I just bought a brand new Quadro FX3800 in hopes of using the Mercury Playback Engine in Premiere Pro CS5.
I just had it installed and tested it and although I can use it, its extremely jerky and choppy and then it crashes the program.
I have 16GB RAM installed in a Win7 64, and Quad Core Q9550 running at 2.83Ghz.
Is there something I'm doing wrong? I've installed the latest drivers.
Thanks so much for all your help and advice on how to get the Mercury Engine working for me.
The Q9550 is such a slow CPU that it may not use the very old FX 3800 (although newly bought) very effectively. Just looking at the components in your system and without knowing your hard disk setup nor your source material, I think this is to be expected. Your system is at least 5 times slower than a fast machine today if properly tuned, but can be as much as 50 times slower. Most similar machines end up around rank 700+ out of 860 PC's in our benchmark, see Benchmark Results
Hey Baz, Yeah its up to datea and I'm testing it with an existing old project that I did in the past, also, why is it that there is yellow sections and red sections? What does this mean? Sincere thanks, Mark
Thanks for that, I just want to understand the logic behind it.
Cause when I run the video in software mode, it works fine at 1/4 playback resolution.
With Mercury turned on even at 1/4 resolution, the jerking and chopping is intense.
So what's the logic behind this?
why is it that there is yellow sections and red sections? What does this mean?
Ideally the previews should be identical specs to the media (resolution, frame rate, PAR, etc), but using a lossless codec. I install the free UT codec for this purpose (which can only be accessed in a custom sequence).
The Quadro FX 3800 isn't that fast of a GPU by today's standards. In fact, it's now three GPU generations old, being based on a cut-down GTX 260 with only a 256-bit DDR3 VRAM bus instead of the 448-bit VRAM bus used in the GTX 260 itself. With such specs, expect it to be slower than even a cheapo GTX 550 Ti.
Same thing with your system's Core 2 Quad Q9550: I had the Q9450 (its slower-clocked brother, running at 2.66GHz instead of 2.83GHz). If my results in the PPBM5 results list are any indication, expect even the Q9550 (unless heavily overclocked) to perform slower than even a cheapo dual-core i3-21xx (with all other components identical between the two systems). If my i3-2100 dual-core can achieve a result of 500-ish seconds in PPBM5, don't expect a stock-speed Q9550 to be any faster than about 600-ish seconds in that same PPBM5 benchmark.
So in other words, for performance that's meaningfully faster than your current setup equipped with the GPU that you had prior to your wasting money on that FX 3800, you will need an entire new build altogether. In fact, with the amount of money that you wasted on that FX 3800 by itself, you could have purchased most of the guts of an entirely new, modern Ivy Bridge quad-core build (namely, an i5-3570K CPU, a good Z77 motherboard, 16GB of DDR3-1333 or DDR3-1600 RAM, a 500GB HDD plus a 1TB HDD and a GeForce GTX 560 Ti).
Thanks for this, I'll definitely upgrade the more important components as you've mentioned.
I dont know why but I tested editing .MOV files 1.6GB large and it was fine, no jitter at all, at 1/4 quality.
But the moment I put a AVCHD or H264 video in, it begins to jam and jitter and drop out.
What's causing this? :/
Oh man. No wonder.
I edited a whole video from footage shot from a Canon 5D, and it was easy to edit no problem.
And this footage from a different camera, had a file called AVCHD, and its a nightmare, I cant edit at all cause my pc is not even chicken (leave alone beef)
So what can I do right now (as I shop for my new pc)
Should I try to convert it to something else and how?
Thanks so much Harm, you're great help...
Would this setup do the trick?
Intel Core i7 3770K 3.5Ghz
32GB Corsair Vengeance 1600Mhz RAM
Quadro FX3800 ( Can get a used quadro 4000 for reasonable price, is this recommended?)
500GB standard hard drive 7200rpm
Will this do?
Harm is in a far different time zone so he probably will not get back to you until tomorrow. Forget the FX3800 it is several generations old. The Quadro 4000 is highly recommended by Adobe/nVidia but not by me, for your usage get a GTX 5xx or the newest GTX 6xx series and it will offload the CPU of some effects that can be done faster in the GPU. I am assuming you do not mind saving some money I might suggest a $200 card instead of the list price Quadro 4000 of about $700. Here is a GTX 560 Ti with 384 cores versus the Quadro's 256 cores.
Put the other money toward several more disk drives. Verify that the memory you select is on the motherboard's approved list
Will take your advice!
What does more disk drives do for performance? Any help on that?
I know very little about RAID etc....
Also, is the GTX cards also good for Solidworks? I use it now and then...
Disk drives: There are many opinions and forum subjects, Adobe suggest two drives as a minimum. Most people here recommend a minimum of three drives/arrays. This would be:
Then there are many that put the paging file and possibly caching files on another disk drive and there are people that put archiving/backup drives also into the mix.
I am a believer that RAID does improve performance, but if you use RAID 0 (which I do) you have to have a great backup plan (and use it faithfully) in place because RAID 0 has no redundancy.
Sorry I do not know Solidworks or what it requires.
I have just checked the Solidworks Web site. They strongly recommend workstation-level GPUs, not gaming or comsumer GPUs. None of the GeForce GPUs are listed under "Certified cards and drivers" in the Solidworks site. Solidworks makes heavy use of OpenGL, in which all of the GeForce GPUs are relatively poor in performance compared to even the cheapest, slowest Quadro.
Thus, if you must have a Quadro for Solidworks, and you are planning to put that card in a newer system, go for a Quadro 4000 or higher. Otherwise, that FX 3800 only performs roughly equal to a Quadro 2000 (the latter of which, despite my objections, is actually less of a waste of money than that FX 3800): Both the Quadro 2000 and the FX 3800 have only 192 CUDA cores - but while the FX 3800 has only a 256-bit DDR3 VRAM bus, the Quadro 2000 has a 128-bit DDR5 VRAM bus. Although the total VRAM throughput is less on the Quadro 2000 than on the FX 3800, the Quadro 2000 is only slightly slower than the FX 3800 in practice - and costs only about half as much money as the FX 3800.