Solved I have a query about CPU useage when rendering.

My current build has an Intel 6700K CPU and I am intrigued with its performance. I have been doing a few test renders with my new VEGAS Pro 14 software from Magix. I noticed a rather strange CPU useage percentage when rendering to two different formats. First the footage was XAVC 1920x1080 50p and I rendered to that same spec it took 4min 34sec and the CPU useage was 86%. When I rendered to Internet 1080p it took 6min 17 sec and the CPU useage was only 69%. I am not so worried about the time to render but can't understand why the CPU useage was lower in the longer render. Any suggestions guys?

My only comment is that Vegas Pro 14 has a lot of bugs at the moment.
The biggest problem everyone seems to be having is memory allocation issues, due to some change they made in the program.
This may be influencing how videos get rendered right now. Everyone is eagerly awaiting the first build update to be released.

Until the first BIG batch of BUGS is addressed, comparing rendering times may be a waste of time and best looked at after they fix some of these problems.

I recommend anyone using Vegas Pro 14 to do a re-boot of your computer before each new render.
I was rendering a 7 minute project with VP14 and the first render took 40 minutes.
After re-booting my PC and rendering the exact same project, with exact same settings, render time was less than 10 minutes.

Thanks Derek you did warn me of render speed problems prior to me buying VEGAS Pro 14. However 'Eagle six' seemed to have no such issues. While I accept there may be problems (bugs), I am not bright enough in program design to figure out why a CPU is not utilised say 95% in every render. In my latest build I have a well regarded CPU 6700K, 16G Ram, GTX760Ti video card all SSD drives plus a M.2 SSD 'C' drive, I expect a 'Pro' program to fully utilise that system.
Has MAGIX been told of these issues or do they also monitor your 'Forum'?

There are large numbers of discussions about Vegas Pro 14 bugs on the official Vegas Pro forum here:
www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/news-forum/

What is in the project and what type of Video FX are applied, also affects CPU and GPU usage.
During processing, you should see the GPU and CPU usage go up and down.
Mainly the GPU will go up/down every time it hits a GPU Accelerated Video effect.

I wasted time trying to analyse rendering in Vegas Pro 14 and was seeing results that were all over the place, probably caused by this memory problem people are talking about on the Vegas Pro forum. In a few months time, I'm sure many new build versions will get released. After this happens, then take a closer look at rendering performance again.

Hi Eagle eye,

I sure hope I have not mislead you with my previous post. Your i6700K, 16gb RAM, GTX760Ti card and M.2 SSD does make a for a substantial machine. I'm running a i7 6800K (overclocked 20%), 64gb RAM, R9 380 card and SATA SSD 'C'. If I'm not mistaken the 6700K is a 4 core/8 thread, where my 6800K is a 6 core/12 thread. I'm also running 4 times as much RAM as you are, as well as, a non-supported graphics card, like yourself (non-supported meaning as far as the render acceleration in MainConcept and Sony AVC are concerned). Your M.2 SSD should be a definite advantage over my SATA SSD drive.

This is what I think I have learned about video processing/rendering and PC builds.....although comparing my machine and your isn't an apple-for-apple comparison, it would probably be right for us to assume mine will render faster than yours. But because we are not comparing apples-to-apples, if I was to also compare my CPU and RAM usage percentages to yours, it would still not be apples-to-apples. In fact, from what I have researched over the past two years, there are some general rules, but exact comparisons are very difficult to almost impossible to make.

Even if we had two identical build machines running the same source projects, in the same NLE program, but being used by two different operators, there is going to be a difference. How much, I suppose would have to do with how each machine was setup and configured, same OS, on the same updates! As time goes by we all use different tools and install various different programs, with various different processes running in the background. There just aren't two machine alike, unless they have been setup in a strictly enforced scientific test.

And, this is what I have discovered, every time I read that someone has a problem with render times, it often is never discovered why and often it takes a lot of testing to determine what the perceived problem may be. Some have problems, others do not. Probably some of us have problems we don't even recognize we have. Me for example, I may be one of them. I have only been running this new machine for a few months and still working on tweaking it. I have yet to examine the CPU or RAM usage while rendering! I just have no idea!! I only know at this point it is much faster than my old box and very stabile.

