My computer techie very concerned over PD's CPU usage

rbowser

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

Solved by

Oct 26, 2011 23:51

One of the first things I noticed about PD9 when I bought it just a couple of months ago, was how on my 6 core, 8 gig RAM (and brand new) computer, while burning a project to file, CPU usage would hover over 90% I posted a query into that, was told it's normal for PD to use that much CPU.

I think I posted about it again when I started fresh with my computer (had to re-install the OS)--because since that time, CPU usage can go up to a full 100% while burning to folder.

I finally mentioned this oddity to the computer expert who built my machine, and he was alarmed. He's never heard of a program doing that, and he was sure that the only thing that could cause that would be bad programming.

That subject came up on one of the music software forums I frequent, and the consensus is that a program using 100% CPU has to have major problems with it. Typically, while rendering music files, our machines use up to maybe 40%.

Both the tech who built my computer, and experts at this music forum think the only outcome from using a program that runs my computer so hot is that it will have a far shorter life span than it should.--

So I find myself avoiding finalizing my projects - and I really grin and bear it when I do burn to folder, getting worried over how PD pushes the computer so hard.

Any thoughts on this topic?--Info?- Reassurances to the contrary of what I've said here?--- Really not happy with this.

Randy B.

RobertJ/OZ

Senior Contributor Location: Melbourne Australia Joined: Aug 14, 2006 02:26 Messages: 1209 Offline

Oct 27, 2011 01:19

Hi Randy,

A recent speed test I carried out using the trial version of PDR10, showed average CPU usage was 35% occasionally increasing to 65% depending on what was being rendered at that point, it was the same result burning to folder or to disc. PDR10 does appear to render faster than PDR9.
CPU usage was about the same with PDR9.

Robrt
Intel i7 930, 16GB ram, Radeon HD 5770 1Gb,Ver. 14.12 Win7 64 bit
Intel i7 7700 HQ, 16 GB ram Nvidia GTX 1050Ti 4GB dual drives 1 TB SSD + 1 TB HDD Win 10

PDtoots

otown

Newbie Joined: May 27, 2011 10:00 Messages: 43 Offline

Oct 27, 2011 06:50

My computer is an I7 with 8 gb of ram. If I'm rendering HD material and not using the GPU, then all processors run between 90 and 100 %. If I use the GPU then they run at a much much lower rate. The higher the % the faster the fan(s) run. This can take some time if the project is large. I've used other video editing software that behaves the same.

So I think this is normal for rendering HD but I've never heard running at 100% for long periods of time is harmfull to the computer. Is there any proof anywhere?

rbowser

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

Oct 27, 2011 11:06

Quote: ... I've never heard running at 100% for long periods of time is harmfull to the computer. Is there any proof anywhere?

Thanks for the reply, Otown

Searching the 100% CPU usage topic on the net of course brings up all sorts of advice about turning off unnecessary processes - because people with questions about 100% CPU usage have problems with their CPUs always shooting up to that when they do anything. That's a different problem, obviously, since I'm talking about one program, PD, using 100%.

My techie, the guy who put this machine together for me, said it's only logical that computer components aren't intended to run at 100% for sustained periods of time. Fans kick in to cool things down, because without cooling, the machine would shut down and the parts wouldn't last as long. It's this guy's opinion that PD and any program spiking that high hasn't been programmed efficiently. And his opinion that a computer will have a much shorter lifespan as a result is reflected in this example of a quote I pulled from online:

"...Learn how to define, monitor and control your computer's heart (the CPU) and its blood (its usage), because the heart that always frantically beats faster, faster and faster--at 100 percent--won't last long..."

My previous video editing program went up to around 50% while rendering a project to folder. Pushing the limits the way PD does is apparently just the tradeoff we have to live with for getting Cyberlink's high touted super fast rendering speed. Oh well!

rbowser

jerrys

Senior Contributor Location: New Britain, CT, USA (between New York and Boston) Joined: Feb 10, 2010 21:36 Messages: 1038 Offline

Oct 27, 2011 11:59

Quote:

Quote: ... I've never heard running at 100% for long periods of time is harmfull to the computer. Is there any proof anywhere?

Thanks for the reply, Otown

Searching the 100% CPU usage topic on the net of course brings up all sorts of advice about turning off unnecessary processes - because people with questions about 100% CPU usage have problems with their CPUs always shooting up to that when they do anything. That's a different problem, obviously, since I'm talking about one program, PD, using 100%.

My techie, the guy who put this machine together for me, said it's only logical that computer components aren't intended to run at 100% for sustained periods of time. Fans kick in to cool things down, because without cooling, the machine would shut down and the parts wouldn't last as long. It's this guy's opinion that PD and any program spiking that high hasn't been programmed efficiently. And his opinion that a computer will have a much shorter lifespan as a result is reflected in this example of a quote I pulled from online:

"...Learn how to define, monitor and control your computer's heart (the CPU) and its blood (its usage), because the heart that always frantically beats faster, faster and faster--at 100 percent--won't last long..."

My previous video editing program went up to around 50% while rendering a project to folder. Pushing the limits the way PD does is apparently just the tradeoff we have to live with for getting Cyberlink's high touted super fast rendering speed. Oh well!
rbowser

This is not correct.

That analogy makes no sense whatsoever. A CPU is not a muscle: it doesn't get stronger from exercise; nor does it get weaker from too much or too little exercise. If it did then you could make your machine run faster by using it more, and make it run slower if you never used it. There shouldn't be any such thing as using it "too much": it won't get a cramp.

If your techie built a system that can't handle the load (and he probably did not, so don't take it out on him; it's just that his theory isn't correct) then he needs to put in a bigger fan.

I don't want to go into details in this thread, but you can read my explanation under different topic: why your CPU should run at 100%. Jerry Schwartz

rbowser

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

Oct 27, 2011 12:27

Quote:

I don't want to go into details in this thread, but you can read my explanation under different topic: why your CPU should run at 100%.

Hi, Jerrys - Thanks for the reply. Like I said in my original post, I was hoping for some reassurances to the contrary.

For some reason, the link you posted didn't show up when looking at your post, but I see the link here in the quote, so thanks for that, I'll take a look.

My computer guy built me a great machine, squeezing the most into it he could with his $1,000 budget. It's working great for everything, including using PD. He's just never heard of a program running at 100%, but of course he can't be the expert on everything.

"Put in a bigger fan"--- My rather non-techie self has to wonder why that would be necessary if there's no concern about the heat generated by high CPU usage.--?-- But, the tower is tricked out with a lot of fans, blowing right over the components as they should, so I'm rather sure the machine's ok in that department.

Thanks again for the reply, Jerrys, I appreciate it.

rbowser

rbowser

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

Oct 27, 2011 12:30

Follow-up-- Jerrys, I've tried numerous versions of the hidden URL in your post, but can't get the page to come up. Something's wrong in that address. Maybe you could check on that.

RB

otown

Newbie Joined: May 27, 2011 10:00 Messages: 43 Offline

Oct 27, 2011 12:53

I talked to a store where I've bought computers in the past (I currently have a Dell) and the guy there said utilization doesn't affect the MTBF of the processor.

I also did some searching around the Intel site and it looks like heat can affect MTBF so if you don't have adequate cooling then that can cause pre mature failure. Processors also have the ability to shut themselves down pretty quick if they get too hot.

WRT efficient programming, PD9 utilizes all cores so I would say thats efficient. Its well document the resources necessary to render HD....

rbowser

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

Oct 27, 2011 13:07

Great, thanks for your feedback on this too, otown.

RB

James Dotson

Senior Contributor Location: Tennessee Joined: Aug 24, 2009 20:40 Messages: 3066 Offline

Oct 27, 2011 13:22

Rendering video is labor intensive. Running the CPU at 100% will not hurt it as long as you have adequate cooling. That part is critical. __________________________________
CORNBLOSSOM

otown

Newbie Joined: May 27, 2011 10:00 Messages: 43 Offline

Oct 27, 2011 14:39

I ran a little PD9 Processing benchmark and monitored my system. Its a 4 minute video with 3 H.264 videos in and one H.264 out...all 1080x1920i. I ran it twice, once using all the GPU selections turned on and once without any GPU selections. These are averages after PD9 had got up to speed. System idol numbers are also listed.

I can't figure out how to do a table here so the results are in the attached file....


Filename	untitled1.jpg	Download
Description
Filesize	24 Kbytes
Downloaded:	357 time(s)

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at Oct 27. 2011 15:13

jerrys

Senior Contributor Location: New Britain, CT, USA (between New York and Boston) Joined: Feb 10, 2010 21:36 Messages: 1038 Offline

Oct 27, 2011 15:11

Quote: Follow-up-- Jerrys, I've tried numerous versions of the hidden URL in your post, but can't get the page to come up. Something's wrong in that address. Maybe you could check on that.

RB

Oh, no -- not another one.

What can I say, the link works for me. Jerry Schwartz

rbowser

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

Oct 27, 2011 15:18

Quote:

Quote: Follow-up-- Jerrys, I've tried numerous versions of the hidden URL in your post, but can't get the page to come up. Something's wrong in that address. Maybe you could check on that.

