3 Replies Latest reply on Dec 11, 2015 5:03 PM by Szalam Branched from an earlier discussion.

    Is it possible to render on a graphics card instead of ram?

    CorruptedPixl_

      Maybe this is like the dumbest question in the world but,

      Is it possible to render on a graphics card instead of ram ?

       

      AE is rendering at 10% usage, but yesterday It was at 68% why is that ? i haven't changed anything.

       

      Also, could someone tell me the fastest H.264 render settings ? i am really struggling with it, i've watched tuts on YT but still, 3 hours rendering for 3 min video, and that was at 68% usage :/

       

      Please, if someone knows anything reply, Thanks!

       

      I have a MacBook Pro 15" retina 2015 16GB ram, a AMD Radeon R9 M370X 2048 MB graphics card and an intel I7 processor, 512GB flash and all those things, if any specs are missing you can look here: Configure - Apple It's with the 2.8 Ghz config.

        • 1. Re: Is it possible to render on a graphics card instead of ram?
          Matthew0301

          Yes it is possible to render on a graphics card instead of RAM, only if your graphics card supports CUDA.

          • 2. Re: Is it possible to render on a graphics card instead of ram?
            Szalam Adobe Community Professional & MVP

            CorruptedPixl_ wrote:

             

            Maybe this is like the dumbest question in the world but,

            Is it possible to render on a graphics card instead of ram ?

            AE doesn't render on RAM. It renders on the CPU. It uses RAM (a lot) during rendering though. And, when you render a preview (by pressing spacebar in 13.5 or 0 on the number pad in any version), it renders on the CPU and dumps the result into RAM.

             

            But that is not a dumb question at all! As GPUs get more and more powerful and CPUs seem to stagnate, it only makes sense to leverage all that potential power.

            At Apple's most recent WWDC, someone from Adobe demonstrated using Apple's Metal technology (which uses the GPU) to accelerate a few native effects in AE. This is cool and shows that the AE team is considering some ways to utilize GPUs. However, in its current version, AE has no option to render on a GPU. The closest thing AE had was the ray-traced renderer, but all that did was use the GPU to accelerate the rendering of 3d objects that were created with the ray-traced engine. That feature for creating 3d objects in AE is now obsolete, so I wouldn't worry about it.

             

            On the other hand, some third party effects do render on the GPU. So, if you use Video Copilot's Element, Red Giant Universe, ShapeShifter, Zaxwerks plugins, etc. you will be rendering some of it on the GPU or, at least, accelerating your render on the GPU.

             

            CorruptedPixl_ wrote:

             

            AE is rendering at 10% usage, but yesterday It was at 68% why is that ? i haven't changed anything.

            Nothing in your composition is different at all? 10% usage of what? If you had other software running, that might cause the difference too. If, for some reason, AE is waiting on a bottleneck somewhere that's created by something else that's fighting with AE, that could explain it.

             

            CorruptedPixl_ wrote:

             

            Also, could someone tell me the fastest H.264 render settings ? i am really struggling with it, i've watched tuts on YT but still, 3 hours rendering for 3 min video, and that was at 68% usage :/

            Many YouTube videos are terrible. I have seen a bunch with really bad advice. If any of them are showing you how to render an H.264 out of AE, that's a good sign they don't know what they're talking about.

            DON'T render an h.264 from After Effects! The h.264 encoding in AE was pretty poor in the older versions and it was removed in recent versions entirely. Now, the only way to do h.264 out of AE is by using QuickTime's h.264 encoder. But that thing was even worse than AE's old one! It's buggy and bad and Apple is no longer developing it or supporting it.

            You can either send your AE comp to the Adobe Media Encoder to encode your H.264 (and you can continue working in AE while that renders) or you can render an intermediate file out of AE's render queue and then use the Adobe Media Encoder on that file to make your h.264 deliverable.

             

            Now, what I usually do is work in CC 2015.1 (AE version 13.6) and then open that project file in CC 2014 (AE version 13.2) to render. CC 2014 still has multiprocessing in it, so my machine can make use of more cores. Depending on the contents of your composition (and how you've set up your memory and multiprocessing settings in CC 2014), using the multiprocessing in CC 2014 might use more of your processors and might be faster.

             

            If you're rendering out of CC 2015, you won't have multiprocessing. The AE team is in the middle of rewriting the core of AE to replace the old and cantankerous multiprocessing, but they're not done yet. CC 2015 is like a halfway point. (Or maybe a quarter-point? I don't know - it's not complete yet, that's my point.)

            • 3. Re: Is it possible to render on a graphics card instead of ram?
              Szalam Adobe Community Professional & MVP

              Matthew0301 wrote:

               

              Yes it is possible to render on a graphics card instead of RAM, only if your graphics card supports CUDA.

              Only for a couple of obsolete or barely used effects. But you don't have to just trust me on it. Listen to Adobe: GPU (CUDA, OpenGL) features in After Effects

              Also, our OP is using an AMD card, so no CUDA, but, again, it's fairly irrelevant.

               

              I forgot to mention something, CorruptedPixl_. Good options for an intermediate file include DNxHD, Cineform, QuickTime with the PNG codec, or QuickTime with the Photo-JPEG codec.