• Global community
    • Language:
      • Deutsch
      • English
      • Español
      • Français
      • Português
  • 日本語コミュニティ
    Dedicated community for Japanese speakers
  • 한국 커뮤니티
    Dedicated community for Korean speakers
Exit
0

Rendering times - help me to understand please

New Here ,
Mar 10, 2019 Mar 10, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Looking for professional help here for my understanding. Does my conclusions make sense? I am trying to understand hardware encoding, vs cuda vs CPU software.

So this discussion / question would be would the pros agree or disagree with my results. I am coming from a bang for buck perspective. This is rendering H264 only

Don't need to consider storage as using 2x SSDs in both systems so I don't think storage would be bottle necking

Not sure if I need to consider ram as the 16gb ram is nearing but not topping out.

I am not doing per second timed benchmarks as real world results matter to me more.

I am rendering say 3 minute 4K clip with Lumetric effects - lets say 90% 2D stuff (hence I don't think cuda is used that much ??)

Rig 1 - i7-4770 @ 3.4ghz (8 threads) - 16gb ram - GPU = built-in Intel 4600 + Titan X (maxwell)

Rig 2 - Xeon 20 core server @ 2.4ghz (40 threads) - 256gb ram - Titan X (maxwell)

What I found is it is all about intel quicksync

Fastest I can do 3min 4k clip

i7 -4770 with quicksync using NEVEC codec - titan X maxwell   (about 5 minutes)  using cuda

i7-4770 with quicksync using built-in H264 - titan x maxwell (about 9 mins)

i7-4770 with quicksync using built-in H264 - gtx 680 (about 9 mins)

Xeon server would render using - titan X ( about 25 mins) using cuda

I am drawing the conclusion that for H264 using NEVEC codec the best bang for buck is to use i7 processor with intel quicksync and nvidia card

I was surprised that even putting in a Titan X on Xeon server with 20 cores and 256gb ram would be about 5x slower than i7-4770 with quicksync with H264

What do u guys say? Since quicksync is free with almost any currentish i7 cpu

Views

264

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Mar 11, 2019 Mar 11, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Here's the reason why:

Large portions of the Premiere Pro program code are still only slightly threaded. As a result, Premiere Pro cannot effectively utilize more than about 10 cores / 20 threads total. Beyond that, Premiere Pro performance relies almost entirely on the actual CPU clock speed.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Mar 11, 2019 Mar 11, 2019

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

LATEST

I do see the 20 cores 40 thread Xeon all threads used equally @ ~ 80% ... does this still mean only 10 cores being used?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines