Okay, so unlike sony vegas or powerdirector Cuda is not used for exporting files and the gpu is not used to assist in this process.
Therefore, it's all seemingly about cpu for the file creation. However Cuda is used to i crease overall image quality.
Can someone verify this to be correct .? My old system can only be updated to a q9650 which I'll be getting, but for now it's just an e4400 running at 2.4gbz.
tbh i feel like i am way over my head. i understand fully the concept of the timelines etc but this is just diferent. even from the get go my consumer friendly samsung camera that creates 1080 or 720 mp4 files is not listed. i create a sequence based on what quicktime pro tells me and who knows if im even getting tnat right. i should have researched better i guess.
Did you notice the slow export when using Premiere Pro to export or 'queuing' the export using Adobe Media Encoder? AME doesn't support CUDA unless you specify the exact card in the supported cards text file, even if you dismiss the warning when setting mercury playback / CUDA in Premiere Pro. (search for that I posted about that last week) Anyway if you are just using Premiere Pro to export and you use CUDA that I'm not sure of the problem. However... I DO NOT agree with stevencfitness that GPU isn't used in export. It is used a heck of a lot depending on what your sequence is like. It is certainly used with GPU accelerated effects and I believe with scaling as well. I notice my exports using my CUDA card (GTX770) are 4x as fast as using software only.
After properly looking into things, i know that I got the card name right, but it is just underpowered hardware I have.
1. i used the GPU sniffer program that runs via command prompt, and I copy/pasted that into the file, and used administrator access to save it.
2. I used a script as well that modifies the file to contain nearly every proplerly spelled card that it could take.
My setup is now ancient for it, using a 2.4ghz core2duo, 4 gigs ram and the GTS 650 ti.
I rendered a 6 minute file at 720p using single pass via the export direct methor (not media encoder) and got a 12 minute render that looks much better than what powerdirector 11 was giving me, for about the same time frame to be honest.
I am going to upgrade this machine to a q9650 and then use if another year or so until my video editing skills improve vastly and i need a better machine for my projects.
I will point out the document that John posted here, it clearly states that the CUDA cores are not for exporting.
Here is where my confusion from coming to a professional video editing suite come from:
1. Powerdirector 11 literally went from taking 30-60 minutes to create and export an mp4 files to about three to six as soon as I put in the older HD 6570 card. It has terrible washed out colors, so after testing a 10 second clip via premiere pro i went with that.
2. Sonyvegas is the same, just put in a video card that can actually use the GPU during the final exporting of a file and see a decrease in render time.
3. the GPU is being used in premiere pro, i can see it going up/down during editing but not like the other applications. The other apps use about the same gpu/cpu ratio, they simply create the file much faster than premiere seems to.
powerdirector just seems to create the file much faster, whereas I am sure that PP produces a much better quality file.