Skip navigation
goodastruff
Currently Being Moderated

Premiere Pro CS6 Renderer : MPE GPU Acceleration (CUDA) slower than Software only mode

Feb 25, 2013 6:17 PM

Tags: #cuda #performance #slow #gpu

Hi, I've a concern about performance and don't really understand what is the problem.  I've this system

---------------

Processor

System architecture: Intel Xeon E5-2687W

Physical processor count: 8

Logical processor count: 16

Processor speed: 3092 MHz

 

Memory

Corsair Dominator Platinum

Built-in memory: 65489 MB

Free memory: 53725 MB

 

Video

Video Card: NVIDIA Quadro 6000

OpenGL Drawing: Enabled.

OpenGL Drawing Mode: Advanced

OpenGL Allow Normal Mode: True.

OpenGL Allow Advanced Mode: True.

OpenGL Allow Old GPUs: Not Detected.

Video Card Vendor: NVIDIA Corporation

Driver Version: 9.18.13.1115

Driver Date: 20130131000000.000000-000

Video Card Driver: nvd3dumx.dll,nvwgf2umx.dll,nvwgf2umx.dll,nvd3dum,nvwgf2um,nvwgf2um

Video Mode: 2560 x 1440 x 4294967296 colors

 

Disks

LSI MEGAraid 9260-8i with 5 Corsair Force 3 GT SSD plugged in RAID 0 with 512 Mo Cache.

I get amazing transfert rate of (2.0Gb/s in Read and 1.5Go/s in Write)

I also use Ramdrive for project and get terrific (3.6Go/s in Read and 3.7Go/s in Write with 1311Mb/s (4k) random read and 829.8Mb/s(4k) write

 

OS

Windows 7 64 bits & Windows 8 64 bits as been tried for test...

 

Audio

Motu MK3 ASIO

---------------

Now, as you can see, I run a monster (I Think...)!  I work with HD video (1080P 29.97 fps)

 

When I preview render video (using enter key), It's faster to use software mode vs using mercury engine GPU (10s less for a 16 seconds video).  It take to me minutes and minutes to render 30 seconds video.  I don't use any special effect.  If I just revserse speed of video (100% - no effect), I'm not able (even if I render video using enter key and wait many minutes) to get a none "laggy" video.  I always get lag in my video when playback the video.  I'm not able to get clean preview with correct reel frame rate.  I can believe that.    I've the last Quadro 6000 drivers installed on my computer, I've a clean installed OS.  If I check my ressource monitor, my disks are used at 2 or 3% only.  I've more memory than what I need for 16s video.  I've a clean install of Adobe Master Collection CS6.  All update as been done (Windows/Adobe). 

 

Now, I'm speachless !  What's wrong with my setup ?  It's really frustrating to not be able to play correctly a 50% speed down HD video without lag with a more then 10K $ computer...  Any help will be REALLY appreciated.  I will send some good cookies of my wife to anybody get me a solution :O) !

 

My main language is french, so sorry for the mistake !  I think you get the general idea...

Thank you !

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 25, 2013 6:18 PM   in reply to goodastruff

    I don't use any special effect.  If I just revserse speed of video

     

    That actually would be considered an effect.

     

    Post the specifics of your media and sequence settings.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 25, 2013 7:18 PM   in reply to goodastruff

    OK.

     

    Are you shooting 30p or the normal 30i?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 25, 2013 7:19 PM   in reply to goodastruff

    How long are the clips?  Does the following apply?

     

    http://helpx.adobe.com/premiere-pro/kb/audio-video-glitches-avchd.html

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 25, 2013 8:03 PM   in reply to goodastruff

    It seems many people here with very good results are using a regular GTX card - like a GTX 580 with 3 GB. Did you tried with a regular card like this ?  Since you are willing anyway to do so many tests (windows 7 and windows 8).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 25, 2013 11:08 PM   in reply to goodastruff

    First, as far as I know - the GTX 580 used to be better for programs not 680. The 680 is very good with games, and probably will be good for programs with certain newer drivers. Perhaps they are already good, I don't know. Just the last time I checked the 580 was recommended.

     

     

    And second, as far as I know you won't get an advantage with two card in SLI for most of the programs. SLI is good mostly for games.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 26, 2013 5:14 AM   in reply to goodastruff

    There is no sense in getting two Titan cards in SLI, simply because SLI configurations are not supported and give serious problems. Not to mention it would likely require a new PSU.

     

    With regard to your Passmark results, they are certainly good, but not spectacular. Look at (click on the image)

     

    PassMark Rating

     

    and notice that my system has a GTX 680 / 4G card that easily runs way faster in this benchmark test than your Quadro 6000 and is only a fraction of the cost. Your Passmark results may indicate that some tuning on your system might be needed. How many processes are running on your system when you use PR?

     

    Your scores are significantly lower than mine by respectively 33% - 9% - 36% - 68% - 33% and 63% which tells me you can optimize your system a bit.

     

    For more testing results of my system, look at Final Results - Reflections

     

    Also take a look at Practical System Requirements which tells a different story than Adobe, for the simple reason it was not made by Marketing. Quadro cards have always been pushed by Adobe Marketing, but are in fact overpriced and underperforming.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 26, 2013 6:37 AM   in reply to goodastruff

    There is a whole site behind this link: Final Results - Reflections that may contain answers to your questions. Take some time to look around the other pages as well. It is required that you register and login to the site to access for instance the Detailed Results page.

     

    But the fact, I don't want to create ramdrive and bench virtual setup just to get better score

     

    Neither have I, as documented on the page I linked to.

     

    Why Adobe is pushing Quadro so much, there has to be a commercial reason for that I think. Marketing people have a natural tendency to leave out facts and only proclaim 'the ultimate dream' that is often far from the truth. There is ONE, and only ONE situation where you want a Quadro card over a GTX card and that is when you NEED 10 bit output to expensive 10-bit monitor(s).

     

    BTW, the Quadro 6000 has 448 cores, the GTX 680 has 1536 cores, the 6000 has a memory bus of 384 bits versus 256 for the 680, the memory bandwidth is 144 versus 192.2 GB/s and most importantly the 6000 is a much older architecture.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 26, 2013 8:14 AM   in reply to goodastruff

    It is also documented on the site, but essentially it is 3 x 7 disk raid3, striped to raid30 plus 3 global hot-spares of Seagate Constellation ES 1 TB disks, making a total of 24 disks and a net capacity of 18 TB.

     

    HDTunePro, CrystalDisk and AJA benchmarks are included on the page I linked to. Just scroll down a bit.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 27, 2013 2:36 AM   in reply to goodastruff

    Bill and I are still struggling with PPBM6, so it is not yet available. I have received your PPBM5 results and added them. Rank #22 among the CS6 results, solid Q3 results with a very good H.264 score, due to the 8 core CPU. The MPE results are comparable to a GTX 570, which makes sense since the specs are very close to the Quadro 6000, apart from the amount of VRAM of course, but the amount does not impact performance in this test.

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points