No more than 50% CPU on rendering?

Chienworks wrote on 12/1/2003, 9:39 AM

Maybe we can get some comparison postings going here.

I've got an 866MHz P3 (no hyperthreading, obviously). A Single instance of Vegas rendering will usually grab about 94 to 95% of the CPU cycles on an otherwise moderately idle system. Two instances running simultaneously will each grab about 45 to 50%.

I'm not up on the hypherthreading technology, but in my limited study i seem to recall that this is a way for a single physical processor to act like multiple logical processors. It could be that Vegas is fully occupying one of the logical processors. What happens of you disable hyperthreading so that the system only recognizes one logical processor?

Randy Brown wrote on 12/1/2003, 4:45 PM

I have a P4 3.06 w/ HT and the Intel 875 MB, it does the same 50% usage. As I recall, in the render test .veg that Spot had up, I clocked in around 01:37 (very good time comparitavely) with HT enabled and slightly slower without. I don't recall checking the percentage of CPU usage without HT enabled but I suspect it's a moot point.
Randy

BJ_M wrote on 12/1/2003, 5:02 PM

except for rendering mpeg2 files with NO effects or filters -- vegas will only use 1cpu on SMP systems or 1/2 a HT system .... in other words rendering isnt smp aware ...

but many other aspects of vegas benefit from multiple cpu's (smp) and HT (HT to a slightly less degree) ...

you can set up multiple vegas's to each run on thier own cpu or 1/2 HT -- which yeilds slightly better performance ....

Cheesehole wrote on 12/1/2003, 5:14 PM

> in other words rendering isnt smp aware ...

Not so. I don't know about HyperThreading, but I know for sure that rendering to DV and rendering to Windows Media 7 uses both processors. In the case of DV, the frame is rendered on one CPU while the other CPU handles the DV encoding. Depending on the project I've seen it get up to 65-70% (not that great). But with Windows Media it can use 100%.

>but many other aspects of vegas benefit from multiple cpu's

I agree... rendering and editing at the same time, etc... The render benefits aren't really worth it... it's about system bandwidth. :)

Randy Brown wrote on 12/1/2003, 5:30 PM

>>I agree... rendering and editing at the same time<<
Yes I should have mentioned when rendering 2 projects at once (w/HT enabled) the CPU shows close to 100%.
Randy

LarryP wrote on 12/1/2003, 6:41 PM

What are you rendering to? WM9 perchance?

Larry

busterkeaton wrote on 12/1/2003, 8:36 PM

I believe Vegas renders audio as a thread and video as a thread, but within each it is not multithreaded (or well-optimized for multithreading)

Pullmanite wrote on 12/2/2003, 10:28 AM

Rendering to DV. But no matter what I render to, it's the same story. True, two instances of VV4 will utilize the full CPU, but I was hoping more of the software was SMP. Bummer.

Pullmanite wrote on 12/3/2003, 9:01 AM

Hmmm... I dumped 4.0e update and reintalled 4.0d. Now the CPU will peak in the 70's and rendering is much faster. I'll wait until Sony gets some issues ironed out with its update.

SonyEPM wrote on 12/3/2003, 12:21 PM

"I dumped 4.0e update and reintalled 4.0d. Now the CPU will peak in the 70's and rendering is much faster."

Rebranding the app didn't cause this.

Randy Brown wrote on 12/3/2003, 3:44 PM

I must have some serious problems and I'm willing to pay someone to help me with them if you'd like to e-mail me privately at randy at ccpro.net
I am so frustrated with my new PC...a P4 3.06 HT with the Intel D875PBZ MoBo (800 bus), 1 GB DDR 400 and I have very peculiar problems:
1) V4 not responding or it taking several seconds for it to respond
2) I am rendering an 8 minute .avi right now and 12 minutes into the render (about 75% through) my CPU usage averages about 20% (6% - about 30%) according to Task Manager.
3)very low frame rate on external monitor sometimes with only 1 track (I rendered an .avi, brought it into another project and have to pre-render to get above 8 FPS)
4) Weird things in general happening in V4 that I don't remember happening on my old PC.
If you'll take PayPal (or Discover) and know computers and reasonable with your fee, I'm sick of this crap and willing to pay for your services if you can help resolve the problem. I have to hobble along until Friday before I try anything serious as I have a 5PM deadline tomorrow but I'll be ready to try something Friday!
Sincerely,
Randy

Chienworks wrote on 12/3/2003, 4:14 PM

Randy, i'm guessing you either have some other software running that is hiding itself and eating up most of the available processor cycles, or your CPU is overheating. When you check task manager is there anything else running that is taking up lots of processor usage? If so, shut it down. Check to make sure the fan on the CPU heatsink is running fast and smoothly.

