@VLADIMIR-GULPE

Hi

@CubeAce commented - Preferably a solid state drive or a fast SATA drive with a large inboard cache.

I use traditional hard drives - 2TB (OS and programs) and 4TB (Data) 5200 rpm Seagate with a large buffer sizes, which is important, for video editing with 4K video and there is no issue with the drives not being fast enough reading or writing the video data - the drive never reaches 100% activity and when rendering rarely peaks above 10%.

Below is an example of 5 x 4K UHD videos playing in a collage on my PC - spec is in my signature - no proxy files and the Preview monitor performance enhancements, (lightning symbol bottom right of program monitor, are turned off - the slight juddering you see is in the real time rotation of the masks while playing back, the videos play smoothly while being read from the hard drive.

HTH

John EB

There is no way even a basic hard drive is going to be maxxed out during an encode/export of any file. The presence of GPUs will merely speed up the process.

@VLADIMIR-GULPE

HI, I have a question, does the Video Pro X has a 4K export format. Thank you

The answer is Yes, it does. 👍

@AAProds

Hi Al.

How much 4K editing do you actually do?

While I agree with your statement, exporting is the last and final part of editing. The main part is putting it together and if it is anything other than basic editing it is easy to max out a hard drive that either hasn't got enough memory cache or not capable of transferring the data when needed. That is why I use a separate SSD for projects. My old WD blacks are 7,500rpm drives but the cache sizes are small. Great for storage, bad for editing from with playback demands even using proxy files if also using higher frame rates.

If I can't play back a project smoothly it makes editing a complete pain if I need to know down to a frame or two where I need to add or cut something.

That 74.2. MBs is 99% close to the max read speed of that drive. You can see there is little else overloaded.

The reason I reply the way I do is because a lot of the public expect good all round performance. How many topics on this forum about performance issues?

Rendering is one thing. Being able to actually edit without problems is another.

Ray.

@CubeAce

Hi Ray

This is the disk performance for the example I posted above with 5 x 4K UHD being read from the one hard drive.

Peak Read rate was 55 MB/s and active time peaked just under 35%.

Looking at your charts is there more lower down on the timeline that we cannot see?

John EB

@johnebaker

Hi John.

Nine tracks of 4K MP-4 video at one spot where that occurred and one stereo wav file sound track 24 bit, 96kHz.

I also find it interesting that your Intel GPU is in use at that point and mine isn't. There is so much component variation within systems and how different versions of Windows are configured Enterprise, Pro and Home, that I haven't really a clue as to how the program decides how to do what sometimes.

I have to date never seen read speeds exceed 120MB/s on any of my projects and it tends only to happen on the first run through with a subsequent run through settling down a bit with one project exception, where it always but always gives a little hiccup at one specific point and there are no file variations. All from the same camera, the same day and settings. That though is from the amount of processing going on across the tracks rather than disk speed problems. I think most of my playback smoothness problems come from having an nvidia 1650 Super which I think is not quite up to the job. I have had limited success overclocking the GPU cores but I have to be careful or I get visual glitches in playback rather than stutters. On very rare occasions I have a complete dropout of video tracks containing PSD files. Normally closing the project and reopening it cures it.

Ray.

@CubeAce

Ray, I don't do a lot of 4k editing. But that is not the point. The OP had a simple question that required a simple answer.

Hi all, i'm just curious about this, no one really talks about hardrive speeds etc.

Is there anything you can tell from this?, programs (MEP) on (C) drive, the media is on (D) drive, both are the two M.2 drives in my signature on a PCIe raid card,

@Former user

Hi

. . . . Is there anything you can tell from this? . . . .

Assuming the timeline is playing:

• The read speed for that particular project peaks at about 45 MB/s and is averaging about 20 MB/s*
• The data bus for the drives is not being saturated
• The RTX 3090 is working reasonably hard averaging about ~ 65 % usage.
• The CPU is doing virtually nothing.

*  are the majority of the video files Variable framerate, and FullHD, 2.7 or 4K ?

