Only using 5 out of 16gb RAM during intense video editing
Tags:
-
RAM
- Video Editing
-
Memory
Last response: in Memory
Luxio
September 14, 2014 11:05:28 AM
So, I've seen this kind of question a million times on here and scoured through many of them but didn't find an answer specific to my situation.
First off, I have the 64-bit version of Windows 7 so I know that's not affecting my ram.
I have an intel i5 2500k and 16gb of kingston blue 1600mhz memory.
I recently upgraded from 8gb to 16gb, expecting an increase in performance during my video editing, but I can't seem to see a difference. So I checked the ram usage and it turns out that even when I tax it with tons of effects and layers it only uses around 5gb... And meanwhile the actually video editing is stuttering and struggling to keep up. It seems like a huge waste that it caps itself off and doesn't use the rest of the ram to smooth out the video preview....
Am I missing something? Is my cpu the bottleneck?
By the way, I am using Sony Vegas Pro 11 for video editing. Thanks!
First off, I have the 64-bit version of Windows 7 so I know that's not affecting my ram.
I have an intel i5 2500k and 16gb of kingston blue 1600mhz memory.
I recently upgraded from 8gb to 16gb, expecting an increase in performance during my video editing, but I can't seem to see a difference. So I checked the ram usage and it turns out that even when I tax it with tons of effects and layers it only uses around 5gb... And meanwhile the actually video editing is stuttering and struggling to keep up. It seems like a huge waste that it caps itself off and doesn't use the rest of the ram to smooth out the video preview....
Am I missing something? Is my cpu the bottleneck?
By the way, I am using Sony Vegas Pro 11 for video editing. Thanks!
More about : 16gb ram intense video editing
-
Reply to Luxio
Related resources
- Only using 8 out of the 16gb of ram. - Tech Support
- Only 8 out of 16gb ram detected - Tech Support
- is 16GB of ram enough for video editing/gaming? - Tech Support
- 16gb ram installed, only 8gb being working, bios recognizes there are 4 sticks, but only using 2 - Tech Support
- 8GB vs 16GB RAM for gaming and Sony Vegas video editing? - Tech Support
I would double check to see what the amount of dynamic-ram preview memory you have set as Vegas will start to use that while going through its playback process.
is this still an option?
also you can use a gpu to accelerate the process for vids
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/Forums/ShowMessage....
is this still an option?
also you can use a gpu to accelerate the process for vids
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/Forums/ShowMessage....
-
Reply to fkr
m
0
l
Luxio
September 14, 2014 1:04:31 PM
fkr said:
I would double check to see what the amount of dynamic-ram preview memory you have set as Vegas will start to use that while going through its playback process.is this still an option?
also you can use a gpu to accelerate the process for vids
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/Forums/ShowMessage....
I have looked at the dynamic ram preview option, but I'm pretty sure it only affects the performance when you actually initiate a 'ram preview' which only pre-renders a few seconds of video that you can watch smoothly. I'm just talking about the general preview during editing.
As far as I can tell there are no other options in Vegas that have to do with memory. And the gpu acceleration usually does wonky things to Vegas..... I have a radeon 6950, though.
Quote:
It might not be all memory related, it could be your hard drive is simply too slow. What kind of drive are you using?Would the drive affecting the performance be the one that the software is on or the drive that the video clips are from?
Sony Vegas is installed on a Kingston SSD while the clips are from a Seagate 1tb 7200rpm drive.
But just to clarify, the smoothness of playback during editing is affected largely by memory is it not? Would an upgrade in the cpu make a big difference?
-
Reply to Luxio
m
0
l
kanewolf
September 14, 2014 1:10:10 PM
Luxio
September 14, 2014 1:16:49 PM
kanewolf said:
Are you using the 64 bit version of Sony Vegas Pro 11 ? Does it show up with a "*32" in the task manager, if so then it is only 32 bit software.Facepalm..... Yeah, looks like it is the 32 bit version... I guess that's what happens when you get software 'illegally' = false advertising... I'll have to get the 64 bit version and test it out then. I'll let you know if that fixed the problem.
-
Reply to Luxio
m
0
l
Skylyne
September 14, 2014 1:34:48 PM
Luxio said:
kanewolf said:
Are you using the 64 bit version of Sony Vegas Pro 11 ? Does it show up with a "*32" in the task manager, if so then it is only 32 bit software.Facepalm..... Yeah, looks like it is the 32 bit version... I guess that's what happens when you get software 'illegally' = false advertising... I'll have to get the 64 bit version and test it out then. I'll let you know if that fixed the problem.
I was just about to ask the same thing, kanewolf. I have a feeling a 64 bit version should fix your problem. If not, that would be interesting.
