I think that at some point there is a latency bottleneck - at least for my system this is the case.

While rendering run in the same time GPUZ (to monitor the GPU utilization) and Resource Monitor (from Windows task Manager) to check CPU, memory, HDD utilization.

If you have two monitors, it's even nicer. From my own experience, the SSD's used for rendering are just wasted money, you will not see utilization speeds above 10% on those.

Quote I think that at some point there is a latency bottleneck - at least for my system this is the case.

While rendering run in the same time GPUZ (to monitor the GPU utilization) and Resource Monitor (from Windows task Manager) to check CPU, memory, HDD utilization.

If you have two monitors, it's even nicer. From my own experience, the SSD's used for rendering are just wasted money, you will not see utilization speeds above 10% on those.

I may set up two monitors to watch resource utilization.

I though SSds were the cats-meow. Apparently absolute addressing takes more time then contiguous files. Can't keep up.

Thanks,



Alan

The rendering and encoding (compressing) process takes so much more time than the writing the resulting file on the HDD.
SSD are great for OS partition, for the programs folder...

BTW if you don't have two monitors, you can still "swap" them in front of the rendering window (after you start the rendering).

Quote The rendering and encoding (compressing) process takes so much more time than the writing the resulting file on the HDD.
SSD are great for OS partition, for the programs folder...

BTW if you don't have two monitors, you can still "swap" them in front of the rendering window (after you start the rendering).

Yep, I have done that before. Awhile ago I set up my computers to play to my big screen 75" TV by swapping monitor setups. At that time using the mouse from about 15 feet. The big screen was just on the other side of my computer lab wall. Didn't last long. Too confusing to keep changing the monitor setups.



Thanks,

Again



I do have extra monitors so sill give it a try soon.

Quote: 4 1TB ssd inside computer storage

Generally, I/O not a bottleneck with any compressed video (h.264, h.265) and PD editing. Face it, for most consumer type cameras one has 20-60Mbps source so one's only talking 7.5MB/sec read and similar write for same quality and 1X encode speed. Even multiple video tracks and CPU/GPU hardware capable of 2X encode speeds will still be easily handled by any current HDD as most have 200+MB/sec read/write capability. Currently only time a SSD beneficial for PD editing is for source destination when one uses an intermediate codec as there you have 10X the read rate for editing in PD. Several video tracks of intermediate codec source can become a read issue without proper hardware. Of course, many WIN benefits for OS SSD drive.

Quote: Now I want to do rendering of my video files utelizing all the processors, memory, and ram available.

Not sure of your distinction between memory and ram, they are the same. PD will only use the RAM needed for the transient timeline conditions, having more does nothing for PD. So highly unlikely you'll come close to needing 32GB unless you've got many tracks of high quality source video.

Quote: I don't think it is using all resources for the rendering. I have other computers on the network with their own path to the router trrough the alternater switch.

Simply monitor with any of many utilities and see what resources are being used. PD15 will do a pretty good job utilizing the CPU at hand when the system is properly configured. Chart attached shows CPU total load and PD able to maintain 90+% CPU load on 12 procs. That's pretty reasonable, no real bottlenecks. Results for 3 different produce profiles are shown in the chart.

Obviously, your network plays absolutely no roll unless you do I/O to a NAS, then why would one invest in 4 local SSD's in the edit platform, so unlikely you’re doing that.

Quote: I have the NVIDIA quadro K20000 video processing.

I'd assume you mean K2000, not really a wise choice for video editing with PD, it’s a Kepler based GPU with features to focus on CAD apps. There is a pretty detailed thread of SoNic67 and myself discussing the merits with lots of practical PD performance trades, http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/47937.page#post_box_251070 PD14 but just the same. If you want Nvidia GPU encoding to unload the I7, then any 900 or 10 series Geforce a better/cheaper option than Quadro unless you need the CAD/CAM benefits. If CPU encoding the GPU offers no significant additional advantage for most timeline contents so no major impact.

Jeff

Quote

Quote: 4 1TB ssd inside computer storage

Generally, I/O not a bottleneck with any compressed video (h.264, h.265) and PD editing. Face it, for most consumer type cameras one has 20-60Mbps source so one's only talking 7.5MB/sec read and similar write for same quality and 1X encode speed. Even multiple video tracks and CPU/GPU hardware capable of 2X encode speeds will still be easily handled by any current HDD as most have 200+MB/sec read/write capability. Currently only time a SSD beneficial for PD editing is for source destination when one uses an intermediate codec as there you have 10X the read rate for editing in PD. Several video tracks of intermediate codec source can become a read issue without proper hardware. Of course, many WIN benefits for OS SSD drive.

Quote: Now I want to do rendering of my video files utelizing all the processors, memory, and ram available.

