I have been using premiere for years and finally decided to do this ppbm5 test as my system doesnt seem to be as fast with CS6 as it should be.
i7 2600k @ 4.6GHz
1600mhz ddr3 @ 9,9,9,24, 3t
primary drive OCZ Agility 3 64gb windows 7 64bit
primary premiere drive RAID 0 4TB- Western digital blacks 2TB X 2
Media cache drive OCZ Agility 128GB
all running on a p8p67 sata 6gb/s
Graphics card is geforce 285 1gb but i also run with 460 1gb but have determined 285 is 15% quicker with testing for what i do... so 285 is in currently
When rendering on cs6 to h264 output with some effects that are not cuda enabled i am getting 50% cpu utilization and around 15% GPU does that sound about right?
I am running the ppbm5 benchmark at the moment so i will get back with results..
I couldnt find microsoft avi in the export dialogue but i chose AVI
I dont have bluray preset HDTV 1080i 29.97 High Quality. so i used HD 1080i 29.97
please let me know if this will affect my benchmarks
I suspect both your PPBM times and real-world work would be better served by putting all files on your 2x HD RAID. SSDs until the more expensive, latest generation models are slow on large file writes.
Regarding your 50% cpu utilization and 15% GPU for some effects that are not cuda, that sounds very possible.
For CS6 and your pretty beefy system, I would suggest Harm and Bill's relatively new and very nice PPBM6 benchmark for testing and tweaking your build; you can download it from ppbm7.com. CS6 outputs are faster than those set up from the AME queue and PPBM6 takes advantage of this difference.
Ran the ppbm6 benchmark..
Something is definetly wrong .... my system spec should be faster than this??
so my disk benchmark is around 160mb.s which is correct as i checked the disk io in performance manager and for a raid0 160mb.s is about right sustained.
But my mpeg2 70secs and h264 .. 303s
is the 285 letting it down?
MPE gain 9.0X
Oli, thanks for using out new PPBM6 test. I do not know if you have registered yet but if you do you can view the results. I have a system very similar to yours. the result of (about) number 19 show my MPEG with GPU assistance at 45 seconds. Now I am running a GTX 660. So youi 70 seconds is especially bad considering that test the CPU was only running at 3.9 GHz. I would definitely try your GTX 460 but make sure you enable it by adding the "GeForce GTX 460" to the Adobe file "cuda_supported_cards.txt".
More later, I have to run, right now but I suspect your CPU at 4.6 GHz is not optimizes for editing from the H.264 results
I will definetly do the test with my 460 and compare, but h264 tests ive done in the past seem quicker with the 285 on this system? wierd
The cpu should be at 4.6 with the turbo mode on, when i look at the intel application..
There must be something i can do to speed this up... its defintletly slower for rendering than it should be, everything is running at fastest speed,, ram @ 1632mhz
p.s i have registered i was trying to subscribe and donate to you guys so i could get some advice on my system, as this is a great test, but the paypal kept sending me back with invalid vendor or something
Your system does seem to be working properly. And, as you might expect, your aging GTX 285 does appear to be the weakest link in your present system for CS6; it is most probably holding back your render to DVD speed.
You can use Windows task manager to monitor cpu (and memory) and a tool like MSI Afterburner or EVGA Precision to monitor your GPU usage during various tasks in CS6 to better understand what tasks require what hardware resources.
If your goal was to make sure your current hardware is configured properly for CS6, you have probably completed that already.
If your goal was to consider adding to your system to gain speed in a particular area what exactly in your workflow is currently a bother?
For example, to dramatically drop the time to render a HD timeline to DVD you could buy a newer, faster GPU.
However, if you wish to dramatically drop the time to render a HD timeline to Blu-ray or do work with 4k (its a beast), think fast 6 core or a dual Xeons.
ive done the cs6only test with the 460 now, same setup - 10 seconds faster for cuda tests over 285 but thats all...
When im looking at ppbm7.com and the cs6 ppbm5 benchmarks - randalls rig looks identical to mine, same raid 7200rpm but a better io performance 47 compared to my 60 - 13 seconds is a long time for a small render like that is something slowing mine down.
the cuda stuff looks like my 460 isnt much compared to the 560/570 cards on comparible hardware even looking down the table at other people with 460s mine is a faster machine for rendering.
