VideoStudio X10 not utilizing CPU or GPU

[asik1]

Tony, slow render can be define by the ratio of the project duration vs movie render duration.
yesterday I render 55 and 47 minutes fairly simple projects ( trims, trans, titles and just few overlayed images)
Each took about 110% time to render. Is this slow??? yes if you sit and watch it dry, but not if you out of the room doing other stupid things.

[laurentje]

I guess people will have to define "slow rendering" and what are they specifically doing.
...

For me: slow rendering means that the CPU-load stays far away from 100% and there is no other bottleneck in the system (drive, memory, etc.). For example only 25% which is far from 80% and 100% and this is only for full render (no smart render) concatenate HD-clips (1920x1080i50) to the same format with no filters, no transition effects, no supplementary other tracks (title, audio,...). My average is 70% for such a timeline of 13' 90 clips; but the CPU load is not stable it fluctuates between 25% and 99%.

For VideoStudio: GPU is never used at render.

[TonyP]

Ok... understood now.
Well, I don't like being the someone that brings not so good news, but CVS has never been a rendering leader.
From the review of Vegas Movie 14 at PCMag.

"The test movie (whose duration is just under 5 minutes) took Vegas Movie Studio 14 minutes to render without hardware acceleration configured, but only 3 minutes and 20 seconds with GPU rendering correctly configured. This is an acceptable middle-of-the-pack result. It beat out Adobe Premiere Elements' 5:18 and Corel VideoStudio's 4 minutes and 55 seconds. On the other hand, CyberLink PowerDirector took only 2:34 and Pinnacle Studio, the current rendering speed champ, took just 1:56."

Rendering is an important aspect of video editing, but not the only aspect. Ease of use and accessibility, along with features are also important. Again PCMag in Vegas 14 review "But the program still has more to do to catch up with our consumer video editing software Editors' Choices, Cyberlink PowerDirector and Corel VideoStudio. Those apps add motion-tracking, 360-degree VR support and, most importantly, greater ease of use.".

Granted, personal preference plays a role in which program you prefer. The one you started with, the types of programs you used in the past, and how easy it is to use. But if speed is at the top of your list, then Pinnacle would be the way to go. Pinnacle comes with a learning curve as most other editors that come from a pro background and are designed for the enthusiast/prosumer.

[TonyP]

For me: slow rendering means that the CPU-load stays far away from 100% and there is no other bottleneck in the system (drive, memory, etc.). For example only 25% which is far from 80% and 100% and this is only for full render (no smart render) concatenate HD-clips (1920x1080i50) to the same format with no filters, no transition effects, no supplementary other tracks (title, audio,...). My average is 70% for such a timeline of 13' 90 clips; but the CPU load is not stable it fluctuates between 25% and 99%.

For VideoStudio: GPU is never used at render.

GPU acceleration is not mentioned in their ad copy. As for the fluctuation, I've experienced that also, but can not give specific reason "why" since it would be in programming. But CVS isn't the only one that does this. We are a "microwave" society needing the "fastest". I come from doing a/b roll editing way back in 1989 with Amiga/Video Toaster. When I went to PC and DPS Editbay, starting rendering on my "fast" PIII 450Mhz would take over night. With each upgrade of PC and software, I also upgraded the video acquisition hardware. Rendering was still a factor, but today, if I have to wait a couple of hours for a complex long project to render, hey, I accept that as part of the "job". Unless Corel is willing to do some major rewriting of the software (I doubt that), this is the hand we are dealt. Sony sold Vegas to Magix because they stated they had taken the software as far as they can and want to start from scratch (which they haven't as yet. I think it's the cost of keeping up with the others that caused this). There is only so much you can do building on an old foundation.

[lata]

100% cpu usage does not mean it is fast it means it is doing a lot of work

If I add my MTS files to the timeline maybe 10 files,
Then render to a new video file using Same As First clip
Deselect Smart render and the CPU will be up there 85%+ for VS usage with a little spare to keep my pc running.
Render will be approx. real time+ 5 min 12 sec duration took 6 min 30 sec.

Now using Smart Render, video studio has less work to do, CPU is below 30% yet render times are much faster. I mean a lot faster. %min 12sec rendered in 1 minute

Same applies when we add effects to the program, some are very demanding on the program whilst others easy to render. As the render passes the effects/ transitions times slow, more work to do the CPU varies, an increase not necessary increasing speed but work load.

Very difficult to compare, but look at times not what the CPU is doing, and if you think the time to render is slow then inspect why.

The best way is to use a Smart Package so all are using the same files to test, then we can compare times.

Viewing my results I think I need more cores to keep up with Video Studio demand

[TonyP]

Funny Trevor! I've thought about Threadripper more than one time for more core/threads. While I would like things "faster", I've learned to wait for things to get rendered. As long as I am happy with the results....

