5 Replies Latest reply on Mar 2, 2015 2:08 AM by Catalin.Truta

    Performance problems with After Effects

    Catalin.Truta Level 1

      Hi to everyone!


             I have a "little" problem with my After Effects CC. First of all, my system configuration is: Intel I7 5820K 6/12 core, 32 GB ram 2666Mhz, Nvidia 780GTX, Plextor 256 SSD, Asrock Fatal1ty X99X Killer... wich i think that is a very powerfull configuration. Anyway... I was loaded a video file (1080p, 23 fps, 43969kbps, MPEG-4 QuickTime MOV file) in a composition ... and when I preview the video (with space, not rampreview)... i don't have the playback in realtime (alternates between real time and not real time "written with red", 15 fps, 17 fps, 23 fps..", the next thing is that when i render the video (without any effects, without nothing... so i just render the composition without anything added) on QuickTime format, PNG codec, it took me 18 minutes to render an 45 seconds video... I also check everything in the performance settings of the After Effects, like: Ticked "Render multiple frames simultaneously", unticked "Only for render queue, not for ram preview", Installed cpu "12", "cpu reserved for other applications 0", "Ram allocation per background CPU 4GB", Actual CPUs that will be used "5"... I have OpenGl , Cuda and everything... So, please... tell me what is the problem?! Oh, and the CPU when i render is used only 10%.. I have QuickTime installed and everything... so i don't post something like a noob, doing some stupid mistakes... One more thing that i observed in after effects, is that when i hold the mouse clicked on the video file to move it in the canvas... and if I move it in continous in every direction... i see that there is a freezing moment for about 2-4 ms every 1-2 seconds.


      Thank you in advance

        • 1. Re: Performance problems with After Effects
          slovill Level 1

          You could try purging memory and disk cache before you render. That should help a tiny bit.

          Clean your media database and cache.


          Is your disk cache set to the SSD drive?

          Is your footage stored on the SSD or another fast HDD?

          Footage stored on slower/external drives or card readers will hurt performance.


          Best performance requires separate drives for program / footage / cache. But I use my internal raid10 array for both footage and cache without too much impact on performance.

          e.g. On my windows 7 system: Program on C:, Footage on H:, Cache on H: (raid 10)


          Check your preferences for GPU acceleration.


          Here are my settings... (click for larger image) (check my profile for system specs)


          and the GPU information button reveals...


          Other settings:







          Hope it helps.

          • 2. Re: Performance problems with After Effects
            Catalin.Truta Level 1

            Hi, thank you for you answer


            Yes, i do purging the memory before i start render, my disk cache is set to ssd (plextor 256 GB wich heading to some 700mb/s read and 650 mb/s write), and all the footages are on SSD, so i work only on SSD


            The settings are in most part like yours. Meanwhile i resolved a problem... my only problem for now is that when i render something, my CPU is not using more than 15-20% The Format is QuickTime and codec PNG..


            In fact, wait...i've made right now a test...


            if i am rendering on QuickTime with PNG, my CPU is using only 15%... and from a footage (without anything added, effects or nothing)... of one hour and 30 minutes... it will finish the rendering in 7 hours


            if i am rendering on QuickTime with H.264... my CPU is using 70%... and the same footage of 1:30 time... will render in 20 minutes


            so... How can i make something to render with 100% using CPU on every codec ? that is my problem now


            Thank you in advance again!

            • 3. Re: Performance problems with After Effects
              slovill Level 1

              Hmmm. I just did a bunch of tests, too. Source file = 240 frame QuickTime, no effects, 1920x1080, 24P, animation codec.


              • The QT PNG is definitely a memory hog when rendering. My CPU runs @ 14% and memory usage climbs from 8GB to 22 GB while rendering a 10 second video in 4 1/2 minutes.
              • Sending the simple comp to Adobe Media Encoder tasks the CPU at 14%, but memory usage maximizes at 13GB and the render is done in 3 minutes. If you have a long clip to render the machine is probably choking on memory.
              • Rendering an uncompressed PNG sequence (240 frames) takes just under 4 minutes. CPU @ 14%, memory usage 21 GB.
              • AE Renders a QT Animation codec in 43 seconds. Taking that QT Anim file into QuickTime and rendering a QT PNG (in QT) CPU runs at 14% again, and the file is done in 4 minutes with hardly any memory usage.


              In all of these scenarios the Quadro K4200 GPU is running at a cool 5 to 10%. My conclusion: The PNG codec is just a poor performer, and your system is set up and running just fine. Others may have different ideas.

              • 4. Re: Performance problems with After Effects
                slovill Level 1

                Oh, and there can be many factors why the CPU is not fully utilized. In general, data is just not being fed to the processor quickly enough to utilize all of the available cycles.


                And I ran one more test, removing the "render multiple frames simultaneously". QT PNG, 13% CPU, very mild memory usage, 3 1/2 minutes.

                • 5. Re: Performance problems with After Effects
                  Catalin.Truta Level 1

                  yes, i saw that are a few codecs that are poor performers too bad because i think that Animation and PNG are the most lossless codecs, that why i use them, and after that i prefer to compress with HandBrake with some advanced options to make the file small and have the "same" quality

                  I've done the same tests on other computer and is the same s**t soo... not the computer is the problem, the codec has something, too bad that some codecs don't know how to manage the complete resources.. is like you will spend a lot of money... and than you see that you could have the same results even with a poor computer ... in theoretical