Why CPU Load Goes 100%

November 30, 2015 at 13:12:40
Specs: Windows XP
Hello,

I create videos and facing a strange issue. My system usually runs pretty much smoothly except when I render/export video.

The resources are pretty enough than the recommended system resources by video software (which I use)

Software company recommends:
OS: Windows XP
1GHz+ processor or better
2GB system memory
Accelerated 3D graphics – 64MB ram
DirectX 8.0 or better


Whereas my computer has below resources:
OS: Windows XP Professional, Service Pack 3 (5.1.2600)
Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 @ 2.20GHz
2GB Ram
Graphics Memory: 128 MB
DirectX 9
Intel 82945G Express chipset family (in-built graphic card)
PSU: 400W

My computer runs pretty smoothly with all applications but as soon as I click a button to render a video (to export in either mp4 or avi or any format) the CPU load goes to 100% until I stop the process.

The same thing happens no matter which video creation software I use. When I open the software, arrange media till that time everything remains normal but as soon as I try to create (export) a video the CPU load goes to 100%

For your convenience Here is my complete system information:

Hardware Info Detail: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2lts8g7yi...
Graphic-Summary: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ghbuyne4m...


Could you please tell me how to fix this issue?

Thanks


See More: Why CPU Load Goes 100%

Report •


#1
November 30, 2015 at 15:22:42
Not something I've had much to do with personally but if you let the process continue (despite the 100%) does it then fail? If not then maybe it is good and proper that it is making full use of the CPU to get the job done. It might drop back on that particular process if something else starts.

[Welcome to the forum by the way - I saw your name there in "the lounge"]

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks

message edited by Derek


Report •

#2
November 30, 2015 at 15:27:52
No it' doesn't fail.
It finishes the task successfully but I guess if the load is 100% then might burst the CPU someday and overall it doesn't seem like good for CPU life, if I run it at 100% for 30-45 mins isn't?

Report •

#3
November 30, 2015 at 15:51:58
From what I can make of it this activity is usually CPU intensive. Provided there is no overheating then I think it fits the category of "the CPU is there to be used". Sure it might have some marginal effect on CPU lifetime but that logic could be applied to any device. I think it is just using what it needs to get the job done but by all means stick around to see what others think.

If you want to check your CPU temperature when it is running, this freebie will do it:
http://www.hwinfo.com/download.php
You can use the 32/64 bit version as that will run on either.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
November 30, 2015 at 16:03:34
I think your expectations are too high for such an old system. It's at least 8 years old but the chipset the motherboard is based on is almost 10 years old.

"Could you please tell me how to fix this issue?"

Buy a more modern system.


Report •

#5
November 30, 2015 at 16:32:14
Response #4 fits in with my thoughts. Your computer is getting the job done and using the resources it has to hand. If it used less then the job would take longer. If you want spare CPU power (for some reason or another) then you need a more modern system. Even then it is right that the full CPU power is used rather than just being wasted. It's just that the job would complete more quickly.

As an aside, the same sort of argument applies to RAM. It is there to be used. More modern computer management systems are better at distributing CPU and RAM usage between processes.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks

message edited by Derek


Report •

#6
November 30, 2015 at 19:47:11
For your system, the work you are making it do, it is doing its best.
A faster CPU with more cores and a distinct graphics card would complete the process faster but would still probably fully load the resources to get the job done.
As mentioned, as long as the temperatures are manageable then then everything is fine.
I would recommend a newer more modern system also which would have system resources to spare if you wanted to get done faster and do other things at the same time. Go for a Quad processor, 8GB to 16GB RAM (64bit system), distinct graphics card with 2GB graphics RAM (GDDR5), and a more modern operating system.
For now though, there is nothing wrong with the CPU being 100% loaded when working, as long as it rolls way back when at idle.

You have to be a little bit crazy to keep you from going insane.


Report •

#7
November 30, 2015 at 21:38:06
That's normal video encoder behavior. You could have a quad core CPU running at 3.2GHz and it would still run at 100% if the encoder can spawn 4 threads (and most can; for example the x264 encoder will use all 12 threads of an i7-E processor)

"I guess if the load is 100% then might burst the CPU someday and overall it doesn't seem like good for CPU life, if I run it at 100% for 30-45 mins isn't?"

Nah. CPUs are built to take that kind of abuse and more. 3D graphics nerds sometimes run their computers full tilt for days to finish a complex scene. :-)

mATX LGA2011 | i7-4930k @ 4.3GHz | 32GB DDR3-2133 | GTX 970 | Rampage IV Gene
512GB/4TB/BDXL | Win 10 Pro


Report •

#8
December 15, 2015 at 15:07:06
Agreed with all above - this is normal behavior.

Sometime you can set execution caps in the encoder to reduce the CPU load, but this also increases the time needed to finish the render.

2GB of RAM is also pretty minimal for basic use nowadays. While you can still make it work on XP, if you have the capability and the desire to upgrade, go to 4GB. I would recommend it.

~oldie
Not everyone can decipher Klingon script...
chay' ta' SoH tlhe' vam Doch Daq


Report •

Ask Question