Is it normal to have CPU usage up to 95% while burning a disc?

rbowser

Contributor Joined: Aug 08, 2011 16:48 Messages: 515 Offline

Solved by

Aug 14, 2011 01:20

It really seems to me that PD9 isn't using my computer's resources very well - It's a 6 core machine with 8 gigs ram. Right now, with nothing going on as I type but this browser tab open on the forum, CPU is at 2% and RAM is at 21% When I'm editing a project in PD9, CPU goes only to 4% and RAM to around 24%. Why isn't the program using more available power? Where are the settings to give the program access to the full RAM and all the cores, if it doesn't automatically find all that on this new Windows 7 machine?

Then when I'm burning to disc, CPU usage goes up 95% - the highest I've ever seen any program use. I was worried, but the burn was completed successfully, so I guess it's all right - but it was still so surprising since my DVD burning experience before PD9 was with a program that used no more than 40+% to burn.--

Any info on how to set PD9 so it uses my computer to better advantage? Considering how slowly it seems to be working on my 64 bit machine, I have to say I'm disappointed. I should add that on a previous thread, I was given the advice to upgrade my NVIDIA driver - I did that, and temporarily, performance seemed better - but then I discovered my whole computer was acting very strange after that update. I won't go into boring details, but I had to roll back to a system restore point to reclaim my 2 monitors and several other things that went haywire after the update.

Are there settings to get PD9 to be faster and more efficient with using my computer's resources?

--I'm attaching the data files requested of me on the last thread, in case more can be gleaned from them.

rbowser

Filename	64rbowserDxDiag.txt	Download
Description
Filesize	44 Kbytes
Downloaded:	235 time(s)

Filename	rbowserDxDiag.txt	Download
Description
Filesize	79 Kbytes
Downloaded:	258 time(s)

PlaySound

Senior Contributor Joined: Dec 02, 2010 10:26 Messages: 2031 Offline

Aug 14, 2011 09:02

Here the CPU goes up when this rendering (converting) video, before writing to disk.
but also may be some error AMD-FX 8350 / 8GB DDR3
SSD SUV400S37240G / 2-HD WD 1TB
AMD Radeon R9 270 / AOC M2470SWD
Windows 7-64 / PD16 Ultimate

rbowser

Contributor Joined: Aug 08, 2011 16:48 Messages: 515 Offline

Aug 14, 2011 12:39

Thanks, PlayVideo - Yes, it could be helpful for me to hear from someone with a similar computer, to know if they also get such high CPU usage while rendering. I guess it could be normal, it just surprised me.

My bigger concern is why PD9 isn't using very much RAM or CPU while a large project is being edited. I would like to know what typical levels are for experienced users.

rbowser

1Nina

Senior Contributor Location: Norway, 50km southwest of Oslo Joined: Oct 08, 2008 04:12 Messages: 1070 Offline

Aug 14, 2011 13:54

Hi rbowser,

I have been hestitating to post a reply for you because I have raised a similar matter before on the forum.
If you make a search, you will find topic related.
I'm just popping in to let you know "you're not alone", but alas can't give you answers and reasons.

I do not burn DVD's (or maybe 1-2 a year). I produce in .mp4, H264.AVC, AVCHD or .wmv.
In PD9 I can produce in .wmv without any kind of trouble or (mis)use of cpu. In any case, I don't
produce AVCHD in PD, but- .mp4 and H264.AVC would be the best for me to do production in PD.
I am not on the latest build, it maybe would make a difference- I don't know.
I can not produce these formats in PD9 for longer than 25-30 second clips before I get warningsigns of 100% use of
cpu, hardware acc. on or off. Watching the prosessors, PD9 only makes use of 1 of them, leaving the other 7 "parked".
As a result, I dare not render longer projects in these formats. Even if the produced files seem ok, I have not the
knowledge of what it is doing, or maybe damaging in my computer. My common sense just tells me that when I
get this very red/orange warning it is because something is not right.

Sometimes I render to .wmv HD HQ- and convert the files to .mp4 or H264.AVC using a converter.
I have other programs, quite large and complex, where this isn't an issue.
In other programs I have I can render these formats without any warnings, and watching the prosessors
they are all in use.

Nina

Just something.
https://www.petitpoisvideo.com

HalCon

Senior Contributor Location: Charlottetown, PEI Joined: Mar 01, 2008 10:36 Messages: 719 Offline

Aug 14, 2011 14:11

rbrowser,

I may not be 100% correct in the following explanation, but I will give it my best shot.

During most of the editing process, you are not really asking your computer to do anything out of the ordinary. Thus there is very little for the CPU/GPU to do until you want to preview what you have done. Very similar to typing in a word processing application.

When you add an effect to a video clip, you will see a rise in resources used as the program adds the effect to the individual frames of the clip. The amount of the rise and the length of time you will see the spike depends on the length of the clip and the complexity of the effect.

You will normally see CPU usage go up to 90 - 100% when previewing either a clip or the movie on the time line. This is due to the fact that the program now has to render all the tracks and put the result on the preview screen at the same time (or on the fly as it is called). Higher preview resoultions will require higher hardware usage. This is why you will hear of jerky previews on some platforms when using high resolution preview. I always preview HD video on Normal Preview. This reduces the load on the CPU.

My platform generally runs at 95 - 100% CPU when rendering complicated HD video projects.

I think this is normal for most computer platforms.

Hope this has been helpful.

Hal OS - Win11 Pro, Alienware R13, CPU - Intel Core I7-12700KF 12 CPUs), 16g DDR5 4400 RAM, Video - Geeforce RTX 3080ti 12g, PD11 & PD365
My YouTube

rbowser

Contributor Joined: Aug 08, 2011 16:48 Messages: 515 Offline

Aug 14, 2011 14:26

Nina, and Hal - Thank you both for your reports. It looks like what I'm seeing is normal. I appreciate the input.

rbowser