It does sound like that the PD16 has not been patched to the latest version. That patch should allow the Nvidia GPU load to increase from 0% to between 50 to 100% which may decrease the rendering time for certain formats.

Quote It does sound like that the PD16 has not been patched to the latest version. That patch should allow the Nvidia GPU load to increase from 0% to between 50 to 100% which may decrease the rendering time for certain formats.

I have since added the patch and now hardware rendering is available. I also needed to ad pd into my system>display>graphics options and set it to High performance. The odd thing now is that before it took 1:42 seconds, when the cpu was at 3% and the GPU was at 4% during rendering, but now with the new settings the render time is 1:37 seconds, while the GPU is at 97% but the CPU is still only at 3% (its a Ryzen 9 5950X 16 core) yet ive only gained 5 seconds faster which is really nothing much compared to previous settings.

So how do I get PD to take advantage of the potential power of this super expensive CPU I have?

Please read this sticky: https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/80133.page and attach the DXDiag.txt from your new pc on the next reply. Let us know how long the project was on the Timeline to render in 1 min. 37 sec. and if you are using a lot of Effects. Let us know the file format and resolution that you are producing. A screenshot of your timeline will be useful.

Please also let us know the mediainfo of the video files that you are using on the timeline by using this online link: https://mediaarea.net/MediaInfoOnline and then click the blue Download Mediainfo Report button. Attach the generated .txt file.

This will allow other users to get a better idea of what you have in your new pc and what to expect and to suggest changes.

Quote Please read this sticky: https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/80133.page and attach the DXDiag.txt from your new pc on the next reply. Let us know how long the project was on the Timeline to render in 1 min. 37 sec. and if you are using a lot of Effects. Let us know the file format and resolution that you are producing. A screenshot of your timeline will be useful.

Please also let us know the mediainfo of the video files that you are using on the timeline by using this online link: https://mediaarea.net/MediaInfoOnline and then click the blue Download Mediainfo Report button. Attach the generated .txt file.

This will allow other users to get a better idea of what you have in your new pc and what to expect and to suggest changes.

Ok here are my results: The mp4 video is at 1080, and i was rendering it to 720 in the above tests.

Those producing times seem about right. Producing most kinds of videos usually won't push your system to its limit, especially at such low resolutions as 720.

I just ran a test on PD365 with a similarly sized source clip (AVC 1.4GB, 18m 48s duration, 10Mbps bitrate HD 30p) and it took 1:58 to produce using hardware encoding to 1280x720/30p AVC MP4. The CPU usage was 15% and GPU usage was around 68%.

In PD17, the same test used the same CPU percentage but slightly lower GPU resources (59%) and it took almost 40 seconds longer to produce (3:36), which suggests that PD365/20 is better suited to your modern hardware and Win11 than PD16 is.

If you wanted to pack your project and upload it to Google Drive or OneDrive, I'd be happy to run the same comparison on my system. See this FAQ for more details. If instead you'd like to try the same clip I used, you can download it from here.

You may also want to try the free version of PD365 or PD20. Since you're only working with HD clips and producing to 720, you shouldn't run into any of the trial version limitations and will hopefully see an improvement in producing time.

YouTube/optodata

DS365 | Win11 Pro | Ryzen 9 3950X | RTX 4070 Ti | 32GB RAM | 10TB SSDs | 5K+4K HDR monitors

Canon Vixia GX10 (4K 60p) | HF G30 (HD 60p) | Yi Action+ 4K | 360Fly 4K 360°

Quote I just ran a test on PD365 with a similarly sized source clip (AVC 1.4GB, 18m 48s duration, 10Mbps bitrate HD 30p) and it took 1:58 to produce using hardware encoding to 1280x720/30p AVC MP4. The CPU usage was 15% and GPU usage was around 68%.

In PD17, the same test used the same CPU percentage but slightly lower GPU resources (59%) and it took almost 40 seconds longer to produce (3:36), which suggests that PD365/20 is better suited to your modern hardware and Win11 than PD16 is.

Probably need something more in line with OP to make any time comparison suggestion.
OP source: 29.97fps, Video 9349 kb/s, Audio 128 kb/s
optodata source: 60fps, Video 9979 kb/s, Audio 384 kb/s (claims 30p but clip is actually 60p)

The 60fps vs 29.97fps can easily be nearly a 50% encode difference. To me, 1:58 for Optodata clip and PD20 even high, my 8yr old box can take optodata's 60p clip to basic PD default 1280x720/30p(16Mbps) AVC MP4 in 40% less time, significant improvement with non-modern WIN10 hardware.

One really needs apples to apples in all pertinent features and PD settings to draw a comparison if OP is seeing slowing or not on such hardware.

Jeff

Yes my mistake in choosing a 60p clip. Not sure where I saw the 30p but I was trying to approximate the clip format and duration and this clip was close in the other areas.

If I change the project to 60p and produce to default 1280x720/60p (30Mbps), my PD365 producing time is only a couple seconds faster but PD17's drops to 2:41. Not sure why it's 40% slower than on 8 year old hardware.

I agree it would help to all be using the same clip.

Quote Those producing times seem about right. Producing most kinds of videos usually won't push your system to its limit, especially at such low resolutions as 720.

I just ran a test on PD365 with a similarly sized source clip (AVC 1.4GB, 18m 48s duration, 10Mbps bitrate HD 30p) and it took 1:58 to produce using hardware encoding to 1280x720/30p AVC MP4. The CPU usage was 15% and GPU usage was around 68%.

In PD17, the same test used the same CPU percentage but slightly lower GPU resources (59%) and it took almost 40 seconds longer to produce (3:36), which suggests that PD365/20 is better suited to your modern hardware and Win11 than PD16 is.

If you wanted to pack your project and upload it to Google Drive or OneDrive, I'd be happy to run the same comparison on my system. See this FAQ for more details. If instead you'd like to try the same clip I used, you can download it from here.

You may also want to try the free version of PD365 or PD20. Since you're only working with HD clips and producing to 720, you shouldn't run into any of the trial version limitations and will hopefully see an improvement in producing time.

The test was not really for a project but more of a speed comparison between me and my friends PC, He has a lower spec CPU and GPU yet the exact same test was completed about 10 seconds faster on my friends machine, and the other difference is that he is using PD360 while i'm still using PD16

I would consider upgrading but I dont want a rental software, I want full ownership of my copy like I currently have, but PD360 seems to only be for rental? or is there a way to buy it?

Quote I would consider upgrading but I dont want a rental software, I want full ownership of my copy like I currently have, but PD360 seems to only be for rental? or is there a way to buy it?

You can purchase a lifetime license for PD20. See this discussion.

Also note that there's a 30-day money back guarantee so you won't have to keep the new version if it doesn't meet your needs. Just be aware that any projects created in PD20 (or older projects that are opened and then saved in PD20) will not be able to be opened by your current PD version.