Confusing my raid is only sustaining 160MB/s ? i have 2 of the hitachi deskstars 2tb as temp drives on the sata3 connectors of intel and they sustain 140MB/s non raid - so i would think my raid on 6gb/s would go past the 250mb/s sata3 bottleneck?
re:workflow - i think my issue is that when i render out something i feel should be faster i.e mpeg2 - it takes double the time i think it should, the majority of my film work i am outputting 2k/4k files, and the h264 for vimeo - when im using non cuda accelerated colour grading like colorista2 the render is extremely slow, and i feel the i7 @ 4.6ghz should be faster given they claim to use gpu for rendering aswell as cpu.
mpeg2/h264 speed with 285 and 460 seems near identical on the benchmarks ive done with ppbm - but when i render a comparible test say a 4 minute 1080p edit with lots of effects that are not all cuda the 460 is beaten by the 285 by 10%??
i dont want to spend big money on a 6xx series card when i think my system should be faster as it is - compared to randells rig with a 2600k look down at #30 on the table
thanks for all advice
Here's the reason why the GTX 460 underperformed compared to the GTX 285 when rendering video clips with lots of effects: The 460's lower memory throughput. Depending on the revision, the GTX 460 has a memory throughput of only 115.2 or 96.2 GB/s versus the GTX 285's 159 GB/s. But the GTX 285 underperformed versus the GTX 460 in the MPEG-2 DVD test with CUDA enabled due to its low number of CUDA cores: The GTX 285 has only 240 CUDA cores versus the 336 CUDA cores in the GTX 460. For comparison, the GTX 460 SE has 288 CUDA cores and 108.8 GB/s memory throughput.
And the relatively poor disk performance score suggests that you might have a bottleneck somewhere in your system, or that your system configuration might need some tuning (to eliminate unneeded background processes). Or it just might be that your two Hitachi 2TB hard drives just do not work toghether very well when RAID 0'd.
By the way, my system that you referenced to actually has a 448-core version of the GTX 560 Ti with a memory throughput of 152 GB/s. As such, it is actually a slightly crippled GTX 570 (the 570 having the same memory throughput as my 560 Ti 448 but with 480 CUDA cores). The "normal" GTX 560 has the same number of CUDA cores as the GTX 460 (336) but with slightly higher clock speeds. As such, it is more than 50 percent slower than the higher-end GTX 560 Ti 448 (as tested in my secondary rig using the PPBM6/7 script).
Regarding why is the GTX 460 faster at times and the GTX 285 is faster at other time, consider the # of cuda cores and memory bandwidth:
GTX 285 (flagship gamer's card from may years ago:
# cuda cores = 240
memory bandwidth = 159 GB/s
GTX 460 (newer, but much lower price point card when introduced):
# cuda cores = 336
memory bandwidth = 86 GB/s
So, with the PPBM6 benchmark for rendering HD to DVD the GTX 460 with more cores is producing a better result. And when doing work that does not tap into the CUDA core capabilities it is probably reasonable that the GTX 285 with almost twice the memory bandwidth.
Just as a reference for nVidia's flagship gamer's card from 2012, the GTX 680 (in Bill's PC tested) has:
# cuda cores = 448
memory bandwidth = 192 GB/s
And for their current flagship in 2013, the GTX Titan:
# cuda cores = 2688
memory bandwidth = 288 GB/s
Now, regarding your workflows:
Looks like with cross-posted; at least we agree!
Regarding Oli's RAID 0 array, I think he is OK there. In the PPBM6 test which I believe to be a more telling true I/O test (vs. PPBM5), Oli's time of 225 is actually faster than Bill's time of 228 seconds.
225 seconds is still on the slow side, considering that I get 180-ish second (about 200 MB/s) scores with a two-disk RAID 0 array of older-generation Seagate 7200.12 1TB hard drives in my secondary rig - and especially slow when compared to the over 270 MB/s (130-ish second) results with the RAID 0'd pair of 1TB Samsung F3 hard drives in my main rig. And even a RAID 0'd pair of 1TB Western Digital Black WD1002FAEX drives still achieved a result of over 240 MB/s in that same PPBM6 disk I/O test.
I think the underperformance of some of the drives in the PPBM6 Disk I/O test tells me one thing: The cache (buffer) memory in such underperforming drives might be on the slow side.