HTH

John EB

@johnebaker Thanks, yep the timeline was playing, 4k 3840x2160,

Here's just a sample of two, they all vary slightly differently,

BTW, there's no problem, i was just curious about the thread above 👍

I'm loving MEP playback performance & export times,

A lot of the regulars on the Vegas page are very defensive of Vegas & how good it is, so I posted this below on their forum just to either rub their noses in it & show that Vegas isn't as 'wonderful' as it could be - ..

'I was rendering a simple no effects 4k project with Vegas, once it crashed halfway through render, once it stopped about 80% through render, the final time it finished render but gave an unusable 0mb file 😒 (this happens more often than i'd like), (& Vegas crashed a couple of times while i was creating/editing this project, luckily i had Live Save on because crashing is just part of Vegas)

So I quit Vegas n went back to the cheaper & less 'Pro' MEP Platinum.

I have many files to edit so i tend to break up my projects into parts when the project starts getting to a certain length, then i join those parts to render as the full finished video, Vegas was/does take roughly the same time to render as the length of the project, ie. a project of 14mins takes about 14mins to render, sometimes a little quicker but not a lot quicker.

All render/export settings are the same as Vegas, I've already tested & had conversations in posts about that, but whatever the settings in MEP it doesn't make much difference to the export times, it still beats Vegas in time a stability by a long way.

MEP 13min 4k project exported in 3mins 👍

MEP 14min 4k project exported in 3mins

These two pics are the export of a couple of part projects combined,

MEP 24min 4k project exported in 4.43mins

& MEP 27min 4k project exported in 5.16mins

MEP will play 4k at a good screen res & play transitions first time no prob, Vegas often needs to loop play once or twice before it will play a simple crossfade seamlessly,

MEP didn't crash once all night when i created & exported four 25mins-ish videos that inc titles, pics & was using variable phone camera footage.

Most of my Boris plugins will only work correctly in Vegas, so i still need Vegas but recently it has become more of an effects piece of software for me.

btw i read every post on here, a lot of which are complaints with the usual replies of help & i've tried every setting possible in Vegas to try & get the best from it ...... I do like Vegas but it needs a serious upgrade.

This isn't a rant or a complaint as such, it's more of an observation which i feel Vegas/Magix should address & that some of the diehards on here should be aware of when they defend Vegas with such vigor or ignorance when 'regular people' complain about Vegas on here...

@johnebaker Next time I export a project i'll catch a screen grab to see how the drives are doing, 👍

@Former user @johnebaker

John raises a couple of good points.

I could only look up your phone specs and only find the reference to recording in HEVC which would show as MP4 files on the timeline. That would explain the smaller amount of disc activity and the large amount of GPU use. I doubt they are variable frame rate but will be variable bit rate and heavily compressed compared to H264 files although with much better detail. I think the nvidia RTX 3090 SUPRIM is the main saving grace of your system and also accounts for the lack of CPU usage.

I don't think it just the files sizes (Bit wise) that contribute to disk usage but how the files are used.

For instance, in your example they are all resized and in my previous usage where I had problems they were full sizes overlays on top of each other.

Then there is the strength of the whole system. The faster a system can render or play back, the faster the data has to be read and written. If someone has to rely only on a CPU, how can the system render fast enough to make disc access a problem if the disk has sufficient speed or cache memory?

It is gratifying to see that your system ram is around the same speed as mine so not a bottleneck for my system.

However, compared to your or John's systems my nvidia card is just barely keeping pace. Possibly due to not being able to access Direct X 12. Ultimate rather than Direct X 12.1. Maybe not but maybe not having ray tracing capability or as many shader units or whatever. Main thing though I think is it has not got enough vram but I'm not discounting the Direct X differences between my and your two cards. Although the program specs say Direct X 11 I'm still reminded that is in the minimum specs category and maybe better performance there could make a difference.

As for my discs not keeping up. I no longer use either of the WD blacks for active projects are they are old and not up to it.

Compare that to a cheap SSD (Not M2 or NVMe)

That serves as my current project drive and copes adequately.

I am very sceptical of all the specs the Magix advertising team have put on the website. I would like to know the specs are ones verified by the programing and tech teams and thoroughly tested on anything but basic projects.

Their printed claims for speed improvements hardly pushed the equipment used to its limits.

