At least GPU is seeming to be a benefit on your system. Setups with high powered CPUs often report minimal actual GPU boost or utilization.

Don't change memory settings. They are already happy.

Personally, I always turn GPU rendering off because it is made to be fast at the cost of precision and quality

There is always that trade-off, and I would render without gpu if I had one here to turn off.

The size/quality/speed game goes round and round in every aspect of rendering, like kids playing rock/paper/scissors. Good point, Red Prince.

In an ideal world, what would be the optimum numbers for GPU and CPU?

Not so difficult I think.
100/100 and both with the same amount of quality. 😄
But we not live and, I think, we will never live in an ideal world.

That made me chuckle, J-V!

That made me chuckle, J-V!

That question gave me a big smile ( as you could see).
But the answer I gave, I would like to have in MY ideal world.

128 bit OS will save the world in a few years -- for a little while.

Perhaps I should have tempered my question with reality. Should have asked, "What is a realistic expectation?" The length of time for the render is already in the "hours," largely because of the large number of effects/plug-ins, etc. So turning off the GPU is not an option.

Load balancing may occur in many systems around 80% CPU.

It's apparent yours is benefitting from 50-50, so no, you wouldn't want to turn it off if time wins the rock/paper/scissors game for you.

Again, the game is time, quality, speed. Pick only two.

I always turn GPU rendering off because it is made to be fast at the cost of precision and quality (remember, it is designed to allow computer games to display quickly, not for high precision rendering)

Be careful about generalizing about specific NLE functions if you haven't done an actual comparison of the results yourself. I recently compared the results of rendering using VP16 software MP4 CODECs against the AMD, Intel QSV, and nVidia accelerated CODECs, and found the final renders to be almost identical. With 4K footage the hardware accelerated CODECs cut the rendering time in half, and with 1080p HD footage the rendering time was cut to one quarter. So from this point on I'm going to always use the hardware accelerated CODECs when I need to render MP4 videos, as the visual results are essentially identical between the software and hardware accelerated CODECs.

So in YOUR size/quality/speed game you are willing to sacrifice some quality for the sake of speed because it doesn't look that bad with your material. Thanks for sharing.

So why would you want to have an expensive GPU in your system then disable Vegas from utilizing it.

Consider a good GPU from NV and Vegas 16:

• GPU handles screen display extremely fast for smooth video playback
• GPU has OpenCL ability to speed up complex math that far exceeds the CPUs ability, even something like a threadripper.
• GPU has specific hardware that can decode and encode h.265 and h.264 much faster than the CPU, offloading that task from CPU.

The days of GPU h.264 encoding are over, and it was that type of rendering that was impairing quality. You do have to work within the limits of tech like quicksync and yes those limits will place limits on image quality.

• For editing use the GPU, because not using it is like doing math on paper vs using a computer.
• Rendering for quality, use high quality professional codecs that do not use tech like quicksync or NVENC.

GPU utilization should always remain low, low utilization means the GPU will be delivering results faster than the CPU needs, and the work load of screen display is not interrupted. Not sure why people think the GPU should show load like an engine going up hill. You want low utilization if your system is outclassing your workflow.