Adobe Premiere Pro Performance issues with .mogrt

A mis-statement on your part needs clearing up. That Xeon is a 6 core, not an 11 core. Like most 6 core CPUs, it has 12 threads.

The reality ... as Ann noted ... is that Premiere doesn't use the GPU for basic computing including most graphics. Your CPU's 6 cores are pretty fast, so if they're spending that much time processing that particular mogrt, it's a pretty complex mogrt (and I hope not a poorly "built" mogrt). Most mogrts process much faster. I see it does use some particle work which is pretty hardware intensive.

As to your GPUs, the P2000's are not a particularly powerful card. Looking online, for many things they benchmark similar to my GTX1060. For some things, the 1060 is actually benchmarking a bit better. In video use, the Quadro cards aren't for most purposes a better option, merely a more expensive one. I know a lot of colorist with multiple GPUs, some with 4-8! But those tend to be say RTX2080, things like that. Not that many colorist go for the Quadro cards anymore. Back in the Nvidia500/600 era, Quadro cards had some useful advantages. But by the time of the 1000 series cards, not nearly so much for video post.

And very honestly, that many GPUs would be wasted on Premiere, which isn't to say I have any preference for the way Premiere is coded. It's just reality.

And that's what "we" are talking here, not preferences, not "I wish" or "it should be", just what it is. As users we can't do anything else, but of course put in UserVoice requests for changes. I've got quite a few of my own filed, and have "upvoted" many others. And while many of my feature requests haven't been acted on, some have. Well ... I wish more were, naturally.

You have a 6 core rig with 32GB of RAM, and twin GPUs, either of which would probably do as well as both of them. Doubling up the GPU in Premiere is only useful IF you're doing something that is incredibly GPU intensive in the way the engineers coded the application. When any application is coded, whether Resolve, Avid, Premiere, whatever ... choices are made as to how to run the code through the hardware based on the expectations of the typical needs of the users. As an app built primarily for editing ... for cutting clips together and adding effects ... Premiere was built around the CPU.

Resolve was primarily built as a colorist's tool, with the expectation that rendering and exporting up to multi-K files with MASSIVE color correction effects done would be a primary function. That's a very different expectation, and Resolve was coded appropriately. So it does use the GPU more in some manners than Premiere. I use both, and while it can at times use more GPU, it doesn't use my CPU as effectively as Premiere.

I work with a lot of folks who's primary app is Resolve, and they're always working around the app to get best performance. In the exact same way (but with different tools) that those of us using Premiere work to match hardware and techniques/workflows to the app for best processing through our work.

And when  getting a computer to use for work in any of these complex video post processing apps, it's up to the user to figure out from the app they're going to be primarily using what hardware is most advantageous for their needs. Doesn't make any difference which app ... the process is the same. However, because all the apps are coded differently, the best hardware solutions will be VERY different based on the app chosen as the primary tool.

And that's all that these apps and the hardware we run them are is ... tools. Fancy hammers. Different types of fancy hammers. Just like anyone in construction choosed a hammer for the job to hand, we need to choose hardware and software accordingly.

Tools. Neither more nor less professional than each other, just built differently for different uses.

Neil

I hear your frustration, but we can't give you a correct answer as you define it. And I have no argument that this illustrates some of the weaknesses in PR. Here is an older thread re the P2000 that makes some of the same points made in the current thread: the GPU is only used in PR for some things and not others. Without regard to that, I agree that 10 minutes for a few seconds preview seems wrong.

https://community.adobe.com/t5/Premiere-Pro/Premiere-cc-2018-and-NVIDIA-Quadro-P2000/m-p/9859196#M150889

We can fix this and make it faster !

It reminds me of an old fellow who was complaining that his Viagra wasn't working fast enough, so I suggested he try using his left hand instead. Or you could call someone like who builds computers for editing and order one that works.

🙂

Ann is trying to help you understand how the program works. Which of course is a must to know before you can figure out how to get faster work from it.

This program is built around the CPU, and uses other resources such as the GPU as the CPU gets to parts of the job that will utilize the other resources.

The parts that use the GPU within Premiere are on the GPU Accelerated Effects List ... such things as Warp Stabilizer, Lumetri and other color work, and notable resizing of frame-sizes. IF there are those things on a sequence, the GPU will be used as the CPU gets to the parts it needs from the GPU.

When you have a sequence heavy with GPU effects, and enough RAM for your CPU and through-put for media in/out, the GPU can be pegged. Your example shows great CPU work, and if you had GPU Accelerated Effects, then it would probably run the GPU pretty good too.

We users can't force the application to do things it is not coded to do, that's just Life.

Neil

Instead on babbling about incorrect answer etc.

You need to read the doc which is very helplful for you to understand how things work.

Rendering graphics is done on the cpu.

Might want read this old still valid doc on how cuda works:

CUDA, OpenCL, Mercury Playback Engine, and Adobe Premiere Pro | Adobe Blog