VP11 Benchmark on GT 430 at DVinfo.net

Adam Stanislav · October 19th, 2011, 01:59 PM

I downloaded the VP11 Benchmark and tested it with my nVidia GT 430, which is the lowest end CUDA 2.1 (Fermi) GPU supported by VP 11.

I set my preview window to 900x506x32, the same Sony used for their own testing. When I previewed the project, the speed varied, as expected since the project contains different levels of complexity. The highest speed I got was 29.902 fps, the lowest 1.99(something) fps. I got the same speeds when previewing using the CPU and when previewing with the GPU.

I then rendered to the same formats Sony used. The MC AVC format took 4:39 to render, the XDCam 5:46. Both values are considerably higher than those Sony got with their high-end cards. I was curious how much, if any, faster it was than rendering using the CPU only. So I also rendered to MC AVC with the same settings, except I told it to use CPU only. This time the render time was 7:00 (minutes), which means my GPU was 1.5 times faster than the CPU. The XDCam format did not offer the choice to use CPU only, so I could not compare it.

Since I normally render using two passes, I also repeated the MC AVC renders using two passes (all other things being equal). Using my GPU it took 9:16, using the CPU only 14:31. So, in this case the GPU was 1.57 times faster.

File sizes in bytes:

XDCam - 193,242,265
MC AVC GPU - 90,339,385
MC AVC CPU - 89,950,896
MC AVC 2 passes GPU - 92,820,442
MC AVC 2 passes CPU - 99,151,053

October 19th, 2011, 01:59 PM	#1
Adam Stanislav Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Rhinelander, WI Posts: 1,258	VP11 Benchmark on GT 430 I downloaded the VP11 Benchmark and tested it with my nVidia GT 430, which is the lowest end CUDA 2.1 (Fermi) GPU supported by VP 11. I set my preview window to 900x506x32, the same Sony used for their own testing. When I previewed the project, the speed varied, as expected since the project contains different levels of complexity. The highest speed I got was 29.902 fps, the lowest 1.99(something) fps. I got the same speeds when previewing using the CPU and when previewing with the GPU. I then rendered to the same formats Sony used. The MC AVC format took 4:39 to render, the XDCam 5:46. Both values are considerably higher than those Sony got with their high-end cards. I was curious how much, if any, faster it was than rendering using the CPU only. So I also rendered to MC AVC with the same settings, except I told it to use CPU only. This time the render time was 7:00 (minutes), which means my GPU was 1.5 times faster than the CPU. The XDCam format did not offer the choice to use CPU only, so I could not compare it. Since I normally render using two passes, I also repeated the MC AVC renders using two passes (all other things being equal). Using my GPU it took 9:16, using the CPU only 14:31. So, in this case the GPU was 1.57 times faster. File sizes in bytes: XDCam - 193,242,265 MC AVC GPU - 90,339,385 MC AVC CPU - 89,950,896 MC AVC 2 passes GPU - 92,820,442 MC AVC 2 passes CPU - 99,151,053