If I upgrade from Video X2 to X3.......

alan · Post by **alan** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:34 pm

If I upgrade from Video X2 to X3, assuming that I am using the same

video clip and computer system, will the x3 render more quickly?

Trevor Andrew · Post by **Trevor Andrew** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 7:29 pm

Hi Alan

I would have thought no, but if you give the trial version a go you would be able to test this option.

X3 is new and even if we have installed the trial version I doubt that we have got as far as testing render speeds.

But do you have a problem with render times?

alan · Post by **alan** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 7:43 pm

Hi Trevour,

Thanks for your reply.

I have given you the information I have, are thses times realistic?

===================================

I have edited 35 video clips in HDV recording. Total length after editing

being 14 minutes 46 seconds.

Time taken to render

0 to 25% = 28 minutes.

25% to 33% = 10 minutes

33% to 52% = 13 minutes

52% to 75% = 6 minutes

75% to 100% =5 minutes

Total time rendering = 62 minutes.

Computer system, should be in my profile.

Post by **Ken Berry** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 8:51 pm

That sort of time -- roughly 4 times real time -- is consistent with my own rendering of my HDV projects using both X2 and X3 on my Quad 6600. (Note that the X3 version I was testing was the Beta version, but I would not imagine the final release to have any different speed...)

The only way I have been able to improve this rendering speed is by using a third party application (Ashampoo Core Tuner) which allows me to assign all four cores to VS. Then I see a considerable improvement in the rendering times (roughly halving it for HDV).

DVDDoug · Post by **DVDDoug** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 9:28 pm

I have not tried X3...

X3 is supposed to take advantage of CUDA which uses the NVIDIA graphics processor. (Normally, all video processing is done by your AMD/Intel CPU.)

Of course, you need an NVIDIA graphics card with CUDA support. I have no idea how much difference that can make, or what kinds of processing takes advantage of it. I assume that some (most?) CODECS and some kinds of video processing have not been tuned for CUDA, so it probably depends on exactly what you're doing.

bwentzel · Post by **bwentzel** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 9:34 pm

Ken Berry wrote:That sort of time -- roughly 4 times real time -- is consistent with my own rendering of my HDV projects using both X2 and X3 on my Quad 6600. (Note that the X3 version I was testing was the Beta version, but I would not imagine the final release to have any different speed...)

The only way I have been able to improve this rendering speed is by using a third party application (Ashampoo Core Tuner) which allows me to assign all four cores to VS. Then I see a considerable improvement in the rendering times (roughly halving it for HDV).

I am suprised by this because I have used a competing product and the rendering time using GPU acceleration was dramatically faster. Of course, you may not have been using that feature which is why the times are similar.

Post by **Ken Berry** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 9:35 pm

I also can't say as I have an ATI card...

alan · Post by **alan** » Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:49 am

Many thanks for your help & replies.

I will consider getting the Ashampoo Core Tuner.

sjj1805 · Post by **sjj1805** » Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:16 am

alan wrote:If I upgrade from Video X2 to X3, assuming that I am using the same

video clip and computer system, will the x3 render more quickly?

Your best bet is to install the trial version, you may find there are more surprises in store than simply the rendering time.

philip_l · Post by **philip_l** » Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:42 am

Hi

X3 is supposed to take advantage of CUDA which uses the NVIDIA graphics processor. (Normally, all video processing is done by your AMD/Intel CPU.)

This is all a bit of creative marketing on Corel's part to try and give a reason for us to pay for the next version. CUDA tasked with video encoding is not faster than most modern CPUs, so in many cases your CPU continues the task so you get no speed increase. CUDA might be a help where you have a low powered CPU, for example an Atom processor with an ION chipset.

I can't comment on your other program and why that was using GPU acceleration, how do you know it was? Also there are many settings that can improve/degrade encoding quality which also makes a big difference to speed, making direct comparisons between different software difficult.

Regards

Phil

bwentzel · Post by **bwentzel** » Sun Jan 31, 2010 2:27 pm

philip_l wrote:Hi

X3 is supposed to take advantage of CUDA which uses the NVIDIA graphics processor. (Normally, all video processing is done by your AMD/Intel CPU.)
This is all a bit of creative marketing on Corel's part to try and give a reason for us to pay for the next version. CUDA tasked with video encoding is not faster than most modern CPUs, so in many cases your CPU continues the task so you get no speed increase. CUDA might be a help where you have a low powered CPU, for example an Atom processor with an ION chipset.

I can't comment on your other program and why that was using GPU acceleration, how do you know it was? Also there are many settings that can improve/degrade encoding quality which also makes a big difference to speed, making direct comparisons between different software difficult.

Regards

Phil

The way I know it is quite a bit faster using CUDA for encoding is because it is a setting I can turn on and off. I chose to encode about a 15 minute video in H.264 and it encoded it in about 15 minutes vs. much longer (I don't recall how much longer) using strickly the CPU.

alan · Post by **alan** » Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:32 pm

Your best bet is to install the trial version, you may find there are more surprises in store than simply the rendering time.

Thanks, I might give it a try.

Alludo USER to USER Web Board

If I upgrade from Video X2 to X3.......

If I upgrade from Video X2 to X3.......

X3 render times

Re: If I upgrade from Video X2 to X3.......