Skip to main content
PixelVideos
PixelVideos
Participating Frequently
July 31, 2017
Answered

AE vs AME rendering

  • July 31, 2017
  • 1 reply
  • 7937 views

Bit of a story...

I am attempting to render a 17 second HD animation from AE.  I set it up in AME first as a DNX file.  AME said it was going to take 5 hours.  I stopped that.  I tried an H.264 at 300mbps, not a true "master" file, but would do for the end project. AME said it was going to take 3.5 hours.  Neither file was taking advantage of my 980ti graphics card, just slamming my 5820k CPU at 100%.  While AME was trying to chunk along on the h.264, I decided to try to render a targa sequence out of AE.  The targa sequence started cranking and really started using my graphics card.  The sequence was done in under 15 minutes.  As I am writing this, I decided to let AME try rendering the targa sequence.  It cranked through the first maybe 15%, and I thought is was going to be done in record speed, and then it stalled.  AME now says it will take well over an hour.  Oh, and it still not using any of the GPU!  And, YES, "Mercury Playback Engine GPU Acceleration" is turned on in AME.

1. Has anyone rendered faster in AE than AME?

2. Why would AE use the GPU and not AME?

3. Am I missing some setup? An update somewhere?

Any thoughts or suggestions would be helpful.  Thank you.

Hank

CPU:  i7 5820k

GPU: GTX 980ti

RAM: 64GB

(Update: The render is still cranking in AME and is now at 1 hour 36 minutes and counting!)

This topic has been closed for replies.
Correct answer kulpreet singh

Hi PixelVideos,

1. Has anyone rendered faster in AE than AME?

My understanding is that the Render Engine of both of these applications is different. There may be a difference in the export timings.

Depending upon the project or export settings it can be faster in AME or sometimes in AE.

2. Why would AE use the GPU and not AME?

Encoding is a CPU centric process in Premiere Pro and Adobe Media Encoder. The GPU does accelerate certain items in the overall export process, but not the encoding itself.

The GPU will only accelerate the following in the export process: scaling, frame conversion, blending modes, deinterlacing, and color space conversion. The GPU will also accelerate the processing of GPU based video effects, including the Lumetri color effect.

I am sorry if you are under the false impression that the GPU accelerates encoding.

3. Am I missing some setup? An update somewhere?

I do not think so until you are running on the latest versions (check in the Creative Cloud desktop app).

Let me know if that helps or you have any other query.

Thanks,

Kulpreet Singh

1 reply

kulpreet singh
kulpreet singhCorrect answer
Inspiring
August 8, 2017

Hi PixelVideos,

1. Has anyone rendered faster in AE than AME?

My understanding is that the Render Engine of both of these applications is different. There may be a difference in the export timings.

Depending upon the project or export settings it can be faster in AME or sometimes in AE.

2. Why would AE use the GPU and not AME?

Encoding is a CPU centric process in Premiere Pro and Adobe Media Encoder. The GPU does accelerate certain items in the overall export process, but not the encoding itself.

The GPU will only accelerate the following in the export process: scaling, frame conversion, blending modes, deinterlacing, and color space conversion. The GPU will also accelerate the processing of GPU based video effects, including the Lumetri color effect.

I am sorry if you are under the false impression that the GPU accelerates encoding.

3. Am I missing some setup? An update somewhere?

I do not think so until you are running on the latest versions (check in the Creative Cloud desktop app).

Let me know if that helps or you have any other query.

Thanks,

Kulpreet Singh

Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices