14 Replies Latest reply on Mar 15, 2017 3:47 PM by rlmilton

    larger cpu core or more cores better?

    andrews90790780 Level 1

      is it better to have a 4ghz 4 core chip or a 22 core 2 ghz xeon for ae? i need to know what runs premiere the best and the fastest out of those types of extremes

       

      my ae is CHUGGING

       

      i have 4 titan x graphics cards and i don't think it's really making use of that

       

      i have the core i7 6700k

       

      i am running a 4k monitor so i can't tell if that's the issue that is slowing AE down

       

      64 g ram and running off of ssd's too

        • 1. Re: larger cpu core or more cores better?
          Pat481 Level 1

          Aftereffects isn't terribly well optimised for highend hardware at the moment. It doesn't make much use of the graphics card in normal 2D operation and multithreaded rendering was disabled in a previous version. My advice would be to wait for a future version or switch to a different motion graphics tool in the mean time.

          • 2. Re: larger cpu core or more cores better?
            andrews90790780 Level 1

            wow that is really brutal. i'v;e spent so much money on after effects plugins etc. hoping to make great use of the software on my new machine and i'm finding out it can't handle the gear.

             

            adobe needs to step it's game up!!

             

            what are some other options?

            • 3. Re: larger cpu core or more cores better?
              andrews90790780 Level 1

              any idea why the multithread rendering was removed?

              • 4. Re: larger cpu core or more cores better?
                Pat481 Level 1

                Other then what i've read in a thread, no idea. I'll try to find that thread.

                 

                I know, in the same boat. I can only hope there are alarm bells going off at Adobe HQ, but i wouldn't be surprised if they only see this as a niece issue that annoying people are complaining about, judging anecdotally form the tones of some of the replies you get here.


                Apple motion flies, rendering almost anything in real time (absolutely no caching on the kind of projects that are stop and start on AE) on modest hardware, but it's mac exclusive and has very little plugin support by external companies. I've heard great things about davinchi but have never tried it myself.

                • 5. Re: larger cpu core or more cores better?
                  Gutter-Fish Level 4

                  $6,000 on video cards and $400 on cpu?!!  

                  • 6. Re: larger cpu core or more cores better?
                    andrews90790780 Level 1

                    lol

                    any constructive comments? it seems like you have some thoughts on this that i'd like to hear

                    • 7. Re: larger cpu core or more cores better?
                      Gutter-Fish Level 4

                      Well, it's really none of my business but: What are you planning on doing that you need 4 Titan X's?  I could be wrong but unless you're planning on running video walls or having a third party gpu renderer rendering large amounts of data 4 Titan Xs is massive overkill.    Your original question was whether to go with fewer cores at higher speeds or more cores at lower speeds.   For the price of those 4 Titans you could get two workstations, one with each kind of CPU & a single GPU and dedicate each to the apps that maximize that specific configuration.   That $5,000 could probably be better spent...

                      • 8. Re: larger cpu core or more cores better?
                        andrews90790780 Level 1

                        3d projects. Octane and cycles renders rely on heavy GPU.

                         

                        Trying to get that system to work well with Adobe.

                        Right now Adobe stuff is choking.

                        • 9. Re: larger cpu core or more cores better?
                          Gutter-Fish Level 4

                          I am aware.  It still begs the question....would you be interested in buying a bridge in Florida?

                          • 10. Re: larger cpu core or more cores better?
                            A.I.1 Level 3

                            One site that sells AE systems (not sure if I'm allowed to say the name or if it would be flagged as advertising, but it starts with P),

                            says that:

                             

                            4 core i7 6700K 4 to 4.2 Ghz gives the best performance over those with many cores, including Xeons - for 2D anim.

                             

                            On another page for recommended systems they say the Core i7 6850K 6 core 3.7 to 4.0 Ghz is the best for 2d anim (some AE operations are said to work better on other CPUs).

                             

                            I suppose it depends on the version of After Effects you are using (some versions - eg. earlier? may be better than others for using more cores etc.). eg. does using an older version of After Effects allow you to use more cores/better multiprocessing better than the more recent one?

                             

                            I expect the fact you are rendering/viewing at 4K will probably be a big reason for it being slower. Maybe that system would go much faster at 1080p/1440p (or is it the monitor only that is 4K but the compositions aren't 4K?).

                             

                            I'd also check the Windows Task Manger/Performance thing to see what's being run high/maximum. Possibly even more RAM might help with the size/type of renders (eg. 4K) you are doing (perhaps especially if "render multiple frames simultaneously" is enabled?)? Perhaps also configuring After Effects differently in the memory & multiprocessing or media & disk cache settings might help. I think it's probably recommended against it but perhaps AE could be set up to use the GPU for previews etc. (I think it was recommended not to enable OpenGL - even though that may give faster previews - and I think that might be removed from later versions)? Also, is there any special setting that needs to be edited if the GPU wasn't in the list of supported AE video cards - so that After Effects (depending on the version) will support it and use it it to it's best capabilities (eg. CUDA etc.)?

                             

                            Also was there some test done on this forum/site with different processors or systems to see the best systems for AE rendering etc?

                            • 11. Re: larger cpu core or more cores better?
                              Szalam Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                              andrews90790780  wrote

                               

                              any idea why the multithread rendering was removed?

                              Yes.

                              Long story.

                              The AE team asked in a blog post if we, the users, would prefer them to keep on trying to add features to AE or to take a bit of a break from that and work on simply improving AE's speed in interactivity and rendering.

                              Overwhelmingly, we said, "SPEED!"

                              So, the AE team set to work tearing apart AE's code and rebuilding the architecture almost from scratch in order to modernize the decades old code.

                               

                              They debuted parts of this new architecture in CC 2015. It was much buggier than anybody would have liked, but there was a noticeable change in how AE worked. You could now keep on working with AE while the renderer was chugging away on something. This was a HUGE improvement in interactivity. Now, in CC 2017 (the 14.1 update), all of the big bugs have been squashed and AE's new architecture is more in place. It runs smoothly and stable for many/most folks and has gotten faster and faster.

                               

                              So, we have much faster interactivity. However, they are not as far along on getting a new renderer in place to make rendering faster.

                               

                              Downside to the rewrite is that multiprocessing was not compatible with the new architecture. Multiprocessing, for those who might not be aware, wasn't a very good solution. It was an old kludge to make the single-threaded After Effects use multiple cores. What it would do is spin up several After Effects processes in the background to render a bunch of frames. Now, it was pretty clever, but it had a number of bugs. For example, shading in the popular third-party plugin Trapcode Particular would sometimes go all flickery. Sometimes renders would fail or never even start. Some expressions weren't compatible with multiprocessing, so it would be disabled. Same with some effects (third party and native).

                               

                              So, old AE was single-threaded, but kinda faked it sometimes. The new AE is genuinely using multiple threads (the UI and renderer run on different threads) which AE has never done before. And, the new C4D renderer (for generating 3d geometry natively in AE) is also a fully multithreaded renderer. The problem is that AE's main renderer isn't multithreaded yet.

                               

                              Now, that's not to say that the new version of AE is always slower. With more and more effects being GPU-accelerated (which the old versions of AE never had) and AE being more efficient in other things, some projects will render quicker on the newer version. Some will render quicker on older versions.

                               

                              If you find yourself more often in situations where the older version renders significantly faster, I recommend working in the new version (faster interactivity) and then save it back to version 13 to render in CC 2014 (the last version with the old architecture).

                               

                              For what it's worth, I haven't opened CC 2014 in my freelance studio in months.

                               

                              Does that help?

                              1 person found this helpful
                              • 12. Re: larger cpu core or more cores better?
                                Szalam Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                                A.I.1  wrote

                                 

                                One site that sells AE systems (not sure if I'm allowed to say the name or if it would be flagged as advertising, but it starts with P),

                                Was it Puget Sound or something like that? I've heard lots of good things about them. Especially for folks building multi-GPU rigs for using Octane or Cycles4D in Cinema 4D. They seem like a very competent company with great customer service.

                                 

                                And, yes, to answer the original question of this thread: in the current version of AE, it is better to have a very fast core speed and fewer number of cores.

                                That holds true for using Cinema 4D IF (but only if) you're using a third-party GPU renderer (like Cycles4D). At my full-time job, I use C4D's Standard renderer or Physical renderer for a majority of my projects, so I opted for many cores in my new machine. (Same for at home until I just got Cycles...now I want to pack in more GPUS!!!)

                                If I were just doing AE work, I would have gone with a single i7 running at the fastest clock speed I could get out of it.

                                • 13. Re: larger cpu core or more cores better?
                                  A.I.1 Level 3

                                  Szalam  wrote

                                  Was it Puget Sound or something like that? I've heard lots of good things about them. Especially for folks building multi-GPU rigs for using Octane or Cycles4D in Cinema 4D. They seem like a very competent company with great customer service.

                                  Yes Puget Systems. They have graphs and stuff with comparisons. I was a bit confused about why in their recommended hardware they seemed to be saying the i7 6850K was mostly best (eg. in 2D anim), except for some tasks, but following the link that they said the i7 6700K 4.0-4.2 Ghz was better (but just now it seems like they don't recommend the 6700K because it doesn't support more than 64 GB RAM) (they also recommend the Core i7 6900K - even though their graph said it was slower for 2D anim.).

                                   

                                  Since the 6700K is what the OP has - and if more RAM could help at all (eg. for 4K stuff - I don't know if the comps are 4K or just the monitor) I assume the processor would need to be changed (based on the above website). While using something like a 6850K instead might be slightly slower (processor-wise) - it should allow a lot more RAM so more could be cached - which could speed various things up.

                                  • 14. Re: larger cpu core or more cores better?
                                    rlmilton Level 1

                                    Yeah, this is the conclusion many are coming to.  I'm working harder to do AE work and really any Adobe app... there are an increasing number of great alternatives.