I know of no CPU PowerDirector is NOT compatible with.

Quote Is PowerDirector fully compatible with the 12 cores of Ryzen 3900x?

I presume you're actually asking if PD going to fully utilise all the available power of the 3900X - ie all the cores...

This is very doubtful - I have a lowly 2700X and it hardly breaks into a sweat.
( I don't know of an editor that will certainly use them all - I've tried a few, and none were as quick at 'Producing' as PD)

PD WILL use a graphics card - What do you have ?

PD will also probably NOT use all the RAM you have available - I have 32Gb and I don't think this is all used.

I generally have PD producing a video whilst I'm doing something else on the PC at the same time - I reckon that's where I can gain having a reasonably decent workstation.

Gerry

Confirm it "works" but as previous post states it hardly brakes a sweat. Never goes over 50% CPU utillization. Slow.

I also use a RTX 2060 and its 2-3% utilization on Video Encoding.

32GB DDR4 3200Mhz and 2x 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus M2 NVMe drives should not be a bottleneck.

I just seems my Core i5 4460, 16GB, regular SATA SSD was faster.

Scratching/searching in a clip only updates picture when i release the marker, whereas Filmora and Premier shows smooth and fast scratching.

Quote I also use a RTX 2060 and its 2-3% utilization on Video Encoding.

That potentially is not normal, post a pic of your "Produce" encode settings so one can verify produce specifics and such.

Jeff

Quote

That potentially is not normal, post a pic of your "Produce" encode settings so one can verify produce specifics and such.

Jeff

https://ibb.co/CbjCwcw" alt="" border="0" />

KnutHel99, for those type of CPU/GPU stats you've done something with the clip on the timeline, like applied LUT, color correction....?

Jeff

Quote KnutHel99, for those type of CPU/GPU stats you've done something with the clip on the timeline, like applied LUT, color correction....?

Jeff

Yes. Rendertime is a lot shorter without LUT and other corrections... But even wthout it only has about 50% CPU utilization.. and GPU encoding is also very low.

Quote Yes. Rendertime is a lot shorter without LUT and other corrections... But even wthout it only has about 50% CPU utilization.. and GPU encoding is also very low.

For PD, the preparation of each frame from the LUT correction is a CPU based activity so you can't blame low GPU usage as a issue, the GPU in this case has nothing to do as it's waiting for the frames to encode.

Do some basic H.265 transcoding of a input clip, the GPU real benefit, and see how you fair.

Jeff

I can't remember if we're allowed to name competing video editors here. But, for the record, an editor that uses black magic to do its thing uses all 8 cores on my AMD-FX (at 100%) when rendering in software.

IIRC, that is the only editor I've tried that uses more than 4 cores (in the sense that they max out at 50% CPU utilization on my 8 core).

That's why I saved money and only bought a used i3-8100 for an alternatate box for video editing. Seemed like extra cores didn't matter for PD. (They wanted another $100 for an i5. Not worth it.)

We've talked about bottlenecks before here in the forum. Even with my new (used) Dell i3-8100 Win10, with CL15 on the RAM, which benchmarks in the top 75% of memory bandwidth, I still do not see a highly stressed system when producing simple vidoes. (My hard drives, even tho spinning, aren't the bottleneck either.)

I get the impressions there are wait states caused by latency in the code in software as far as PD goes. (I do see near 100% on the Intel UHD 630 tho. So that's good.)

Quote I can't remember if we're allowed to name competing video editors here. But, for the record, an editor that uses black magic to do its thing uses all 8 cores on my AMD-FX (at 100%) when rendering in software.

IIRC, that is the only editor I've tried that uses more than 4 cores (in the sense that they max out at 50% CPU utilization on my 8 core).

That's why I saved money and only bought a used i3-8100 for an alternatate box for video editing. Seemed like extra cores didn't matter for PD. (They wanted another $100 for an i5. Not worth it.)

We've talked about bottlenecks before here in the forum. Even with my new (used) Dell i3-8100 Win10, with CL15 on the RAM, which benchmarks in the top 75% of memory bandwidth, I still do not see a highly stressed system when producing simple vidoes. (My hard drives, even tho spinning, aren't the bottleneck either.)

I get the impressions there are wait states caused by latency in the code in software as far as PD goes. (I do see near 100% on the Intel UHD 630 tho. So that's good.)

I must add that my very old PC - i7 2nd generation was nowhere near as capable of editing 4K videos as my current Ryzen 2700X with PD...
Not even remotely close.
I use the Ryzen 2700X with a Nvidia 1070 8Gb Graphics card and 32Gb RAM...
I tried a Black Magic type software recently when playing with LUTs and 4K HLG files... MUCH slower rendering than with PD.
I think you could go well beyond an i5 before you see little return in how fast PD can be...
Gerry

This is an interesting topic.

I produce videos in HEVC. I have a 6 Core i5 8600K (no hyperthreading). I like to do my final render (produce) with CPU only because the quality and more importantly, the file size comes out better (it can be a world of difference in size if most the video is static images). But it can take 10x as long as rendering with my video card (AMD RX580).

When producing on CPU only, all six cores are maxed at 100% from the begining of the render till the end.

If you produce with assistance from the video card, the CPU never hits 100%.It mostly sits at 30% while the video decode is at 100% most if not the whole time. This is when using AVC as the source and HEVC as the output. Video encode according to the Windows task manager is not touched much if even at all.

I find this topic interesting because a faster CPU won't mean that much to a lot of people where a GPU will but in my case, gaining another few cores could help.

Quote I find this topic interesting because a faster CPU won't mean that much to a lot of people where a GPU will but in my case, gaining another few cores could help.

