Quote


Its ok but the 8700k isn't like gold when it comes to rendering.. Although I strive for the best etc..

Thanks again for the reply...
I read that quicksynk from 8700k is better for rendering than Hardware Acceleration of 1070 in powerdirector... use it can get you extra speed for rendering...
(you just need to plug in a HDMI cable at the motherboard output and connect it to any monitor/tv input (and enable on windows desktop manager)... I can use quicksync + r290x and i get awesome rendering speeds... my only complain is with timeline lag on some projects...

It seems that problem is getting bigger and bigger every month. I am using 1800X with GTX1060 and encouraged exactly the same problem as lorentedford. 8C/16T of my CPU is poorly utilized. It’s over a year when AMD introduced breakthrough in price to core ratio, for normal customers anyway
I was waiting for a proper update from Cyberlink that will fix situation but after a year of waiting… Well, not much happened.

I'm digging out this issue as my friend just pre-ordered Threadripper 2990WX for his editing rig. How PDR will behave on 64 threads, 5% CPU utilization? Time will show...
If Cyberlink wants to stay in a game needs to keep up.

I just posted on this in a different thread, same issue for the most part. I'm reading up because I'm about to buy a Ryzen 7 2700X.

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 someone buys a CPU like that in the first place. Even worse for a Threadripper 1950X, it really makes no sense to have 16 cores only to have software that doesn't make effective use of any more than 6 cores, with the CPU just sitting there idle. This is what poorly written software looks like.

Quite honestly, I think it's pretty clear that the Ryzen and Threadripper CPUs have 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 their pants down.

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. Forexample:

-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 - which is exactly where I'd leave mine set for video processing)

Any programmer knows that this is a very simple feature to incorporate into any software product's loop structures. So easily written and so obviously absent from most all software products. The user should have MUCH more control over the performance of the software/applications, not just the hardware. I personally think software performance should be left up to the user, not forced by the vendor.

Hi! Does anyone have any update regarding this issue? I am wondering if PDR 17 solved this. If so, it's a good reason to upgrade. If CPUs with many cores are still poorly optimized I don't see any point to pay again.

I found the same problem in PowerDirector 17 and I can confirm that hardware acceleration tends to make video producing even slower than pure CPU workloads, even for videos rich in effects/enhancements:

https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/0/79472.page#326617 My current video-editing workstation spec. (10 June 2019):

* CPUs: 96 Intel Xeon P-8175M (3.1 GHz turbo)
* GPU: 8 NVIDIA Tesla M60 - driver v25.21.14.2531
* RAM: 512GB
* SSDs: 256GB 500MB/s (C - OS), 512GB 500MB/s (D - Data)
* OS: Windows Server 2019 (Datacentre Edition) v10.0.17763
* PowerDirector v17.3.2721.0 (365)