Have you read the Puget Systems testing of the 1950X with Premiere Pro CC and AE CC? This would tell what you should expect from your system, and might give some help with setup.
Actually yeah I have read this, which basically states that rendering speeds don't really increase with cores. However with a much better graphics card and memory/ram than my old PC, I'd still expect an increase. Additionally, it does not explain why the boot time for Adobe Applications is so incredibly slow.
Tune that system, it probably is loaded with many processes that start up automatically that are not needed. Look at Task Manager/Performance an see how many processes are running before you even start Premiere. Also looking at the same info and see if you have any CPU usage before you start Premiere. This with the new Windows 10 Creator 1703 version
Go to the Startup window and disable everything
There are other processes that will automatically start up not on this list.
When you get tuned I suggest that you download, unzip and run my Premiere Pro BenchMark (PPBM) and see how well you do. Here are the results from a very happy ThreadRipper 1950X owner
"34","52","13","158", Premiere Version:, 220.127.116.11
- Max also has a GTX 1080 Ti, so once tuned you should see numbers like the 52 and 13 seconds for those two GPU tests
- He also has a M.2 PCIe Gen 3 x4 SSD for his project and media files to achieve the great first number which is the Disk I/O test where you have a lousy hard disk drive which will probably score 170 seconds or more.
- The last number 158 seconds is strictly CPU performance
very true what Bill says. also, certain antivirus programs can cripple random access hard drive speed. for every little file being loaded by adobe, they will read and write data about it.
also, your storage #1 SSD, what brand is that?
some SSD's are rather slow with 4k writes.
and storage#2, platter drives are much slower for rendering.
and check for any overheating as well.
I forgot one other new computer item. Make sure you disable indexing on your project disk drive(s).
-Western Digital SSD
I tried rendering directly to the SSD, didn't increase speed.
What is hpet?
Tried this, no increase in speeds.
1. bcdedit /deletevalue useplatformclock—this can improve performance by 5 to 8 percent.
power plan core parking
3. fresh install windows
4. rendering to a ssd has to also come from a ssd on source footage.
5. is cuda enabled?
6. run Bill's benchmark program and report back.
I am a little confused on the instructions. Where does the "34","52","13","158" numbers come from?
If you open the download in Premiere you will see three timelines, the instructions on how to export each timeline are given on the first frames of each timeline.
- The first timeline (Step 1) is the Disk I/O timeline and is purely disk intensive and measure the write rate of your export disk.
- The second timeline MPEG2-DVD is exported twice first with GPU Acceleration (Step 2) and the second time without GPU Acceleration and therefore is CPU only (Step 3).
- The third ultra complex 7-layer timeline H.264 (Step 4) is exported with GPU acceleration.
- That produces 4 exports and when you run the appropriate "Statistics.vbs" script it produces a file called "Output.csv" which contains the time it takes to run each of the 4 Steps
I came across your post while searching for a identical problem I have with my new pc system and a threadripper 1950x, I don't use premiere but edius and have exactly the same problem as you do, a lot slower program load and a generally more "laggy" feeling while using the program. My older i7 4790K also loads edius a lot faster and feels faster while using it. Performance while rendering/exporting a film looks good though, it's just the load times and the general feel while using the system, it's like it needs to think a bit before it acts.
I assume that you bought an off-the-shelf computer and they typically come loaded with a kinds of garbage software the steals CPU cycles. Tune that guy and get rid of everything not necessary like I said above. Then test it with my PPBM to see if you can get the results I listed. What antivirus are you using? Disable it and see if that helps. Also make sure you have disk indexing turned off on your project disks.
In my case it's a custom build pc with only the OS and editing program, nothing else running in the background so also no virusscanner and the system has been tuned for my particular editing program like I always do, this is the first time I am experiencing such lag issues.
Update for Nicolas, I just found a comment on a overclockingsforum where a user was experiencing lag problems, they found out the following:
Open CMD as an administrator
run: bcdedit /enum
if you see 'useplatformclock' set to true then run thats your problem
I ran: bcdedit /set useplatformclock false
bcdedit /deletevalue useplatformclock
you might get away with just running bcdedit /deletevalue useplatformclock
I just tried this and it has allready solved my slow start up times, the system still doesn't feel as responsive as my older one but at least I don't have to wait so long before I can start editing. It seems this is caused by asus own ai suite .
thanks for your update. don't forget to update your windows threadripper core power plan profile. I have the link a few posts up.
yes, the bcd clock is a big one for sure. The OP wasn't clear if he tried that one already in my original post.
I didn't see your post which mentioned the same as I did! The threadripper core power plan profile was something I allready had selected, deleting the useplatformclock value had a big effect on system performance, I ran a passmark performance test before and "only" got to 14000 for cpu performance, after I deleted the useplatformclock I re-ran the test and now I get 23000.