By the way, that 228-second result from one of Bill's systems was with a single drive. (And a fast single spinning drive, a 3TB Seagate 7200.14, at that.)
Regarding Bill's 228 second I/O on the PPBM6 results table, the Speccy listing clearly shows two ST2000DM001 drives (2TB model, additional to 2x 840 pro SSDs).
Bill, could you possibly clarify more test details for your 228 sec. I/O run (PPBM6 Computer ID = BillG SB 660 8GB 3.4)?
I stand corrected on the drive model. And as I learned just from that Speccy, the two 2TB drives were configured as separate volumes. No RAID involved. Thus, the 228-second result was within one of the two 2TB drives (the second 2TB disk wasn't used at all for anything besides caching in the PPBM6 benchmark).
I am sort of back in the f0rum game-my back is driving me crazy.
Randall I agree that Oliver's disk result are not first class because in my example I got the same Premiere write rate with a single very new generation disk drive (not a RAID0 array). Also I am not familiar with that motherboard and its SATA ports.
For that 4.6 GHz clock speed, I think that your OS my not be optimized. At 4.4 GHz I get 260 seconds for the H.264 test, where you 4.6 GHz score is 303 seconds. While H.264 testing is Heavy CPU usage their is a little assistance from the GPU.
If you can plan ahead for an upgrade it sure looks like something in the mid 600 series like my GTX 660 (~$200) would help your configuration significantly.
Message was edited by: Bill Gehrke
As you might have figured out I had a message ready to send before the Randall and Jim messages came in.
The one problem we face is that there is no way to indicate in Speccy which drive is the drive being used as the project drive and with my ultra flexible configuration i7-2600K Sandy Bridge system adds much to the confusion. Here are the three Sandy Bridge entries with their rank (as of today):
The Disk I/O is fairly independent of the CPU clock rate, and of course completely independent of GPU. Also I believe that the ST2000DM drives above are the 2-platter versions of this confusing Seagate mess. You can tell that the last result is a two-platter drive by looking at the Speccy data on the drives. Looking at the Speccy data on the first drive that is listed with that test you can see that for the serial number it lists "Serial Number Z1E1ME4V" note that the third digit of the serial number is "E", those two drives on that test run definitely were both two platter drives. Three platter drives are just a little bit slower than the two platter versions.
I just checked the Speccy on your two PPBM6 results. There are a few issues with regards to your rig:
1) It appears that the BIOS version on your motherboard has not been updated at all since that board was shipped after the B3 stepping came into existence. There have been nine BIOS versions that came out since that particular BIOS version (1401) came out. The current BIOS version is 3602.
2) Which version of the Intel Rapid Storage Technology driver are you running? (If you do not have iRST software installed, you must have been using Microsoft Windows-provided software RAID, which is often the cause of such abysmal RAID 0 performance.) Unfortunately, Speccy does not reveal any information at all whatsoever about the SATA or RAID controller or software used.
3) If you have antivirus disabled, there is a chance that your PC might have become infected with malware. Malware infections can significantly slow down overall system performance.
You did not submit your PPBM5 results yet, so the chart here may not be 100% accurate, but shows about where your system is: Oliver's Results
Overall this is not as good as I would have expected. With an overclock to 4.5 GHz I would have expected your scores to be over 50% on Total Time and RPI. Your disk results are disappointing, but you would not be unique in having some problems with the Intel Rapid Storage drivers. It may require testing which version of those drivers give the best results. Bill had similar problems with these drivers on his 1155 platform, where transfer rates were far lower than one would expect.
Another thing I noticed is that you have quite a lot of processes running that are not needed. You may want to check with Process Explorer and kill processes not needed, like acrotray, the Cineform GoPro utility, jusched, daemon, and the like. Ideally you would have less than 50 processes running. Also, have you checked whether there are services you can set to manual according to the BlackViper list?
You did not tell where your previews are located, but I assume on your 128 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD as is the media cache. This is an older SSD that suffers from serious 'stable state' performance degradation, and unless it has been trimmed very recently may give you no more than 200 MB/s write speeds, often even less.
What can you derive from the chart linked to above?
