AMD Threadripper 1950x Slow Adobe Boot and Render

[Mastar Media]

I just bought a power-house PC specifically for Premiere Pro and After Effects, and was expecting extremely fast render times. However, not only does Premiere Pro and After Effects take over 30 seconds to boot (my old computer booted them in less than 10 seconds), but the rendering time seems the same, if not worse. Here are my specs:

Processor: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X (16-Core) (Boost Up to 4.0 GHz)

Motherboard: ASUS ROG ZENITH EXTREME (AMD X399 Chipset) (Up to 4x PCI-E Devices) (ECC Support)

System Memory: 64GB DDR4 3000MHz

Storage Set 1: 1x SSD (480GB)

Storage Set 2: 1x Storage (3TB Seagate / Toshiba)

Graphics Card(s): 1x GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB

Operating System: Microsoft Windows 10 Professional (64-Bit Edition)

Both Adobe and the Cache are located on the SSD. I have tried allocating more memory to Adobe. I have tried both Creator Mode and Game Mode on the 1950x.

It took me 15 minutes to render a 12 minute 1080p video which barely had any effects, and used a lot of still frame pictures with voice-over. With this powerful of a machine, it seems absurd.

Also in Adobe Animate, when I try to preview my animations in 1080p within the program, there is still a lot of lag. I would get this on my older PC too, but I expected that this machine could handle it.

Does anyone know what may be slowing down the applications? Is Adobe Programs simply not updated yet for high-core processors?

[Trevor.Dennis]

Have you read the Puget Systems testing of the 1950X with Premiere Pro CC and AE CC?  This would tell what you should expect from your system, and might give some help with setup.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-CC-2017-1-2-CPU-Performance-Core-i9-7940X-79...

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/After-Effects-CC-2017-2-CPU-Performance-Core-i9-7940X-796...

[Mastar Media]

Actually yeah I have read this, which basically states that rendering speeds don't really increase with cores. However with a much better graphics card and memory/ram than my old PC, I'd still expect an increase. Additionally, it does not explain why the boot time for Adobe Applications is so incredibly slow.

[Bill_Gehrke]

Tune that system, it probably is loaded with many processes that start up automatically that are not needed.  Look at Task Manager/Performance an see how many processes are running before you even start Premiere.  Also looking at the same info and see if you have any CPU usage before you start Premiere.  This with the new Windows 10 Creator 1703 version

Go to the Startup window and disable everything

There are other processes that will automatically start up not on this list.

When you get tuned I suggest that you download, unzip and run my Premiere Pro BenchMark (PPBM) and see how well you do.  Here are the results from a very happy ThreadRipper 1950X owner

"34","52","13","158", Premiere Version:, 11.1.2.22

1. Max also has a GTX 1080 Ti, so once tuned you should see numbers like the 52 and 13 seconds for those two GPU tests
2. He also has a M.2 PCIe Gen 3 x4 SSD for his project and media files to achieve the great first number which is the Disk I/O test where you have a lousy hard disk drive which will probably score 170 seconds or more.
3. The last number 158 seconds is strictly CPU performance

[chrisw44157881]

very true what Bill says. also, certain antivirus programs can cripple random access hard drive speed. for every little file being loaded by adobe, they will read and write data about it.

also, your storage #1 SSD, what brand is that?

some SSD's are rather slow with 4k writes.

and storage#2, platter drives are much slower for rendering.

and check for any overheating as well.

disabled hpet?

[Bill_Gehrke]

Thanks Chris

I forgot one other new computer item.  Make sure you disable indexing on your project disk drive(s).

[Mastar Media]

Tried this, no increase in speeds.

[Mastar Media]

-Western Digital SSD

I tried rendering directly to the SSD, didn't increase speed.

What is hpet?

[chrisw44157881]

1. bcdedit /deletevalue useplatformclock—this can improve performance by 5 to 8 percent.

2. http://support.amd.com/en-us/download/chipset?os=Windows+10+-+64

power plan core parking

3. fresh install windows

4. rendering to a ssd has to also come from a ssd on source footage.

5. is cuda enabled?

6. run Bill's benchmark program and report back.

BillG Video Editing Blog

[Mastar Media]

Hey Bill,

I am a little confused on the instructions. Where does the "34","52","13","158" numbers come from?

[Bill_Gehrke]

If you open the download in Premiere you will see three timelines, the instructions on how to export each timeline are given on the first frames of each timeline.

