16 Core limit - I've got dual hex Xeon - 24 cores

Guitartoys wrote on 11/24/2011, 4:11 PM

I am running Vegas Pro 11 and see it is limited to 16 threads/cores.

I am running an SR-2 M/B with dual hex core Xeons, which support 2 threads each. So when I pull up Task Manager for example, I see 24 cores.

Any chance Vegas is going to increase the core limit?

Windows Version:7 64-bit
Processor:Dual Xeon Hex Core 3.46GHz
Video Card:Dual EVGA GTX 580 SLI
Sound Card:Native Instruments Komplete Audio 6
Video Capture:Direct F/W or Canopus ADVC110
CD Burner:
DVD Burner:Plextor BD-R PX-B940SA
Add. Comments: LSI SAS 9265-8i - 4 OCZ Vertex 3 120GB SSDs in RAID 0, 4 WD Black 2TB in RAID 5. All water cooled




Laurence wrote on 11/24/2011, 5:04 PM
I'd be worried that with more than 16 cores, it might be done rendering before I was done editing.
Derm wrote on 11/24/2011, 5:25 PM
Good one Laurence : )
The big question is how is timeline preview?
Still rubbish?
Guitartoys wrote on 11/24/2011, 6:00 PM

I really try to be humble on the forums, but in this case, I have to say I am pretty spoiled.

I'm basically running real time. I don't have to wait for a thing when editing. I am also running SLI across three ASUS 26" displays, and can run 3-D. I've been doing that for gaming and Blu Ray play back. Really haven't done anything 3-D on Vegas yet.

But I really wait for nothing in the timeline. Old computer, hated waiting for the refresh. I can have 6 hours in a project, and just slide around and really no delay.

Rendering time is is less than project time. Standard DVD, probably 1/2 the project time.

Blu Ray, basically render time is the same as project. So a 2 hour BluRay project will encode in 2 hours. I never need to let things run over night anymore.


musicvid10 wrote on 11/24/2011, 6:14 PM
Puttering along on a dual core notebook, and happy as a clam . . .
Derm wrote on 11/24/2011, 6:29 PM
System must have cost a fortune, or it least it would in Europe.
Despite a major system upgrade here including GPU graphics,
timeline is still dire.
PeterDuke wrote on 11/24/2011, 6:54 PM
Are you there Grazie? It's time to upgrade your beast!
Liam_Vegas wrote on 11/24/2011, 7:02 PM
Grazie has upgraded... look at his specs on his profile..not quite to a double hex core system...but still.
Steve Mann wrote on 11/24/2011, 7:32 PM
It could be a limitation of the compiler. 16-cores are not too common, I can't imagine that there's many 24-core PC's out there.

Don't be humble. Brag a bit. What motherboard are you using? Have you run Rendertest 2010 on it yet?

Laurence wrote on 11/24/2011, 8:01 PM
Did you by chance go into the preferences and set the number of simultaneous processes? You might be at default values rather than possible values.
Guitartoys wrote on 11/24/2011, 9:16 PM

I'm gonna try and run some tests with the rendertest, but need to know what I'm doing in using Vegas 11. I'm running 64 bit.

To the earlier comment, yes, I checked the preferences tab, and have it set to 16 rendering threads. Which is the max.

This has an interesting point however. As I have 12 actually Xeon cores, which support 2 threads each, if I have 16 threads, it will be split across the 1st 16 cores, which is only 8 physical cores, so I am not actually using all of the CPU cores, as 4 cores are basically idle, and the rest are doubled up.

Another interesting thing is that I have checked this more than once, and even though I am running a pair of speedy GTX 580's I guess due to the number of cores I have, processing is actually SLOWER when I am using the GPUS. I'll check drivers later too.

I'm gonna start at stock speed, which is 3.47GHz, but as I am water cooled, I have overclocked this to more than 4.6GHz. I''ll try that later.

2 quick questions, 1st, in the video preferences tab, Dynamic RAM is set to 512MB. I have 12GB in the machine, should I bump this up?

2nd question, when doing the render, I am selecting HDV 1080-60i, but the instructions mention making the render "best". Should I be picking that from the Project tab? Should I leave everything else default?

