Can I improve rendering time by switching from RTX 2060 to RTX5090 in this basic project?

[andrer32348344]

I need to create meditation sounds in 10 hours playlist.

• I use Premiere Pro.
• The only video track is the static business logo.
• The only audio track is the music playlist
• Export: H.264 1080p 30fps low bitrate
•  

Using RTX2060 on a Core i7-7700 I can render this project in 30 minutes.

If I use RTX 5090 ( Core i9 - 14900k), can I render in much less time (5 - 8 minutes)?

I need to know if i invest in a new PC or I need other strategy.

Thank you.

• This is my first time typing in a forum.

[John T Smith]

I can't answer your question... but I have a question... are you sure that your work is being done by the GPU and not the CPU?

Not everything uses CUDA - and other hardware acceleration notes
https://community.adobe.com/t5/premiere-pro/faq-all-about-hardware-encoding-in-premiere-pro-14-2/m-p...
https://community.adobe.com/t5/premiere-pro/everything-you-need-to-know-about-gpu-in-premiere-pro/td...

[andrer32348344]

First of all, thank you very much for answering me.

I have 2 computers.

Computer 1: RTX 2060, Rysen 7 3700x (16 threads, 8 x 3.6 ghz)
Computer 2: GTX 1060, Core i7-7700 (8 threads, 4 x 3.6 ghz)

Premiere project:
- 10 hours long
- 1 track with logo image, static and without effects
- 1 sound track
- Low bitrate

Rendering time:
- H.264
- 1080p
- 30fps

Computer 1 (software rendering, i.e. the Rysen 7 3700x): 1 hour 08 minutes

Computer 1 (hardware rendering, i.e. RTX 2060): 37 minutes

Computer 2 (software rendering, i.e. the Core i7-7700): 1 hour 35 minutes minutes

Computer 2 (hardware rendering, i.e. GTX 1060): 57 minutes

The conclusion I reached is that both the CPU and the GPU make a difference in rendering time, even though it is a simple project with no effects, but very long (10 hours).

What I would like to know is if I invest in a very expensive video card, such as the RTX 5090, how much, approximately, could I reduce the rendering time?

If the impact is small, it may not be worth my investment.

If the impact is large (6 - 10 minutes render time), it is very worthwhile to invest in a new computer, with Core i9 14k + RTX 5090 (or RTX 5080).

What motivated me to make this post is because, on a technology channel on YouTube, the moderator responded to a comment of mine, claiming that investing in an expensive video card would not make a difference in my current rendering time. But, for me this answer does not make sense. That's why I seek opinions from people who understand computers much more than I do.

[John T Smith]

Sorry... I don't have your hardware or do what you're doing

Check (copied link) https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html

[andrer32348344]

Thank you very much!!

[Peru Bob]

@RjL190365 

[RjL190365]

Going with a more powerful GPU will not help your export performance much, in this case. Almost all of the performance improvement is from a more powerful CPU. However, the RTX 5090 will speed up your H.264 and HEVC export performance a bit due to the better NVENC encoders on that GPU compared to your current RTX 2060.

And based on your results that you had obtained with the Ryzen 7 3700X and the RTX 2060, I am estimating that exporting using an i9-14900K and an RTX 5090 would take a little less than half, and possibly around one-third, the time it took your 3700X/2060 combo to export to H.264 with most of that improvement coming from a switch to a more powerful CPU.

[andrer32348344]

Thank you very much for your answer. It was very informative.

If the CPU has a greater influence on this result than the GPU, what would be the best CPU I could buy (the most powerful one available for a PC today)?

Sorry for the delay in answering you, my wife and I had our baby early, and there were a lot of pending issues!

[RjL190365]

The 5090 will speed up rendering of any GPU-accelerated effects on your editing timeline, for sure. But most of the work is still largely being done by the CPU.

If you have an unlimited budget, then the AMD Threadripper and Threadripper Pro CPUs will speed up your exports to intermediate codecs such as ProRes and DNxHR, but they are very expensive.

On the other hand, if you're exporting primarily to Long-GOP lossy codecs such as H.264 and HEVC, then the Intel CPUs such as the i9-14900K (and better still the Core Ultra 7 and 9 CPUs) have the advantage.

In other words, it depends on what you are planning to export as.

[Warren Heaton]

@andrer32348344 

I would match the CPU that Puget Systems uses in their "Premeire Pro H264 and HEVC Workstation".

https://www.pugetsystems.com/solutions/video-editing-workstations/adobe-premiere-pro/buy-192/

Namely, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K 3.7GHx (up to 5.7HHz Turbo)  24 Core 125W.

[andrer32348344]

Hello. Thank you for your comments!

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K = 24 threads

Intel Core 9 14k = 32 threads

Won't the difference in threads impact the rendering speed, since Adobe Premiere is a software that uses multiple threads? Or does the fact that my project is simple (but long) and the processor's thread capacity not matter much in my case?

[RjL190365]

Thread count is only indirectly proportional to the performance in the Adobe Creative Cloud apps. You also have to factor in the performance per thread, as well. And CPUs from different generations may have vastly different performance-per-clock and performance-per-thread results.

[andrer32348344]

Thank you very much!

[Warren Heaton]

@andrer32348344 

I would expect you to see a very, very good improvement in export time with an Intel based system exporting to H264 due to Intel QuickSync, the hardware-accelerated video encoding and decoding technology built into many Intel CPUs.  Any H264 preset with Hardware Encoding enabled under Video > Encoding Settings > Performance should see the accelerated render time.  For example, "Match Source - Adaptive High Bitrate" should default to Hardware Encoding.

With a still image as the only source footage for picture, you should also notice a much smaller file than if Software Encoding is used.