Premiere Pro 13.1 and Beyond and the the CPU vs. GPU Balance

[DMH79]

Hi!

I noticed in the recent release of Premiere Pro 13.1 that eGPU is now supported and watching the videos on this from Adobe people there's a sense (or literally they say) this is just the beginning and there's more GPU optimization to come. I've noticed that editing (mostly H264 Sony files with dissolves, multicam and warp stabilizer) with Premiere Pro taxes the CPU heavily and not much load on the GPU. Until exporting of course. But I'm more concerned with timeline performance over export speeds personally. Looks like other NLE's seem to utilize GPU's a bit more than Premiere so I'm curious if Adobe is headed that way as well. If I was looking to invest in a system (which I will be again this summer) will I top out my CPU as I try to do, or look to put some of that money into a more solid GPU (or even eGPU)?

Just curious where these "performance enhancements" are all heading.

[R Neil Haugen]

It's always a balancing act. Over-powering one thing is never wise.

On a specialist AfterEffects forum I hang with occasionally there's been some rather heated discussions about increasing the number of Ae tools that are GPU-accelerated. Some wanted more effects, others did NOT ... emphatically. Depending on who used what effects and how, of course.

More use of the GPU for some things would slow the use for others.As the use of the GPU is diffused over more steps.

Another thing most of us don't really know as "natural" is that GPU's and CPU's are very, very different hardware/coding. One thing is not necessarily as easily done on one as the other. And yes different apps are coded for different balances of hardware resource use. Which is part of the reason they can run so differently on similar gear.

So ... it's one of those things where you might want to be careful for what you ask for. And besides, my colorist friends have monster GPU setups, sure. But the very first thing they look for in their builds is still the CPU/mobo combo that can host and enable everything else ... all the hardware involved.

Neil

[Jim_Simon]

I will say this, Resolve uses the GPU for decoding H.264/5.  The performance increase over Premiere Pro is noticeable.

But even then, performance in Resolve benefits greatly from using proxies, especially at 4K and when using effects.

Bottom line, if you're shooting H.264 or H.265, plan on using Cineform proxies forever.

If you don't want to use proxies, don't shoot H.264 or H.265.

[DMH79]

I suppose it's true about the balancing act. I guess I would be hoping for the same noticeable performance increase of Dissolve that I've heard more and more about. And as for proxies, well, I wish I could use a different codec but that's what Sony gives me at the moment.

[R Neil Haugen]

What you do with what you are given is your choice. I know a number who have either Prelude ingest setups or Media Encoder watch folders, and on uploading from card to computer, use those to 1) rename into their system 2) copy renamed original files to Archive drive 3) make t-codes in their choice of editing format/codec parking them in their editing folders.

Running in the background or frequently overnight. Edit away. When archiving the project the t-codes are dumped as no reason to store them.

Like most other workflows it can work.

Neil

[Jim_Simon]

What I'm suggesting is to use a different camera.  Having shot RAW and ProRes, I think I will forever consider any camera shooting H.264/5 as "amateur", and wholly unaccaptable for the Premiere Pro crowd.  I just couldn't ever go back.

[R Neil Haugen]

This is always a good discussion to listen to among colorists at NAB ... the DP's get fascinated with the ability to get a itty-bitty camera in a cool spot, and include that as part of the 'must' images for the editors. Who tend to go ... oh well ... and cut it in.

Then the colorist is supposed to take some low-level media and make it look like the RED/Arri/Sony/whatever the rest of the film is shot with.

A clue: they really, ​really​ hope it's a very quick cut to that camera and back to the rest of the media, just a visual "flick" in time ... please ...by all that's Holy ...

Neil

[DMH79]

Jim_Simon  wrote

What I'm suggesting is to use a different camera.  Having shot RAW and ProRes, I think I will forever consider any camera shooting H.264/5 as "amateur", and wholly unaccaptable for the Premiere Pro crowd.  I just couldn't ever go back.

I kind of disagree but I get what you're trying to say. You like uncompressed. I get that. I do too. But not every pro is shooting films and needing to shoot uncompressed and thankfully Premiere doesn't adopt the same sense of elitism with regards to their supported camera gear. You could shoot a film on ProRes but that doesn't make it suddenly professional. I guess if making 6 figures and supporting a family of 5 doing nothing except shooting and editing full time using only mirrorless cameras that utilize a compressed codec for a the last decade makes me less of a Pro, well then, I guess I'm an amateur. But back to the topic, I just would love to know the steps Adobe has planned to keep up with the performance advances being made by other platforms. I like seeing things shifted to external GPU's and the like, and since I'm always one step away from upgrading my system, it's fun to stay ahead of the curve with my hardware. If that's even possible.

[megacinn]

@DMH79   perfect !! 100% agreed !!

to others....  where is that Premiere PRO crowd that sounds a bit snobbish ?

at least not in the news / TV market.

Ever seen a pro-Camera for newsgathering shooting in something like raw or ProRes ?

Yes they can ...sony FS5/7 Canon C300 a.s.o ....but what is used 95% ??

Of course ...XDCAMHD422 or AVCIntra ..or..or.... and what compression have all of these in common ?

Why ?

Because there is no such ting as time for transcoding in Intermediatecodecs, working with proxies and then risky playback-to-air.

Well if those Pro-crowd has forgotten where they've come from (not long ago) .... then let's have a look how much share they have in the Bolly/Hollywoodmarket.

Well, as DMH79 said...if this is a selfdeclared elitarian club , then I'm proud to consider myself not to be part of it.

What we are looking for is pure technical benefits for all the daily and longterm workflows . We need reliable soft and hardware and , that is most crucial these days, it must be a trusted investment and relationship to the manufacturer.

Therefor it is mandatory to have reliable informations about the requirements and the developments in the forseeable future.

Keyquestion : what is /will be supported by CPU /GPU  ? (based on the next 24 month)

if adobe itself considers its product as a Pro-crowd , codec declined one, then, fine, now answer is needed.

the magnitude of avid-editors is exuberantly happy not beeing forced to change their adored software..... and the other ones became ever more familiar with resolve.

[Kevin-Monahan]

DMH79,

• I noticed in the recent release of Premiere Pro 13.1 that eGPU is now supported
• watching the videos on this from Adobe people there's a sense (or literally they say) this is just the beginning and there's more GPU optimization to come.
• H264 Sony files with dissolves, multicam and warp stabilizer) with Premiere Pro taxes the CPU heavily and not much load on the GPU. Until exporting of course.
• But I'm more concerned with timeline performance over export speeds personally.
• Looks like other NLE's seem to utilize GPU's a bit more than Premiere so I'm curious if Adobe is headed that way as well.
• If I was looking to invest in a system (which I will be again this summer) will I top out my CPU as I try to do, or look to put some of that money into a more solid GPU (or even eGPU)?

Just curious where these "performance enhancements" are all heading.

Is this the video you were referring to?