100 percent CPU usage

jimingo wrote on 5/30/2005, 10:21 PM
Now that I am running V6, my CPU usage is 100% everytime I render. I appreciate the faster render times but I can't really run any other program while rendering even though I'm on a 3.6, 1gig ram hyperthreaded computer. I used to be able to capture video and render video at the same time in version 4 but now I get glitches in the captured video if I do both at the same time. If I change the priority level of vegas, will that help solve my capture problem or will it lead to really long renders, or is there a better way of solving this?



Chienworks wrote on 5/31/2005, 3:10 AM
I almost always set the priority to "below normal" while rendering. Vegas usually still averages 95 to 97% even while running VidCap or web browsing or whatever. It makes almost no difference in rendering time.
JJKizak wrote on 5/31/2005, 5:11 AM
Mine runs 100 % most of the time during the render and about 40% faster than V5. I am very happy about this and could care less about running something else during render.

John_Cline wrote on 5/31/2005, 10:07 AM
To me, capturing during a render is just asking for trouble.

B_JM wrote on 5/31/2005, 3:10 PM
i never had a problem capturing during rendering on a Dual Xeon (w/ scsi) system, in fact I could render vegas, capture, and still be doing something else --

I quite notice this is not possable on a single cpu system (HT or not) - i.e.
capture and render yes -- not capture, render and run something like fusion at the same time .. no mater what - a HT cpu is still only one cpu

Cheesehole wrote on 5/31/2005, 4:18 PM
Some of us like to get the most out of our system. Capturing and rendering simultaneously is a good way to increase productivity.

In situations like this I would set the affinity of the Vegas process to use only one CPU. I'm not sure how / if this works on a HT system, but I open Task Manager, right click on the process that I want to limit, and hit Set Affinity... then uncheck one of the CPUs.
johnmeyer wrote on 5/31/2005, 4:29 PM
I don't think capturing and rendering at the same time is a bad idea at all. Why shouldn't I be able to do that?

In answer to the original post, bring up the task list, go to the process tab, and set the Vegas process that is taking up all the CPU cycles down to the lowest priority. I do this all the time because both Vegas and DVDA in their latest versions are much more aggressive in how they "take over" your computer. Despite the scary warning message that comes up, you shouldn't have any problems. My guess is that you'll be able to capture just fine. I would recommend, however, that you capture to a different disk than the one used for the render or for your temporary files. Also, make sure your capture options are set to stop the capture if there is a dropped frame. This way, if for some reason your computer can't handle this, you'll not end up with captured video that has dropped frame glitches.

I do this all the time on a 2.8 GHz P4 2 1/2 year-old computer that is pretty basic by current standards. Heck, I do it all the time on a computer with half that horsepower. Capture doesn't require much CPU at all -- it just needs a straight shot at the disk. If you have DMA set up correctly, the CPU will hardly see any of the bits coming in. Thus, capture and render can be almost completely independent, if you capture to a different disk.
BillyBoy wrote on 5/31/2005, 4:33 PM
"...quite notice this is not possable on a single cpu system (HT or not) "

Baloney. It certainly is possbile.

Windows will run as many processes as it has resources for. If or not it has a single or dual CPU to run them on is irrelevant. The only real advantage to a dual system is IF, underscore IF the software is smart enough to efficiently use such horsepower. Most application still can't.

farss wrote on 5/31/2005, 4:35 PM
Of course you could make the process even more goof proof and use a separate cheap PC for capturing. This has other advantages, sure PCs can multitask very well these days but not my very old 'CPU', watching captures in the background while I try to do something else is just too distracting. Physically separating the processes (like doing it in another room) is much easier.
BillyBoy wrote on 5/31/2005, 5:01 PM
Yep, I've done that for years via removeable drives. Only caution... I didn't want to build that fancy a box just to render so i made a dumb mistake buying a cheap aluminum case from some no name company in South Korea. It was aluminum alright, , looked nice, but as thin as as a piece of paper. Worse, the tolerances were terrible. The opening for the floppy was off by about 1/8 inch and that meant you couldn't get the floppy out with the case on. Worse, the tolerances for the drive cage were too narrow, just a tiny tad too narrow so you guessed it... it was murder pulling the removeable drives out or still worse trying to get them in, always worrying the case would warp and bend from the effort. Never bought a cheap case again. Lesson learned. <wink>
B_JM wrote on 5/31/2005, 5:24 PM
BillyBoy - not baloney , but the rest of the sentence was not there to make it clear ..
Running like a snail doesn't mean to me that is is "ok" ... I don't want to see any effect at all.

2 things - yes no problem on single cpu .... running other things much harder on single cpu system at same time .. some systems ...

i would render, capture , burn 2 dvds and be running fusion in the background, maybe even compliing --- on the dual xeon system ....

On a single cpu system, rendering and try to do something like run photoshop and burn a disk the same time is really slow opening etc ...

Harold Brown wrote on 5/31/2005, 5:52 PM
You should want the CPU to be a busy as possible. At some point it becomes the bottleneck so you run less applications at one time or get another CPU. I can render on a 3ghz Ht system and surf the internet and read email. The CPU is pegged but I can still do other things. Yep it is a bit slower. Start up always requires extra time and I/O takes extra time. Same thing happens on UNIX and mainframe systems. The CPU isn't the only factor in all of this. You get your system doing a high amount of paging and you are out of luck regardless of CPU usage. Reading and writing to different drives is important (as mentioned). Is your system running cool or at a high temp? That affects performance. Understanding CPU/Paging/Memory & I/O is not all that simple.
Cheesehole wrote on 5/31/2005, 8:27 PM
The only real advantage to a dual system is IF, underscore IF the software is smart enough to efficiently use such horsepower. Most application still can't.

There's a huge difference between running multiple apps on a single CPU system vs. multi processor system - even with apps that are not multi processor aware. Like B_JM sez - single processor systems will bottleneck on a render.
BillyBoy wrote on 5/31/2005, 10:13 PM
Advantage is relative to what you want your computer to do. Then there is the little matter of cost. From what I've seen posted in this forum while Vegas 6 uses dual processors "better" then earlier versions, again the increase isn't anything to cause me to rush out and put together a dual system.

All bets off until I see what the 64 bit version of Windows can do and how well applicatons/hardware run on it.
Cheesehole wrote on 6/1/2005, 12:20 AM
I suppose I could switch to a different computer to play UT2K4 during my renders...
B_JM wrote on 6/1/2005, 5:01 AM
I am also running Vegas 6 on winXP64 , it is slower than on winXP32 on the same machine for rendering.

Ive been running 64bit system for years, nothing new - all the sgi stuff : )

BillyBoy wrote on 6/1/2005, 7:12 AM
Oh please... there aren't any true 64 bit Windows based applicaions yet. You're "testing" is like driving a solar powered car in moonlight.

From AMD's web site: "...consumers with 64-bit desktops are still going to have a lot of 32-bit code for years to come....

You need three things: a 64-bit CPU plus a 64-bit OS, and oops some nice 64-bit applications to run on it. Hint: There is no 64 bit version of Vegas...yet.
B_JM wrote on 6/1/2005, 8:42 AM
BillyBoy - There are MANY 64 bit versions of window software -- what are you talking about ?

And I am beta testing several more right now ..

Native 64 bit applications short list:

Virtualdub 64
Avisynth 64
Avast 64
.NET 64
Filedisk 64
O&O defrag 64
Firefox x64
64 bit IE
DiVX beta 64
FarCry64 (game)
Chronicles of Riddick
Shadow ops
Red Mercury
Sandra 2005
SQL server 2005
panorama factory
Calkwalk 64 preview
Sonar x64
Avid Softimage
BEA Systems
Tiny Firewall 64(very good)
Orca 64 bit
Doom3 64
Many Autodesk products - now and in beta
Maya 64bit (may be in beta only)

BMC, Citrix Systems, CommVault, Computer Associates, DHI Water & Environment, EMC, Ericom, IBM, McAfee, NewTek, Oracle, PTC, Symantec, Trend Micro, Unigraphics Software, Veritas Software, and Valve Software all have 64 bit versions of many of thier applications, some in beta testing now, some released.

Nero 6.6 runs fine , but uses mostly 32 bit code ..

BillyBoy wrote on 6/1/2005, 9:44 AM
I'm talking reality. You know, real world, what is available to the PUBLIC right now. i'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you.