Now that this is Vegas 11, some things have changed. In picking "best" from the Project tab, and leaving everything else alone, I got 4:33

We'll see how this goes.



Guitartoys wrote on 11/24/2011, 10:06 PM
Okey Dokey,

Here's what I got for RenderTest

No GPU accel, 1GB RAM cache, 3:57

Lo and behold, installed new video drivers, with GPU enabled, 38 seconds.

I'll mess with overclocking tomorrow, to see what I can get.

Good Night.

Steve Mann wrote on 11/24/2011, 10:26 PM
We have a new champion....
xberk wrote on 11/24/2011, 11:16 PM
I would think you could build this Twin Xeon monster for about 6-$7000 US.. Considering I once spent $3000 US on an 80meg harddrive, this isn't bad at all.

Paul B .. PCI Express Video Card: EVGA VCX 10G-P5-3885-KL GeForce RTX 3080 XC3 ULTRA ,,  Intel Core i9-11900K Desktop Processor ,,  MSI Z590-A PRO Desktop Motherboard LGA-1200 ,, 64GB (2X32GB) XPG GAMMIX D45 DDR4 3200MHz 288-Pin SDRAM PC4-25600 Memory .. Seasonic Power Supply SSR-1000FX Focus Plus 1000W ,, Arctic Liquid Freezer II – 360MM .. Fractal Design case ,, Samsung Solid State Drive MZ-V8P1T0B/AM 980 PRO 1TB PCI Express 4 NVMe M.2 ,, Wundiws 10 .. Vegas Pro 19 Edit

Grazie wrote on 11/24/2011, 11:19 PM
PeterDuke[i] Are you there Grazie? It's time to upgrade your beast![/I]

Not according to my RoI.

The setup I've got now has to see me through for sometime to come. When I priced the Beast, Xeons were on offer but at a humongous price.

Our chum has a magnificent animal. I'll look forward to reading what he can get on overclocking. I love this stuff!

- g

Guitartoys wrote on 11/25/2011, 1:40 AM
Well, just did a little overclocking to see what would happen.

Bumped my CPU speed up from 3.47GHz to 4.16Ghz, (20% increase)

Then bumped my GPUs from the stock 850MHz to 1005MHz. (18% increase)

But only saw the rendertest go down from 38 seconds to 34 which is only 11%

Have to say, even before the overclock, the GPU never went more than 65%, and CPU Usage (the average of all cores) never went above 32%
Also, there was only heavy activity on 6 of the cores.

So I think it might just be a limitation in the code.

I'd love to find a way to take advantage of all 24 cores.


BTW, This is a recent build, and I build a new computer every 3 to 4 years, which I expect to last me as much again. I also do far more audio than video, and use tons of plugins, and in that case with Cubase, it really helps.

If I could figure how to post a picture to this forum, I would.

ritsmer wrote on 11/25/2011, 1:58 AM
Michael: by default Vegas can use max 16 threads. You can, however, change the default yourself: Options & SHIFT+Preferences & Internal. Search for "Video render Threads" be sure you select the (64bit) and change at will...

I have a double Xeon quads (8 cores, but no HT) and using it
-without GPU assist there is a render speed maximum around cores x 1,5 = 12 and some 600 MB Preview RAM (Yes, it has influence on rendering speed too)
It seems that more than 12 slows down rendering.
I can get the CPU usage to some 95-100% with this setting.

-with GPU assist the best rendering speed is achieved at max threads around 2-3 (!) with around 50 MB Preview RAM (!).

GPU assist with my simple GTS 450 brings some 5% rendering speed - but only using the above number of threads and Prev. RAM. Changing the settings seems very sensitive.

Let us hear what some fine-tuning brings on your enviable machine.

Edit: Ah, yes: do you use a Windows 7 64 version that supports 2 physical processors? When I got my double Xeon machine I cursed a full day fighting to make it use the second processor - until I found out I had to install Windows 7 Ultimate since my Home Premium would not recognize the second processor.
fp615 wrote on 11/25/2011, 2:20 AM
Actually Intel has a ten core processor running at 2.40 ghz, that you can install in a 4 socket DL580 server, with up to 2 terabyte of ram.
so 4*10 = 40 cores, with HT they become 80 cores.

