4 Replies Latest reply on Aug 4, 2014 4:32 AM by CS6Editing

    New video editing system for AE, GPU questions


      Hi all,


      I am about to configure a new system to use mainly for After Effects CS6, and Premiere CS6. I'm experiencing some difficulties choosing the right GPU.. If any of you could take the time to answer these question for me..it would be greatly appreciated!



      - I read the GTX 7xx with Kepler structure aren't supported/CUDA cores aren't used, is this true of do they work fine?


      - Does a good video card (with 1000+ CUDA cores) only help for speeding Ray-traced 3D, or will the overall editing experience be faster as well? ('live preview' while editing 'normal video', as well as the final render?)


      - What are the critical factors to look for in a video card for editing? (GDDR RAM, Base Clock, Memory Speed, Memory Interface Width, Memory Bandwith CUDA cores) I mainly work with 1080P digital SLR video and video effects, not a huge amount of 3d texts etc.


      - If i would choose the GPU as render engine, will the work be done purely by the GPU, of will it just 'assist' the CPU?


      - So far, i think the GTX 760 would be a good option, what is your opinion about this card for AE editing? Would this be a good choice or will a GTX 6xx or GTX 580 be a much better option? My budget for the whole system (without monitor etc.) is max. 1000 euro.


      - Would buying an SSD for storing the program files and the project files, be helpful? Or won't this increase the speed in editing by too much?



      The system I have on my mind so far, recommendations and changes are very welcome..


      MSI Z87-G45 Gaming

      Intel® Core™ i7-4770K

      ASUS GTX760-DC2OC-2GD5

      GeIL 16 GB DDR3-1600 Kit

      Seagate Desktop SSHD, 2 TB

      Cooler Master B700

        • 1. Re: New video editing system for AE, GPU questions
          Mylenium Most Valuable Participant

          Well, you are for the most part overthinking this and a lot of your technically uninformed assumptions simply make no sense at all.


          • The level of CUDA support is solely determined by the interaction between the program and the graphics driver as an intermediary layer and/or the specific CUDA libraries being compiled into the apps. The number of actual cores is irrelevant except for a specific minimum number being required to process a certain number of operations in one step per clock cycle, making this the determinining factor whether or not CUDA is actually available. anything beyond that falls into the configuration and compatibility issues category.
          • AE does not use any GPU rendering except for Raytrace 3D, some accelerated effects and Fast Previews. In the latter case it doesn't mean that the overall experience will be better than with pure CPU rendering, as effectively it could merely mean those features help to decode footage or provide hardware-accelerated management. Conversely, a single non-accelerated feature/ effect would make this go *kaboom*, anyway.
          • The actual RAM clock speed, VRAM type and what have you of your graphics card are utterly irrelevant. Ten year old cards can accelerate a single HD stream. The rest is as per the previous point - it's more likely you screw yourself or AE's internal limitations get in teh way and everything reverts to CPU modes.
          • SSDs do not accelerate program operations beyond quicker app launch and opening/ saving files. If at all, you are talking about a dedicated SSD cache, but whether or not that will make sense, will depend on how you work with AE. Same as above - a single processing intense effect can make your cache speed go *poof*.


          So in summary, for what it's worth, you are wasting your time even thinking about this stuff. More than AE's own crookedness any decision on what card you get should be driven by your actual workflows, not hypothetical, generalized scenarios that may not have any practical relevance. Unless you plan on extensively using Raytrace 3D, the actual card model is irrelevant. Beyond that it's much more critical to focus on specific plug-ins you may be using and that may benefit from a "good" card like Element 3D.



          • 2. Re: New video editing system for AE, GPU questions
            Todd_Kopriva Level 8

            As Mylenium says, After Effects uses the GPU for very little. Details are here:

            GPU (CUDA, OpenGL) features in After Effects CS6 and After Effects CC


            So, make your GPU buying decisions based on other software (like Premiere Pro), and whatever you get will be good enough for After Effects.


            Yes, getting and using an SSD is a good idea. Use it for your disk cache.


            See this page for information about hardware for After Effects: http://adobe.ly/pRYOuk

            • 3. Re: New video editing system for AE, GPU questions
              ECBowen Most Valuable Participant

              The GPU acceleration for Premiere is completely different than the Ray tracer acceleration in AE. The GPU specifications along with the system ram and CPU cores/clock absolutely effect the performance of the playback in Premiere. Which means selecting the correct GPU is based on Premiere's MPE acceleration and the workflow/media used. The concept that comes into play here is processing latency. A older card with 1GB of vram and a single or dual core CPU may be able to playback a single 1080 stream by itself without any scaling. However as soon as any effects or frame alterations are added then the time it takes for the data to process at the cpu, buffer into ram, and then process through the GPU is to long to maintain the playback. The clock speed of CPU, Ram, and GPU/Vram all come into play as to how long it takes for this entire pipeline to process. The amount of threads and cores decide how much data can process at any point in time. The more layers and effects to process along with frame changes, the more data that has to be processed in any time segment required for playback. This is similar to how much water needs to go through a pipe. This can be increased by either increasing the size of the pipe or the Water pressure in the pipe by how fast the water is fed into the pipe. Both aspects have their limitations based on where the water is coming from and going to and what the conditions required are. A balance is normally required between both the size of the pipe and the amount of water/pressure sent into the pipe. However the greater the volume of water required at any time segment the greater both aspects must be increased. IE this translates over into clock speed equals water pressure and threads equal size. SSD's also have a significant aspect on processing latency. The latency of SSD drives is a fraction of mechanical drives. This means the amount of time it takes for SSD drives to handle all of the read or write requests made by the application is significantly lower. This translates into lowering the amount of time drive requests effect the overall performance of the realtime playback along with how fast files are written. Since codecs have different data rate requirements often times SSD drives are cheaper options to handle data rates that normally require significant raid setups that are expensive. SSD drives also handle far more requests simultaneously which translates to putting more operations on a single disc. This often translates into better performance with more complex timelines or compositions.


              The comments regarding GPU specifications not really having any impact are relating to AE only. This is absolutely not the case for Premiere, AME, and Speedgrade or almost any other GPU acceleration application.




              • 4. Re: New video editing system for AE, GPU questions
                CS6Editing Level 1

                Mylenium @Todd_Kopriva ECBowen ,thanks for your input!

                I do also work in Premiere, so GPU acceleration would be helpful there. Besides Adobe, i'm planning to start getting into Blender as well.


                ECBowen thanks for this explanation!

                I decided not to go use an SSD, due to the (relatively small..but still) increase in costs, my system already got 30% more expensive than my initial budget..plus the fact that i read the lifespan of an SSD is a lot shorter than a regular hard drive.

                I did decide to upgrade the I7-4770K, i will go for an I7-4790K 4GHZ for a little bit extra power, for about 10$.


                If any of you has recommendations/changes to my so far selected parts, please let me know!


                My setup so far:

                MSI Z87-G45 Gaming (not sure)

                Intel® Core™ i7-4790K

                GIGABYTE GTX760-DC2OC-2GD5 (changed Asus to Gigabyte, Gigabyte version outperforms the Asus model in temperatures and noise levels)

                GeIL 16 GB DDR3-1600 Kit (not sure)

                Seagate Desktop SSHD, 2 TB

                Cooler Master B700


                Setup question:

                Besides supporting enough RAM, is there anything important i should concider when picking a motherboard?

                Same for the RAM.. should i buy DDR4, or will DDR3 do just fine? and how about the 1600mhz speed, fine?