1. The first timeline (Step 1) is the Disk I/O timeline and is purely disk intensive and measure the write rate of your export disk.
2. The second timeline MPEG2-DVD is exported twice first with GPU Acceleration (Step 2) and the second time without GPU Acceleration and therefore is CPU only (Step 3).
3. The third ultra complex 7-layer timeline H.264 (Step 4) is exported with GPU acceleration.
4. That produces 4 exports and when you run the appropriate "Statistics.vbs" script it produces a file called "Output.csv" which contains the time it takes to run each of the 4 Steps

[noa-noa]

I came across your post while searching for a identical problem I have with my new pc system and a threadripper 1950x, I don't use premiere but edius and have exactly the same problem as you do, a lot slower program load and a generally more "laggy" feeling while using the program. My older i7 4790K also loads edius a lot faster and feels faster while using it. Performance while rendering/exporting a film looks good though, it's just the load times and the general feel while using the system, it's like it needs to think a bit before it acts.

[Bill_Gehrke]

I assume that you bought an off-the-shelf computer and they typically come loaded with a kinds of garbage software the steals CPU cycles.  Tune that guy and get rid of everything not necessary like I said above.  Then test it with my PPBM to see if you can get the results I listed.  What antivirus are you using?  Disable it and see if that helps.  Also make sure you have disk indexing turned off on your project disks.

[noa-noa]

In my case it's a custom build pc with only the OS and editing program, nothing else running in the background so also no virusscanner and the system has been tuned for my particular editing program like I always do, this is the first time I am experiencing such lag issues.

[noa-noa]

Update for Nicolas, I just found a comment on a overclockingsforum where a user was experiencing lag problems, they found out the following:

Open CMD as an administrator

run: bcdedit /enum

if you see 'useplatformclock' set to true then run thats your problem

I ran: bcdedit /set useplatformclock false

bcdedit /deletevalue useplatformclock

you might get away with just running bcdedit /deletevalue useplatformclock

I just tried this and it has allready solved my slow start up times, the system still doesn't feel as responsive as my older one but at least I don't have to wait so long before I can start editing. It seems this is caused by asus own ai suite .

[chrisw44157881]

thanks for your update. don't forget to update your windows threadripper core power plan profile. I have the link a few posts up.

yes, the bcd clock is a big one for sure. The OP wasn't clear if he tried that one already in my original post.

[noa-noa]

I didn't see your post which mentioned the same as I did! The threadripper core power plan profile was something I allready had selected, deleting the useplatformclock value had a big effect on system performance, I ran a passmark performance test before and "only" got to 14000 for cpu performance, after I deleted the useplatformclock I re-ran the test and now I get 23000.

[Bill_Gehrke]

I am confused, I wanted to see if HPET was running on my Windows 10 i7-6950X with an ASUS X99E-WS motherboard and followed your instructions to run "bcdedit"  this is what I get:

So I checked Windows Explorer and sure enough it is there.

So I checked the Properties and it is not even hidden

What do I do to get it to run?

[Mike_1_Irish]

Hi Bill. I would love to read the responses you receive on this. I also am interested in how to view and change this setting so it could hopefully help me with my system. I suppose with Christmas almost upon us now people will find it difficult to find the time to respond to us.

regards.

Mike 

[donbarrum]

Im experiencing the same as you. I custom built a machine for the purpose of 3d rendering. A Threadripper 1950x powerhouse with 128gb ram and 3 tb of SSD and GTX 1080Ti.
Last year I built a PC for general purpose work in 3d and Adobe programs. So its basically the same machine, but with a 6 core Intel CPU overclocked to 4.4 GHz - because I wanted a balanced amount of cores vs clockspeed.
I have compared a lot of different projects in After Effects and Premiere now with these machine, to see how responsive they are in adobe programs. I can confirm your findings and sadly tell you this is how it is. Adobe programs doesn't utilize cores well at all. Rendering speed and responsiveness on the 4.4 ghz 6 core is MUCH better (!!!) than any result I can squeeze out of the threadripper (despite the threadripper even being overclocked to 3.9GHz as well).

