I have an Intel i9-9900K with 32GB RAM, which comes with Intel UHD Graphics 630.
I also have an NVidia Geforce GTX 1070, which appears unsupported according to this:
Therefore (annoyingly) the only option I have in preferences is onboard Intel graphics for acceleration.
So here is a question, would it be better to turn off Intel graphics acceleration (normally it's on) and put the load onto the CPU which is pretty powerful, and could I benchmark a comparison out of this somehow? Task manager doesn't tell me much to be honest.
Premiere Elements doesn't use your graphics card to process or output your video, Alex. The program is pretty much processor dependent.
So whats the graphics acceleration setting for? (Which I can set to my internal Intel graphics card)
I tried to figure it out once. What I think is that a couple chip set generations back Intel put some graphics circuits in their CPUs. It had an Intel brand name but I forget what it is. There are still references to Intel Graphics processing that may be related. Although there is a setting to turn it on and off in Premiere Elements, it didn't get much traction in the computer world. When there is a GPU (like NVidia), the graphics circuits on the Intel chip are ignored by the computer. Therefore, I don't think the selection in Premiere Elements does anything when you have a GPU. Turning it on or off in my computer seems to do nothing. I think that's because I have a NVidia GPU.
The Premiere Elements instruction book says it this way: "Hardware acceleration: You can enable hardware acceleration for rendering, playback, and export on computers that have Intel HD Graphics 2000 and newer."
The Intel iGPU is used when you turn on the hardware acceleration button, even if you have a discrete graphics card, in my case a gtx 1660ti, the Intel HD graphics use quicksync to speed up the rendering time by around 5% to 15%, though depending on the workload it may not even go above 20% usage on the iGPU. Maybe someday Adobe will add cuda acceleration to premiere elements but so far nothing.
Here are some speed differences from cpu only to cpu and iGPU.
Using a 45min 1080p video 5mbps bitrate with 192kbps audio-
With HW acceleration from iGPU: 20:04 (m:s)
CPU Only: 22:37 (m:s)
Thats about a 10% performance boost.
Check my reply to whsprague
I wrote a reply earlier ecplaining iGpus and quicksync and among other things but it got reported as spam for some odd reason. Anyway here is a benchmark of a 45min 1080p video with 5mbps bitrate and 192kbps audio from premiere elements. My CPU us core i5 9300h 4:8, and the iGPU is UHD 630, I have a gtx 1660 ti that isnt used by premierer though.
With iGPU HW acceleration- 20:04 (m:s)
CPU only- 22:37 (m:s)
I'm looking into Davinci Resolve now which is free. From what I've seen and used it's way better, by miles. The only thing Adobe wins right now in comparison it seems is the marketing and it being more established. Not for long maybe.
Resolve is good for color grading and it has some nice editing and transition tools, but it sucks at rendering. I tried it last week on a GPU-equipped (RTX 2600 Super with 8 GB VRAM) Windows box with a 12 core AMD CPU. It does use the GPU if you have the right options set for exporting, but the video file is super pixellated when its made on any Windows machine. Their forums are full of complaints about H264 support. It doesn't pixellate if you run it on a Mac, but mine don't have GPUs. So 5 minutes to render an hour long H264 video with GPU on Windows or an hour and 15 minutes on my iMac.
Premiere Pro is the export champ, especially when the output file has the same res as the input file and it can use its previews: 2:30 for the hour long video. My test file exports in about 15 minutes on Elements, so you kinda get what you pay for.
I was hoping Elements could do fast rendering because it's so much easier to use than Pro and way, way cheaper. But alas, buyers need to be motivated to shell out the big bucks.