-
Drive Configuration for Optimal Render Speed Results
Thought I would post some results from some changes I made after reading posts here that helped.
Vegas program on drive C: SSD 60GB
Data drive D: 7200rpm 1.5TB
Data drive G: 7200rpm 320MBoriginal file 1080/60i, rendered de-interlaced(interpolate fields) to 60p on drive G:.
Rendered the 60p to 24p for slow motion. 00:48;26 4.53GB .AVI file (lossless) “No Re-compression Required”.
G: –> G: = 2:31
G: –> C: = 1:43
G: –> D: = 1:26While I expected using separate read and write drives to be an improvement, 1min 5sec was more than I had hoped for. However, I was really surprised to see the Solid State Drive drive was 17 sec slower than the separate Hard drives configuration. I knew using the same drive that the software is installed for storage would have an impact but I didn’t think it would be that much.
Perhaps the limited amount of ram my system has is partly if not solely to blame as it’s my understanding that the main drive is used to make up for ram shortages.
System specs:
AMD Phenom II x4 B55 3.4GHz (x2 555BE unlocked overclocked)
4GB ram 1066MHz (1600MHz underclocked)
AMD HD6850 1GB ddr3 GPU (Crossfire Disabled)Maybe this will help someone, I know it did me. Switching paths is a PIA but what a time savings. IMO, multiple drives is better than one large drive even if it was a cheap 5400rpm. However, These results were from a lossless format, very large file. A compressed format such as mp4 may be totally different.
-
3 Replies
-
[Kevin O'Kelly] “Rendered the 60p to 24p for slow motion. 00:48;26 4.53GB .AVI file (lossless) “No Re-compression Required”.”
If no compression was truly required, all you did was test the file copy speed of your drives. You didn’t need Vegas to do this. You could have just copied the files from drive to drive and gotten similar results.
[Kevin O'Kelly] “I was really surprised to see the Solid State Drive drive was 17 sec slower than the separate Hard drives configuration.”
This may be because SSD drives are optimized for READ speed not WRITE speed. That’s why people use them as their boot drive where you are mostly reading installed program files that don’t change.
[Kevin O'Kelly] “Switching paths is a PIA but what a time savings. IMO, multiple drives is better than one large drive even if it was a cheap 5400rpm. However, These results were from a lossless format, very large file. A compressed format such as mp4 may be totally different.”
Indeed this was a very special case and in reality, most people will be rendering in which case the CPU becomes the bottleneck and which drive you render to becomes much less important
Thanks for posting the result though. It was interesting to see.
~jr
http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com -
Follow up.
After I finished the project, I rendered to mp4 and those times were basically the same across the board exactly as you predicted.
For me, the important point is to use separate drives when rendering without re-compression. A nice time savings when De-interlacing in Lossless format considering you’re in the middle of the project.My SSD has almost identical read/write speeds and it’s more than double my 7200rpm hard drive in sustained speed. 250MB/s vs 115MB/s
-
[Kevin O'Kelly] “After I finished the project, I rendered to mp4 and those times were basically the same across the board exactly as you predicted.”
Yea, most of the time the CPU is the bottleneck and hard drive performance doesn’t matter much.
~jr
http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up