Generically I'd say and often suggest the opposite, a more capable CPU will help virtually every aspect of editing for anyone, while a high end GPU has a niche offering and suitable to some.

You can see H.265 CPU encoding here https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/80760.page#333956 with 12 physical cores and very good scalability and the contained link which showed pic with excellent CPU loading during PD17 encode.

Also keep in mind you don't encode with assistance from the video card. It either does the encoding via the SIP block or it does not so it's not like a shared stream encode between CPU and GPU. CPU may still software decode the stream depending on user settings and needs to handle IO to/from the GPU.

The performance issue of AMD procs and PD has been discussed many times, when like previous quotes of 50% CPU utilization are discussed it's unknown if SMT is enabled or disabled so hard to judge real loading. It's been shown often with PD encoding that any multithreading (SMT or Hyperthreading) as a technique for improving the overall encode efficiency is poor at best, it is reflected in task manager CPU lack of loading though.

Jeff

Critical performance lag in editor...



OK, not happy, but render speed is not critical as I don't produce for paying customers.

As of now I can play 3D games with, even with raytracing, with the spare CPU cycles when rendering


My biggest grape is the sad performance in the editor. Just scratching and searching the clip is horrendous. Lots of CPU, GPU, disk and RAM speed to draw on, so something is wrong with the software is my guess. Clip in video is 1280x720 @ 120fps

Compared to other editors its just not good right now. Check video above.
That's sad, as I've been using PD15 and 16 for years and feel proficient in the workflow of it.

The "Optimized for Ryzen 3000" statement is marked with a "New" sticker on the Cyberlink page, but how can I be certain I have the latest build... is runing the "CyberLink Application Manager" a way to assure runing the latest version?


System:
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
32GB DDR4 3200Mhz
Nvidia RTX 2060 w/Studio Drivers
2x 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus (PCIe 3.0 NVMe, 3500mbps drives!)
Win 10 (1909build)

Scrubbing is usually a single thread activity so I wouldn't be surprised the CPU isn't maxed out. But you are correct, other editors are faster at doing it than PD. Many editors render a shadow render of the time line every time you modify it. It is both good and bad. Faster for scrubbing but it takes time to process every change. PD can do that if you tick the pre render ultra HD version of timeline in the options. I wish it had it for lower resolutions too.

Since you have the task manager over your library, I can't tell if you are using shadow files (or if PD can even make a shadow file of a 120fps video). Shadow files of library clips speed things up.

You did point out something that annoys me, no where in recent versions of PD does it say the version number. If you like me have 365, you definitely do not have the latest version since it would display your account name in the upper right hand corner. Running the manager should check your version against the latest and notify you of upgrades but it would be nice to be able to verify that.

Hi curtain!

First, thanks! "Scrubbing" ... ' been searching my "fat drive" (aka brain) for that word for a while.. I settled for "scratching", you know like one does with vinyl records. English is not my native language (Norwegian!)


Scrubbing in other editors at "high/FHD/UHD" settings is much smoother, and I even think my PD16 was much smoother on my Intel Core i5... I don't use shadow files for FD or FHD material, or rather I didn't have to before.

The process of finding exactly where to cut is time consuming and important in my "keep it simple video edit strategy". Smooth scrubbing is essential, and I think most people will appreciate that. Even my phone scrub trough 4K material like a breez...

BTW my account name was just hiding behind the "Welcome. View all tutorials here" message. I just have to trust the "CyberLink Application Manager" to ceep me up to date on builds.

Well, I have loads of time to spend in front of my computer this winter, just waitiing for spring and summer... hopefully PD will improve.

I have a Intel i9700 system at work, so I can test it with a trial version of PD. If it's quicker I might just swap CPU and motherboard with my home rig.

Cheers!

Quote You did point out something that annoys me, no where in recent versions of PD does it say the version number. If you like me have 365, you definitely do not have the latest version since it would display your account name in the upper right hand corner. Running the manager should check your version against the latest and notify you of upgrades but it would be nice to be able to verify that.

Clicking PowerDirector in the upper right hand corner of a active PD session is not adequate? I guess if subscription is at or above the release posted here: https://www.cyberlink.com/support/index.html?action=download you are in good shape. The perpetual version posted tends to lag 3-4 weeks of a push to subscription for whatever unjustified reason.

Jeff

Staying with the original question and asking it again (in my head). I'm not sure that PowerDirector is compatible with the AMD product set. I have recently upgraded from a Win7 Intel i7 first generation machine (7 years old) to a Win10 AMD Ryzen 3600 machine with a Radeon 570 video card and apart from the speed increase I am having issues with Video Collage Designer in the preview window. Never had any issues with the Win7 machine apart from speed. The preview video is glitchy with a collage in it. Hardware or software or general incompatibility who knows. I have raised this issue with support. But it is frustrating.

I have an Intel CPU but an AMD RX580. I've never had problems with collage windows (except maybe the preview window is very slow unless you set it to 720p). Where there is a problem is with the Titler Pro plugin. If rendered by these GPUs, the text has this glitchy green hue over it. It is hard to describe. I do use a text sequence from that plugin and I can use one of two options to get around the glitches. 1) I plug the video out into the Intel video or 2) if I render in a higher resolution than 1080p (with the RX580), the glitches mysteriously disappear from the render. Likewise, you can render the timeline at ultra HD (4K) and all will be fine (but might be slow).

This thread is morphing into a AMD Radeon 570 thread. In addition to the Collage Designer issues I also have an issue with the "Title Room", the "New Blue" title is a stroboscopic nightmare. The white text flashes and the black background in the preview panel is a myriad of flashing green dots. Sadly a static jpg can't capture the magic of the moment but I have tried.

I am of the opinion that my issue is the AMD Radeon 570 video card, the drivers or some other aspect of the system.