VP 5.01 still not using all CPU available

Aresby

I generating my most recent video using V5.01 (and tried out the "censored" filter whilst I was at it, pity you cannot move and resize the block on screen rather than via the sliders, a future enhancement perhaps?).

I was disappointed that despite your previous response to my post about slow exporting, this version did not use all available CPU on my i5 quad core machine. It seemed to render in more-or-less real-time (35-minute video took roughly 35m to render, and the CPU varied between 30% - 70%).

I don't understand why the export rendering process cannot be made more CPU intensive - under the control of the user. That is, if I want to just go and make a coffee whilst exporting because my PC is, effectively, 100% busy with VP exporting then that's my choice. On the other hand, if I do want to still use my PC and accept that VP will export more slowly that should be my choice too.

I reckon my PC used to generate a 30 minute video in about 20 minutes using 4.48 and it used 100% CPU. Why not now?

c_major_2

Sometimes we want to keep the number of threads limited. More threads means more resource(mostly memory) required.

We've added a mechanism recently to detect if memory is running low, VP will reduce the number of threads to ensure the export can be finished.

Also, when you say 30% - 70%, do you meant the overall CPU usage or VP process only?

Aresby

c_major wrote:

Sometimes we want to keep the number of threads limited. More threads means more resource(mostly memory) required.

We've added a mechanism recently to detect if memory is running low, VP will reduce the number of threads to ensure the export can be finished.

Also, when you say 30% - 70%, do you meant the overall CPU usage or VP process only?

I mean VP process varied between 30% - 70%. There was still capacity (% idle) left.

Regarding your point about memory usage, I can totally understand that you don't want to my PC to run out of resources but I'd like to know how to increase the performance (reduce the export time). For example, I've removed what may be a faulty RAM stick from my PC so now I'm only running on 8Gb (barely sufficient for Win10 and VP). If I purchase another RAM stick to bring the total to 16Gb will VP increase the threads to take advantage of that extra memory or am I wasting my money?

Any pointers gratefully received!

c_major_2

I mean VP process varied between 30% - 70%. There was still capacity (% idle) left.

VP uses more then one process. For example If you export to x264 you will see x264enc7.exe running when you export.

It depends on your project. For example, if you export a video without effects and transitions you will see x264enc7.exe taking 7x% of the CPU and VP only uses 2x. But if you have a lot of effects and multiple tracks, the codec process would only take a small amount of the CPU.

Also, don't forget we recently put many effects on GPU to reduce CPU workload. So it's normal the VP main process dose not occupy 100% CPU and it does not mean it's slow.

If I purchase another RAM stick to bring the total to 16Gb will VP increase the threads to take advantage of that extra memory or am I wasting my money?

I would say it should worth the money to have 16GB RAM. Although VP is built 32bit, which means the main process can only access maximum 4GB of RAM. However most of the video and audio codecs run on different process. Also the OS and other processes would use fair bit of RAM too.

Aresby

Right, I understand about the 16Gb, as you rightly say Win10 and everything else that runs will certainly make use of more memory anyway (previously I had 12Gb) and will make less of use of a swap file.

Regarding the bit about offloading the processing onto the GPU, does that apply to all GPUs even my rubbish Intel Graphics (that you positioned one step above a 32K VGA card I believe)? I'm not sure my GPU is going to help (rather hinder) but it raises the question about upgrading my GPU to something more meaty.

Put it another way: if I were to upgrade to a modern Intel i7 Quad Core (eg Intel (Haswell-E) Core i7 5960X) with NVIDEA Gforce GTX1080 (just a random card) would I expect to see a significant reduction in export time (I render not in H264 but mp4 as it's quicker, at a constant 8192bps and 25fps)?

c_major_2

The hardware acceleration requirement is support for shader level 2. Yes, most of the Intel chips support that.

However there are still a few effects are not done in GPU, including the censored effect you've mentioned. Since they are actually more effective if done on CPU.

Faster CPU would definitely speed up everything.

Bob_Atkins

I 2nd Aresby's complaint. I have 3.4 Ghz Core i7-3770 cpu with 32G ram that is barely utilized by VideoPad when it exports or updates a video being worked on. I never see more than 20% processor utilization and generally it is closer to around 13%.

The NCH Prizim Video file converter can be configured to utilize as much or as little of the CPU as desired and I love that it can really blast through the conversion of a single video, achieving 100% cpu load.

It would be excellent if you could add a similar configuration feature to VideoPad. I would like to so see much faster rendering of changes to the Video tracks after effects have been changed than the sluggish performance that I am seeing now with v5.01.

Aresby

And Bob has the machine that I aspire to get; but he (well, VP) also has the problem that prevents me from even thinking about it.

Now, NCH say some of the processing is done by the GPU and VP's been made more efficient generally, but I still second Bob's desire to configure VP like the Prizm Video File Converter; render a 40 minute video in under 10 minutes whilst you're having a coffee.

Re-exporting when you discover a mistake is then not so onerous.

Any plans on this front NCH?

c_major_2

Prizm is a one to one file converter and does not need to process the images in the video stream. It use a totally different pipeline to VideoPad. You can't have overlays, effects and transitions etc. in Prizm.

We are always working on improve performance. We will make adjustments as soon as we see a chance to make it faster without breaking something else.

Aresby

c_major wrote:

Prizm is a one to one file converter and does not need to process the images in the video stream. It use a totally different pipeline to VideoPad. You can't have overlays, effects and transitions etc. in Prizm.

We are always working on improve performance. We will make adjustments as soon as we see a chance to make it faster without breaking something else.

Thanks for clarifying the differences, c_major, between the two methods of generating videos in two products.

I guess the point here is that NCH obviously understands our need for speed and has it on their backlog. That's all we can ask for. Stability first, of course. Now that I've found the root cause of my BSODs (bad memory stick) I'm generating my VP videos with gay abandon again as I'm not on tenterhooks waiting for the crash!