Benchmark for Movie Studio 2023

MarcinKrk wrote on 2/17/2023, 9:02 AM

Hello colleagues!

I was browsing through he forum to find the answer on what's the recommended hardware for working with Movie Studio app. I found some benchmarks done by the community for Pro version, but haven't seen anything for Movie Studio users.

As many of you, I'm trying to get some simple answers when considering a new PC build: AMD vs Intel CPU, NVidia vs AMD GPU and their impact on the encoding performance and impact on a general comfort of working with app.

Anyone aware of any such benchmark challenge? If not - anyone interested in taking a lead, preparing a sample project and contributing? I'm more then happy to test my current setup and share the results, if only someone can offer a sensible test pack ;-)

Thanks!

Back to post

Comments

Reyfox wrote on 3/2/2023, 4:49 AM

I would think that the graphics card would handle the monitors, yes? And since on my computer, the GPU is hardly used, and overall CPU usage is low also, while that could be a problem (I'll disconnect the 4K monitor), I don't think it would make that much of a difference.

CubeAce wrote on 3/2/2023, 6:02 AM

@Reyfox

I have no idea. I'm not a programmer, but I do notice that on some more complex projects if I start to get playback problems that reducing the physical size of the monitor window within the program sometimes helps, so I assume that there is more processing going on with producing the rescaled image in that monitor. In the past some of us have also noticed that with tower cases at least, running the main program window within the Intel powered monitor seems to be more favourable over running the program on the nvidia one.

There are so many variables to take into account when wondering why an apparently more powerful system is giving what on the surface may seem poorer results I think it prudent to try to think of as many reasons as possible to account for the variations.

Ray.

Reyfox wrote on 3/2/2023, 6:20 AM

@CubeAce

Ray, for sure about what you are saying. There are many variables to this including what is running in the background of your computer when testing.

Looking at the results, it seems that 9th and 10th Intel seem to be getting the best scores. At least we are starting to be a metric on performance of hardware.

Marc-Goder wrote on 3/2/2023, 4:08 PM

@CubeAce @Reyfox @Former user @johnebaker @MarcinKrk

What about the impact of codec packs ??? Do you have any installed ?

I don't use them because of bad experiences in previous years.

CubeAce wrote on 3/2/2023, 5:21 PM

@MarcinKrk

Hi.

I lost the ability to view thumbnails of mp4 files so I did add the K-Light mp4 codec. Doesn't seem to have caused any problems for me.

Ray.

johnebaker wrote on 3/3/2023, 3:48 AM

@Marc-Goder

. . . . What about the impact of codec packs . . . .

I am with you on this one, I avoid, and advise not to install, the 'all in one' packs which have been known to cause issues with the the Magix codecs.

@CubeAce use, for fixing the thumbnail issue, is a peculiar situation which is known to hit some users for an unspecified reason.

John EB

Reyfox wrote on 3/3/2023, 5:52 AM

@Marc-Goder, some how, my Win10 Pro all of a sudden stopped showing thumbnails. I did everything that was necessary according to Windows help, reddit, videos, etc., (deleting cache, etc..), to no avail. This made working with photos and video unbearable because without I thumbnail, there is no way for me to know what the file represents.

So, I tried K-Lite basic, and all the thumbnails appeared. Life was good again. It caused for me, no issues at all with any of the editing software I have on my computer. Resolve Studio 18, Vegas Pro 20, Pinnacle Studio 26 Ultimate, Videostudio Pro Ultimate 2022, MEP 2022 Plus, VPX 12 all worked with the files I shoot and edit. I did not notice any abnormalities, performance degradation, etc., after installing K-Lite. It was a "last resort" for me.

I have since migrated over to a clean installation on a new NVME drive of Win11 Pro, and no longer have that problem. So, for me, no, I do not have any additional codecs installed.

Marc-Goder wrote on 3/3/2023, 6:24 AM

This would probably only result in performance problems when playing on the timeline. Probably less when exporting.

CubeAce wrote on 3/3/2023, 6:42 AM

@johnebaker @Marc-Goder @Reyfox @MarcinKrk

The lack of mp4 thumbnail view happened to me after I suffered a crash using VPX 14.

Ray.

Marc-Goder wrote on 5/20/2023, 2:12 AM

@AAProds

Having the Resizeable BAR enabled made zero difference.

I feel the same about the Neat benchmark. There appears Resizable BAR also make no difference.

CubeAce wrote on 5/20/2023, 3:24 AM

@MarcinKrk @johnebaker @Reyfox @Marc-Goder @AAProds

Hi Marc.

There are a lot of variables to take into consideration for the results across these computers.

Al used one monitor plugged into the motherboard port. What type of port was it?

Al is using an Intel i7 13700K with a 3060ti which has a 256 bit PCIe bus with 8GBs of vram while some others (including myself) are using cards that only have a 192 bit bus and less vram.

If Al is plugged only into the motherboard video port (again not sure what type of port that is) how is the nvidia card being activated?

Did Al try using a port on the nvidia card? If that was slower, by how much and again which port?

Could monitors also play a part in in this? Resolution, refresh rate, port at the back of the monitor?

It was a very good result regardless.

Al should run the Neat Video test separately to see what that program decides is the best configuration (how many cores etc to use) and the amount of fps it can handle at which resolution.

To make use of resizeable bar it is my understanding one would have to see if Intel® Quick Sync Video was available in the drop-down boxes of the program. It is that technology that make use of resizeable bar as far as I understand it.

Ray.

AAProds wrote on 5/20/2023, 4:47 AM

Al used one monitor plugged into the motherboard port. What type of port was it?

It's plugged into the HDMI port.

If Al is plugged only into the motherboard video port (again not sure what type of port that is) how is the nvidia card being activated?

I didn't do anything special; just installed it, updated the NVidia driver (bit confusing between NVidia and Gigabyte and Intel; Intel even says "bear in mind our driver might not be better than the Gigabyte driver".

Then I enabled the Resizeable Bar in the BIOS and that was it.

Did Al try using a port on the nvidia card? If that was slower, by how much and again which port?

Haven't tried that, the card came with nifty little rubber plugs in the 4 ports (3 HDMI and 1 Display port), and there they remain.

Al should run the Neat Video test separately to see what that program decides is the best configuration (how many cores etc to use) and the amount of fps it can handle at which resolution.

Neatbench is now giving best combo as CPU (10 cores) and the 3060, speed 46.9 frames/sec, but in Neat Video within MMS 2023 when I run the NV optimiser, it comes up with CPU (15 cores) 176 frames/sec. If I select GPU only I get 77fps and CPU+GPU 71fps.

To make use of resizeable bar it is my understanding one would have to see if Intel® Quick Sync Video was available in the drop-down boxes of the program. It is that technology that make use of resizeable bar as far as I understand it.

Can't see any option in MMS referring to Quick Sync.

No more overnight exports of a 15 minute video!