I know none of this helps you answer your question. I really think there are so many variables between us users it is hard to make a close comparison. We know, in general, the more core/threads, the better. The more RAM, the better. The faster the drives, the better. The better each architecture takes advantage of the faster CPU, RAM and drives, the better. I lean on others, who seem to know a lot more about this than I, for selecting parts, but that is still not a guarantee that what I select is going to be best for what I end up doing.

We also know a few more things that are more related to your question......

- Sony Vegas Pro 13 is dead as far as anymore development, so what it is, is all it will ever be.
- Magix Vegas Pro 14 is still in development and still in it's first build. Hopefully Magix will address your issue is future builds or in future versions.
- And, from using other render programs, the technology is there, it's a question of will Magix put that power in Vegas and when.

For example, I can render using Handbrake much faster than in Vegas Pro (any version). I can render using Resolve 12.5 faster than Vegas Pro (any version). This is using some source media, but I don't use all type of source media. And, I haven't run any side-by-side tests that would stand up to support an exact measurement or conclusion. My results are in general form.

Still this doesn't address why the CPU and RAM percentages are different for you. If you can upload a 1 minute sample source media file to something like dropbox, I would be happy to download and run it through my version on my box and monitor the usage percentages. But this would have to be like today or tomorrow, as I only have 2 days on my v14 trial. I would also need your project settings and render template settings. I might learn something about my machine doing this.

Sorry for this being so long, and hope it helps somewhat. And, I should also include, these are my opinions, I'm not a certified expert by any stretch.

Eagle Six, I take your point that not all systems are the same. I had asked one simple question I thought, and that was because I changed the render codec settings on the two renders of the identical footage why should the CPU utilisation be a different percentage. This info came from my Win10 64bit OS via Ctrl, Alt, Delete/ Task Manager/Performance. I concede the render time may change as it did with different codecs, but why was the CPU utilisation lower on the longer render time. I think foot to the floor should be the rule??

Hi Eagle Eye,

I would have to agree with Eagle Six "George" on this topic. Both of your machines should have no problem with rendering footage out, whether it be Vegas Pro 13 or 14. I myself have two separate X99 platforms, one with a i7-5930k and 64 GB RAM; the other an i7-5820K with 32 GB RAM. Currently, I'm playing around on the "lower" end machine with OBS software capture, and ingesting the footage into Movie Studio Platinum Suite 13. It is recorded .mp4 4K footage at 59.94 fps, and the machine has been running the "proxy" downsize now for over 30 minutes; the footage is just over 50 minutes long. I am planning on doing a test between that machine, on both MSPS 13 Suite, DaVinci Resolve 12.5; then move the footage over to my "beefier" rig and doing the test on Vegas Pro 13 & 14, Resolve 12.5, and also MSPS 13 Suite. To make the testing as same as possible, I'll try to find the same "output" render codec in all the programs, not apply any filters, color correction, etc, and test renders; then if I have time, maybe add some effect common between all the programs and do another test render. I'm not worried about temps in my machines as they both use All-in-One Liquid Cooler Systems, I don't have the CPU's currently overclocked, and basically have the same generational video cards (GTX 980 in "beefcake", GTX 970 in "Wimpy"). This will take a while to accomplish as this weekend I have to "assist" my Nephew and Uncle deer hunting for the Jr./Sr. Season, then the numerous trips to my local Veterans Affair hospitals for appointments.

Read some of the posting at the Vegas forum that Derek linked, and it is going to be interesting to see if Magix does indeed make improvements to Vegas Pro, or just let it die off like the previous owners' did.

My proxy file just built. Took 57 minutes to "convert" a 50 min, 24 second clip. Doing it in 4K since that is the type of monitor (Samsung 28 inch) I have on "Wimpy". Guess the fun starts!

***Edit*** By "both of your machines", referring to yours and George's. Sorry if any confusion there. Sorry George. Trying to get used to the layout of the new forum.

Hi Eagle eye,

I'm not smart enough on this subject to provide a definitive answer to your question, but perhaps the results below will provide some insight to the path of understanding, although still no gleam of knowledge.

I spent some time making a few additional render time and resource test. Again, not having the same source as you, these results are not going to be a hard comparison, but they are a comparison between v13 and v14, as well as, different codec for rendering.

I used the Windows Resource Monitor. I have no idea how accurate it is compared to other such utilities, but using it for all monitoring should provide a comparison to get an idea of difference.

First I used the same 2 minute project for this test as I used for previous render time test and of course the render times were the same. However this time I used the Resource Monitor to look at the CPU and RAM usage. As they rendered in the same time I would guess the resources to be the same, which they were within 1%. CPU usage run 80% and RAM run 8%.

For the next test I used a 22 second UHD ProRes 422 10 bit source media. I rendered it using Internet 1080p, Sony XAVC 3840x2160 24p, and Sony XAVC 1080p, in Sony Vegas pro 13 and Magix Vegas Pro 14. The results may be even more complexing!

Sony Vegas Pro 13
- internet 1080p, CPU 80%, RAM 8%, render time 0:50
- XAVC UHD, CPU 95%, RAM 10%, render time 1:08
- XAVC 1080p, CPU 72%, RAM 10%, render time 1:02

Magix Vegas Pro 14
- internet 1080p, CPU 80%, RAM 8%, render time 0:38
- XAVC UHD, CPU 95%, RAM 9%, render time 1:19
- XAVC 1080p, CPU 72%, RAM 9%, render time 0:46

NOTE 1: Magix v14 crashed the first time I attempted the XAVC 1080p render, and worked on the 2nd attempt.

NOTE 2: Magix uses a 64 bit native codec to read the ProRes files, compared to Sony using 32 bit Quicktime codec, which may explain why the Magix rendered much faster to the 1080p internet format, but is contradictory when taking longer to render to UHD!

As an additional test, I followed Derek's report and did a fresh system reboot and repeated the render test in Magix v14. In each case the results were either identical or slightly longer render times with similar resources. This of course doesn't prove anything, other than again, not an apples-to-apples test, were two people, using different machines, different source media, getting different results.

An astounding amount of research 'Eagle Six' you are to be congratulated. Your system is indeed a powerful one, 6 cores are better than 4 that's for sure. The main difference between your results and mine, which is of the most interest to me is unlike your results my CPU seems to be utilised less on the longer render time. My logic is if the render is more demanding how come the CPU dosn't stepup it's utilisation. Your setup seems to respond correctly in that area. Well I am thinking that maybe there is a setting or component in the chain that is restricting the CPU utilisation.
I think I have wasted enough of everyones time and it time I did some more research. Just as a note to finish I did check my 'Power options' where set at 5% min and 100% max also. Thanks for your interest.

It wasn't a waste of my time. And, I'm still interested. However, I think Derek has the best advise, as it may be more productive to spend the time testing on the next build that Magix releases rather this current build 161. Although I may not have experienced some of the memory problems as others, there are many having issues and it is generally recognized that Magix needs to address this issues in a future build or version release. I would be interested in any results you come up with, good or bad, if you care to share.

And, I agree, we should expect an NLE to take full advantage of our CPU, RAM, HHD, and Architecture. But there are so many, different developers are going to approach that using different methods. Just to add a few more clouds to the subject.....

I took the same source media used in the test in my previous post and run it through Handbrake. Sony v13 took 50 seconds to render, Magix v14 took 38 seconds to render, Handbrake took 15 seconds to render!

In another short test, again using the same source as above, I rendered it out to a 10 bit CineForm FilmScan 2 .avi. I used this codec and format because it was available in Sony v13, Magix v14, and DaVinci Resolve.

- Sony Vegas Pro 13, render time 38 seconds
- Magix Vegas Pro 14, render time 43 seconds
- Resolve 12.5.2, render time 15 seconds

Both Handbrake and Resolve, for these test, rendered in less than half the time of Vegas v13 and v14. I would have to say that Resolve and Handbrake have found a more efficient process and codec than either Sony or Magix. Although I'm more concerned with functionality and stability than I am with render speed, I recognize that rendering in half the time is important to those who are selling their product and editing/grading services.

And yet again, none of this helps with your question, just adds more fog to the issue!!