Randy Brown wrote on 12/3/2003, 4:32 PM

Hey Kelly,
>>When you check task manager is there anything else running that is taking up lots of processor usage?<<

According to task manager I have no other apps running and 12 processes going, but they never show CPU usage, only system idle (1-2%) and V4 show usage.
According to the BIOS, the processor zone temperature is 50 degrees C/122 F
System 1 zone = 39 C/102 F and system 2 = 38 C/100 F
processor fan is variable, 4800-5000 rpm
Thank you Kelly,
Randy

BillyBoy wrote on 12/3/2003, 7:52 PM

Right now I just started up a render as I'm typing this. I have 43 processes running, including a browser, I'm playing a MP3, Photoshop is open, and a spreasheet, a capture utility and several other things.

Not a boast, just illustrating a P4 can handle all that and more without blinking an eye. 'm loafing along at 54% of CPU useage with all that going on and the render (typical MPEG-2 NTSC template at defaults) is moving right along at 592 frames a minute.

Few things to keep in mind...

If you have a P4 that has hyperthreading enabled each process should be in its own space and not be a drag on anything else. So what else is going on, shouldn't matter IF and its a big if, you have ample memory (I got 1 GB) and nothing is afoul with your paging file.

I know you've suffered with you latest system and its a shame it isn't working as it should.

Was this a custom build job? If so it seems something is either missing, (were all the motherboard drivers installed?), or not properly configured in BIOS, or you got a bad install of Windows. I doubt its Vegas.

I think you're on the right track and probably would be best to have somebody really check it out. The frustration of having a troublesome system can drive you crazy. My last store bought system drove me nuts all because the clearance for the on/off button was so close the button got stuck where I couldn't turn the unit off or on haft the time without pulling the #$$#%$ case cover off. Finally I took the time to make the opening a tad bigger.

Randy Brown wrote on 12/4/2003, 7:28 AM

Hey BB,
>>Was this a custom build job? If so it seems something is either missing, (were all the motherboard drivers installed?), or not properly configured in BIOS, or you got a bad install of Windows<<
Hmmm, very possible, I started to put it together myself and I have installed pretty much every component a PC has...except a MoBo and so I woosed out. I live in a small with a local PC store which a retired fireman and his Dad run...I think it's called Mutt and Jeff's Komputers (or should be anyway). Anyway they've been my only source within a 100 mile radius. I've been thinking about doing a re-format and try to install my Win XP home again. Any suggestions, warnings etc.?
Thanks BB,
Randy

Pullmanite wrote on 12/4/2003, 7:57 AM

Well, all I can say is that since I uninstalled 4.0e, did a system restore back to right before installing 4.0e and then reinstalled 4.0d, everything seems fine now. Maybe some .dll got spoiled or something, but I'm still going to be a bit more cautious about upgrades. If the only changes to 4.0e are rebranding then I feel a little silly, but something whacky happened, I tell ya! :)

BillyBoy wrote on 12/4/2003, 10:56 AM

Just a thought... Did they give you a CD that came with the motherboard? While the system will work without installing all the stuff on the motherboard CD, it will work better with it. Its a easy step to forget. I have. One of the things that can cause grief is bus mastering. Again without a specific driver Windows will just use its own. But there can be a night and day difference if you install the driver designed for your specific motherboard.

Most MB CD's use a menu system and its OK to overwrite what's installed now. At worse you'll simply duplicate what's already installed, You could add 'a missing piece' that can make a world of difference.

Just be sure the CD is for the MB you have. A mixed bag is absolutely a no-no. I done that once too. <wink>

The other thing you can try is find the MB manual. It should have a bunch of pages of screen shots that show all the defaut settings as you step through the various BIOS pages.

Go into setup at boot BEFORE it has a chance to enter Windows and see if all the settings are as they should be by comparing to the MB manual. If just one item is disabled where it should be enabled that too can make a world of difference in how your computer performs. It will still run with the wrong setting, but it won't run up to specs. A big area that can get messed up is memory timing. If its set wrong (easy again if a system is build from scratch) the computer can really drag, lock up and do all kinds of weird things.

Randy Brown wrote on 12/4/2003, 12:56 PM

Well BB, you've given me hope! Yes, I did get a CD with the MB.
I'll start first thing in the morning ( I have a project due by 5 PM today).
Thanks very much BB,
Randy