Sony vegas only using 400mbs of my 16GBs of ram for rendering!

CalebKittFTW

Reputable
Sep 20, 2015
56
0
4,630
These are the specs of my pc http://pcpartpicker.com/p/YnJT23 I have 16GBs of ram and an
i7-4790K. It's taking 40mins to render a 4min video at 1080p 60fps. That does not sound right does it?! When I go to task manager it says 80-90% of my CPU is being used and only 400mbs of ram (here is a screenshot http://i.imgur.com/DaQU5qB.png ). Is there some way I can increase the ram usage in sony vegas? (im using sony vegas pro 13 (64-bit)
 
Solution
If you aren't noticing any quality difference, it's fine to lower bit rate. I think that's still a little high but a good improvement. The video you linked to is just maxing out bit rate and quality only gets better to a certain point then it's just unnoticeable. I assume you changed audio, usually that's 192kbps, but I was talking about video bit rate too.

I didn't think his hdd setup was an issue with the cpu usage being high and although hdd usage was low, I tend to not like how windows calculates it.

CalebKittFTW

Reputable
Sep 20, 2015
56
0
4,630


Wouldn't it use as much as it can though? I don't think I have any other performance issues... Not sure on that 3.5 but I have a bit of background tasks running such as Dxtory, Steam, and also chrome but I wouldn't think that all of those would use that much. Usually I wouldn't care but on an older PC of mine I remember being an option to change the about of ram that SV has access to but google has not helped.
 

CalebKittFTW

Reputable
Sep 20, 2015
56
0
4,630


Am I just getting upset over nothing?... Maybe i'm just expecting more than this PC can do or SV for that matter...
 

gotovato

Reputable
Nov 15, 2014
438
0
4,860
Are you rendering to the same hard drive that your source footage is on? 40 minutes to render 4 minutes of video is long. it does look like you're adding some color work or effects overtop of your video which will for sure add to render times but im not sure if it should be that long. I typically render in real time even if I add some effects, titles, transitions, things like that with my setup(in my signature) and my CPU usage really doesn't exceed 40-60% while rendering(probably a HDD bottleneck in my system) but I do my work in adobe premiere pro so not really a direct comparison plus the cpu difference.
 

CalebKittFTW

Reputable
Sep 20, 2015
56
0
4,630


[strike]I lowered it to 160,000 now it's only using 76% of my CPU and its taking 23mins. Is 160,000 still good quality audio?
[/strike] I just did some testing and I put it back up to 320,000 bitrate and tryed to render it and now its only taking 23mins and 80% of my CPU.... So something worked. Is 23mins and 80% normal?
 

CalebKittFTW

Reputable
Sep 20, 2015
56
0
4,630


Yes all to my WD Blue. Nope no effects just a simple video with audio. k1114 said to lower the bitrate so I lowered it to 160,000 from my original 320,000 and its taking only 23mins and only using 78% of my CPU.
 

gotovato

Reputable
Nov 15, 2014
438
0
4,860
That's the audio bitrate you lowered correct?
Also you should if possible render from one drive(holding source files) to another drive. Rendering to and from the same drive is a bottleneck for sure. 23minutes is better but I'm not sure if that's normal either.
 
If you aren't noticing any quality difference, it's fine to lower bit rate. I think that's still a little high but a good improvement. The video you linked to is just maxing out bit rate and quality only gets better to a certain point then it's just unnoticeable. I assume you changed audio, usually that's 192kbps, but I was talking about video bit rate too.

I didn't think his hdd setup was an issue with the cpu usage being high and although hdd usage was low, I tend to not like how windows calculates it.
 
Solution