Not sure of your distinction between memory and ram, they are the same. PD will only use the RAM needed for the transient timeline conditions, having more does nothing for PD. So highly unlikely you'll come close to needing 32GB unless you've got many tracks of high quality source video.

Quote: I don't think it is using all resources for the rendering. I have other computers on the network with their own path to the router trrough the alternater switch.

Simply monitor with any of many utilities and see what resources are being used. PD15 will do a pretty good job utilizing the CPU at hand when the system is properly configured. Chart attached shows CPU total load and PD able to maintain 90+% CPU load on 12 procs. That's pretty reasonable, no real bottlenecks. Results for 3 different produce profiles are shown in the chart.

Obviously, your network plays absolutely no roll unless you do I/O to a NAS, then why would one invest in 4 local SSD's in the edit platform, so unlikely you’re doing that.

Quote: I have the NVIDIA quadro K20000 video processing.

I'd assume you mean K2000, not really a wise choice for video editing with PD, it’s a Kepler based GPU with features to focus on CAD apps. There is a pretty detailed thread of SoNic67 and myself discussing the merits with lots of practical PD performance trades, http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/47937.page#post_box_251070 PD14 but just the same. If you want Nvidia GPU encoding to unload the I7, then any 900 or 10 series Geforce a better/cheaper option than Quadro unless you need the CAD/CAM benefits. If CPU encoding the GPU offers no significant additional advantage for most timeline contents so no major impact.

Jeff

\

Hello,



I do understad the idifference between ram and memory. Sometimes I use the terms intechangebly. 40 years in IT, as CIO I did learn a few things (of course they are obsolete now). I built my configuration from scratch, rebuild computers, and do upscale video transfers and productions.

1. I believe with 32GB ram, it would allow single thread processin faster because it could fill the RAM and not have to go out and continually get data from drives.

2. My main thrust was on the 4 processors on the Intel I7 quad Processor . Does PowerDirector 15 use all the processors when rendering? Other rendering programs I have used indicate while rendering that they are using all the processiors, PowwerDirector 15 doesn't seem to do that do that. So just wondering.

1), no need to as it's simply a serial encode process limited by CPU encode algorithm capability, so no, your RAM will not be filled as a read buffer and large volumes of data do not need to reside in RAM. An no, using a RAM disk won't do anything either as nothing is IO limited.

2) Yes, PD can keep all procs loaded during encoding as was shown in my chart with 90+% CPU load for 12 procs, the same is true for a 4proc CPU.

Jeff

Quote 1), no need to as it's simply a serial encode process limited by CPU encode algorithm capability, so no, your RAM will not be filled as a read buffer and large volumes of data do not need to reside in RAM. An no, using a RAM disk won't do anything either as nothing is IO limited.

2) Yes, PD can keep all procs loaded during encoding as was shown in my chart with 90+% CPU load for 12 procs, the same is true for a 4proc CPU.

Jeff

As a CIO I guess I missed some if the internal workings. Farmed it off to my tech's. Tried to learn as much as I could.



I go back to the hollerith card.



Thanks for your input - I am enlightened.



Had a vacation home in Tucson, while we RV'd around the country. Sold it and our CA property then settled in here in Iowa. Still RV.



Thanks again,



Alan

Quote
As a CIO I guess I missed some if the internal workings. Farmed it off to my tech's. Tried to learn as much as I could.



I go back to the hollerith card.

Always more to learn, no one exempt. I've got plenty of racks of IBM cards from the days, some decks 1000's of cards still in correct order, however, they don't help me much with PD.

Just for completeness, attached is a similar graph as previous but with a 4 proc i7 CPU. Three back to back CPU encode runs of the same timeline with 3 output qualities. As you can see, each of the 4 procs well above 90% load and the total (red line) shows PD doing a pretty good job of effectively using the full CPU at hand for encoding with the common H.264 encoder in several quality settings.

Jeff

Quote

Quote
As a CIO I guess I missed some if the internal workings. Farmed it off to my tech's. Tried to learn as much as I could.



I go back to the hollerith card.

Always more to learn, no one exempt. I've got plenty of racks of IBM cards from the days, some decks 1000's of cards still in correct order, however, they don't help me much with PD.

Just for completeness, attached is a similar graph as previous but with a 4 proc i7 CPU. Three back to back CPU encode runs of the same timeline with 3 output qualities. As you can see, each of the 4 procs well above 90% load and the total (red line) shows PD doing a pretty good job of effectively using the full CPU at hand for encoding with the common H.264 encoder in several quality settings.

Jeff

Yeah - Don't even make Christmas wreaths out of the cards anymore. Can you imagine an 80/90 column card was our only input to very small programs which were read on board wired accounting machines - etc . . .



Thanks for all your help.



I am now a more knowledgable about some of the technology going on behind the scenes..



Alan