Adobe why Premiere use onlu iGPU!?

This is often a result of the BIOS, and is likely not Premiere's fault. 

If you can't get it to use the discrete GPU by updating BIOS and changing settings, just disable the iGPU and move on. 

QuickSync decoding isn't that helpful anyway and the encoding looks meh. 

Furthermore, I highly suspect that Adobe will begin supporting Nvenc and Nvdec soon enough. 

Ah, got a couple discretely different topics there.

First ... yea, the CPU is the heart of any computer. You want the most CPU you can afford, with plenty of in/out for drives and a mobo with well-laid-out lanes on it for any additional items you add like GPUs. It will always ... in any application ... be the heart of the processing. And in all applications, it will use a GPU as an assistant ... when it chooses or needs to. But really, everything in a computer is an assistant for the CPU.

How many things the GPU is encoded for working with within any application is always a wondrous rabbit hole to dive into. There's been some massive arguments among AfterEffects users I know over whether X, Y, and Z should be added to that app's GPU acceleration items ... as they think that doing so would actually slow down their use of different things on that app. And ... they have a point, after you understand all the technical details involved. (I can follow these discussions and actually recall the main points for a few hours. Past that ... it's dense mush.)

Second, as to "hardware encoding" ... that's Intel-speak for a specific process on their CPUs ... or rather, on some of their CPUs ... for specifically encoding H.264 codecs. If you think about it, H.264 was created when they built specialized chips for the camera bodies to encode H.264 files. So ... Intel has designed the same type of operation for using in computers.

And like on the cameras, the H.264 encoding chip is a separate item from the rest of the CPU, designed only for doing H.264 encoding.

So 'hardware encoding' by its very nature is a specialized process in specialized purpose-built chips designed to encode H.264 only ... just like in a camera. It doesn't have anything to do with GPU use by Premiere.

Premiere will call on that GPU of yours ... when there's an effect that is GPU-Accelerated in Premiere ... and as the CPU gets to the part it wants the GPU to perform. Including, yes ... if you have any Mercury Acceleration option set in your Project settings dialog (other than software only) ... Premiere will use the GPU for Warp Stabilizer as that is a rather heavy use of frame-resizing. Which within Premiere is a GPU thing.

Neil

Thanks, Jason ... that was a very useful bit of information to add in!

A lot of users also seem to mis-apprehend the difference between encoding and displaying video data.

Encoding is taking a set of instructions from an NLE like Premiere and computing the file data to display that set of instructions as simple matrix sets of RGB pixel values. It uses very specifically structured mathematical processes.

Displaying video media means taking the video data from a file ... and turning that into viewable pixels on X screen at so many frames per second. This is a very different mathematical process.

Encoding is something that CPUs do very well, it's within their normal mathematical design.

Displaying video media is what GPUs are designed for. Computing what to send to a screen depending on any file data and (with NLEs) any additional instruction sets that are to be applied. And remember, GPUs are far more specialized than CPUs. GPUs are designed for a relatively small area of computer mathematical computations.

Some parts of the GPUs typical use can be applied and used during encoding. But due to the nature of the design, no GPU is ever a substitute for a CPU.

And ... if you throw in the Intel "QuickSync" hardware and naming conventions, yea, it's even murkier. Which is where Jason's comments help so much. QuickSync ... an Intel-only, CPU-only process, is also only available with H.264 encoding processes. And that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Neil

Why does Premiere use hardware acceleration with Intel iGPU hardware when encoding rather than offering the same option with CUDA hardware? That is the key question.

That was why I wrote the post I did. Which actually directly answers this question and in some detail. So I'll try again.

In short ... many users conflate CPU and GPU operations, which is completely incorrect. Different mathematical processes and "architecture" are involved.

Second, many users don't understand the basic CPU use of onboard or iGPU chip as essentially a part of the CPU. For that use, the GPU wouldn't be involved anyway.

Finally, engineers make choices how to best utilize the wide array of gear out there while also minimizing and streamlining code for both best operation across gear and stability. All engineering teams will make different choices.

If you have effects from the GPU accelerated list such as Warp Stabilizer or Lumetri color, your GPU may well get pegged doing those things ... many Premiere projects will include one or more of the GPU effects and therefore will fully utilize both CPU and GPU simultaneously.

Basic encoding is actually more suited for CPU math. As noted, wiring everything to use both equally would be complex and ... perhaps not the best use of engineering time across the needs of all users.

Neil

CPU and GPU math and programming are completely different beasts. That's the first part of the issue. They're not a straight-across swap of code or effort.

Second ... CPUs have cores and threads, built differently than GPUs. It's complicated enough to rethread code for many complicated equations across multiple cores ... that's a job right there. And one they're working on, trying to recode this so things work without breaking using say 16 cores simultaneously.

Third ... some things are rather ungainly when done in GPU math, some things when done in CPU math, so both items have different best uses. And yes, this means some things are slower processed by one type of processor than by the other.

When you take those three givens, and start designing programs to run across all sorts of unknown gear ... one has to make selections and choices. How much of the code are you going to completely re-build depending on whether or not the user has X GPU or ... not?

Designing any app so that all steps of all process go across the CPU no matter how many cores to thread ... and then add a decision-tree for GPU use for every possible user action or effect used, based on some sort of internal decision process ... adds immense complexity to the "base" application code.

This is not even talking about the fact that iGPUs and discrete GPUs aren't even equivalent ... at all. Why?

iGPUs, built into either the CPU or as a hardware item on the motherboard ... are by design used for all sorts of things by the CPU. For many CPUs, the iGPU is seen by the people designing it as simply an extension of the CPU capabilities. So the iGPU is going to be doing things at times that that particular CPU would never send to a discrete GPU.

So the iGPU/GPU discussion is limited by the nature of the differences inherent in computer design.

As a user, I use a ton of Lumetri, and some other effects. I teach pro colorists how to work color correction/grading in Premiere. Do I want more stuff put onto the GPU Accelerated Effects list?

Of course! Like, duh!

Would I suggest they take the massive time to put everything on the GPU potentially? Oh ... what a waste of resources. It wouldn't help nearly as much as 1) fixing a bunch of stuff along with 2) adding a few more things to the GPU accelerated list.

Neil

You have the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080, correct?

It is supported.

https://helpx.adobe.com/premiere-pro/system-requirements.html#gpu-acceleration

Is your request that 100% of Premiere Pro be GPU accelerated?