On the new PPBM6 test, one sees a clear difference between the GTX 285 and GTX 460 H.264 tests and disk I/O tests, but no difference in the MPEG test. That means the 285 and 460, which are heavily involved in the MPEG test, perform comparably. The H.264 test where the 460 is clearly faster than with the 285 indicates that the number of cores on the 460 (336 versus 240) and the efficiency of DDR5 versus DDR3 makes the difference when rendering and exporting the GPU compute intensive 'red' bar areas of the timeline (Red 4K).
The differing Disk results are indicative of background processes that get in the way during these tests, because the GPU is not involved at all. It is only disk transfer rates at play here.
Thankyou for all your comments they are very helpful!
I have submitted a new test, media cache /database moved to the raid - I tweaked the ram to 2t not 3t (xmp was wrong)
And closed a few processes. Disk i/o much much better! 276s for the disk io and 280 for the h264 test.
I am now doing a defrag on the raid and will test again, My boot is the agility 3 SSD
Raid is where I do all premiere editing and media files, I bought the second ssd as media cache drive in the thinking that its fast read rate would be perfect for editing… looks like it was hampering me. I ve had nothing but problems with the marvels controller on this motherboard and BSODS, I used to have ssds running off it in 6g mode but now I have to resort to them both being on 3g on the intel. (but really 250mb/s ceiling is not hampering me)
When I plug in a hotswap to the marvels to do some backups 9/10 it will BSOD within 2 hours.
I would upgrade the bios but it was this 1401 that was the official supported bios on the overclock, do you think the new bios would really help (considering the new results)
I am running the intel rapid storage driver 10.5.0.1027
Look to be getting to the bottom of the poor performance thankyou again!
p.s not sure why it says 276 for diskio when i ran the test and timed myself it was 2minutes 50 seconds and when i ran the output module it told me the diskio was at 230mb/s which i would expect from this raid0..
but now i cant get more than 160mb/s in diskio performance monitor running the test it platos when it gets to 160...
freak test? i definetly selected pal dv and unticked audio only, this was right after i changed media cache to the raid. I saw the disk io go up past 200mbs in windows performance monitor
Some comparisons for my own testing using atto -apologies if this isnt the right program to use, but i think it shows me the ceiling for sata3 on the ssds
d: 2X 2TB Hitachi deskstars RAID0 on the two black 6g connectors of intel
h: Media cache (now on raid) 64GB OCZ agility 3 v2.22 SSD on normal 3G Sata connector
c: OS drive 128GB OCZ agility 3 v2.22 on normal 3G sata
e: Hitachi deskstar 2.0 TB on 3G Sata- this is the same drives as the raid 0 i had 2 more than i got as a temp drive and one i use to store Audio for all my projects as i thought this would be faster than having audio on the raid (internal Cam audio obviously on raid within the video files)
Some read/write tests with hd tune pro on the Media cache drive i can format to do write tests.
and a read test on the RAID0
also did a read test on one of my external backup drives seagate barracuda green on the marvel 6g connector
i dont know if it affects anything but the dvd.rw on this marvell controller running at 1.5gbps wether that will slow the drive?
let me know any other tests i can do to see any issues.
p.s not sure why it says 276 for diskio when i ran the test and timed myself it was 2minutes 50 seconds and when i ran the output module it told me the diskio was at 230mb/s which i would expect from this raid0.
When you run the test, the first step in the whole process is creating the destination file. Then the source material is fetched, all the clips are 'glued' together and as a last step, the final results (37 GB) are written to disk. When that writing is completed, Windows adjusts the modified timestamp of the file that was created as the first step. What is measured is the difference between the creation and modified timestamp, which is accurate to 1 second. It may look like the test has already finished, but Windows may still need time to do the last writing on the AVI file and adjust the modified timestamp after all the writing. This delay can depend on the degree of cache buffering that the system can use.
There is one thing I'm not sure about and that is the internal intelligence of PR CS6. In comparison to CS5, where identical clips or sequences were cached, CS6 lost that capability. That is the explanation for the lousy MPEG2 results in PPBM5 for CS6 versus CS5. In this test we use over 1600 identical clips. If the program is smart, it will only read a single clip, but if it is not smart, it will read all 1600+ clips from disk. My feeling is that this is what happens, but I cannot substantiate it.
This means reading 37 GB from disk, gluing them together and then writing one single 37 GB file to disk. What this basically means is that you have 37 GB of 'random' reads and one 37 GB sequential write in this test. However the results are presented as if writing the file is the only activity. The reported transfer rate is only based on the writing speed and disregards the reading speed.