1 person found this helpful
Im experiencing the same as you. I custom built a machine for the purpose of 3d rendering. A Threadripper 1950x powerhouse with 128gb ram and 3 tb of SSD and GTX 1080Ti.
Last year I built a PC for general purpose work in 3d and Adobe programs. So its basically the same machine, but with a 6 core Intel CPU overclocked to 4.4 GHz - because I wanted a balanced amount of cores vs clockspeed.
I have compared a lot of different projects in After Effects and Premiere now with these machine, to see how responsive they are in adobe programs. I can confirm your findings and sadly tell you this is how it is. Adobe programs doesn't utilize cores well at all. Rendering speed and responsiveness on the 4.4 ghz 6 core is MUCH better (!!!) than any result I can squeeze out of the threadripper (despite the threadripper even being overclocked to 3.9GHz as well).
Also, just to add another layer of disappointing info. Before my 6 Core Intel machine (which also has GTX 1080, 3 tb of SSD (960 Samsumg Pro M.2 SSD) and 128 gb of 2666 Mhz Ram.) I owned a Retina iMac with 4 Cores and 4.4 Ghz i7 CPU and it rendered just as fast as my 6 core, no difference!! Not only rendering, but when working with a ton of layers in after effects, particularly vector shapes and such, you will notice such a TREMENDOUS slowdown with the threadripper vs. a high clockspeed CPU that it's unfathomable. I worked on a scene with about 100 circles/shapes in After Effects on my 6 cores and was going to finish the project on the Threadripper. I was completely shocked how much slower it was, it used about 3x the amount of time to preview every single frame and scrubbing the timeline was like scrubbing through thick mud. I had to go back and finish it on my "old" machine.
I remember Adobe, many years ago, when they stated that they were going to start optimizing After Effects...The community manager then, Todd Kopriva (or something) said if you are investing for the future of Adobe, buy a multi core machine, but currently its pretty useless (and this was the time when you could even render on multiple cores in AE...now you cant). But as we all know from Adobe, future plans, means a few decaded...And After Effects currently renders slower today than it did many years ago, only preview is better than before. So, are you going to buy anything to be used in Adobe programs, stay faaar away from multi threaded expensive machines, its completely pointless! A retina iMac with high clockspeed will perform a LOT better than a Mac Pro. The new iMac Pro that is about to be launched will be a complete WASTE of money for anyone doing heavy video work in Adobe programs primarily. If you are making/buying a windows PC's for sake of doing After effects or Premiere work, buy/make a consumer grade gamer rig! Few cores, silly high clockspeed and a good gpu. and just add as much ram as possible. Because with how currently Adobe programs works, your never gonna get any better performance on any machine than that, no matter how much money you throw at it.
This is the information that neither Adobe, Apple, Intel or AMD is sharing, but it is a fact! Apple don't mind showing off the iMac Pro or Mac Pro working in Adobe programs as a recommended rig, which is a complete hoax! Because, if you are getting the 18 core iMac Pro or a threadripper 1950x to be working in After Effects or Premiere or photoshop, you are seriously being screwed over both financially and with User Experience.
This makes for depressing reading for me. I've only completed my new build and am working on setting things up as I like them. I chose the AMD 1950X CPU a 1080 and lots of speedy ram 64Gb's. I've found that LR/PS were slowing down when I added lots of adjustments to an image. I know of others who are building systems now with 1950x/1800and i9-!! We are here in 2017 and Adobe has chosen to remain in the dark ages where the CPY's had tour to quad cores. Other software company's have chosen to modernise their platform's like Da vinci and others. Adobe wake up and smell the coffee.
Yeah, its really depressing. But if your new machine is meant for Adobe software then replacing the threadripper with a 4 Core Intel i7-7740x which cost 1/3 of the price would give you a much MUCH more responsive system, I guarantee you. particularly in After Effects and Photoshop. I haven't testet Premiere that deeply with various computers, but the fact that Final Cut pro X works faster on a cheap laptop than premiere does on a full fledged maxed out machine with a ton of cores should indicate how badly it utilizes the machines performance.
Just to give you some chart comparisons between TR and i7, this is compared to the i7 7700K (which isn't even as fast as the one I mentioned)
Threadripper pretty much looses on all accounts. And these numbers are rendering times. WHen it comes to snappyness and user experience in After Effects, thats when you really feel the hit.
I just want as many to know this as possible before buying the threadripper or a high core Intel machine. I partly feel I wasted money, because the threadripper machine is so slow that I tend not to use it for adobe stuff anymore. My kids old game machines are smoother to work with, honestly.
That's nice. I didn't know. But its only in turbo boost though, baseclock is lower. For me, what has bugged me the most with low clockspeed is that I notice the entire responsiveness in Adobe programs is slow....scrubbing the timeline and just general responsiveness in the UI is laggy. Therefor I think a high baseclock as possible is as important as the turboboost which kick in under rendering.
