Quad Core CPU won't render above 25% utilization?!

[ADBJester]

When I bought VS10 Plus, I was under the impression that it fully supported at least two threads, and that it would rending successive frames on alternating CPU's, thus halving the render time over a computer with a single core of the same speed.

I am not experiencing this in the slightest.

VS10 consistently uses only 25% total of my QX6700 CPU (one core, max), and does not do any better than a uni-core chip of comparable speed.

Where is the vaunted multi-threading support? I didn't expect it to utilize all four cores (yet), but I did expect it to use two....

Is there an .INI setting or some other tweak I can make to get it running at top speed?

Windows Vista Ultimate
QX6700 CPU
4 GB RAM
4 500 GB drives in RAID-5

...and puttering along like a uni-core Smithfield..... <sigh>

Jester

[RussB]

I'll be watching this with interest. I thought that I saw a balanced usage of the core 2 duo processor (whilst rendering) when the PC was first set up. Now I see a 75-25-percent imbalance. I hope to learn more.

(I'm editing my response - about an hour later.)

I hope this helps you: I THOUGHT I had installed the 5in1 service patch. I was SURE I had installed the 5in1 service patch. But I guess I had not.

I installed it and did another test. Now the two processors are balanced - just as you would expect.

To check for the update, hit the "?" in the upper right corner and select "Product Updates on the Web."


Thanks,
Russ

[Kaledi]

VS10 is supposed to support multithreading and make use of multicore processers. I'm not so convinced that it is truly multithread during rendering though. I have an AMD Athlon X2 and when rendering it does not make use of more than 60% of CPU resources. It does appear to use one and a bit cores but nothing like true multithread processing as seen in Nero video rendering or Adobe Lightroom (photo editing) (I quote these products for the purpose of qualifying the observations I've made).

Intriguingly (actually infuriatingly) Ulead state that VS10 is Core2Duo optimised, so does this mean optimised for the architecture or 2 cores. Either way it makes no reference to Athlon X2 - as if Intel is the only chip maker on this planet - so it is either really poor marketing or else the renderer is optimised for the Core2 architecture and not multicore processors!

[sjj1805]

When I bought VS10 Plus, I was under the impression that it fully supported at least two threads, and that it would rending successive frames on alternating CPU's, thus halving the render time over a computer with a single core of the same speed.

I am not experiencing this in the slightest.

VS10 consistently uses only 25% total of my QX6700 CPU (one core, max), and does not do any better than a uni-core chip of comparable speed.

Where is the vaunted multi-threading support? I didn't expect it to utilize all four cores (yet), but I did expect it to use two....

Is there an .INI setting or some other tweak I can make to get it running at top speed?

Windows Vista Ultimate
QX6700 CPU
4 GB RAM
4 500 GB drives in RAID-5

...and puttering along like a uni-core Smithfield..... <sigh>

Jester

How did it perform with XP?
Have you applied the Vista Patch?
VS10 was released before Vista and although there is a patch it is only a patch, perhaps things will improve with VideoStudio 11.
It is no secret that a new version will appear - please see
http://phpbb.ulead.com.tw/EN/viewtopic. ... 794#102794

[joosuna]

ADBJester..perhaps I am comparing "apples to oranges" cause you use Vista and I, XP as an operating system. But my dual core intel 945 cpu per my Windows Task Manager performance graphs show up to 95% usage on both cores when making a video video project into a DVD. My old 2.5 single core Intel took 1.5 hours to make a DVD where as my intel dual 945 takes only
o.5 hours to make the same DVD. When rendering different transitions and graphics the dual core intel 945 show usage on both cores varying anywhere from 6% to 60%.

regards
Joe O

[Kaledi]

ADBJester..perhaps I am comparing "apples to oranges" cause you use Vista and I, XP as an operating system. But my dual core intel 945 cpu per my Windows Task Manager performance graphs show up to 95% usage on both cores when making a video video project into a DVD. My old 2.5 single core Intel took 1.5 hours to make a DVD where as my intel dual 945 takes only
o.5 hours to make the same DVD. When rendering different transitions and graphics the dual core intel 945 show usage on both cores varying anywhere from 6% to 60%.

regards
Joe O

My experience is the same (see previous post) in both XP and Vista so I don't think it has anything to do with the OS
I am no computer expert but I have learnt some things from some mathematical modelling software I use at work on a 3GHZ dual core Intel Woodcrest (Core2 architecture) workstation and it is as follows....

Software can be multiprocessor 'aware' and utlise multiple cores to execute different tasks in parallel. With the software we use it makes use of one core to execute a simulation (many thousands of calculations) and cannot use more than one core for this because the calculations must be run in series. However, it makes use of additional cores by running post simulation analysis whilst leaving the first core to execute the next simulation. In a single processor environment, all simulation and analysis would have to be completed before the next simulation could start. Thus the addition of a second processor actually shortens run time considerably despite no single task being multithread.

My suscpicion is that VS does something very similar (at least with my Athlon X2 system I use at home) because during rendering it makes use of one core running at 100 % and the second core runs at most 10 to 15 %. So for instance one scenario would be that it runs one core to do the actual rendering and the second core to do some other tasks. VS certainly does not make full use of 2 cores for rendering (again on an Athlon X2), whilst other softwares (e.g. Nero) certainly do.
It certainly doesn't surprise me that the first poster doesn't see an improvement with 4 cores.

[htchien]

My experience is the same (see previous post) in both XP and Vista so I don't think it has anything to do with the OS

Actually it will have something different. XP is not optimized for 4 or more cores. To fully utilize 4 or more cores, you would need Vista.

I am no computer expert but I have learnt some things from some mathematical modelling software I use at work on a 3GHZ dual core Intel Woodcrest (Core2 architecture) workstation and it is as follows....

There are many factors to effect the multi-core rendering. CPU, OS and the software itself all will do. To better utilize a 4-core CPU, you still need Vista (as I already described above) and the Vista update pack.

My suscpicion is that VS does something very similar (at least with my Athlon X2 system I use at home)

For Intel system, I think VS will utilize both cores (which joosuna has already told and from my experience before). For AMD, well I don't know. I only use a single core AMD at home so I cannot give much comments on that. I would suggest you report the issue to Ulead if you think it's not working right.

Ulead VideoStudio - Product Feedback:
http://www.ulead.com/vs/feedback.htm

Regards,
H.T.

[Kaledi]

Htchien,
Just to clarify, my experiences in XP and Vista are with Dual-core not quad core - so my comparisons are possible.
I've left feedback as suggested