RB

Oh, no -- not another one.

What can I say, the link works for me.

Hmmm, the link doesn't show up at all for me from just looking at your post. Only when I click to reply with quote do I see the address - and this is it:

http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/0/19699.page]why your CPU should run at 100%

Notice the odd placement of a bracket after Page - I've tried several different versions of that addy, none work. Hmmmm.

Otown, thanks for the screen shot - I guess I need to check to see if I have GPU turned on or not!

rbowser

jerrys

Senior Contributor Location: New Britain, CT, USA (between New York and Boston) Joined: Feb 10, 2010 21:36 Messages: 1038 Offline

Oct 27, 2011 15:44

Quote:

Quote: Follow-up-- Jerrys, I've tried numerous versions of the hidden URL in your post, but can't get the page to come up. Something's wrong in that address. Maybe you could check on that.

RB

Oh, no -- not another one.

What can I say, the link works for me.

Hmmm, the link doesn't show up at all for me from just looking at your post. Only when I click to reply with quote do I see the address - and this is it:

http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/0/19699.page]why your CPU should run at 100%

Notice the odd placement of a bracket after Page - I've tried several different versions of that addy, none work. Hmmmm.
rbowser

The bracket belongs there. That's the syntax for using text as a "cover" for a URL. Again, what can I say? Jerry Schwartz

rbowser

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

Oct 27, 2011 15:46

Quote:

The bracket belongs there. That's the syntax for using text as a "cover" for a URL. Again, what can I say?

Hmm, well, I dunno - I copy and paste that URL into a new browser tab and it comes up with an error message, no such address. I don't get it, Jerrys - I never have problems navigating around on this computer. Don't know what to tell ya. I'll do a Forum search to dig up that thread.

RB

jerrys

Senior Contributor Location: New Britain, CT, USA (between New York and Boston) Joined: Feb 10, 2010 21:36 Messages: 1038 Offline

Oct 27, 2011 15:50

Don't forget to leave the bracket off.

I wonder if the URLs are user-specific.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Oct 27. 2011 15:51

Jerry Schwartz

rbowser

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

Oct 27, 2011 16:26

Quote: Don't forget to leave the bracket off.

I wonder if the URLs are user-specific.

I used the Forum search, and found your thread, Jerrys - Here's the URL pasted in without it being an active link. That works for me--not sure why it didn't when you posted it? It was invisible for me on your post too. Quirky - I wonder if it's a Firefox problem? Dunno!

http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/0/19699.page]why your CPU should run at 100%

INSTANT CORRECTION! -- So I found your old thread with the Forum search, and of course that opened - but actually, that URL for it, when I copy and pasted it into a new tab out of curiosity, - I got the same "not found" error message! Beats me all to heck.

RB

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Oct 27. 2011 16:28

Carl312

Senior Contributor Location: Texas, USA Joined: Mar 16, 2010 20:11 Messages: 9090 Offline

Oct 27, 2011 21:11

That may be because the bracket is supposed to be a '?'.

Try this link.

http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/0/19699.page?why
Carl312: Windows 10 64-bit 8 GB RAM,AMD Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz,ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB,240GB SSD,two 1TB HDs.

rbowser

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

Oct 27, 2011 23:10

Quote: That may be because the bracket is supposed to be a '?'.

Try this link.

http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/0/19699.page?why

Ah ha! That did it, Carl - Thanks. Yes, of course, a ? is the syntax for using text as a "cover" for a URL, not a bracket.

It's odd that both Jerry's original link, and the URL I copied from my own browser when I was on that page put a bracket there instead of the ?

Well, mystery partly solved. Still don't get why browsers are putting in a bracket instead of a ?-- It really could be a Firefox issue - It's my browser of choice, but it seems to be getting less reliable.

This is all pretty much OT, except that the Forum is about members helping each other, and this thread did start with a legit PD issue. So, we're doing ok.

Thanks for the posts, guys.

RB

TexasCityDave#1

Newbie Location: Southeast TX Joined: Aug 08, 2011 22:58 Messages: 35 Offline

Oct 28, 2011 14:26

http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/0/19699.page

try this... WINDOWS 7 PRO 64 BIT [SP1]
ASUS P8P67LE MB
Intel Ci7 2600K 3.40 Ghz
2X 8GB 1600Mhz Dual BL
2X EVGA GTX460 1GB SC
120GB Corsair Force 3 SSD
2X 1TB WD10000 SRTL Caviar Black
PD 9 Ultra 64
LG-12X Blu-Ray
Cameras: Canon 7D, Canon HF S21