Comments

bitman wrote on 1/16/2019, 1:29 AM

I see you have a 12 core CPU, and although your SW (and including the OS) can use multiple cores, the increased benefit of having more multiple cores will never scale linear. For parallelism there is a always a point where there are diminishing returns. For example some cores are just waiting idle to other cores which need to provide them with the info they need before they can continue... Also memory needs to be shared which can introduce latency, and accessing a disc or SSD for contend etc...

Your 10-30% is the sum over all cores I presume? You could (if possible) to do an experiment and reduce the number of cores in BIOS to 4 cores (I do not know if it is possible with AMD) or via a sw tool, and see if the CPU resources % is increasing or not. Perhaps you may find and optimal number of cores for Vegas with the least latency. With Vegas it is often more beneficial with systems having a higher clock speed per core than having to more cores with a lower clock speed. A higher CPU clock speed can help to negate the latency issue with multiple cores so you could use more cores without the diminishing return, but unfortunately in practice systems with a very high core count tend to run their cores at a lower CPU clock speed to avoid thermal issues on their silicon.

Last changed by bitman on 1/16/2019, 1:32 AM, changed a total of 1 times.

Current system: VP 17 (edit), VP16 (suite) build 424, VP15 (suite) build 416, Magix Video Pro X (VPX11), Corel VS ultimate 2019, a lot of NEWBLUE plugins, Titler Pro 6, Mercalli 4.0, Respeedr, Vasco Da Gamma 12, VASST stuff, Production Assistent pro3, Boris Continuum 2019, Davinci Resolve Studio 16 b...

  • OS: Windows 10 Pro 64, version 1903
  • CPU: der8auer i7-8700K (advanced edition), default speed (no overclock), Cooler: Noctua NH-D15s
  • RAM: G.Skill Trident Z 3200C14 DDR4 64GB, XMP set to profile 1 in BIOS
  • Videocard: NVIDEA RTX 2080Ti (Founders edition), NVIDEA studio drivers
  • Monitor: LG 38 inch ultra-wide (21x9) - yes upgraded from 34 to 38, I can see more tracks now! Resolution: 3840x1600
  • C-drive: Samsung NVMe SSD 2TB 960 pro
  • Data storage: WD gold 6TB + WD Yellow 4TB
  • MOBO: Gigabyte Z370 Aorus Gaming 7
  • PS: Corsair HX1200i, Case: Silverstone fortress 2, shuttlePROv2, Keyboard and mouse: Logitech G910 and G700s (and now Evoluent Vertical Mouse)

Before November 2018: NVIDEA Gibabyte GTX 1080ti

Before November 2017: windows 10 Pro 64, i7-4790k, mem: DDR3 16GB GTX TITAN X (Maxwell)

 

OldSmoke wrote on 1/16/2019, 6:35 AM

Actually you can limit the number of cores that Vegas uses too, it’s in the preferences. You could switch the task manager performance view to per core, start with 1 core in Vegas and measure the render time. You will find that at a certain point, it won’t render any faster.

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)

BruceUSA wrote on 1/16/2019, 7:28 AM

 

System act differently base on choice of components choosing and Vegas will act differently. I will share my experience with my high cores count, 16C to be exact. At the time my system built and Vegas did not support my AMD Vega card at the time. So, the system was solely on CPU only. During rendering the 16 cores will hit 100%. usage on MP4. Time Line performace will hit 30-60%.. With out GPU support, I was still happy with editing 4K files. With GPU support it just so good and am extremely happy with my high cores count at 4ghz.

Salah wrote on 1/16/2019, 11:19 AM

So Intel Core i9-9700/9900 is a much better processor for rendering in vegas?

 

BruceUSA wrote on 1/16/2019, 11:26 AM

So Intel Core i9-9700/9900 is a much better processor for rendering in vegas?

 

Do you have any data to back that up or you are just assuming the case.?

 

PS. How good your system rendering performance have a lot to do with the over all system combinations.

Salah wrote on 1/28/2019, 10:32 AM

http://s5.ifotos.pl/img/amdjpg_qwwrphq.jpg

Please advise me what to do. I bought a new computer specially for vegasa 16:

- AMD 1920X

- 4X G.SKILL 8GB 3200MHz Ripjaws V CL15

- AOURUS X399 GAMING7

- MSI RTX 2080 8GB

- 3X SAMSUNG 970 PRO

RENDERING ON THIS COMPUTER LOOKS TRAGICALLY! DURING RENDERING, THE LOADED PROCESSOR IS ONLY IN 10-20% My old i7 2600k @ 4.2 ghz computer was faster. What should I do?

Salah wrote on 1/29/2019, 6:31 AM

I change to Intel. AMD is scrap. A waste of time to search and read because nothing will be found. AMD never again !!!

bob-h wrote on 1/29/2019, 7:45 AM

Trying to utilise GPU + CPU most efficiently with Vegas seems to favour high frequency CPU's with fewer cores, which in-itself favours intel but maybe your system works fine with Davinci Resolve 15. It does seem like Vegas is dead software walking & you will need to change to something else anyway. Maybe premature to ditch your new computer just for vegas compatibility

Trensharo wrote on 1/30/2019, 7:50 PM

So Intel Core i9-9700/9900 is a much better processor for rendering in vegas?