Downstairs, in the data center, I have a couple of 4*8*2 cores (total 64 cores) that I wanted to test with vegas 10 but unfortunately 7 supports a maximum of 2 sockets.

Anyway, it's not easy to scale with the number of available cores, since you have to multiply the I/O bandwidth in both reading and writing...
JohnnyRoy wrote on 11/25/2011, 10:59 AM
> [Guitartoys] said: "BTW, This is a recent build, and I build a new computer every 3 to 4 years, which I expect to last me as much again. I also do far more audio than video, and use tons of plugins, and in that case with Cubase, it really helps."

Would you be kind enough to list your parts. Especially the motherboard, cpu's, & ram?

I'm considering either building a 12 core or buying a 12 core Mac Pro. I haven't decided yet. The Intel motherboard for dual hex cores goes out of service next year so I don't want to buy old parts but I really like using Intel motherboards. (actually maybe an older more stable mobo isn't a bad idea) I, like you, build a new system every 4 - 5 years with top-of-the-line parts which seem to last. I'm just looking for stability and performance.



John Rofrano
Guitartoys wrote on 11/25/2011, 11:59 AM
Not quite sure I understand your explanation on increasing the treads.

I'm on a PC. Are you asking me to search the registry, and edit a key?

I don't understand what you mean.


Guitartoys wrote on 11/25/2011, 12:01 PM

I've got servers in a farm too. Biggest right now is a quad hex for 24 physical cores, 48 threads. But what I am finding is cores aren't the thing right now.

Will have a new post shortly with thread results. It's very strange.

Guitartoys wrote on 11/25/2011, 12:03 PM

Here's a link to eVGA's Mods Rigs site, which has the full skinny on the components, and a couple of pictures.


Guitartoys wrote on 11/25/2011, 12:05 PM

I'm gonna start a new thread on the rendering thread topic, because something is whack.

wilvan wrote on 11/25/2011, 1:49 PM
Got a dual quad hyperthreading XEON too ( 16 cores ) and 48 GB RAM .

GPU not yet used since when rendering ( 100MB dynamic preview RAM ) all 16 cores blow at 95->100 % and renders bloody fast.

What keeps on wondering me is that vegas does not use RAM , the vegas64bit also prefers to stays below 4 GB and that tells me something . Wonder and keep on wondering why fast and lots of RAM are left aside while they can improve lots of things ( when being used ).

Will install a couple of quadro 4000 ' s soon ( bought them few weeks ago but did not yet install since had to finish few projects first ) but am solely and only interested in real-time improvement .

( see my dell T7500 workstation specs )

Sony  PXW-FS7K and 2 x Sony PXW-Z280  ( optimised as per Doug Jensen Master Classes and Alister Chapman advices ) Sony A7 IV
2 x HP Z840 workstations , each as follows : WIN10 pro x 64 , 2 x 10 core Xeon E5-2687W V3 at 3.5 GHz , 256 GB reg ECC RAM , HP nvidia quadro RTX A5000 ( 24GB ), 3 x samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB M.2 2280 PCIe 3.0 x4  , 3 x SSD 1TB samsung 860 pro , 3 x 3TB WD3003FZEX.
SONY Vegas Pro 13 build 453  ( user since version 4 ) , SONY DVDarch , SONY SoundForge(s) , SONY Acid Pro(s) , SONY Cinescore ( each year buying upgrades for all of them since vegas pro 4 )
(MAGIX) Vegas pro 14 ( bought it as a kind of support but never installed it )
Adobe Photoshop  CC 2023
Adobe After Effects CC 2023 & Adobe Media Encoder CC 2023
Avid Media Composer 2022.xx ( started with the FREE Avid Media Composer First in 2019 )
Dedicated solely editing systems , fully optimized , windows 10 pro x 64 
( win10 pro operating systems , all most silly garbage and kid's stuff of microsoft entirely removed , never update win 10 unless required for editing purposes or ( maybe ) after a while when updates have proven to be reliable and no needless microsoft kid's stuff is added in the updates )

Hulk wrote on 11/25/2011, 6:13 PM
You can disable HT on 8 of the cores to be sure that Vegas is definitely using all 12 of your physical cores. Try it and see how it benches vs. HT enabled. I'm curious if Vegas is holding you back when it comes to rendering threads at 16 max.