Also, just to add another layer of disappointing info. Before my 6 Core Intel machine (which also has GTX 1080, 3 tb of SSD (960 Samsumg Pro M.2 SSD) and 128 gb of 2666 Mhz Ram.) I owned a Retina iMac with 4 Cores and 4.4 Ghz i7 CPU and it rendered just as fast as my 6 core, no difference!! Not only rendering, but when working with a ton of layers in after effects, particularly vector shapes and such, you will notice such a TREMENDOUS slowdown with the threadripper vs. a high clockspeed CPU that it's unfathomable. I worked on a scene with about 100 circles/shapes in After Effects on my 6 cores and was going to finish the project on the Threadripper. I was completely shocked how much slower it was, it used about 3x the amount of time to preview every single frame and scrubbing the timeline was like scrubbing through thick mud. I had to go back and finish it on my "old" machine.

I remember Adobe, many years ago, when they stated that they were going to start optimizing After Effects...The community manager then, Todd Kopriva (or something) said if you are investing for the future of Adobe, buy a multi core machine, but currently its pretty useless (and this was the time when you could even render on multiple cores in AE...now you cant). But as we all know from Adobe, future plans, means a few decaded...And After Effects currently renders slower today than it did many years ago, only preview is better than before. So, are you going to buy anything to be used in Adobe programs, stay faaar away from multi threaded expensive machines, its completely pointless! A retina iMac with high clockspeed will perform a LOT better than a Mac Pro. The new iMac Pro that is about to be launched will be a complete WASTE of money for anyone doing heavy video work in Adobe programs primarily. If you are making/buying a windows PC's for sake of doing After effects or Premiere work, buy/make a consumer grade gamer rig! Few cores, silly high clockspeed and a good gpu. and just add as much ram as possible. Because with how currently Adobe programs works, your never gonna get any better performance on any machine than that, no matter how much money you throw at it.

This is the information that neither Adobe, Apple, Intel or AMD is sharing, but it is a fact! Apple don't mind showing off the iMac Pro or Mac Pro working in Adobe programs as a recommended rig, which is a complete hoax! Because, if you are getting the 18 core iMac Pro or a threadripper 1950x to be working in After Effects or Premiere or photoshop, you are seriously being screwed over both financially and with User Experience.

[Mike_1_Irish]

This makes for depressing reading for me. I've only completed my new build and am working on setting things up as I like them. I chose the AMD 1950X CPU a 1080 and lots of speedy ram 64Gb's. I've found that LR/PS were slowing down when I added lots of adjustments to an image. I know of others who are building systems now with 1950x/1800and i9-!! We are here in 2017 and Adobe has chosen to remain in the dark ages where the CPY's had tour to quad cores. Other software company's have chosen to modernise their platform's like Da vinci and others. Adobe wake up and smell the coffee.

Mike

[donbarrum]

Yeah, its really depressing. But if your new machine is meant for Adobe software then replacing the threadripper with a 4 Core Intel i7-7740x  which cost 1/3 of the price would give you a much MUCH more responsive system, I guarantee you.  particularly in After Effects and Photoshop. I haven't testet Premiere that deeply with various computers, but the fact that Final Cut pro X works faster on a cheap laptop than premiere does on a full fledged maxed out machine with a ton of cores should indicate how badly it utilizes the machines performance.  

[Bill_Gehrke]

Actually the fastest Turbo speed currently is the I7-8700K 6-core @ 4.7GHz.  This should be better at single threaded code than your i7-7740X @ 4.5GHz

Take a look at this test data from Puget

[donbarrum]

That's nice. I didn't know. But its only in turbo boost though, baseclock is lower. For me, what has bugged me the most with low clockspeed is that I notice the entire responsiveness in Adobe programs is slow....scrubbing the timeline and just general responsiveness in the UI is laggy. Therefor I think a high baseclock as possible is as important as the turboboost which kick in under rendering.
Hopefully next year, we can get a 8 core Intel CPU that can be overclocked to keep a fairly high base clock and turboboost up to something like 4.7, then I'll replace my Threadripper with that....Im sad to all ready considering replacing it, such a waste

The only reason though I want more than 4 cores is that I do a lot of 3d modeling/rendering. I honestly think, if you do Adobe work only, 4 or 6 or 8 core has no noticeable difference, only CPU clockspeed.

[Bill_Gehrke]

You see I do not notice any problem like that.  I just run my desktop i7-6950X unit at a constant 4.5 GHz "period".

Of course it is not running unless I turn it on for a specific event, and it rarely ever is even plugged into the Internet unless I want a specific update or new download and then immediately disconnect it.