-
Reply to Skylyne
m
0
l
Luxio
September 14, 2014 2:55:36 PM
Well, I installed the 64 bit version of Sony Vegas Pro 13 and it still doesn't use more than 5gb..... All I have to do is reverse a 720p 120fps go pro clip at half preview resolution and it already stutters violently, while staying below 5 gigs.....
HOWEVER, it does allow me to ramp up the dynamic ram preview all the way up to the full 16 gigs now, whereas before it would only allow me to go to 1gb.... So in short, regular editing and playback is still the same, but now I can prerender longer segments of my project to watch smoothly... So not entirely fruitless, but I still feel like I'm wasting my ram because I hardly ever use the ram preview... I guess I will use it more often now, though.
Anymore thoughts or is this just the way it has to be?
HOWEVER, it does allow me to ramp up the dynamic ram preview all the way up to the full 16 gigs now, whereas before it would only allow me to go to 1gb.... So in short, regular editing and playback is still the same, but now I can prerender longer segments of my project to watch smoothly... So not entirely fruitless, but I still feel like I'm wasting my ram because I hardly ever use the ram preview... I guess I will use it more often now, though.
Anymore thoughts or is this just the way it has to be?
-
Reply to Luxio
m
0
l
Skylyne
September 14, 2014 3:34:07 PM
Luxio
September 14, 2014 5:05:31 PM
Skylyne
September 14, 2014 5:47:01 PM
Interesting... Come to think of it, I've had this similar issue with other applications; I don't use Vegas on my personal computer right now, as it's below par for hardware. I'm starting to wonder if there is some flaw in Win7 that can either be fixed, or if it's a Windows thing that some of us face.
I'll definitely keep an eye on this, and keep looking. I haven't found too much helpful info yet, but hoping there's some other tricks that can be recommended.
I'll definitely keep an eye on this, and keep looking. I haven't found too much helpful info yet, but hoping there's some other tricks that can be recommended.
-
Reply to Skylyne
m
0
l
i know this is for the newer version of the software but the recommended usage is only 8 gigs and only 16 gigs if you are recording in 4k
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegasprosuite/techs...
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegasprosuite/techs...
-
Reply to fkr
m
0
l
Luxio
September 14, 2014 6:33:04 PM
I just tested the same go pro clip except the source now is on the ssd and it was the exact same result.... It's probably not a very conclusive test, but it seems like the harddrive that the clips are on isn't what's keeping it from it's full potential.... but yeah I think it must be something in windows 7 itself...
-
Reply to Luxio
m
0
l
Luxio
September 14, 2014 6:57:35 PM
fkr said:
couldn't just be that the content that you are creating is just not dense enough to need 16 gigs of ram. how large are the files you are working with.try rendering in 4k and see if your usage goes up.
Well it's not the usage necessarily that I'm worried about.... I mean... It is, but I don't really care if the usage goes up when I'm doing 4k, and honestly I think it probably would by a little bit. But the fact is that when I'm editing it LOOKS like it needs 16 gigs...
Do you see what I'm saying? If I paid for more ram to get an increase in performance and nothing changed I would obviously not be happy. BUT if it showed that is was using the ram to its full potential I would just get over it and assume that something else needs to be upgraded to increase performance. However in this case, it's not even using the full potential of the ram when I can clearly see that it's struggling. That's the annoyance.
Maybe I'm just not understanding what you mean... I'm working with 1080p footage mostly. Is it normal for the program not to call out for more ram when it seems like it's hitting a wall?
-
Reply to Luxio
m
0
l
Skylyne
September 14, 2014 8:40:34 PM
fkr, this is what he's really having a problem with.
I do have a question, Luxio: if you go back to 8 GB, does the amount of RAM consumption change? I doubt that it will do anything different, but I just figured I should ask.
Mostly-useless-tinkering aside, I'm starting to think it's hardware bottlenecking. Since the GPU is mainly used for effects/extras that are added onto the video, and the CPU is programmed to handle everything else, I think you're seeing your computer bottleneck at the CPU. While your CPU isn't a poor performer, it could be what's preventing your performance from peaking by utilising more RAM. The reason your RAM isn't maxing out could be due to the CPU being unable to handle any more operations; therefore, the extra RAM doesn't do you any good. Basically, your CPU could be the weak link. I could be going out on a limb here, but I have nowhere else to go for ideas. If your CPU is loaded to ~99% during these operations, then I'm guessing your CPU is the core cause of your problems. Since you can push RAM usage up to 7 GB during multiple previews, I have a feeling that CPU bottlenecking is the really the culprit.
If this is the case, I'd recommend stepping up to the i7 series, or OC'ing if you haven't already done so. Since video editing is a fairly resource intensive process, this could be the real problem at hand. Adding more RAM doesn't always make things faster, contrary to popular belief. I've seen some people throw hundreds into RAM because they thought it would help; but, in reality, their processor just can't handle what's going on. For example, my dad's computer has a P4 in it, and he's thrown a couple extra gigs of RAM at it, but it's just as slow as it used to be... it's a matter of processing. RAM doesn't really speed anything up, it just helps the CPU do its work; hence, you can see the law of diminishing returns with slower processors much more quickly.
Hopefully that helps, and/or explains things. I don't know how much you know about computers, so I figured I'd try to go as basic as I could. It could also have all been in vain... but it's worth a shot!
Luxio said:
I recently upgraded from 8gb to 16gb, expecting an increase in performance during my video editing, but I can't seem to see a difference. So I checked the ram usage and it turns out that even when I tax it with tons of effects and layers it only uses around 5gb... And meanwhile the actually video editing is stuttering and struggling to keep up. It seems like a huge waste that it caps itself off and doesn't use the rest of the ram to smooth out the video preview...I do have a question, Luxio: if you go back to 8 GB, does the amount of RAM consumption change? I doubt that it will do anything different, but I just figured I should ask.
Mostly-useless-tinkering aside, I'm starting to think it's hardware bottlenecking. Since the GPU is mainly used for effects/extras that are added onto the video, and the CPU is programmed to handle everything else, I think you're seeing your computer bottleneck at the CPU. While your CPU isn't a poor performer, it could be what's preventing your performance from peaking by utilising more RAM. The reason your RAM isn't maxing out could be due to the CPU being unable to handle any more operations; therefore, the extra RAM doesn't do you any good. Basically, your CPU could be the weak link. I could be going out on a limb here, but I have nowhere else to go for ideas. If your CPU is loaded to ~99% during these operations, then I'm guessing your CPU is the core cause of your problems. Since you can push RAM usage up to 7 GB during multiple previews, I have a feeling that CPU bottlenecking is the really the culprit.
If this is the case, I'd recommend stepping up to the i7 series, or OC'ing if you haven't already done so. Since video editing is a fairly resource intensive process, this could be the real problem at hand. Adding more RAM doesn't always make things faster, contrary to popular belief. I've seen some people throw hundreds into RAM because they thought it would help; but, in reality, their processor just can't handle what's going on. For example, my dad's computer has a P4 in it, and he's thrown a couple extra gigs of RAM at it, but it's just as slow as it used to be... it's a matter of processing. RAM doesn't really speed anything up, it just helps the CPU do its work; hence, you can see the law of diminishing returns with slower processors much more quickly.
Hopefully that helps, and/or explains things. I don't know how much you know about computers, so I figured I'd try to go as basic as I could. It could also have all been in vain... but it's worth a shot!
-
Reply to Skylyne
m
0
l
i would believe that your assumption is correct in that there is another bottleneck (or the software is only capable of doing so much)
i do not think no matter what you were processing that you could get to 16 gigs of usage (except 4k since the files are so large). the files you are working with just do not need to buffer 16 gigs of info.
when you are running your software and you open task manager are you using 100% of your CPU? if so then of course that is your bottleneck. In this case I would get an i7 CPU since while it is still a quad core it does have hyper threading, which makes sure that all cores are fully utilized at all times. this is an expensive upgrade and just overclocking your i5 to 4.5- 4.8 should be very realistic (stock boost clock is 3.7). my i5 2500k will hit 5.0 but my hyper 212 just will not cool it so i settle for 4.8
the upgrade cost for overclocking is less than $40 and very much worth it
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
with this cooler you are more or less guaranteed to hit at least 4.4 core clock with little effort at all as long as you have a z68 motherboard or some form of a z class motherboard.
i would need to know your motherboard to see if you can get an i7 2700k or an i7 3770k
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...
not cheap but a used one can be had for less
you have already eliminated the hdd as being the culprit
the only other choice i know is to use a GPU to do the work for you. I bet even an old AMD card could push better results than just the CPU. you would have to do some research on the sony forums since they have a bunch of benchmarks there to tell rendering times for different cards.
i do not think no matter what you were processing that you could get to 16 gigs of usage (except 4k since the files are so large). the files you are working with just do not need to buffer 16 gigs of info.