According to the website at face value, my system should be able to cope with 8K editing unless you delve deep into the specs for the nvidia card they suggest which has 2GB more vram and a larger memory bus than my card.

Yet today I managed to stress test my system using 4K files to produce this result with nothing else running.

So vram is important as the Intel GPU was doing nothing at any stage and not because somehow I had disconnected it from the program. This is in VPX 12, not 13.

When I say stress tested, I mean at various points across the project I had set bits of the project to stress each part of the system except for the motherboard ram. So I did load files to the two WD blacks as well as added some processing, blending, resizing and various effects and file types.

The whole project was two and a half minutes long containing approximately 29GBs of files.

I think the above is being caused by the graphics card nearly having it's memory filled and the spill over is being taken up by the CPU even though the graphics card is not at 100% capacity for rendering.

That went on for about ten minutes shortly followed by both WD drives maxing out for about ten seconds which I missed capturing what the exact read and write speeds were. I would imagine around the 78 to 84 MB range.

Had I used the SSD I would not have had those spikes.

So my own conclusions are that the program is only as bad as the equipment it is hooked up to (or at least its weakest link) and what files consist of as well as how they are used, so not everyone has the same results and disparities may be large. There are a lot of variables involved so always difficult to analyse.

I can get the GPU to work harder if I overclock it but it becomes unstable. At present the amount of vram seems to keep it from getting towards more than 60 to 70 % usage sometimes unless I'm editing at HD resolutions where it can work harder.

I have suspicions based on how I can get the program to behave but no hard facts.

But considering how much individual systems vary I'm impressed that it works as well as it does.

Ray.

@VLADIMIR-GULPE

Hi,

does the Video Pro X has a 4K export format.

Simple answer, yes, several of them.

John CB

@Former user

Hi Gid.

I have just finished reading your posts.

We must have started typing at the same time but I'm a slow typist.

Your project files are a surprise to me. First you have variable frame rate files with large frame rate variations and yet no problems we see others have on the forums. Second, that the files seem to be H264 files not H265. I wasn't aware H264 could produce variable frame rates, or that either MEP or VPX could cope.

My MP4 files are running at 100Mb/s compared to your files at around 35Mb/s.

I think that just goes to show the program can handle variable frame rates with larger frame rate disparities if the hardware can keep up.

Again I would put this down to your newer graphics card and the ability to use Direct X 12 Ultimate where overall processing is slimmed down a lot over Direct X 11 with the aid of newer card architecture.

The additional vram is also a big bonus.

Ray.

@CubeAce Hi, thanks i'll read that through a bit better later, yeah I'm a 1 finger typer 😁 can i ask is this pic 2hrs 36mins to export that 2,36mins?

My phone has the option to record in HEVC if i wish, i don't because up till recently HEVC hasn't always played nicely with pc software, If i record in 8k though i have ne choice but to record in HEVC, the variable bit i don't think i have a choice about,

I made a video just showing there's no issue with these variable 4k/UHD 3840x2160 AVC files,

because the screen record shows in Taskmanager & records to the same drive here's a couple of pics of export

@Former user

Hi Gid.

Estimated time, Yup. Actually took 30 mins less than that but still well behind your, or Johns' processing times. but at least it works. Just. With a bit of care and careful thought.

That is a beast of a GPU.

I have never witnessed video encode or decode performance like it and even with your files at only 35Mb/s it is using up more than twice the amount of vram than I have available. Nor have I seen a similar combined read and write speed even on my SSD so I think my conclusions seem sound.

The best bit yet for you is the 3090 will work even better with the next generation of CPUs, motherboards, and ram as it can use PCIe Gen 4 and DDR5 memory to its advantage, so at present is pretty future proof and seemingly capable of doing more than its current ability.

👍.

Ray.

@Former user

Is that the staircase or Alcove cupboards? Yes I do watch 😉

@CubeAce 👍😁 Thanks.

