Speed up render?

gisikw said:
In a perfect world, different disks. Though barring that, partitioning should help a bit if you're running off the boot drive. Remember that every single read/write to a particular partition gets put into a queue, so when you're rendering, the queue would look like: [windows thing, background app something, render, windows thing, windows thing, something else, render]...

When you request something from a separate partition, you get a separate queue. Though you're still going to be constrained by disk speed.
Click to expand...
Awesome, clear as ze day, I mean...night!
 
You can definitely add an SSD. Do you have a GPU? I believe your editor supports OpenCL rendering or CUDA rendering. OpenCL if you have AMD gpu and CUDA if you have GPU.

I'm rendering gameplayes @ 720p 15mins long for 3-8mins. We have a different setup so it might be a little bit longer or faster. I do hope you have a gpu even if it's not highend it'll still totally decrease the render time.
 
karlsanada10 said:
You can definitely add an SSD. Do you have a GPU? I believe your editor supports OpenCL rendering or CUDA rendering. OpenCL if you have AMD gpu and CUDA if you have GPU.

I'm rendering gameplayes @ 720p 15mins long for 3-8mins. We have a different setup so it might be a little bit longer or faster. I do hope you have a gpu even if it's not highend it'll still totally decrease the render time.
Click to expand...
Yeah I run an XFX Radeon HD4650 1GB XXX edition, which is quite old. Wanting to go to a XFX Radeon HD7870 2GB or a XFX Radeon HD 7970 3GB.
 
Then you have OPENCL. I think it's on the render settings then choose render with OpenCL. I'm not sure. Vegas Pro has it on its render templates so I guess Adobe has one too.
 
Lets get some stuff straight.

Rendering is CPU intensive - by that I mean its uses almost entirely the CPU. To get faster render times without altering settings, upgrade to a faster CPU. Simple.
Some software can also use your GPU to render and take some of the load off of the CPU. This is dependent on the software you use and whether it supports using the GPU for rendering in the first instance.

So, to get faster render times its either a faster CPU (or GPU if supported) or to mess abot with output settings, lower quality, etc.

RAM will not help render times. RAM helps with editing and project creation. It makes the entire process smoother. Dont think more RAM will drastically reduce render times as it probably wont, but it will make a smoother editing experience.

A SSD will not help render times. SSDs have a more limited read/write lifespan then a conventional HDD. Therefore SSD's are typically used to run the program off of. Dont use it as a render/scratch disc as it will not make rendering faster, but the high read/write cycles rendering uses WILL reduce the life of the SSD drastically - and SSDs arent at a cheap enough price point to be easily disposable just yet.

A conventional HDD will be able to keep up with rendered files fine as your CPU probably wont be able to render and throw files at it fast enough to saturate the HDD speed in the first instance. Dont use USB2 for external scratch drives. USB3 only if you have to. Ideally you want FireWire800 or ThunderBolt.
FW800 and ThunderBolt stream data, while USB sends data in packets/bursts. With video editing its better to stream the data rather then send in packets.


So, to recap, the ideal setup would be:

A multi-core processor - as fast as possible to speed up rendering.
A fast GPU - IF the software you use supports GPU rendering.
16GB RAM or above - for smooth editing and project creation
SSD - housing the program itself along with the OS - for smoother editing and project creation.
External HDD - to use as scratch disk - connected via FireWire or ThunderBolt ideally. USB3 as a last resort. Helps all round as keeps render files away from the main drive running the program.
 
IftiBashir said:
Lets get some stuff straight.

Rendering is CPU intensive - by that I mean its uses almost entirely the CPU. To get faster render times without altering settings, upgrade to a faster CPU. Simple.
Some software can also use your GPU to render and take some of the load off of the CPU. This is dependent on the software you use and whether it supports using the GPU for rendering in the first instance.

So, to get faster render times its either a faster CPU (or GPU if supported) or to mess abot with output settings, lower quality, etc.

RAM will not help render times. RAM helps with editing and project creation. It makes the entire process smoother. Dont think more RAM will drastically reduce render times as it probably wont, but it will make a smoother editing experience.