Hopefully next year, we can get a 8 core Intel CPU that can be overclocked to keep a fairly high base clock and turboboost up to something like 4.7, then I'll replace my Threadripper with that....Im sad to all ready considering replacing it, such a waste
The only reason though I want more than 4 cores is that I do a lot of 3d modeling/rendering. I honestly think, if you do Adobe work only, 4 or 6 or 8 core has no noticeable difference, only CPU clockspeed.
You see I do not notice any problem like that. I just run my desktop i7-6950X unit at a constant 4.5 GHz "period".
Of course it is not running unless I turn it on for a specific event, and it rarely ever is even plugged into the Internet unless I want a specific update or new download and then immediately disconnect it.
ok, thats nice. THats probably why you dont notice this problem anyway. I run my Broadwell E at a 4.1ghz and turboboost to 4.4, So with this I have no problem either. But with my threadripper machine, which has a base clock at 3.6 I do notice a huge drop it responsiveness and render speed is slower too.
I don't know if its CPU clock speed only, or if Adobe software is very badly optimized for AMD CPUs. But since my previous iMac with 4 cores and same clockspeed as my 6 Core Broadweel E rendered at the same speed, it shows that amount of cores serves no purpose, but clockspeed does.
So I have the 1950X and I have found some lag issues with PS and LR which I use on a daily basis. What I'm thanking from this tread is I should replace it with either a intel i7-6950X or even the i7-7700K or a low core count CPU. The reason is that Adobe doesn't or cant at this moment in time take advantage of these modern CPU high cores numbers! Where does the problem lie? Is with these Modern Workstations like the AMD 1950X or the Intel i9-7900X or is it with Adobe?
1 person found this helpful
Keep your Task Manager open to the Performance and see if what you are doing is multithreaded, I only know Premiere Pro so I cannot comment on Photo Shop and LightRoom. Take a look at this testing of Lightroom by Puget it is evident that much of Lightroom even the new classic is not well suited to lots of cores and that the best CPU is the one with the fastest Turbo speed like a 6-core i7-8700K at 4.7 GHz. Puget also has a similar test article on Photoshop with about the same conclusions. Attention overclockers it might be very interesting if for instance you could overclock a 10 core 4.5GHz to 4.7 GHz and beat the i7-8700K
I have done some testing with Premiere and much of the original parts of Premiere Pro are multithreaded with my Cores and Threads data down at the bottom of this page
Thank you Bill for chiming in. I am so disappointed in the performance of the 1950X compared to my old machine a X99 i7-6950X. I do have another computer with a i7-6700 in it I must load up some projects and compare the performance of each machine. When I think of the expense of this build and lack of performance it gives with Adobe products it almost make me cry. It looks like a higher clock speed is needed up in the 4+ GHz1
Yeah, It's the conclusion I've come to as well - I'm really bummed out about Threadripper 1950x, it was a huge waste of money for me. I don't even know why AMD or reviewers call it a great CPU for creators when Adobe doesn't take full advantage of it - most creators use Adobe some way or another...I'll replace mine with the next Intel CPU lineup probably.
Currently it seems the sweet spot between threads and speed is Intel 6 Cores overclocked as high as possible, like Bill suggests - since you want more than 4 cores if possible. Hopefully in a year or so we can get 8 cores with the same clockrates as the current 6.
'My guess' would be that the reason for all of this is that Adobe programs are based on very old code, and the programs are huge, so Adobe has to optimize one part at the time. Which is why you see stuff like Lumetri Colors, New Boxed Fast Blur getting updated. One tool at a time starts to use either Multiple Cores or the GPU, but the underlying system is not. Therefor there will always be a certain, quite noticeable, bottleneck. And only way for Adobe to really fix this would be to start clean, the way Apple did with FCPX, which would be devastating for a very long time as well.
Just to show how important it is that the NLE is optimized for multicore usage, I also use edius 9 and I can get up to 100% core utilization on my 1950x giving me very fast rendertimes. Overall my system lags a bit, more then my older i7 4790k, but during editing it's something I hardly notice, just openings programs takes longer.
Tom's has just declared the i7-8700K the best gaming CPU, and for lightly threaded apps like Photoshop and After Effects, you have to ask yourself why you'd pay serious money for a high end i9X or Threadripper system, when a $440 6core CPU in an all round much cheaper build is going to trounce it.
Thanks for sharing, its good to get proper confirmations of this, knowing for sure its not based on a wrong setup or something.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think I'll replace my threadripper 1950x with an overclocked i7-8700 next year. thats like buying a CPU for less than half the price to replace something that is suppose to be super powerful. In raw rendering speed it I will loose some time, particularly 3d rendering. But UX, responsiveness and previewing in AE is more important to me personally. 3D rendering can be sent to cloud rendering anyway.
