Skip navigation
marknekk
Currently Being Moderated

To buy or not to buy CUDA-Card while editing 1080p vs 720p. Advice needed!

Aug 1, 2013 3:34 PM

Tags: #cuda #preview #graphics #card #ssd #hdd #optimization #fast-forward

Hello folks,

 

I am relatively new to editing, not so much to computers and technologies. I was happily editing some GoPro 720p footage. Nearly with no issues, specifically I can fly through the previews at up to 3x fast-forward. 4x brings up stuttering.

 

Now as a contrast I started editing 1080p and it's a pain in the *ss. Above 2x (that is 3x and 4x) the stuttering while previewing footage in Premiere Pro CS6 starts.

 

I've read the FAQs (specifically about optimization, CUDA, multi-core, and so on). I have a Quadcore Q9550, 8 GB RAM, SSD main for the OS, secondary SATA 7200 RPM and a third SATA disk. When I look at the task manager and I do the 3x fast-forward in 1080p (also in 720p for the case, no obvious differences actually) I cannot see any "bottleneck" in my hardware. The HDD/SSD drives are nearly not working, the CPU is about 50% and the RAM is also about 50% of usage.

 

So I don't understand why this is happening? Do I actually need a CUDA graphics card? (Got a 9600 GT with 512MB RAM) Shouldn't the REST of the PCs hardware be completely "stressed" before I need to add a CUDA card to the system? Why doesn't it use the full CPU quadcore for the preview?

 

I also have checked and re-checked the correct sequence settings, and have done it manually and also the "quick way" buy using "Make new sequence from clip". Results where the same.

 

I appreciate your advice.

 

Thanks in advance,

marknekk

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 1, 2013 4:09 PM   in reply to marknekk

    CUDA helps accellerate effects, not playback.  Your problem may be that your disk isn't fast enough to sustain playback.  You may need a RAID for your media, caches and preview files.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 1, 2013 4:11 PM   in reply to marknekk

    That Q9550 is ancient.  That's the first thing I'd replace.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Jon-M-Spear
    970 posts
    Jan 27, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 2, 2013 3:24 AM   in reply to marknekk

    "Bad programing practices"? 

     

    What on earth are they when they're at home?

     

    Most people who have playback issues soon realise that their hardware specs simply aren't man-enough for the job.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 2, 2013 4:37 AM   in reply to marknekk

    If nothing is utilized to its fullest, that does not mean that the components are adequately fast per se. It more likely means that there is a bottleneck somewhere in your system - and it is unrelated to the CPU, disks, GPU or memory per se. Your system might have an excessive number of processes going on, or the motherboard's core-logic chipset and/or onboard memory controller could not keep up with the demands of the CPU or RAM.

     

    With that said, if a system based on a quad-core CPU performs slower than a system based on a much cheaper dual-core CPU, it tells you something: Your system's CPU platform is seriously outdated, if not totally obsolete. That's what I discovered when a Q9450 system performed significantly slower in the PPBM5 benchmark tests (this was with Premiere Pro CS5.5) than an i3-2100 system when both systems used identical disks and GPUs and had equal amounts of RAM.

     

    And though the 9600 GT is technically CUDA capable, it does not have enough RAM on the card to even enable GPU acceleration at all. CS5 to CS6 requires a minimum of 896MB on the card to even enable MPE GPU acceleration at all (assuming that you did the "cuda_supported_cards.txt" "hack"). Premiere Pro CC needs 1GB minimum on the card. It doesn't matter, in this case, as the 9600 GT would have been too slow to be of much use even with GPU acceleration enabled (it has only 64 or 96 CUDA cores, depending on the specific GPU core used).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 2, 2013 4:58 PM   in reply to marknekk

    I wouldn't consider a 5 year old quadcore as obsolete.

     

    In the world of computers, anything five years old is obsolete.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Alex Gerulaitis
    490 posts
    Jun 9, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 2, 2013 6:24 PM   in reply to marknekk

    When I look at the task manager and I do the 3x fast-forward in 1080p (also in 720p for the case, no obvious differences actually) I cannot see any "bottleneck" in my hardware. The HDD/SSD drives are nearly not working, the CPU is about 50% and the RAM is also about 50% of usage.

    Unlike Win8, Win7 Task Manager won't tell you much about disk I/O - Resource Monitor is a better tool for that.

     

    Windows 8 Task Manager:

     

    2013-08-02 Task Manager Windows 8.png

     

    Note "active time", "average response time". Win8 Task Manager is awesome.

     

    Windows 7/8 Resource Monitor:

     

    2013-08-02 Resource Monitor Windows 8.png

     

    You still get "active time" (blue graph), giving you an idea of utilization but not "response time".

     

    Have you tried doing a 3x playback test with the SSD you have? Put a video clip there temporarily, and do a 3x playback on it, see if the behavior is the same.

     

    Also, tried a 3x playback at 1/4th or 1/8th of resolution?

     
    |
    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