Lack of great multi threading implementation? Many other apps use only 20-30% only of my 8 core i7 cpu.

Lack of great multi threading implementation? Many other apps use only 20-30% only of my 8 core i7 cpu.

Let's take an real example: 

I have 1 track with one video AVC 1080p 60fps.  Solo it goes smooth.  When I add some effects that should be calculated on GPU, there shouldn't be any drop of FPS until  GPU all power resources are used - but is not take place.  What is fun that during loading new GPU effects framerate going down, and CPU usage also going down and GPU is not loaded even in 30%.    

It's look like Vegas can not feed a GPU with enough amount of data.  Bottleneck effect. 

Which driverversion do you use for that GPU?

What Fx is it and are they GPU accelerated?

But yes, Vegas probably can't feed it data fast enough and the whole thing will slow to a crawl. VP 17 and VP 18 have hardware decoding for video which may speed things up. Alternatively try proxy files.

Proxy files have nothing to do with this problem.

Proxy files have nothing to do with this problem.

Proxy files reduce the load on CPU (esp. as there's no GPU decoding here) which could lead to better overall performance with Fx.

"Why Vegas does not use all computing resources? Any solutions for that?"
No solutions really, but workarounds to get acceptable playback with Fx. You can also selectively prerender, use dynamic ram preview for small segments of timeline, etc.

"Why Vegas does not use all computing resources? Any solutions for that?"

No one could possibly guess why it does not use "more" resources without you providing some information.

Driver version, effects in use, project matching, source media properties, and this:

https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/important-information-required-to-help-you--110457/

Might be as simple as a slow timeline effect, rescaling, or using float processing when you should not.

"Why Vegas does not use all computing resources? Any solutions for that?"

No one could possibly guess why it does not use "more" resources without you providing some information.

Driver version, effects in use, project matching, source media properties, and this:

https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/important-information-required-to-help-you--110457/

Might be as simple as a slow timeline effect, rescaling, or using float processing when you should not.

Hi.

As I said in the movie that I attached. All effects comes from Vegas - folder GPU Accelerated.  Project proporties are the same as file format. I specially set that to avoid internal conversions.

Driver that I have now is Nvidia game, but I'll repeat the test with Studio driver.

Here, another example - only one type but multiple effect. 30% GPU, 30% CPU, - effect is few frame per second.

Logically there is 3x more power to increase framerate 3 times. But no matter how many efects I insert, I get the same load, but less fps.

Computing power doesn't really work that way, you can't just say "I'm only utilizing 30%, so that means my CPU can do 70% more." Not all tasks are able to max out your CPU, some get held up by other bottlenecks, some don't process well on a CPU so they have to be sent to the GPU, and vice versa. It is true that VEGAS has room to improve on its rendering engine, and the team is hard at work on making sure the app is using as much of your system as it can, but don't look at those numbers and expect 2-3x increases in performance on the same system once that optimization is complete... there may be other issues (like your RAM speed/amount, hard drive speed, etc) that leave those chips waiting for data, or waiting to send data they already processed.

Computing power doesn't really work that way, you can't just say "I'm only utilizing 30%, so that means my CPU can do 70% more." Not all tasks are able to max out your CPU, some get held up by other bottlenecks, some don't process well on a CPU so they have to be sent to the GPU, and vice versa. It is true that VEGAS has room to improve on its rendering engine, and the team is hard at work on making sure the app is using as much of your system as it can, but don't look at those numbers and expect 2-3x increases in performance on the same system once that optimization is complete... there may be other issues (like your RAM speed/amount, hard drive speed, etc) that leave those chips waiting for data, or waiting to send data they already processed.

I'm professional music producer and beta tester on another software of Magix. Did more than 100 different tests with multi threading on several computers with audio DAW software. In audio software there is 100% possible to parallel tasks when multiple effects are being used - and finally load almost 100% CPU.  Similar situation is in game world. CPU need to feed GPU with datas - and most modern CPU can feed GPU with 100% with no problem. Question is why Vegas can't do that.  I'm not 100% familair with video software overall - I'm just curious why I can't use power of my computer. 
My computer is just typical modern DDR4 - 3200 Mhz (50GB/s read nad Write), 8/16 Core system with NVME SSD disks.  I don't think that is question of RAM or disk.  Especially when I use 10 second test 1080p MOV file.  :)

Perhaps Developers could say anything in that matter. Is there any on the forum?

WRT video, @frosty is correct.

Drawing parallels to audio processing is irrelevant, because the audio signal : pipeline ratios almost never come into play. IOW, fewer bottlenecks.

But expecting full resource utilization and smooth preview with 14 active Fill Light Effects on the timeline, as you seem to have done, would be best described as riding the pinnacle of optimism. Answering the question from @RogerS would have probably cleared this up.