A SSD will not help render times. SSDs have a more limited read/write lifespan then a conventional HDD. Therefore SSD's are typically used to run the program off of. Dont use it as a render/scratch disc as it will not make rendering faster, but the high read/write cycles rendering uses WILL reduce the life of the SSD drastically - and SSDs arent at a cheap enough price point to be easily disposable just yet.

A conventional HDD will be able to keep up with rendered files fine as your CPU probably wont be able to render and throw files at it fast enough to saturate the HDD speed in the first instance. Dont use USB2 for external scratch drives. USB3 only if you have to. Ideally you want FireWire800 or ThunderBolt.
FW800 and ThunderBolt stream data, while USB sends data in packets/bursts. With video editing its better to stream the data rather then send in packets.


So, to recap, the ideal setup would be:

A multi-core processor - as fast as possible to speed up rendering.
A fast GPU - IF the software you use supports GPU rendering.
16GB RAM or above - for smooth editing and project creation
SSD - housing the program itself along with the OS - for smoother editing and project creation.
External HDD - to use as scratch disk - connected via FireWire or ThunderBolt ideally. USB3 as a last resort. Helps all round as keeps render files away from the main drive running the program.
Click to expand...

I run an AMD Phenom II x6 Thuban running at 3,3 Ghz for each core, so that shouldn't be a problem. The video card is only 1GB, which isn't that much tbh so I will upgrade that soon. I always have my software on different disks from my renders and files, you don't wanna know the amount of disks are connected to my work computer hahaa.. I mean, when you do audio production, video work, graphic design and photography that starts to get a lot, when you want to keep everything on their own disk. :p
 
It's not about your vram. A lot of video card has 1GB. Your CPU is a quite an OLD CPU, old architecture and such. You're 3 generations behind already.
 
RealFlame said:
H.264 should be a quick render since the file size is smaller. ^gisikw gave some good points. Other than that unless you are upgrading ram you'll have to live with it :( Maybe do overnight renders? Make sure to ram preview fully and watch it over and make sure that there are not any little issues that cause you a headache of rerendering
Click to expand...
Actually, it takes more time to compress the video, so it will be a longer render

When you are rendering clips for your video (not final video), render in AVI. It is uncompressed, so your editor does not have to do extra work. Also, it preserves all the quality.

Only for your final, finished video should you render in H.264. This will take more time since your computer has to compress it, but it is the format youtube wants.

Does your editor support GPU rendering? That might speed it up a bit. Rendering primarily uses your CPU, so if you have a strong GPU you can try rendering using that.
 
karlsanada10 said:
It's not about your vram. A lot of video card has 1GB. Your CPU is a quite an OLD CPU, old architecture and such. You're 3 generations behind already.
Click to expand...
Uhmmm sorry but now suddenly my CPU is bad because there is a new version? Come on, the AMD Phenom II x6 (six-core) 1090T might be a CPU of a couple years old, but that doesn't make it bad or anything. It's one of the best reviewed AMD CPU's up until now, with very high specs so just saying I need to upgrade my CPU because it is 'old' is just plain stupid. You upgrade when you need higher specs, not because there is a new version released since then we will be upgrading every week or month.

Also 1GB video card is not that great for highly animated video work, and even though a lot of video cards might have 1GB for animation and 3d work a 2GB or higher will be a much better upgrade then getting a new CPU if you ask me, especially when you see which CPU I currently have.
 
ARTFXSTUDIOS said:
Uhmmm sorry but now suddenly my CPU is bad because there is a new version? Come on, the AMD Phenom II x6 (six-core) 1090T might be a CPU of a couple years old, but that doesn't make it bad or anything. It's one of the best reviewed AMD CPU's up until now, with very high specs so just saying I need to upgrade my CPU because it is 'old' is just plain stupid. You upgrade when you need higher specs, not because there is a new version released since then we will be upgrading every week or month.

Also 1GB video card is not that great for highly animated video work, and even though a lot of video cards might have 1GB for animation and 3d work a 2GB or higher will be a much better upgrade then getting a new CPU if you ask me, especially when you see which CPU I currently have.
Click to expand...

I said old, not bad. I love the Phenom II series. I didn't tell that you should upgrade. You need a nvidia card since most 3D rendering/animation supports CUDA as far as I know. So that might help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top