The point you keep ignoring is right now there is no 64 bit version of Vegas and there is no RELEASED version of 64 bit Windows either. So what some "beta tester" may or may not play around with is irrelevant.

Amazing how fragile some egos are in this forum.
B_JM wrote on 6/1/2005, 9:57 AM
The list i printed is available to the public, real world, etc .. .. except any as marked.

You really don't know much about WinXP64 it seems. It is nothing about ego , it knowing what I am talking about to a level you could only wish for ..

Windows XP 64 bit can be purchased like any other OS, RIGHT NOW .. The final version, RELEASED .. In fact for several weeks now.

MS has both a trial program and also a 32 to 64 bit exchange program also ..


It also comes pre-installed on systems from DeLL, IBM , HP , Alienware and others. .

BillyBoy wrote on 6/1/2005, 12:17 PM
One of my pet peeves is seeing people tell half the story.The web site you suggest people visit clearly states that the Windows XP 64 version is a TRIAL VERSION. That isn't what you implied. I have no wish to be Microsoft's beta tester or to "upgrade" with strings attached.

From the site in question:

"The Windows XP Professional x64 Edition trial software download is available at no charge. After you have completed the download registration process, you will receive an e-mail message with a link to the download page. The download page will include the download file and a product key for the trial software. "

True enough you can "upgrade" ie buy now for a minor charge, but guess what: "

Those who take advantage of the $12 upgrade and move from the 32-bit version of Windows XP Professional that was factory-installed on their PCs to Windows XP Professional x64, risk voiding the factory warranty on their PCs, the software giant has warned. "

read the following for more:


And those not upgrading to a new 64 bit system from some box maker as this point CAN NOT buy a 64 bit version of Windows off the shelf. So sorry, the level you are talking at is little more than double talk. I don't wish to throw the dice. If you do, fine, be my guest.

B_JM wrote on 6/1/2005, 12:51 PM
you mean this one you can not buy now for $159.00 (in stock) http://tinyurl.com/9oymx

where I and 1000's of others have purchased it 'off the shelf'

Or just pick it up at some of the local computer stores around here - it is "on the shelf" .. It is sold also in the college book store here.

Cheesehole wrote on 6/1/2005, 12:52 PM
What's WinRAR64? Is that beta? I've been looking for a version that works with all shell extensions in Windows 64 but this is the latest info I have from the author:

btw - the only thing preventing me from running Windows 64 is this WinRAR issue and the lack of printer/scanner drivers. When I bought my dual Opteron system in Feb 2004 I was hoping to upgrade to 64 bit by this summer... looks like things are almost ready.
B_JM wrote on 6/1/2005, 12:54 PM
billyBoy , don't just believe everything you read on the Internet, sometimes it pays to pay attention to real world experience and not right away dismiss something which you know nothing about ....

B_JM wrote on 6/1/2005, 1:02 PM
there is a problem in the context menus in x64 winrar , so in the meantime, or to replace it, use the x64 version of squeez .. I really like it ..

Squeez for Windows XP/2003 x64 Edition

Squeez is an extremely fast file compression application, supporting 13 different compression algorithms. The software reads and writes files in the formats ZIP, RAR, SQX, ACE, ARJ, BZIP, GZIP, LZH, TAR, UUE, JAR, CAB and 7z -- without any additional software! With only one click, Squeez compresses one or several files and attaches it/them to a new E-Mail message.

Squeez can add recovery data to your archives -- this makes them less vulnerable to damaged storage media and garbled Internet transfers. Compress files as self-extracting archives (SFX) to share them with others or to uncompress them on another machine. SFX-archives can automatically uncompress themselves under DOS and Windows 9x/ME/2000/XP or NT.

The main features are

* Direct support for the archive formats SQX, ZIP, ARJ, LZH, RAR, CAB, GZIP, TAR, UUE, JAR, ACE, BZIP
* Full support of ZIP64 (no restrictions regarding the archive size and number of files within a ZIP archive) and deflate 64
* Archives can be signed digitally
* Secure encryption following the international AES encryption standard
* Complete Windows Explorer integration
* Creation of self-extracting files (SFX)
* Integrated Quick View for many file formats