 

Intel has better per-core performance than AMD. So, unless you are running software that is very well coded for high core/thread CPUs, you're likely to benefit from Intel a bit more than AMD... This is why Intel is king for gaming... Games tend to be less multi-threaded, so the benefits of Intel are very evident there...

The Ryzen CPUs are great, but there is a lot of software that doesn't run optimally on them (though some of this may have been fixed with driver updates), including editing software like Avid Media Composer and Pro Tools. And they've been a bit more on top of their codebase than the VEGAS developers have, over the past few years...

I wouldn't say it's dead software walking. I do think it has an advantage in that it actually runs decently well on lower end systems, which is a competitive advantage to many people.

I would replace the software before I replaced that system, though, unless you just ordered it and can just send it back and get them to send you a replacement with an Intel CPU :-P

With a Threadripper and 2080, I honestly would bias to DaVinci Resolve Studio.

Are you rendering with NVENC, and are you using GPU Assisted Processing? With that much power, and that kind of speed... I wouldn't expect that CPU to be taxed much on a simple project, honestly.

Just because you have tons of power, doesn't mean a given task needs all of it ;-)

bob-h wrote on 1/31/2019, 4:39 AM

 

I wouldn't say it's dead software walking. I do think it has an advantage in that it actually runs decently well on lower end systems, which is a competitive advantage to many people.

I find it alarming the lack of activity on the Vegas16 update build revision threads, just thinking back to how active & hopeful we were with the Vegas15 releases. It's like very few people upgraded or bought V16 or the users have given up due to low morale

james-ollick wrote on 1/31/2019, 8:08 AM

 

I wouldn't say it's dead software walking. I do think it has an advantage in that it actually runs decently well on lower end systems, which is a competitive advantage to many people.

I find it alarming the lack of activity on the Vegas16 update build revision threads, just thinking back to how active & hopeful we were with the Vegas15 releases. It's like very few people upgraded or bought V16 or the users have given up due to low morale

Or, like me, are not having any issues with the kind of work they do and just getting their work done. 😊

Matthias-Claflin wrote on 1/31/2019, 8:24 AM

Now I don't really want to get into an Intel v. AMD argument. I just wanted to chime in as a Ryzen 7 user that I've had no issues with AMD in Vegas. In fact, Premiere utilized about 50% of my CPU and 0% GPU (because I had an AMD CPU with, at the time, a Nvidia GPU and Premiere only supports hardware optimization natively with Intel/Nvidia combos), while I regularly hit 100%CPU and 30% GPU usage when rendering in Vegas (not to mention rendering twice as fast on most projects). Not that Vegas is somehow superior to Premiere, but just that it is better optimized for AMD products than Premiere (I can't speak for Avid as I've never tested it).

I only comment this to point out that (at least with my 8 core CPU), Vegas handles AMD hardware very well, in my experience (again I can't speak for Avid as I've never used it).

Last changed by Matthias-Claflin on 1/31/2019, 8:26 AM, changed a total of 2 times.

My Hardware:

  • Asus Prime x470-Pro
  • Ryzen 7 1700 (o.c. to 3.9GHz)
  • Corsair Vengeance Pro RGB (4x8GB o.c. to 3000MHz)
  • Nvidia GTX 960 4GB
  • Corsair H110i Liquid Cooler
  • Samsung EVO 960 500GB (boot/work drive)
  • Kingston SSDNow 120GB (game storage)
  • Seagate 1TB 7200RPM HDD (general storage)
  • QNAP 2 Bay NAS
    • 2x Seagate 4TB IronWolf Pro Drives
Salah wrote on 1/31/2019, 2:26 PM

I think I've found a problem. When I run a vegasa with default settings (crtl + shift), the processor responds correctly (photo only cpu), however, rendering with the RTX2080 GPU enabled nothing accelerates. I need to understand why this is happening :/

😀

bob-h wrote on 2/1/2019, 1:07 AM

When that has happened with me, it's always been plugin related. So you would remove all 3rd party plugins and render, see if your GPU is being used. There's also the usual remove & reinstall vegas & remove video drivers, run DDU & reinstall.