when you are running your software and you open task manager are you using 100% of your CPU? if so then of course that is your bottleneck. In this case I would get an i7 CPU since while it is still a quad core it does have hyper threading, which makes sure that all cores are fully utilized at all times. this is an expensive upgrade and just overclocking your i5 to 4.5- 4.8 should be very realistic (stock boost clock is 3.7). my i5 2500k will hit 5.0 but my hyper 212 just will not cool it so i settle for 4.8
the upgrade cost for overclocking is less than $40 and very much worth it
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
with this cooler you are more or less guaranteed to hit at least 4.4 core clock with little effort at all as long as you have a z68 motherboard or some form of a z class motherboard.
i would need to know your motherboard to see if you can get an i7 2700k or an i7 3770k
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...
not cheap but a used one can be had for less
you have already eliminated the hdd as being the culprit
the only other choice i know is to use a GPU to do the work for you. I bet even an old AMD card could push better results than just the CPU. you would have to do some research on the sony forums since they have a bunch of benchmarks there to tell rendering times for different cards.
-
Reply to fkr
m
0
l
Skylyne
September 14, 2014 9:11:50 PM
fkr said:
the only other choice i know is to use a GPU to do the work for you. I bet even an old AMD card could push better results than just the CPU. you would have to do some research on the sony forums since they have a bunch of benchmarks there to tell rendering times for different cards.From what I can see, Vegas will let you switch the rendering to either CPU/GPU or both; however, depending on what is actually causing the computer to bottleneck, forcing the rendering through the GPU may not solve your problem. Since my current computer is having issues with Vegas (Comodo doesn't like my copy) I can only recommend searching YouTube for tips on switching over to GPU rendering. The only real problem with this is I have only read about/seen settings that switch the final rendering process to the GPU; so all work before the final rendering doesn't appear to be transferable to the GPU. If anyone can find a setting for that, I'm sure a lot of people will thank you. CPU bottlenecking/inability to utilise the GPU outside of rendering seems to be a common problem for all Vegas users, from my research.
In all honesty, the more I research the program, the less I want to return to it.
-
Reply to Skylyne
m
0
l
Luxio
September 14, 2014 9:34:10 PM
Cpu usage stays below 50% only sometimes going to 70%..... But anyway, I already have the hyper 212 plus and I have overclocked my i5, but stuff started going wrong when I went to 4ghz or above. I'm still not entirely sure what the problem was but when I put it down to 3.8ghz everything was fine. I may revisit overclocking the cpu in the future, though.
But even though the cpu isn't being utilized completely, could it still be limiting the ram usage somehow?
Anyway, I'm starting to think that there's nothing I can do for now.... Whenever I'm ready to upgrade, I'll see if there's a difference.
But even though the cpu isn't being utilized completely, could it still be limiting the ram usage somehow?
Anyway, I'm starting to think that there's nothing I can do for now.... Whenever I'm ready to upgrade, I'll see if there's a difference.
-
Reply to Luxio
m
0
l
Luxio
September 14, 2014 9:50:17 PM
fkr said:
if you look at your CPU usage are you using all four cores completely or is just one or two of them maxed out.I'll have to check. Right now I'm rendering a project and it is using all 4 cores at around 90%.
EDIT: Actually, I am starting to think that it is a cpu bottleneck. I didn't catch it before but I noticed now that it does in fact spike up to 90 plus percent right at the moments when it lags. It is very quick, but it is consistent....
-
Reply to Luxio
m
0
l
Skylyne
September 15, 2014 12:02:37 AM
Related resources
- I have 16GB RAM, Only half being used. solution
- Windows 7 system only recognizing 16GB out of 32GB newly installed RAM solution
- PC only showing 2.99gb RAM out of 16gb after fresh Windows Vista install. Forum
- Solved12 gb RAM installed, 11.5 usable, but still uses only around 2 gb solution
- Core i5 , 16GB ram 1 TB harddisk can use 450 wat smps we doesnot run any graphics utility solution
- FS: Parting Out A Complete Gaming Rig (I-5-2500K, Asus Z68, GTX560 2GB, 16GB RAM, HX750W) Forum
- 16GB of ram, only 3.5 showing up Forum
- SolvedAsus M5A78L-M LX Plus only using half of the ram installed. solution
- SolvedIs Asus Vivobook 6GB ram and i5 processor sufficient for video editing / photoshop? solution
- RAM usage at 7.5GB, processes only using about 2GB on windows 8.0 solution
- unstable ram problem? only using 2.22gb out of 8gb? solution
- Windows only using 8gb of ram out of 12gb solution
- I need to upgrade my Motherboard and CPU only. I want to use my existing case, RAM, video card and HD. Im looking at purchas solution
- Why my Lenovo T410 with 32bit Windows 7 uses only 2.92 gb RAM out of 6.00 gb? solution
- Help! Ram only using 256mb out of 4gb! Forum
- More resources
Read discussions in other Memory categories
!