Well here is my "contribution", my Premiere Pro BenchMark (PPBM) has one CPU centric test that uses a timeline that is very well multithreaded in Premiere Pro here are test results for a bunch of CPU's
Very interesting, I have received that Threadripper score from Max and he is delighted with his system. So I am guessing it is very dependent on whether the effects and features your workflow has and the if they are multithreaded well or not. I sure wish we had a list of effects and features and if they work well in a multithread application. My PPBM CPU test was designed back in the days of CS 5 & 6 so it does not include any new features since then.
thanks for showing.
Yeah I guess it also comes down to what part is most important to the one using the CPU. For me, what happens after I hit that Render button isn't that important, as I can just queue it up in adobe Media Encoder and let it churn through the files and spend the time it takes. Also my main Motion tool is AE, I only use Premiere once in a while. The problem that made me notice the huge drop in performance was when I was working with a ton of layers and most of them being vector shapes. AE became so slow, not only in updating the frames when scrubbing, but the entire program felt slow because of it.
I'm also an illustrator using Photoshop a lot, with a Wacom Cintiq tablet. And I can actually notice a framedrop, slower responsiveness when painting than I do with my 6850K 6 core CPU - which is probably Wacoms fault, but another reason why the Threadripper was a letdown for me.
The problem with these experiences is that they aren't as easily measured with numbers.
Hi Bill. That's encouraging news for me so. What if anything can I do to improve the 1950x performance with Ps/LR. I am finding the overall performance of the Treadripper 1950X is best left at stock settings! While in stock node it can run as low a 2.2! and bust unto 4.0 and higher. I also found that my memory doesn't play well with the 1950X, I have 64Gb of G.Skills Trident memory DDR4-3200 CP4-2566. Timings are Cl 16-18-18-38 at 1.35v so I get a light on the motherboard indicating that their is a problem with memory. I have manually set the timings and it is running at 2966GHz!
Update to to this post.
Things are running a lot better now and I am a little happier with the systems performance now. We will see how things go as time goes on and I will update you all as to my findings.
Hi Bill. Would it be possible to ask Max as to how he has his 1950X setup this would help myself and I am sure others decide on the best way to set up their machines?
I have almost the same specs and the same problem.
AMD Ryzen TR 1950X WOF 3400 TR4 BOX MSI X399 SLI PLUS X399 D432GB 3200-16 Ripjaws V K2 GSK Gain8GB D5X GTX 1080 Phoenix SSD 250GB 1.5/3.2G 960 EVO PCIe M.2 SAM
The performance especially while scrubbing the timeline is really bad. (PLAIN 4K material from a phantom 4 pro and a GH5)
It takes 1 sek. if you jump to another position. If you try scrubbing even without any effect or multiple elements it just cant handle it. After the first second it plays the clip smoothly but I thought that such a system could handle it more easily?!
My PPBM results where: 80/57/18/217
Can you say for sure that I can edit smoothly 4k with my system or is it just not possible?
I build this computer myself -> its fresh without any unnecessary background activity.
Thanks for any answer!
according to puget, it doesn't matter how many cores you have for live playback. 6 cores or 18 is pretty much the same for live playback speed and in many cases, the 1950 did worse than a 6 core!
Yes according to Puget, 1950x doesn't score much better in live preview and not much to gain at all compared to others. But in AE it really shows how much worse the 1950x is vs. f.example i7-8700K
I too wonder if there's anything I can do to improve this. I have 2 identical systems, all with high specs, only difference is the CPU. And for me, anything but 3d rendering seems on par or slower than my 6 core 4.4 ghz. Particularly machine reboot and after effects liveplayback is noticeably worse on the 1950x to the extent it's annoying to work with. . I wonder if there's anything I can do to improve it, but after reading through Puget systems, it seems that's just how it is. Puget sell different machines for Adobe software and 3D rendering, so a jack of all trades machine is impossible I guess. which is what I thought/hoped the threadripper would potentially be.
Hi All. Well I finally came to the conclusion that the 1950X just won't fit my needs for photo editing. I am now looking at the Intel i9.7900X as I believe it runs stock at 3.3GHz and turbo up to 4.4GHz. The motherboard I am looking at is the ASUS Prime X299 Deluxe. I also have checked if my memory will run properly with the MB and it will. I have 8/ 8Gb sticks of G.Skills CL16-18-18-38 at 1.35V so it will be nice to have my memory running at its proper frequency. I did take a look at the i9-7920X but it runs at 3.0GHz stock? I would love to hear your thoughts on this move to intel.
PS. It is a pity about the AMD-Treadripper 1950X I was so looking forward to AMD making a big comeback, pity about its base clock speed and single core performance.