Salah wrote on 2/4/2019, 12:26 PM

It is not as good as I said. Vegas works quickly (cpu 70 -90%) if the DYNAMIC RAM PREVIEW MAX (MB) option is set to 200. but then vegas is crashed. When I set to "0" VEGAS there are no errors but it works very slowly (cpu 10%) I do not have any strength to VEGAS: /

 

The difference is HUGE! 4K RECORD: RAM OPTION: 200 rendering takes about 2 hours, RAM OPTION: 0 takes about 11 hours! I do not know why I bought VEGAS: / I've lost so much time to solve problems, I could devote this time to something else. VEGAS is a huge disappointment. always something does not work. I paid for this program: /

Salah wrote on 2/11/2019, 7:35 PM

DO YOU HAVE AN IDENTICAL PROBLEM? VEGAS IS A HORRIBLE PROGRAM!

fan-boy wrote on 2/11/2019, 7:50 PM

window's "Power Options" CPU setting can be set to : 45 % minimum and 100 % maximum . This setting will affect how Vegas loads the cores during rendering . If I keep AMD cool N quite enabled in BIOS , I can then in window's Power Options , set CPU to 45% min and 45% Max , clamping the CPU load to 45 % . Vegas will now only load out to about 45% to 50% as viewed in Task Manager . If I set window's CPU Power Options to 100 % min and 100 % Max , Vegas will load 4 cores to 100 % each , during render , when Vega's core count setting is set to 4 . in Vegas 14 using CPU only in Options-->Preferences-->Video Tab-->GPU drop down Box OFF .

Salah wrote on 2/13/2019, 5:16 AM

this is not a problem. The problem is a DYNAMIC RAM PREVIEW MAX. A lot of people write about it, but nobody answers. A little more and I will write a refund for the **** program

fr0sty wrote on 2/13/2019, 12:08 PM

We're a group of people who successfully use Vegas professionally (most of the time) to run our businesses, when we have issues, we reach out to each other and the program team to solve them. We're not Magix, and Magix rarely bothers to respond, especially to whiny posts that seek to complain before trying to seek answers.


Also, not all codecs support GPU usage. Only the ones that say "NVENC" will utilize the GPU to do the encoding. Otherwise, it is only used for timeline acceleration (which can speed up encoding too), though there have been some reports of the 20 series Geforce cards having issues in Vegas, look for threads in this forum regarding it, as someone may have found the answer to that already.

I'm currently using an AMD Ryzen 7 1800x with a Geforce 970 GTX, it's working pretty well in most cases.

Salah wrote on 2/13/2019, 12:16 PM

I know exactly what codec supports the GPU and there is no answer to this problem in this forum, some people have a problem with this. I described the problem exactly.

Kinvermark wrote on 2/13/2019, 1:05 PM

People have given answers for yo to try, but you are the only one sitting at YOUR computer so it's up to you to troubleshoot.

As Frosty told you, lot and lots and LOTS of us use Vegas successfully all day long.

But I have no interest in helping people who trash talk the software, so adopt a better attitude, or move on.

Trensharo wrote on 2/14/2019, 3:14 PM

this is not a problem. The problem is a DYNAMIC RAM PREVIEW MAX. A lot of people write about it, but nobody answers. A little more and I will write a refund for the **** program


Refund and buy something that works. HitFilm 12 is going to be pretty nice, and DaVinci Resolve isn't much more expensive.

People get are triggered when you don't go out of your way to be diplomatic and talk up the application. Don't throw your money down the drain. It's not like the latest version was really much better than V15.

There are too many free or cheap options just as, if not more, suitable for professional use to put yourself through this level of frustration. It isn't worth it.

Bugs with GPU Acceleration and Dynamic RAM Preview have existed in this software since at least the days of VEGAS Pro 12 or 13 - and likely much earlier than that. They simply haven't been fixed. Storyboards are more important.

Trensharo wrote on 2/14/2019, 3:41 PM

Now I don't really want to get into an Intel v. AMD argument. I just wanted to chime in as a Ryzen 7 user that I've had no issues with AMD in Vegas. In fact, Premiere utilized about 50% of my CPU and 0% GPU (because I had an AMD CPU with, at the time, a Nvidia GPU and Premiere only supports hardware optimization natively with Intel/Nvidia combos), while I regularly hit 100%CPU and 30% GPU usage when rendering in Vegas (not to mention rendering twice as fast on most projects). Not that Vegas is somehow superior to Premiere, but just that it is better optimized for AMD products than Premiere (I can't speak for Avid as I've never tested it).

I only comment this to point out that (at least with my 8 core CPU), Vegas handles AMD hardware very well, in my experience (again I can't speak for Avid as I've never used it).

Where do you people even find/get this blatantly false information?

Premiere Pro has 3 Mercury Engines: Software (CPU), OpenCL (Intel, AMD), and CUDA (NVIDIA).

It most certainly uses the AMD CPU for Graphics Processing and Compute. Whether or not OpenCL is competitive with CUDA is a completely different matter.

AMD definitely has better OpenCL implementation and performance, but this doesn't matter when you're using an NLE like Premiere Pro or Resolve which have really good CUDA optimization. At that point, you aren't comparing to NVIDIA's poor OpenCL implementation, but to their fantastic CUDA implementation... and Nvidia will win, there, especially on their higher end GPUs.

Secondly, what you notice is not a Premiere Pro thing. It's a general industry trend.

Look at most Consumer and Pro NLEs... Almost all of them are biased to Intel (QSV) and Nvidia (CUDA, NVENC). VEGAS Pro implemented NVENC Encoding before VCE. It only does Decode Acceleration with QSV...

Premiere Pro actually goes a bit beyond what a lot of other NLEs on the market do. They don't dump you straight to software simply because you didn't buy a GTX/RTX card.