Let me give you an argument for this assumption. This is the HD Tune file benchmark result for my array:
The read speed is in excess of 3.5 GB/s and the write speed is almost 4.0 GB/s. Yet my PPBM6 results show only a transfer rate of 1,686 MB/s, less than half of what HD Tune reports, and Crystal DiskMark, AJA and other tests for that matter. Here is the Crystal DiskMark:
Again the PPBM6 result is only around half of the reported speed on this test, so my feeling is that the 'dumb' reading of 1600+ identical clips causes these rather disappointing transfer rates in our test, but it is statistically more accurate to use these hard figures from Windows, than applying coefficients to the calculated figures.
I'll have a closer look at your performance charts and let you know what my thoughts are.
Yes i was confused with the stopwatch when i did the dv pal avi test - it was definetly 2minutes 50seconds start to finish and after the other tests the vbs popped up when i ran it and said disk io - 230mb/s
i watched the performance and it was doing over 200mb/s write speed on the raid
Im very confused how i can seem to get this freak performance again???
we also only have a week or 2 left till CC is out - ill get testing with that also to see if any performance increases
Right, i have some upgrades pending after reading peoples performance on the benchmarks ive decided :-
Bill - taken your advice and looked at all the ppbm6/7 bang for buck and decided - mid 6XX - geforce 660 TI with 1344 cuda cores 2GB got at the right price couldnt not do it - comes tommorow.
Take the 2x 2TB hitachis out of raid and use them as external backups, replace with 2X 2TB either -
-Barracuda (new ones with redisigned platter for improved performance?) st2000dm001
-F3 (1TB versions?) like randall has that gets really good speed only 2TB raided but thats fine.
Also wanted to add, if i had 3X drives in RAID0 i would only be able to use the 2X INTEL 6G connectors and if i used one INTEL 3G also theoretically combined could surpass the 3G limit, but one drive will not be more than its own connection bandwidth so am i still getting maximum performance from the 3 drives raid0? than 2X 6G drives in raid0, without the extra risk of a third disk.
I can also use the marvells controller to connect my 2X hitachis as backup internal drives and use 4X drives in raid5 .....
I also have a second marvell pci controller that i could use for my dvd/bluray drive so as not to run out of sata ports.
thanks for all the advice
I have the 660TI installed, but not running yet as im waiting for my 2x Noctua f12's for the cpu (trying to quiten it down)
IF i leave the 2X hitachi raid and put them on sata3g, that would be a good fast ish export drive and audio file storage? then use the 2x good new drives on the 6G connectors to get around 300MB/s
Then i can use my 2x hitachi that are in there as temp storage backup drives.?
Without getting too specific, I would say in general 3GB is fine for rotating drives (only the fastest SSDs benefit significantly from 6GB ports) and Intel's RAID firmware/software is better than Marvell's.
Thanks Jim good to know,
ill swap the hitachi raid onto the 3g connectors and use the 6g for the newer drives just as they are faster.
Then ill have two raid0 drives on the intel which should be good
-Barracuda (new ones with redisigned platter for improved performance?) st2000dm001
-F3 (1TB versions?) like randall has that gets really good speed only 2TB raided but thats fine.
Oli. on the Seagate ST2000DM001 drives. the performance level depends on where they are manufactured. The third digit of the serial number must be an "E" (this has been true in past on all my drives). But even if you have the three platter versions you should get very good performance, I do not think I would run a mixed set. So check your S/N's.before you open them The last drive I received is a two platter version, so maybe yours will be also
New results are up Bill - 297MB/s
660ti is doing great too 46 seconds on the mpeg2 now...
I have done a quick test with memory overclocked and now that is at 37 seconds (stable) so quite interesting if i wanted.
4core CPU is the bottleneck now i feel....
Do i put the Media cache database on the old RAID? do i put my pagefile on the old raid? Do i use my audio files on the old Raid and just keep videofiles on the new raid? trying to work out maximum performance for editing now.
Feeling much better about the rig now! thankyou for all the advice.
Few tweaks, i7 @ 4.7ghz now, memory overclocked on the 660ti up 400mhz - mpeg2 test 38seconds now.
108 seconds for diskio (340MB/s) thats with the new raid 1% full - i did hdtach and saw 380MB/s peak which is fantastic, what a pair of drives!