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
11
Replies
AdChoices