Quote I am new to Powerdirector and have found that when rendering my video, the cpu tops out at 12% usage.

I have:

• Windows 10


• Threadripper 1900X


• 32GB Ram


• 500Gb SSD

How do I maximise cpu usage?

Try disabling all hardware accelleration options in settings. This forces the CPU to be used for all rendering instead of the video card.

Quote


Try disabling all hardware accelleration options in settings. This forces the CPU to be used for all rendering instead of the video card.

I tried that but it just slows down even more. No more CPU is used.

Quote


I tried that but it just slows down even more. No more CPU is used.

Hmm, well if you get it figured out, please post the solution here. I had planned on buying a Threadripper 1950X specifically for video editing.

Quote I am new to Powerdirector and have found that when rendering my video, the cpu tops out at 12% usage.

I have:

• Windows 10


• Threadripper 1900X


• 32GB Ram


• 500Gb SSD

How do I maximise cpu usage?

If it uses only 12% CPU, it may be that SVRT is working, if this is the case the time to produce the video, it is fast and uses little CPU..
What type and size of video are you producing?

What type of video are you rendering. You can't expect a CPU like that to be taxed to any reasonable degree with a very simple project, with GPU Acceleration turned on for Effects Processing, etc.

It's important to know what you are doing in the project before making any claims about CPU utilization.

A CPU with that many cores may not need more than 12% utilization for what you're asking of it. The load is spread across all the cores. Video Rendering is very multi-core friendly.

A customer should be able to assume that all cores, no matter how many, are used to maximum level so the work gets done faster. That's the whole reason you buy a CPU like tha tin the first place. It really makes no sense to have 16 cores only to have software that doesn't make effective use of them so that the CPU just sits there idle.

Quite honestly, I think that the Threadripper CPU has caught software vendors off guard and has revealed serious limitations in multi-core software. Hardware didn't finally catch up to software - it blew past it, catching a lot of software products with its pants down.

A CPU like a Threadripper 1950 should have even 4K video processed in mere minutes with all HA turned off.

What really needs to be in any serious processing software is an option I've seen in few products - a checkbox option for CPU loading so the user themselves can set the performance level:

-LIGHT (Around a 20% CPU load, the kind of processing level the OP is complaining about)
-MEDIUM (Average 50% CPU load)
-HEAVY (Average 80% CPU load)
-FULL (99% CPU load, computer laregely unresponsive until task completes)

Any programmer knows that this is a very simple feature to add into any software product's processing loop structures.

Quote A customer should be able to assume that all cores, no matter how many, are used to maximum level so the work gets done faster. That's the whole reason you buy a CPU like tha tin the first place. It really makes no sense to have 16 cores only to have software that doesn't make effective use of them so that the CPU just sits there idle.

Quite honestly, I think that the Threadripper CPU has caught software vendors off guard and has revealed serious limitations in multi-core software. Hardware didn't finally catch up to software - it blew past it, catching a lot of software products with its pants down.

A CPU like a Threadripper 1950 should have even 4K video processed in mere minutes with all HA turned off.

What really needs to be in any serious processing software is an option I've seen in few products - a checkbox option for CPU loading so the user themselves can set the performance level:

-LIGHT (Around a 20% CPU load, the kind of processing level the OP is complaining about)
-MEDIUM (Average 50% CPU load)
-HEAVY (Average 80% CPU load)
-FULL (99% CPU load, computer laregely unresponsive until task completes)

Any programmer knows that this is a very simple feature to add into any software product's processing loop structures.

lol

We’re talking about 12% utilization across 8 cores and 16 threads.

The load is is spread across all cores. If the power isn’t needed it isn’t used. What will it be used for. There is nothing else.

PowerDirector doesn’t even really support the types of media and workflows that would tax this CPU. It’s not after effects or fusion, and it’s users aren’t editing ProRes 444 or Cinema DNG 4K. Load something like that into Resolve or even Vegas Pro and you’ll get a bit more editing value out of that CPU. With H.264/HEVC, a lot of work is offloaded to other components and hardware SIPs.

What GPU does the OP have in that machine?

Turning Acceleration off will increase CPU load, but it’s called acceleration for a reason. Those components do the tasks they accelerate faster than a CPU. Otherwise, why have it at all?

Rendering 4K in “mere minutes” is only a reality for people who do nothing but tiny social media videos with barely any editing, VFX, etc. 4K is 4x the Pixels of Full HD. It’s considerably more work, for every component involved. With effects processing, etc. GPUs become a common bottleneck at 4K, for example.

This is is like trying to game with CPU only rendering. Your CPU usage will go up, and you’ll feel good about all your cores; but your graphics rendering performance will be shot, because CPUs are terrible at that. That’s why some effects are GPU accelerated while others aren’t. It depends on the type of effect. Some don’t benefit much, or at all from GPU acceleration.

Again: Using CPU cores when a Hardware Encoder SIP or GPU can handle things is awful.

In in order to troubleshoot the “problem,” actual information is needed.

Bloviating about things you do not understand will not help matters.

We need to know what GPU the OP has, his performance settings, and the CODEC/Resolution/Framerate of the media he’s using.

Also need to know what type of effects he’s using in the project: LUTs, Color Grading, etc.

