote If I select the highest option in the Profile name/Quality list, I get rendered file sizes that look comparable. Like 598 MB for H.264 and 433 Mb for H.265. Both rendered in 54 secs for me so that seems comparable.

Those hardware encoding times are noticeably slower than what I see. I ran the same tests on my similar Ryzen 9 3950X system and got the following results using CPU-only producing and then using the nVidia RTX 2070:

Profile	Encoding	Time	File size
H.264 50Mbps	NVENC	0:23	567MB
	CPU	1:52	595MB
H.265 37Mbps	NVENC	0:36	425MB
	CPU	3:00	429MB

Both profiles were MPEG-4 4096 x 2130/30p, and to get CPU-only producing both the Fast video rendering technology and Enable hardware decoding option on the Hardware Acceleration menu need to be unchecked.

If these comparisons are truly comparable, then it looks like PD can produce to H.264 >2x faster with nVidia's Turing GPUs than with AMD RX 5k series; H.265 is 1.5x faster.

Quote Both profiles were MPEG-4 4096 x 2130/30p, and to get CPU-only producing both the Fast video rendering technology and Enable hardware decoding option on the Hardware Acceleration menu need to be unchecked.

If these comparisons are truly comparable, then it looks like PD can produce to H.264 >2x faster with nVidia's Turing GPUs than with AMD RX 5k series; H.265 is 1.5x faster.

Not uncommon, similar poor performance reported many times prior, RX580, RX5700 vs GTX1070, RTX2070.

The old formats clearly stated for the old tests:
Output format:
Standard 2D
H.265 HEVC
MKV
HEVC 4K, 4096x2160/30p, (37 Mbps)

Output format:
Standard 2D
H.264 AVC
MP4
MPEG-4 4K, 4096x2160/30p, (50 Mbps)

The wmv file was selected as it will not matter if Enable hardware decoding option on the Hardware Acceleration menu is unchecked or checked, neither AMD nor Nvidia support wmv decoding in the unique SIP core so it's done by CPU. One less potential error for the inexperienced users.

Jeff

It does seem that optodata smoked the tests with his modern pc. He couldn’t use PD14 with the older Nvidia drivers for that RTX 2070. Out of curiosity I will be running the test too.