The resources you are talking about is probably CPU usage. And, yes, 20% is not high. You have to take into consideration however that CPU usage depends very much on the other components in your system. If the CPU asks for data from your disks and is waiting for them to be delivered, it is waiting, effectively doing nothing. If the CPU wants to store data in memory, it has to wait for memory to finish that job and is doing nothing in the meantime. If the CPU asks for data from memory and is waiting for it, it is doing nothing.
If you CPU usage during encoding is as low as 20%, chances are you have an unbalanced system. Imagine a system with dual Xeon W5680 quad cores, overclocked to 4.0 GHz, with 48 GB memory running a single 4200 RPM USB disk. That is unbalanced. Or a single P4 @ 3.0 GHz with 2 GB DDR-557 memory and a 16 x 15K disk SCSI RAID5. That is unbalanced too.
To check your system, run the PPBM5 Benchmark
Thanks for the answer!
I've tried that link you sent me, but it's failing!
I guess the hard drive is the bottleneck, though I think that is unlikely? I mean, the new disc's are fast!!
My computer specs are as follows:
i7 2600 Sandy Bridge - 4,2ghz
16 gb 1600mhz CL8 ram
Geforce 570 Twin Frozr Overclocked Edition
I'm rendering to a 2 tb hard drive @ 7200 RPM
First time I have heard that the link is failing, so I tried it out, and no, it is not failing.
Rendering to a 2 TB disk with what interface? SATA, FW800, FW400, USB2, USB3?
Is that the only disk apart from a physically separate OS disk or is it the only disk in your system? What are the details of your disk setup?
Another explanation could be the effects used. Things like Magic Bullet Looks and Colorista are processed on the GPU, not the CPU. So you will see the CPU drop considerably when rendering clips with those effects. That may apply to other third party plug-ins as well.
Sorry, I was a bit quick there! It's not the link it self that's failing, it's the script after following the guide.
It's on a SATA600 internal connection. It's quite a fast disc! It's only used to rendering, the programs and such are launched from a SSD drive.
Right now i'm transcoding via CineForm, and the CPU Load is 100 % (and damn it's fast)
Perhaps it's due to the plugins, but wouldn't I see the GFX work harder then? It's also at 20-25 % load, and nothing more!
I do have MB Looks applied to the clips.
Correction Jim, MBL is NOT processed on the GPU, but only on the CPU. Tried it on a long clip and there is no increase in GPU load during rendering, but there is a significant increase in CPU load during rendering, but with lousy threading. Three of my 8 logical cores are hardly used at all with MBL effects. Maybe that explains the very mediocre performance of MBL. (Tested with CS5.5)
According to the folks at Red Giant, both Looks and Colorista are processed using OpenGL, which runs on the GPU. You can see the difference if you take two clips, one without and then one with. The CPU load will drop significantly as rendering hits the Looks clip.
OpenGL is hardly used by PR and when you have a non-MBL timeline, there is no rendering so there is never a fall-off in CPU load, there is only an increase in CPU load on MBL timelines. GPU load on an MBL timeline never rises above 10%, but the CPU load rises to around 25%. In contrast, during the H.264 encoding in the PPBM5 benchmark, the GPU load rises to around 50% (in some parts) and the CPU load may rise to 80+%. The problem with MBL is their lousy threading. It appears that RedGiant still does not have their act together on how to do effective multi-threading.
there is only an increase in CPU load on MBL timelines
Strange. I always get a falloff in CPU load when render hits clips with Looks. Which version of Looks and PP did you just test with?
As for the threading, like I said, according to them the effect, regardless of host program (Premiere Pro, After Effects, Final Cut pro, Vegas, etc.) is rendered using OpenGL, which runs on the GPU and makes threading a non-issue.
MBL 1.4.2 and CS5.5
So, no idea on how to make it use more resources?
- The video is rendered with only MB Looks, loads of images, and no effects!
No, but if you look at it another way, with effectively 3 out of 8 cores on strike due to MBL limitations, you could say that when all cores were used, your CPU usage would have been around 32% and that is not too bad. Still leaves the question about your disk setup and memory configuration as possible bottlenecks.
Works fine for me, Friday, May 13, 2011, 12:00 (Noon) PDT.
PS - as similar questions come up, regarding CPU usage, I want to link to your Reply #1, as it will likely help others, with a similar question, and does so elegantly.
I have to disagree...
99 % of the time, the hard drive is NOT the bottle neck. My hard drive delivers 130 mb written data pr. sec... In other words, my film would be done in 5 secs, which is really not the case :-)
So, i'm pretty sure it's not the issue! The computer is a beast, and there must be some explanation why it's only using 20 % of it's total resources when rendering.
My hard drive delivers 130 mb written data pr. sec... In other words, my film would be done in 5 secs, which is really not the case :-)
Yeah, I agree that is acceptable for a single backup disk, but...
that is far too slow for editing. You would need figures far above 200 MB (Bytes, not bits) for decent performance.
Show me your benchmark figures and I will tell you where the problem is.
The video is rendered with only MB Looks
There's your slow down. The only real way to speed that up is to get a better GPU. (Or, of course, don't use Looks.)
Well, I have a Geforce 570 Twin Frozr Overclocked Edition, which is off the charts, benchmark wise.. It's a great card! And when looking at the hardware monitoring software, it's only used around 15-20 %.. So can't be that!
According the hard drive issue: I have to get a deeper explanation of this! How come the rendering takes a couple of hours, and the size of the file is around 500 mb? My drive writes 130 megabytes pr second!!!! How can that bottleneck?
The benchmark will come up :-)
Just ordered two 7200 RPM SATA-600 drives to Raid 0, and see if that does anything!
I still can't get that script to work in the benchmark you linked me. Is there any other benchmark worth seeing for you? Sisoft Sandra, or whatever?
used around 15-20 %.. So can't be that!
It likely is, though. OpenGL is not the most efficient method of rendering, but that's what Looks uses. Chances are if you remove all Looks and other Magic Bullet effects, you'll see things speed up.
What is the error message that you get on trying to use the PPBM5 script?