I’d also use a CPU and GPU monitor to see how each component is being used while rendering, as that can be a clue to potential bottlenecks.

It’s possible that that his performance is being bottlenecked off the CPU. It’s also possible that the software can have a bug. I’m not saying either is the case. I’m saying the question, as posed, is impossible to answer or assist with - because it’s devoid of almost all the information needed to do so.

Follow-Up: I installed PowerDirector on an AMD A10-5745M notebook and it doesn’t cap the CPU cores (there are 4) when rendering anything including 4K with Acceleration turned off, which really should max it. It seems to cap out around 70% or so. I’ve looked around the forums and it seeens a lot of people report poor utilization of AMD CPUs with this software.

I get similar utilization with VideoStudio 2018 and Vegas Pro (can’t test Premiere CC and Resolve on that CPU). I don’t have this issue on my Intel machines, nor does it happen on an even older Intel Pentium Laptop we have here. Only the AMDs are behaving this way. Seems to be a common issue.

Quote A customer should be able to assume that all cores, no matter how many, are used to maximum level so the work gets done faster.

I totally agree. All I hear is excuses for poor coding. I spent 3X more on my last computer for an Intel 4770k instead of going with AMD (at that time) thinking that I would get better performance. Definitely did NOT get the bang for my bucks. I now just wonder if it's not just the software that I have chosen.

Quote


lol

We’re talking about 12% utilization across 8 cores and 16 threads.

The load is is spread across all cores. If the power isn’t needed it isn’t used. What will it be used for. There is nothing else......Only the AMDs are behaving this way. Seems to be a common issue.

There's no way that it can be argued that the more cores you throw at soemthing, the slower it's supposed to get.

Unlike video games, I would offer a challenge to explain why video processing doesn't need all the power it can get, and why video processing shouldn't happen at full CPU load or at least as fast as the hard drives can deliver. In fact, PowerDirector keeps the cores loaded up until about 6 cores. Anything above that is a gamble. It may smoke and keep all 8 or mroe cores maxed at 95% until the job is done or it may drop to a shocking 12% that makes absolutely no sense.

Now I will offer this: PowerDirector makes far greater use of the CPUs cores than Corel's VideoStudio product - but that just illustrates my point that CPU usage is determined by how the software is actually written.

Software development fact (my profession): Processing nearly anything today can be handled as fast as the hard drives can deliver unless the software application was not written as such. All processing is dictated by how the application was written, not because the CPU is "too awesome". An application can be written to keep a CPU so loaded that the computer becomes unresponsive until the task has completed if the developer so wishes. Funny - corporate database products don't have the problem we're discussing, they'll use as many cores as you can throw at them so the work gets done quicker. Shouldn't video processing be able to do this as well? Of course it should.

Take a look at this screen shot of the system that I personally use for video processing. PowerDirector keeps my AMD pegged on all 6 cores. And yet if I move to 8 cores, it's a total gamble if PowerDirector is going to drop to 10-50% of the CPU's capability and actually take LONGER to process the same video than the 6-core. NOW you start to see the problem.

Quote
I totally agree. All I hear is excuses for poor coding. I spent 3X more on my last computer for an Intel 4770k instead of going with AMD (at that time) thinking that I would get better performance. Definitely did NOT get the bang for my bucks. I now just wonder if it's not just the software that I have chosen.

intel has better single and quad core performance than AMD. So, you’d have to be constantly pegging tons of cores for the AMD to be worth getting over the Intel. .

The people getting Threadrippers are getting them for machines being used for workloads that are biased to the high core count. Compiling Code, Video Editing software, Visual Effects Software like after effects. They are great for workstations, but wasteful in gaming rigs, productivity machines, and for use with low end editing software like this.

For general productivity and gaming, a co parable Intel CPU will win every time.

This has been the case for a while.

the usage issue has been there for a while, it seems, and it affects a lot more than just PowerDirector. I see it with Vegas and VideoStudio. I have seen statements from others saying that MAGICs MEP has similar issues.

I cant find any comparable issues with Intel Core/CPU utilization, but it may be that the people paying the premium for those CPUs simply aren’t bothering to use lower end editing software on them. Resolve is free, after all.

Ive also read reviews of Ryzen CPUs where behavior like this was mentioned (performance limiter, probably to control thermals under load).

In in any case, OP seems to have abandoned the thread so we may not get the information needed to drill down into any potential issues.

In my experience with AMD CPU usage, it always doubled performance when it changed, 2 to 4 core the render time was reduced by half and again when it changed from 4 to 8 core.
I made a comparison for CPU usage, for 4 rendering options, attached image, MPEG2 uses little CPU.
My subscription PC XEON-E5-2680 v4 / Mem. 16GB DDR4
M.2 NVME 512Gb / 2-SSD Sata3 1TB
AMD RX570 / Display Philips 272V8
Windows 11_64Pro / PD22/365

Quote intel has better single and quad core performance than AMD.

Certainly haven't proven that statement with ANY software that I have used in the past 5 years. If I ever build another PC , it will definitely be AMD.

Oh yeah and I tried Resolve -- free version is limited. Didn't import my video correctly from two devices. Can't 'deinterlace' without purchasing at $300. Definitely not aimed at consumers with a huge learning curve.

But as you said, we are off topic. Thread should probably be closed.