[Klepper]

It's a real shame Corel isn't utilizing the GPU AT ALL:

Yes, Yes, hardware acceleration IS on:

Because a PROPERLY programmed encoder, with a simple low end gaming GPU in your system
a $300 CPU can smoke a $4,000 CPU

[w1cked]

For me: slow rendering means that the CPU-load stays far away from 100% and there is no other bottleneck in the system (drive, memory, etc.). For example only 25% which is far from 80% and 100% and this is only for full render (no smart render) concatenate HD-clips (1920x1080i50) to the same format with no filters, no transition effects, no supplementary other tracks (title, audio,...). My average is 70% for such a timeline of 13' 90 clips; but the CPU load is not stable it fluctuates between 25% and 99%.

I second that.

The following test shows the problem:
- I created a new project in VS, no trimming, no filtering or transitions - with just 1 file that is roughly 7min6sec long
- then I imported the same file in HandBrake
- the exact same encoding settings were applied to both

Result:
- VS X10 utilizes the CPU 70% most of the time, sometimes below 30% and sometimes it even drops to 0% usage for moment - rendering time: 7 minutes 1 second
- HandBrake utilizes the CPU 100% all of the time - rendering time: 4 minutes 48 seconds

Again, the output codec was the same and there were no VS shenanigans going on. Simple transcoding of one video file.

See these two screenshots for the results:
Screenshot 1
Screenshot 2

100% cpu usage does not mean it is fast it means it is doing a lot of work

I am not sure if I understand this right. Doing a lot of work means that a task can be finished faster. If there are no other bottlenecks like memory or harddisk, then the CPU should totally be at 100% usage, otherwise something is slowing down VS X10.

Now using Smart Render, video studio has less work to do, CPU is below 30% yet render times are much faster.

In that case, disk usage should go up, right? That didn't happen for me.

Unless Corel is willing to do some major rewriting of the software (I doubt that), this is the hand we are dealt.

I assume you are right. However I think that their biggest problem is multitasking. VS X10 manages to utilize 100% of my 4 thread mobile Core i7, but apparently it cannot handle CPUs with even more threads as several people with desktop Core i7, Ryzen or Threadripper CPUs have posted.

Probably something used in typical VS projects, like transitions, FX or something else, is not multithreaded / parallelized enough to keep many-core-CPUs at 100%. Hope Corel support can prove me wrong and provide a solution though.

Speaking of which.. Corel support came back to me suggesting I delete my VS X10 settings folder which I did, but that didn't change anything. So I asked them what elseI could try.

[w1cked]

So, since the last time I posted here I have been in contact with Corel tech support. Unfortunately I cannot post the conversation directly because support keeps responding in my native language (probably due to my license key?).

The short version:

- Corel support blames Windows not giving enough resources to VideoStudio X10 and had me download a program called WinAudit and make an extensive diagnostic report file and send it to them
- I have also tried all their suggested settings etc. but that didn't change anything
- they wanted me to upload my project as a smart package so that they can replicate the problem
- lastly they stated that my render times were okay and consistent with theirs and that Windows was to blame for not giving enough resources to VideoStudio

So now here's the thing... I uploaded the ZIP file to my own server. And because I have access to the log files, I could see that they didn't even download it! Complete bollocks. They are giving me more and more tasks to do for them and reply with faux-results and template responses blaming Windows or telling me that my results were fine even though I compiled a lot of proof (screenshots etc.) that this can not be the case.

So... My techn support experience was quite dissatisfactory thus far to say the least. I have now asked them again to escalate my support ticket to someone who can actually help - if they won't, I think I might rest the case and say that VideoStudio is simply unable to utilize modern multi-core processors.

P.S. if someone from Corel reads this and would like to look into it, I am happy to do more diagnosis with someone who can help: my ticket id is 4478651.

[BikerDave1]

And as a Footnote to an otherwise comprehensive discussion on said matter (especially to CPU utilization), don't forget to give CVS the Priority (default is set to Normal) it needs in Task Manager as well as utilization of necessary Cores (default is set to all Cores utilized) in Task Manager. For those who are not familiar with these settings here are the steps to view and change them via this link: http://mywindowshub.com/set-cpu-priorit ... ndows-8-1/. Windows 10 steps are similar if not the same. See the Q & A right below in the Comments if you can't find it right away from the steps/screen shot. I believe there is an extra step. Note the "Set Affinity" setting for the Cores utilization just below the "Set Priority" setting.

For comparison, on my beefy system, changing Priority from highest to lowest drops about 5% speed while rendering the same timeline for both CPU and GPU. I also dropped the Affinity setting from 16 cores to 1 core and as you could imagine the CPU was pegged at 100%. CVS was stepping through the rendering process much much slower than before. Even mouse movement was greatly diminished too.

[w1cked]

Hi,

I have received feedback from second level (technical) support. They told me that the performance issues are due to the fact, that VS X10 does not ship with the latest version of the CUDA interface (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA) and that they are working on updating VS X10 to the newest version, which should bump up the performance on modern machines.

So let's wait and see

[BikerDave1]

Cuda v6.1 will be the ticket for me!!