core duo 2 cpu otimisation

logiquem wrote on 11/15/2006, 5:13 PM

Hi all,

Just want to know if somebody could help me on that:

-Project in NTSC standard.
-Only one DV stream, but very heavy on FX (chroma blur, chroma key, cropping, color corrector). Real time timeline playback is about at 3 fps.

-Question : i get only 57% cpu utilisation max during playback. Is this normal? Is there any magic trick to get higher cpu utilisation?

I tried different dynamic RAM preview values without any success. In the same context, i always got about 100% cpu utilisation with my old Athlon XP config...

My new config:

Intel Core 2 Duo 6300
Asus P5B-E
2 Go Ram
Vegas 7b

Comments

logiquem wrote on 11/16/2006, 8:47 AM

Any help on this? I searched previous threads on the suject without success...

DavidSinger wrote on 11/16/2006, 12:28 PM

Some of these tuning tips will surprise you. I use 'em all, and am pleased.

For instance, you set background processing priority, not program priority. It seems counter-intuitive, but then Microsoft is in many ways.

Of course, it could be that you finally have more horsepower than you need. Can you go BestFull for preview and watch your entire screen play in real-time while your processor is going 57%? That'd be a clue (grin).

Throw some Gaussian blur on several tracks, whole tracks. That drops the anchor on my otherwise fast computer (and is why I'm moving it up to a Quad).

UlfLaursen wrote on 11/16/2006, 9:31 PM

Thanks for sharing this link, David - it looks very clear here what to do compared to other sites with tips.

@ logiquem:
I sometimes experience low framerate at first time playback of timeline, and when I play back second time I get full 25 fps. Seems like Vegas is doing some caching during playback. Don't know if it has anything to do with your prob. though.

/Ulf

Steve Mann wrote on 11/18/2006, 1:14 PM

"For instance, you set background processing priority, not program priority. It seems counter-intuitive, but then Microsoft is in many ways."

Makes perfect sense. The rendering is being done by the CODEC while Vegas is in the foreground.

Steve M.

DavidSinger wrote on 11/18/2006, 2:06 PM

Steve,
"Makes perfect sense. The rendering is being done by the CODEC while Vegas is in the foreground."
Yes, it does, once it is understood that whole libraries of code are used to accomplish "a simple task." I'm not taking you to task here Steve, I'm just explaining why I tossed in that 'counter-intuitive' remark.

I apologize - I should have been more specific and added "such as when rendering, the CODEC in use is refered to as a background task; and for performance in Vegas you do want that CODEC to have priority."

As a professional in the software industry since 1967, I have a beef with sloppy choice of words used by programmers to describe/delineate choices a person makes when the opportunity arises. "Foreground" and "Background" are generic terms that offer no delination by themselves. Context in use is crucial to meaning, and I feel Microsoft messages are often lacking in referencing context, rendering their messages confusing at best.

I came from the old school where everybody using computers pretty much had to know this stuff and what the messages meant. To those in the know about what goes on behind the screens, it makes sense, but it does take time to develop the experience.

Nowadays, to the uninitiated (and that is a growing but eager crowd), they perceive they are "running Vegas" in the foreground, while the op system and everything else is "running in the background." They don't perceive the many layers that make up an application's set of skills. Nobody has taught them that, and up to the point of trying to wring out speed from Vegas, they've not had a need to know.

With my wife's permission, this is a similar situation to her expression of what makes a modern-day car go ("I turn the key so the gas pedal will work"). She also has little understanding of computers, such as how the power in the "engine" is converted to "rotation of wheels" - and usually that knowledge is not necessary in order to "just drive to work."

But the minute people want to tinker with the system to get "more horsepower" the learning curve climbs rapidly, and the necessary terminology to properly communicate the concepts becomes specific and expansive.

Folks, my comments that are pre-pended with "seems like" are targetted to the uninitiated (check out the number of people responding to being on this board, and then multiply by as much as 10 to guestimate how many are registered, read, but *never post*). Folks wish to join the club of Vegas Streetrodders are probably surprised at how much we rip the vehicle apart just to put it back together again. Add-ons, plug-ins, hitches, glitches, bigger engines, cooling devices, dashboards, remote controls, autopilots, sound systems, competitions, races, shows...

It helps to toss in little context-placed sidebars such as "this is why we re-route the fuel lines, even if it seems counter-intuitive to those accustomed to just driving the family sedan to work... " I wish my sidebar had been more specific.