I sort of need the speed & it earns me a bit of money, so worth the spend, You watch? 😁🤸‍♂️ Thanks 👍 yep it's the alcove cupboards, i put up 4 videos the other night, each roughly 25mins, as you know editing, watching & reviewing then watching again after export to check everything's correct, takes the most time but using Magix i was able to edit the clips over a couple of nights into 8 x 10-15min sub projects, then in an evening i put together those together into 4 x 25mins final projects & exported them, watched them before uploading to YT,

In the past with my i7-7700 & GTX1660 SUPER, at the end of a nights editing i went to bed leaving the export to do it's thing, i had to work next day so often i didn't get to re watch/review the export until that evening, now i can export while i make a cuppa to sit down with n watch before uploading to YT 😁🤸‍♂️

Both drives are on the same Gen 4 PCle card https://www.asus.com/uk/Motherboards-Components/Motherboards/Accessories/HYPER-M-2-X16-GEN-4-CARD/ so i've bought another PCle card so i can separate the two drives, no idea if that will improve anything, either that or i'll put the (C) drive on the main motherboard, there are 4 x M.2 spaces/slots . I've also only got 2666hz RAM, i chose the max i could get for Vegas - Ram Preview option but that meant i was limited to 2666hz on the motherboard with this CPU, but i have bought one 3200hz 32GB Ram stick to try, they're £200 each tho, apparently i can fit 4, but they're hard to get hold of & another 3 would cost me £600 so is it worth it i'm asking myself.

I don't think i'll be changing this PC anytime soon,

@Former user

Hi Gid.

If you have mixed that stick of memory with three of the other sticks of ram it will be slowed down to the speeds of the other sticks of ram. Although the CPU supports ram up to 32 MHz all the channels in use must have matching ram in them or the frequency of the faster ram gets lowered. The motherboard may also present limits to ram speeds but it's not that likely I don't think. There may be some increase in export speeds with all matching ram but whether that would be that large or not I'm not willing to speculate. Adding an additional PCle card so you can separate the two drives, I doubt that will bring any speed benefit at all as there are only so many lanes that can be used but again I'm not familiar with AMD CPUs or boards.

Earlier I made one mistake in my reply. We are both already using systems that uses fourth generation PCIe slots. Your next noticeable boost in performance would be when you get to be able to use a system that uses fifth generation PCIe slots that the nvidia card could use. That would mean a new Processor and motherboard as well as DDR5 ram.

Ray.

@CubeAce Hi, no i didn't put it in, there's 8 x 32GB 2666hz all matching in at the moment, when i do come to try that 3200hz one i'll take all the others out, I only bought just because I'm curious & even if it did work i can only fit 4 x 32GB, The new extra PCle card for separating the drives only cost £70 so same again i'm just curious n it didn't cost much. The PC case is massive though, 2ft² so shifting it around ain't easy, one day i'll do it, think this will keep me going for a while 👍

@Former user

Hi Gid.

The performance may be much worse due to the memory will be stuck in single channel mode, not dual channel mode. Effectively halving the amount of data transfers per second.

Your case size beats my case size by 3.5", in both Width and height, all steel and yes they weigh a ton.

Ray.

@CubeAce Thanks, i don't fully understand that, but it's 1.44am n i'll look deeper into it, I exported a 3840x2160 project tonight & was watching the RAM to see if 3200hz would make any difference compared to 2666hz but i don't see or understand some of what i see or if it would make any difference to export, all i see is the amount used ?🤷‍♂️

whatever tho it is an impressive speed for a simple no fx's project, which is what my vids are all about 👍

@Former user

Hi Gid.

You would have to repeat the export using your normal ram and see what the difference in export speed was.

It may also help to monitor and see if any difference in the amount of vram on the nvidia card card changed.

The amount of ram being used due to the lack of it has been reduced between this project and your shorter project shown earlier and I suspect more vram is being forced to be used.

Then a third export using one stick of your 266Mhz ram would be good as a control experiment to see if having less ram is the cause of the fast export or whether it was the change of memory speed.

Interesting result.

Ray.

@CubeAce Thanks, good idea, there's 45 phone clips that make up that project above, so normally after export i just keep the final export, put that on a separate disk & delete the clips, but i was going to keep one of these projects to use to compare, I'll do that with just one RAM stick like you say, that would give a better comparison than leaving all 8 in as it is now 👍