The article says VP supports up to 16 threads. That's nice, but with core/thread count now going higher, maybe VP developers should consider upping VP's ability to work with more?

The article says VP supports up to 16 threads. That's nice, but with core/thread count now going higher, maybe VP developers should consider upping VP's ability to work with more?

@Reyfox 16 threads is incorrect. Recent discussion here: https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/vegas-multithreading-support--113428/

@Nick Hope thanks for the link. I see in VP15, you can adjust the maximum amount of rendering threads. Wondering (just out of curiosity) what the upper limit is and the scaling using all those threads. Are they hammered hard of used lightly.

@Reyfox No idea really but there is an internal preference that appears to set the maximum that the maximum can be. *scratches head

@NickHope If you don't know...I certainly am scratching my head! I am using a 16thread Ryzen 1700X. I see yours is at a much higher thread count. I have Value 16 Default 32.

@NickHope If you don't know...I certainly am scratching my head! I am using a 16thread Ryzen 1700X. I see yours is at a much higher thread count. I have Value 16 Default 32.

@Reyfox I guess Vegas sets that figure automatically when it detects the CPU. Or did you manually reduce that from 32 to 16?

@Nick Hope, no I did nothing at all with the internal or preference settings of the CPU.

No complaints though. I would be if I had something with more core/threads and only saw limited usage of the CPU.

Is it safe to say that V16 auto detects threads on CPU and uses that number? On V14, on one system I have, it only shows 16 threads max under Preferences when 32 are available. On V16, it shows 32 and there are 32.

Is it safe to say that V16 auto detects threads on CPU and uses that number? On V14, on one system I have, it only shows 16 threads max under Preferences when 32 are available. On V16, it shows 32 and there are 32.

I think the 32 was introduced in VP15.

I had like 32 video render threads, I just upped it to 48...

I scratch my head as well. Not sure that will benefit me. Splitting the video tasks into more treads than cores and all these threads waiting for timeslice to be treated by one of the cores doesn't that cause extra latency which you would not have if you match the number of threads closer with the number of cores (hyperthreading cores) ?

On a separate note, in the resource monitor, an empty idling Vegas150.exe has around 87 threads (!) and Vegas160.exe has around 172 (!) threads on my system.

Scratch my head even more!

Here you may get an idea of the performance increase the i9-9900k may bring, but this will for sure not directly reflect the increase of the Vegas pro preview speed:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i9-9900K-vs-Intel-i7-8700K-vs-Intel-i7-6700K/3334vs3098vs2565

It will be interesting for me, what real Vegas pro users feel with new i9-9900k.

Here you may get an idea of the performance increase the i9-9900k may bring, but this will for sure not directly reflect the increase of the Vegas pro preview speed:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i9-9900K-vs-Intel-i7-8700K-vs-Intel-i7-6700K/3334vs3098vs2565

Just a note with that benchmark. The cpu is very obviously not using 95w as stated. Only magic and sourcery could give you that performance. That cpu is using close to 170w, and that's what it would be using on vegas for a software render. There are motherboards that only allow the tdp of 95w for 9900k & if you bought such a motherboard you'd discover it's about as fast as the 8700K for rendering and you'd feel cheated

That cpu is using close to 170w

And you do have proof?

There's been quite a few write up's about the 'fake tdp' of the 9900K, and for some things you can run it on it's 95w setting and not see a performance hit, but not video rendering, for the maximum all core sustained clock (but not over clocked) it needs to draw a lot more power.

This is an example (total system power for handbrake render)

The main point I wanted to raise is to make sure the motherboard you buy is not restricted to 95w tdp.

@Former user I am just curious if the power draw of the iGPU is excluded in the TDP.

The main point I wanted to raise is to make sure the motherboard you buy is not restricted to 95w tdp.

There is an actual test of three Z390 MBs that also addresses this point. But I don't know how my MSI Z370-A board will handle this.

In this article they write that with normal applications also the i9-9900k is staying in the 95W TDP range but using the AVX units the performance grows but also with higher power consumption.

Does anyone know for sure that Vegas pro is using AVX instruction or how this can be detected with the running program?

@Peter_P about AVX, or the newer AVX2, I do not know if Vegas is using it, some articles suggest handbrake and cinebench are using AVX2, and I know Magix's own VPX is using AVX as they state themselves as a new feature (scroll down to performance) on their web page: http://www.magix.com/int/video/video-pro-x/new-features/

@bitman

Thanks for this hint. Did you try Pro X on your i7-8700k and check the power consumption ?

I assume AIDA64 is also using AVX instruction on the stress test. I never can get that high CPU load with Vp15 nor Vp16. Would really be interesting if this is different with Pro X.

Currently I do not have the time to run the trial. But may be at end of december.

@Peter_P

I did a quick HEVC render using nvenc on both VPX and Vegas with the same settings and source clip

(4K 25P into HD 25P), render speed was the same by the way.

Note that the power consumption seems to fluctuate a lot even in idle, so getting any meaningful results is hard to say the least.

Power consumption VPX during render

Power consumption Vegas 16 during render

idle power

I just loaded a 5 minute clip to render in Magix AVC at 1080P 29.97 Thee are only cross fade transitions and one swish pan. One line No titles or extreme FX. Why should this take 1 hour and twenty minutes to render? Vegas 16 build 307 using 11 1080 AVCHD files

I just loaded a 5 minute clip to render in Magix AVC at 1080P 29.97 Thee are only cross fade transitions and one swish pan. One line No titles or extreme FX. Why should this take 1 hour and twenty minutes to render? Vegas 16 build 307 using 11 1080 AVCHD files

That is a very old processor. You're going to need to upgrade that a bit if you want better rendering times with 1080p media.

You should invest in a good GPU if you really want to speed things up, though when pairing it with a CPU that old, it might be best to just invest in a new system. Many of the Intel CPUs come with built in hardware acceleration for encoding that Vegas supports, that's something to consider.

If you upgrade, I'd recommend at least 16GB RAM as well.