This content has been marked as final. Show 21 replies
I have a quad core (Q6700) and when I export via the Media Encoder from PPCS3 it pegs all 4 cores. I have heard that PPCS3 will take advantage of even more cores if you have them.
I tried it with two quad core CPU's (8 cores) and they are all used. Both with PP and with Edius.
Below is a benchmark for the similarly priced Duo E6850 and the Quad Q6600. Remember that Premiere Pro 2.0 was not as optimized for multi-core operation as CS3 is, so the performance gap could be even wider.
CPU Charts 2007
I'm curious. What sites did you actually read that implied that dual cores would be better than quad cores? I'd like to see what sites would have benchmarks that showed dual cores were better for Premiere.
I tried the new Xeon Harpertown Quad Cores (45nm) and Premiere and AE would startup and then just close out on itself. Reverting back to the Dual Core Dual Xeon's they operated as normal.
So I suppose before jumping to the 45nm process I'll wait for some updates.
I am running 2 quads, and I see all 8 processors being used on a render.
I have a dual quad machine and a single quad machine (both have same processors). On both machines all cores are used when rendering. The dual quad machine isn't 2x faster than the single quad. In fact it is far from it.
I think a 32 bit operating system has too many limitations to give the dual quad the resources it needs to work as well as it could/should.
Good point, which is why I am running Xp X64 on my machine.
And if yo ran Vista 64 you'd do even better. :-)
Still waiting for those level playing field benchmarks to back that up. XP 32 compared to Vista 32 puts XP in the lead. I've not seen XP 64 against Vista 64, but as of yet I have no reason to just assume Vista would be faster.
Jim, here's an interesting aside. Over the last two days I loaded XP x64 in dual boot with Vista x64. Only thing on this machine apart from Windows is CS3 with Cineform with one project on the Raid.
The project is 55 minutes long and 426Gb in size made up of five sequences and a master. All preview files have been removed.
It took four attempts in XP x64 to render the project and they all failed, usually about 20% of the way in. Vista x64 rendered the project at first attempt.
Mind you it took about three hours on the Quad core with 8Gb Ram.
I don't know about you Jim, but most editors I speak to have had this long form rendering problem since CS2 and the work around has always been to render in small portions. But this means attending the render at all times. Having a Vista x64 system that can complete a render unattended has gotta be worth its weight in gold to most professionals.
Good test, John. Thanks for reporting.
Any chance of you running more whilst XP 64 is loaded? Specifically some DV and HDV rendering tests without Cineform? The projects don't have to be long or complex, as in this case the test is just for OS speed comparisons. You already have the perfect setup - same exact hardware, same exact media, same exact version of Premiere. You're in a good position to test some renderings of common effects like color corrections, level adjustments, blur, as well as things like MPEG2 and H.264 exports.
Relative to getting full use of processor instances, I see a post about doing an Export (and that working), and another discussing rendering in Vista, but I'm not sure if anyone has weighed in with their experiences in a WinXP (fully patched) setting. I'm using PPro CS3 3.1.1 with a dual-core, hyperthreaded Intel processor. There are two "physical" CPUs (which look like 4, due to the hyperthreading), when I render within the PPro timeline, it only utilizes a single CPU instance (i.e. one of the four).
PPro is Optimized for Performance, and the system is configured with a /3GB switch to better utilize the 4GB of available memory. I've been away from this for some time (so maybe my memory is failing me), and did a CS3 upgrade before getting things going again, but I would have sworn that the previous PPro versions were utilizing more than a single instance. I'm just wondering if anyone else is having issues in XP, getting PPro to properly utilize all of their available processor instances? If so, I'm sort of clueless as to why it has chosen not to do so in my case.
Thanks for any and all input that might be useful in helping me sort this out!
>I'm just wondering if anyone else is having issues in XP, getting PPro to properly utilize all of their available processor instances?
All 8 of my cores are active when I export a sequence using Adobe Media Encoder from CS3 3.1.1 on a fully patched WinXP Professional installation.
I am using 2 quad-core Xeons that don't have hyperthreading. They are truly 8 cores.
What mobo Jeron?
]All 8 of my cores are active when I export a sequence using Adobe Media Encoder
Sorry... I did a poor job of explaining. Yeah... I get all 4 processors working just fine if I crank of the Media Encoder for an export. My problem is that when I render the timeline (i.e. "Render Work Area"), all of that activity seems only utilize a single processor. Because I've applied various effects to most of my (HD) content, most of the timeline needs to be rendered, and I'm basically getting screwed by the fact that it's leaving three processors untouched, during that entire effort.
Again, I'm just wondering if there's something unusual in my configuration, or if anyone else's rendering is exhibiting similar behavior.
>most of the timeline needs to be rendered, and I'm basically getting screwed by the fact that it's leaving three processors untouched, during that entire effort.
That's disconcerting to hear. I don't even use a dual core nor HDV but like you, I do seem to spend a lot of my time rendering the timeline for a preview. I could care less how fast the Media Encoder is... that's typically "render-while-I-sleep" anyway.
Marvin, there's a number of issues here outside Premiere. Firstly, the tool you use to read the "core" activity may be primitive, depending on the software version and then there's the relationship between "your" motherboard and the CPU. This can be vastly different from person to person as the model of mobo and CPU vary.
Also, you need to consider that it may not be necessary for "all" cores to be used for every activity. The best way to measure is "timing", how long it takes to do a task compared with an alternate setup. Software monitoring of CPU activity is average at best.
Tyan Tempest i5000XT (S2696)
It is pretty much the same mobo as in the HP quad-xeon machines (I think those are the xw8400s?). Tyan makes them for HP...
I'd like to see these sites also.
TomsHardware has a few samples, but nothing in-depth.
Seems Quad core for example will do a faster job at converting
a file to DivX but Xvid will be faster on a dual core.