Rendering performance with Cam 2018

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 1 month ago
  • (Edited)
My experience with rendering speed comparing Cam 9 and Cam 2018 shows great promise

I have read many users disappointed with new faster renders in 2018. Let me tell you my experience is different. Now the build is still buggy and crashes a lot so it needs a lot of refinement, kinda like its a beta build, BUT it renders like lightning

My system is an exception to typical build, so I understand many will not get the really faster renders

If your rendering time is similar to that of Cam 9 it is the computer which is holding it back. My render times (with Amd Ryzen Threadripper 1950x)  are about 60 % faster compared to Cam 9 on the same computer. Also I adjust cam 2018 to real time processing in the task control panel .

 I use a 16 thread, 32 core CPU, which Cam 2018 takes full advantage of
.......................................................................................


The current build cane take advantage of the huge processing speed. On my computers that are built on Intel I7 the render time shows a little faster build.  So if your getting cam 2018 for faster renders I think you need a multiple core CPU like I9 form Intel or a threadripper. Otherwise you will be disappointed
Photo of Gary Wagner

Gary Wagner

  • 13 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes

Posted 4 months ago

  • 1
Photo of brett.schechter

brett.schechter

  • 6 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
Thanks Gary, I have a few beast computers built around i9's and beefy Nvidia 1080's. Just bought Camtasia 9 a few months ago, but I could sure use it to render as quickly as Adobe Premiere or Resolve! Do you have any comparative vids you'e created? The ONLY reason for me to plunk another $100 down would be getting 40 minute renders to 25 minutes. Most of my Camtasia renders are 30-45 minutes, it's tedious.
Photo of Gary Wagner

Gary Wagner

  • 13 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
do the trial and compare render times before you buy
Photo of Gary Wagner

Gary Wagner

  • 13 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
 I do not have a comparison to premiere render time, i can only compare cam 9 to 2018 on this computer build.  There is a caveat; the file size on video files are twice as large, On cam 9 i produce a daily report took about 250 megs and on 2018 the same project is 500 meg.

The funny thing is when I upload to jw player and they create various resolutions like you tube etc they are identical in size a 250 meg file rendered 1080 ends up as a 79 meg 1080 resolution.
Photo of Joe Morgan

Joe Morgan

  • 5636 Posts
  • 2923 Reply Likes
Hello Gary Wagner,


I'm curious if you ever tested to see if Camtasia 9 utilized all 16 cores of your processor?

Also, you didn't mention what GPU you are running?

My computer doesn't have as many cores as yours but it's no slouch either.The performance gains on my computer come strictly from GPU utilization during render.At least as far as I can tell.

Camtasia 9 doesn't tap the GPU for rendering.
I have a Dell Desktop

XPS 8700

Windows 10, 64-bit, English EA - -

 4th Generation Intel Core i7-4770 processor (8M Cache, up to 3.9 GHz)

16GB RAM Dual Channel DDR3 1600MHz - 4 DIMMs EA - -

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 1.5GB GDDR5 EA - -    Supporting   4 Displays

Camtasia 9 utilized the 8 cores to around 100% without issue.

Camtasia 2018 has been roughly and consistently 20% faster than Cam 9 on my machine. I've ran a series of tests.


Regards,Joe
(Edited)
Photo of Gary Wagner

Gary Wagner

  • 13 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Joe,
Yes I set up Cam 9 to use all of the cores, still it does not harness the power in a 16 core processor like the amd threadripper. I have 2 1080 ti video cards in this computer
Photo of Joe Morgan

Joe Morgan

  • 5636 Posts
  • 2923 Reply Likes
Does Camtasia use much of that graphics power?
I have a GTX 660 which isn't nearly as strong as one of your 1080's and Camtasia only utilizes around 50% of it tops. And that usage is intermittent.

It currently takes me about 45 seconds to render each minute of a video at 1920 x 1080 with high quality settings.
How fast can you render HD videos on a minute to minute basis?
(Edited)
Photo of bnystrom

bnystrom

  • 186 Posts
  • 87 Reply Likes
You should have mentioned that this is a $4000 PC, just to put things into perspective. I suspect that's completely unrealistic for many of us. My hardware is being replaced soon, but I'd be surprised if my new machine costs even a quarter of that. 
Photo of kayakman

kayakman, Champion

  • 6243 Posts
  • 1828 Reply Likes
I drive a modest Lenovo i5 laptop, 8 GB RAM, 245 GB SSD; do all my work at 1920x1080 [or 1040 w/o task bar]; my media is all 1920x1080, 1920x1040, or 1620x1080; CS 2018 runs rock solid for me; I do many projects with massive amounts of interactive content [thousands of hotspots]; editing and productions are improved over CS 9
Photo of Gary Wagner

Gary Wagner

  • 13 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I said "My system is an exception to typical build, so I understand many will not get the really faster renders" I thought taking about price would be a moot point since I listed components  ... but  it is an expensive machine ...  over $4000
Photo of Joe Morgan

Joe Morgan

  • 5636 Posts
  • 2923 Reply Likes

So bnystrom,


16 core processors are a bit overrated for video editing. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m no expert in the field.

However, my computer which is over four years old now. Has a 4th Generation Intel Core i7-4770 processor 3.4 GHz (8M Cache, up to 3.9 GHz).

The 3.4 GHz processor speed was missing from my initial specs. So I’m correcting that now. So as you can see my processor is actually every bit as fast as Gary’s.

That’s why I was curious if Camtasia 9 took advantage of all of his 16 cores. In general, 16 cores is best for multitasking. You can have 10 different programs open with a processor assigned to each one. Provided the programs are not CPU intensive. That leaves you six cores to run your operating system and something else.

I’ve read a few articles on the subject. When it comes to video editing there are mixed reviews and opinions. Somewhere around 10 cores or so there doesn’t seem to be much benefit in having additional cores.

Here’s where the exception comes in. Let’s say you’re running Premier Pro and After Effects simultaneously. If you had 24 cores that would leave you more cores to split between them. However, it still boils down to processor speed. If half of your processors resources are stripped away. To run separate programs. It’s going to be half as effective at running each program.But the overall efficiency could be improved compared to splitting 8 cores between them.

Any time you render a project. For the best render times, It’s best to do it when you’re not doing anything else on your computer.

In my case, I have no problems surfing the web, opening up a Word file and things like that. But I limit my activities to things of that nature.

AMD processors have come a long way. But convincing me to abandon Intel for AMD may never happen. Intel’s been the industry leader in video production for a very long time. They integrate seamlessly with just about every editing application out there. AMD has had mountains of problems doing the same.

Regards, Joe

(Edited)
Photo of Gary Wagner

Gary Wagner

  • 13 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
use the Intel I 9 then .... my point is the use of multi core cpu's ... not the maker ... Intel is the choice if money was not an objection, but it is.

the Intel CPU I9 chip (when i got this system) was  $1700 (although it had 18 cores, i think rather than 16)

The AMD 16 core version was $1000

Below are screen prints on the same computer using cam 9 and cam 2018


(Edited)
Photo of Michael Maardt

Michael Maardt

  • 10 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I have read with great interest. I still use CS v. 8.5. due to the UI in later versions. I consider upgrading my hardware. I am danish (Denmark is a country in Europe, just north of Germany). About the money: State the approx prices but please do NOT never use the words "expensive" or "cheap". These words are relative. Expensive ? To whom ? Bill Gates ? Just state the price.