Much improved hardware specs not improving export time...?

Report · Sep 27, 2017

My wife edits a lot of videos for her work. For the last couple years or so she has been using an off the shelf HP Envy Phoenix desktop -

Intel i7-4770 CPU (4 cores)

16GBs RAM

NVIDIA GeForce GT 640
SanDisk 480GB SSD Drive (Cant remember the exact one).

When she would encode a video it would max out the CPU to 100% and use around half the RAM. A 10 minute video would take around 2+ hours to encode.

She recently had me build her a PC in hopes that it would reduce encoding times -

Intel i9-7900x CPU (10 cores)

Corsair 32GB DDR4 (2x16)

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB

Samsung 850 EVO 1TB SSD

ASUS PRIME X299-A Motherboard

When she tries to encode a 10 minute video now, not only does it not take less time, it actually seems to take more...

She used a video project she knew took 2 hours to encode on the old PC, encoded it on the new PC, and it still said it would take 2 hours. After a couple hours of internet searches and checking settings to try and figure out why it didn't seem to be improving the encoding time, we decided to leave the video to encode for a while to see what would happen. We went and watched TV for a couple of hours, came back, and it still said 2+ hours remaining even though the video had progressed to around half completed... so apparently it at least doubled the encoding time that her old desktop would take.

We're both very confused.

We've done searches, messed with settings, made sure all drivers are up to date, and tried old versions of Premiere (in the past, an update caused encoding times to go way up) but nothing has made a difference.

The settings are set for CUDA accelerated. Ive tried doing a clean install of the GPU drivers, Ive updated the motherboard BIOS, Ive messed with various BIOS settings for the CPU (all things Ive had people tell me to try just to see what happens) and nothing. I ran a benchmark test of the PC because someone told me there may be something wrong somewhere, and the results seemed good to me (not that I really know what Im looking at). A 10 minute video is still taking well over 2 hours to encode. The CPU is a little more than half used, RAM is a little less than half.

At one point she started a completely new project and didnt put any kind of effects or anything in it, and the encoding time was the same on the new and old computer. The old computer actually seemed to be a few minutes faster.

We both expected far better results out of this new PC, and needless to say shes very disappointed.

So what am I missing here?

Thanks.

[Moderator note: moved to best forum]

Report · Oct 05, 2017

You can then rerun the CPU intensive PPBM timeline and you should see all cores and threads like this on my Windows 10 Creator OS with Premiere Pro 11.1.2.22. Notice that as David expected no longer can we expect to see my 60 some processes it is now in Creator 110 processes, but I am still getting this done in rougly 240 seconds with this OC'ed 8-core i7-5960X

Report · Oct 05, 2017

Hey Bill, David is recommending Windows 7 and changing the "cuda_supported_cards.txt" text file. I was referring to the processes. So, 110 processes is your cloned Windows 10 brought forward to 1703? That shows what I was saying. BTW: I was trying like a madman to get down to about 70 processes, but it just wasn't happening. I only stumbled upon the info of the Windows new loading of (individual) processes recently when I went back in to try again.

Originally I had removed so many processes that my windows load from the lock screen to desktop was taking 20 seconds so I started with a clean install again, (it takes about 2 seconds now) and just use OO, Black Viper and the Nvidia telemetry removal. Plus of course all the Adobe, Intuit, Google etc.. processes that try to sneak in there. Thanks for the tips on those and pointing to Harm's tuning guide.

Report · Oct 06, 2017

I like the idea of David's to run the Prime 95 so you can watch the CPU clock frequency and the CPU temperatures to see if during full load you might have a heat problem which would down throttle the 4.3 GHZ Turbo CPU clock and thereby taking much longer to export. But also you will also see full load with the shorter PPBM CPU intensive test which took 278 seconds on your system and could be the reason why that one of your PPBM tests came out so high, my 8-core 4.5GHz system scores around 240 seconds so you should be able to do better.

@MyerPJ Yes, I can go back and forth with two different boot SSD's and with version 1703 and 107 initial processes and version 1511 with 63 processes. and get the same results with the PPBM testing on Windows 10's two different versions. so I see absolutely no reason to consider Windows 7 (which I also have a boot SSD to run PPBM tests) . .

Report · Oct 06, 2017

Cool testing of current Windows 10 and previous version. So looks like "107 is the new 63" when it comes to processes and counts in the new version of windows, similar to what I was expecting.

Earlier I updated a previous Windows 7 SSD to run on my current hardware (which Windows handle quite well I thought) but I also saw no performance increase. Windows 10 seems every bit as fast and actually faster when using external USB 3 drives. I've got the W10 interface now similar to Windows 7 also, and I've been running Classic Start Menu since probably the XP days which I saw you using (one of the only enabled startup options you have.) I actually remove them from the registry instead of disabling them. I see David feels strongly about Windows 7, but I didn't find his experiences running Wndows 10 just fine.

Report · Oct 11, 2017

I havent been able to get on the new PC for a while. It hasnt felt quite as urgent since we replaced that plugin that increased the encoding time by hours.

But there has been a strange development. My wife was recently encoding a video and using the computer while it was encoding. I think she was transferring files to an external hard drive while using the internet. The computer froze up on her while encoding and a hard reset was performed. She had to start the encoding over again because it hadnt finished, and when she did she told me the CPU was being fully utilized now.

I checked and every core was being fully used. In a previous post I had checked and half of them werent. 7 were barely being used at all and a few more just werent being used fully.

We got our hopes up, but further testing showed that the encoding time wasnt actually increased.

So I dont know what thats all about... I thought it was strange though.