@Musicvid I'm not sure if understand what you mean. Could you describe it more precisely. Thanks

The screen grab from your video shows fourteen active track effects. Everyone of them is ostensibly consuming system resources, not necessarily cpu/gpu cycles. Plus, there's a good chance your MOV source is not leveraging GPU decoding. Expecting maximum CPU / GPU during preview is not a goal that I am aware of. You may want to back up a couple of steps. Good luck.

https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/important-information-required-to-help-you--110457/

https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/got-questions-consult-the-tutorials-first-please--120282/

WRT video, @frosty is correct.

Drawing parallels to audio processing is irrelevant, because the audio signal : pipeline ratios almost never come into play. IOW, fewer bottlenecks.

But expecting full resource utilization and smooth preview with 14 active Fill Light Effects on the timeline, as you seem to have done, would be best described as riding the pinnacle of optimism. Answering the question from @RogerS would have probably cleared this up.

 

 

But expecting full resource utilization and smooth preview with 14 active Fill Light Effects on the timeline, as you seem to have done, would be best described as riding the pinnacle of optimism. Answering the question from @RogerS would have probably cleared this up.

Obviously, that was just simple test-example. If you are make an experiment to underline problem you must use a bit more extreme methods. Don't look at set of 16 effect on one track as something strange.

Why I created that post? Because I experience drop of frame rate on realistic / real / normal / average projects. Even few effect on the tracks decrese frame rate of preview when computer do nothing (seemingly). I can create test-project with any type of effect on track and mechanisms will be similar. So I'm not sure why you're tring to point which effect was in the test.

I just ask, why Vegas can not utilise power of CPU/GPU.

As said above, video complicates matters a bit more than audio does, because in some cases, a CPU can do this task really well, but it's really bad at that task, and the same applies to your GPU, and to further complicate things, some tasks are better performed on one core of your CPU, or fewer than 4, others handle parallel processing really well, and will scale nicely across all of your cores. Those are the ones that are going to give you that maxed out "100%". Audio is pretty straightforward with its processing, there aren't a bunch of different formats and file types being processed at once.

I just ask, why Vegas can not utilise power of CPU/GPU.

Because of all the other real-time variables in the processing chain. You can hang your hat on that answer. It's normal to let our expectations run ahead of the physics, so maybe that's a good place to make adjustments.

Audio is pretty straightforward with its processing, there aren't a bunch of different formats and file types being processed at once.

Plus, relatively few audio fx are used at the real-time preview level.

@fr0sty yep, that's clear what you mean.

When it comes to audio parallelism. It's really depends on DAW host, and how every single plugin will be located on CPU threads. Plugins not always are internally able process in parallel way. So host need to locate that single effects on different threads and final results mix with other results (when we mix multitrack).

Are video plugins work on different way?

 

Plus, relatively few audio fx are used at the real-time preview level.

In audio DAW all is processed in real-time. Or you mean something different?

Now I realized that in my "one track 16 plugin" test video processing must be calculated in proper order. So in case when on one track we've got  cascade of effects one by one, they can not be calculated separately. The results of first effects must be send to second and from second to third etc. So, OK. That couldn't be calculated parallelly. Perhaps here is the point. But in other hand ... if plugin calculate 1 frame with multicore (every fragment of frame on another thread) then all process could be done faster. 

Tomorrow I do a test with higher number of video tracks but less effects on track. Will se the results. Logically in that case Vegas should be able better administrate with resources in parallel way. 

The issue isn't so much only about if effects can be parallel processed, some can, but the video itself can't always, there's different codecs, sometimes on the same timeline, that decode in different ways. Some can decode super-fast on the GPU, others must use the CPU, others might not decode on multiple threads easily, then you've got audio to worry about, VST effects, etc... then you've got video effects to worry about, then you've potentially got mixed framerates or framerate resampling to talk about, maybe deinterlacing as well if needed, then you have HDD and RAM read/write speeds and capacity to worry about, there's so much more processing going on with video, and so many different types of processing at once, that it just cannot be compared against a DAW.

Again, though, VEGAS does have room to boost performance some, just maybe not as much as you might think possible looking at CPU/GPU utilization.

Thanks all you guys for your participate in that topic. Some things are a bit more clear, some are still big mistery. Perhaps developers who visit that forum could say here anything more. 

My last test with multi track test projekt didn't show any regularity. The bottlenecks seems to be similar in both scenarios.  
The most loaded CPU I get when I mix track - I mean when I use transparency on the tracks, then CPU seems to be a lot more loaded.  But still with loading CPU (for example from 25% to 60%) I get FPS going down.  Complicated :)