This is my current computer.
Model Identifier: iMac18,3
Processor Name: Quad-Core Intel Core i7
Processor Speed: 4.2 GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Total Number of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB
L3 Cache: 8 MB
Hyper-Threading Technology: Enabled
Memory: 32 GB
System Firmware Version: 4126.96.36.199.0
OS Loader Version: 540.120.3~6
With each new upgrade of Premiere Pro my computer gets slower in rendering and playing the content. It is as if my computer isn't powerful enough to run this software which doesn't seem likely. I'm not using and 4 K video either. I read something about proxy versions and lowering the resolution on the screen to help but I'm not sure if that is enough for this problem. I understand there is a way to run app software off the cloud so I don't have to rely on my computer's capacity. Does Adobe offer this service? What is it called?
[Moderator moved from Using the Community (forums) to Premier Pro.]
A 4-core CPU is a pretty low-powered rig, realistically. And yes, with each major version, Premiere needs a bit more computer power. It has always been so. And that isn't going to change.
It's a pain that every so often one needs to upgrade the rig you work on. But I've used computers to work with since the late '80's, and that's always been the case. If I make five years with a desktop, it's done very well. But then, it had to start as a pretty decently specced rig to make five years.
What kind of processor would bring me into levels of needed by the newest version of Premiere Pro? Could I add processing power to this computer? Do you know of a way to run the Premiere Pro software off a cloud server?
Unfortunately, you cannot upgrade the CPU at all because your iMac is completely maxed out in that department. Newer, more powerful CPUs with more cores and threads are completely incompatible with your iMac, and there is no way whatsoever to access the motherboard on which the CPU sits on. Therefore, the only CPU upgrade is a completely new machine.
And there is absolutely no way at all whatsoever to run Adobe program files from a cloud server because internet connections are not only far slower than even the slowest HDD, but also very inconsistent as well (throughput can drop all the way down to less than a few hundred kilobytes per second!).
Thanks for clarifying why using the cloud would not work for video editing. What is the level of CPU power works for the current versions of premiere pro?
A CPU with at least 8 cores and 16 threads. And again, this will require an entirely new computer system because your system's maximum CPU support is a 7th-Gen i7 with only 4 cores and 8 threads.
And do not cheap out on a brand-new system, for that matter: The i7 of 2017 is only about as powerful as a recent i3 in terms of processing power and Premiere Pro performance.
The Windows PCs are having serious performance issues as well. In the past we could recommend people drop the playback resolution to 1/2 or even 1/4 resolution. For some reason Premiere Pro's CPU and GPU usage does not scale accordingly.
You could test your Mac system using iStats and see if it does the same thing as my Windows PC. I also agree with you that the Mercury playback Engine is getting worse and worse. They need to give us a new playback engine.
This has been my experience. I make simple videos with few special effects and layers and my previously top of the line computer fans start running when very simple things need processing. With this latest upgrade everything is slower and more belabored. I don't have your technical knowledge but I know that it is harder to work with PR Pro now than before the recent upgrades because of processing issues. I didn't know about high Res playback so I mostly view my program monitor at 1/4 res w/o HQP. What happens is simple things do not work like the space bar doesn't start/start the timeline or the zoom up/down doesn't work. Does ADOBE respond to these obvious issues once they are exposed? I am faced with needing to upgrade a computer that is works fine otherwise to be able to continue doing the work with non-profits and musicians. My work is volunatry so I can't pass the cost onto a client. I don't want to buy a new computer if an upgrade is coming that will fix these issues.
Working with complex and complicated apps like NLEs is to me always a bit frustrating. As to run best, hardware can make a huge difference.
But it can be a costly thing. I'm on my 3rd "new" desktop for editing use in 7 years. 24 core Ryzen, 128GB of RAM, a 2080Ti, and 8 internal SSDs, with both the main OS and the cache drives being Nvme.
Not cheap to me, but for my colorist friends, that's really super cheap. Most have more than $15,000 for their "base" computer before adding in monitors, control surfaces, RAID arrays, with the cost going outta sight.
So ... you have to know these apps are mainly coded assuming a fair amount of hardware capabilities. Figuring out how to work with more limited kit is a specialty all its own.
At times this means staying with an earlier build series, as newer versions will always migrate to higher gear needs.
At times it is transcoding media from H.264 or XAVC into ProRes or Cineform for editing. You can always dump these larger files when the job is done, as you can recreate them if needed later.
Doing render & replace after applying effects that slow your rig is another useful tactic.
And sending jobs like transcoding to Media Encoder's queue for processing while you sleep. So the process doesn't slow down your working.
Back in 2010 the Mercury Playback Engine eliminated the need to transcode. Now in the year 2022 we need to transcode?
In the year 2022 Premiere Pro is really buggy. Even Pro Res is not playing back well for many people.
"Back on 2010 the Mercury Playback Engine eliminated the need to transcode."
I don't really know what universe you live in, Andy. Transcoding has continued to be a normal part of many pro workflows. The entire time I've been involved heavily in video post, there's been transcoding involved depending on format/codec, hardware, software needs, delivery needs, and just simple "most practical way to get it done" stuff.
It's always been a salvation for keeping lesser kit working, and there's always been some formats that on most gear or particular software don't or can't work well. Most colorists I know, for example, have typically t-coded most any H.264 in projects they're working simply because it worked a heck of a lot better while grading.
In Resolve, on Macs mainly. But on PCs too.
It's a major tool for many purposes.
With all sorts of the pro software, various parts of the post processing process from editing through color through vfx ...
So I look at your statement and wonder what the hay. Truly.
In the end, I'm a practical guy. What works now, works. We can whine (and yes, I do that at times myself) and then it's time to simply get the work done.
My biggest gripe with PrPro at the moment is the inconsistency between users with similar gear. Very difficult to nail down why one user's flying and another gettting crap on the same gear and formats.