Which version of Windows?
Have you tweaked anything, like turning off indexing, compression, removing crap like MSN, sidebar, Aero and disabling services not needed?
A Quadro 4000 is old technology, very slow in comparison to a Kepler card and an utter waste of money, unless you really need 10 bit output to expensive monitors. If you still use the same video card, as it appears to be the case, then you can't expect performance improvements from the same card.
Thanks for the reply.
It's Windows 7 Ultimate i am running.
I have turned of all internet stuff (MSN etc) and disabled all services that i know i don't need (but i have left most of the Microsoft ones as i am not sure what they are). Aero is off too.
I was going for the Quadro as it is what a lot of people have recommended my for the CUDA and its performance with the Mercury Playback engine.
Yes at the moment i have the same card, but as i have a much faster processor and memory i should be seeing marked improvements in the speed of the computer. Is it the video card that speeds up render times?
Your new rig should be much faster!
1) Red Giant effects have been know to be single threaded instead of allowing in you case 12 cores (6 cores on CPU + 6 hyerthreads) to perform rendering; you may try a project using only Adobe effects and monitor what you see in the Task manager to see how hard the cpu is working for renders for both cases
2) Have you enabled MPE? If not, deleted the "cuda_supported_cards.txt file" (in c:\program files\adobe\adobe premiere pro cs5 folder) and verify "Mercury Playback Engine" is enabled (from menu - Project/Project Settings/General Tab/Video Rendering and Playback)
3) Total all out tweaking may help, but for your intial testing you may try turning all of the graphic effects in Win7 back on. I forget the details, but I seem to recall there is at least one graphics setting that impacts the way Adobe works
4) Suggest running PPBM5 and reporting the results for each of the 4 test sections back here and also do a lookup of where your systems stands vs. the numerous others tested (see ppbm5.com, a site provided by Harm and Bill from this forum)
5) Your new system should be faster than the older one, but if you were to run you two VR 300GB's in RAID 0 you will be much closer to providing enough drive capacity to feed your hot-shot cpu; still more drives would be even better (budget - two 2x drive RAID 0 arrays; nice - one 8x RAID 5 array using a hardware controller card; don't even think about running RAID5 off a typical motherboard controller - horribbly slow)
Go to the CS5 Benchmark http://ppbm5.com/ site and view results... and run the benchmark on your computer to compare your results
As Harm said, use a Quadro only if you need 10 bit color output... otherwise there are many faster GPU cards
Jim thanks for your help. I have run the PPBM5 program and submitted my results. I am awaiting them as we speak.
What i have notices is that i cannot select the Mercury Playback Engine GPU Acceleration mode (it says that it is not possible on my system) and is set to software only.
My OS and Project hard drives are the SSD's, the RAID VR 10000's are for storage and backup only.
John, i do not need the 10 bit colour output as far as i know, i was advised that the Quadro 4000 was the best for After Effects and Premiere due to it's CUDA functions. I would be happy not to get one as i would like to keep my monitor set up as it is.
What cards can anyone suggest to me. Are the NVidia Keplers the way to go?
Regarding enabling the Mercury Playback Engine, did you find and delete the file that I mentioned? If you did, then possibly your video card does not have a sufficient # of CUDA cores for it to work.
Regarding drives, SSDs do not work as well for video as their specifications may imply. The streaming write performance for uncompressed files to most SSDs is not that great.
You could try the following drive setup, rerun PPBM5 and see if it helps:
VR: media, project, scratch
1 SSD: media cache, media cache DB, and render output
And, BTW, what were the four times for your PPBM5 test?
>advised that the Quadro 4000 was the best for After Effects and Premiere due to it's CUDA functions
Buy a Quadro card ONLY if you need 10 bit color output
Go to http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus and look at the various card specifications... and take a close look at what people are using at the benchmark site
I think the GTX670 is going to do a lot more for you... but there are others that cost even less and do better than a Quadro
Jim, i found that file and deleted it and i now can access the Mercury Playback Engine GPU Acceleration (I missed it earlier as i was looking on the C drive in the Adobe folder and it was on the D drive Adobe Folder).
Can i ask why that file is there in the first place? It won't harm my video card and/or running the GPU acceleration on this card if it has been deemed by Adobe to be unfit for it?
My figures on the PPBMS were :-
John, i think you are right. The GTX670 looks a much better bet, especially as the 4 gig one is around what i was going to spend on the Quadro. Plus by the looks of it i won't need to purchase additional HDMI monitors right now.
Thanks again everyone for all your help, i will keep you updated when my results arrive.
You have not yet submitted your data. I have just updated the results with the latest submissions, including my own with Win8 on a new system, but it is nowhere... where I like it to be. Only 3-rd overall and first with CS6, but it should be much better. Lots of tuning to do.
Did you know that direct export is more than 300% faster than AME Queue with PAL DV material? Direct Export only takes 11 seconds on my system, but 37 seconds via AME Queue. I could have reduced my score to 97 seconds. An all time high. or low.
I submitted my data around 4 hours ago. I received a conformation email (from the site) straight afterwards, which had my stats in (plus the name of the file that i sent).
Should i resubmit?
I did not now that direct export was faster, it wasn't before on my previous system (which took an eternity which ever way).
I now generally use AME as i need lots of different file types of each movie (My last one i needed a full Blu Ray, A DVD, a You Tube MP4 HD, an MP4 SD and a UScreen FLV). This was a 30 minute documentary.
If you are Darren, (hard to tell with these screen names), your results have already been included. If not, send me a PM where I can reach you.
I have my results.
I am not sure what they all mean though.
What is the best way for me to post them on here for evaluation?
You are currently ranked at # 277 with these scores: 70 + 33 + 92 + 70 + 0 = 265 This means that you Disk I/O test took 70 seconds, the MPEG2-DVD test took 33 seconds and so on. The thing that holds back your performance is that you have not enabled hardware MPE.
If you apply the 'hack' (search for it on this forum) you can easily shave off around 60 seconds from the total of 265 to improve your score to around 205 seconds and end up around rank # 140.
But more importantly, it will give you a snappier feel when editing. I don't know the exact line you have to add to the file:
C:/Program Files/Adobe/Adobe Premiere Pro CS6/cuda_supported_cards.txt
but I think it is something like
GeForce GTX 550 Ti or
GeForce GTX 550
We have all been "editing" this file for a long time (adding our card to the list) but someone here (Todd K. I think) shared that all you need to do is delete it!.
TCT did get MPE working OK, seems though he did not re-run PPBM5 though after doing so (see above).
Since i have deleted the file i have noticed an improvement, especialy when adding a Premiere effect (I do not have to render anymore and it plays smoothly).
The render times are still quite long though, and the MB Suite plug ins still do not play back well unless i render.
Now i have MPE working i will rerun the tests tomorrow. I will let you know how i get on.