1 2 3 Previous Next 93 Replies Latest reply on Jun 17, 2010 9:44 PM by shooternz

    Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!

    rkbkbvrkbqfvvkjbqfvkbkqfj Level 2

      Hello All

       

      Just trying the CS5 trial (I have CS4) and I've noticed a distinct DROP in performance with the new Mercury engine.

       

      I'm running an NVidia Quadro FX4800 with the latest drivers and the timeline playback with only a couple of supposedly real-time effects play back with a stutter or freeze the screen altogther. Scrubbing hardly works.

       

      Maybe its the fact that its a low res, small file, that's sitting on this new machine - Wildlife (Windows 7)

       

      Anyone got a clue? I can't see the performance touted in the advertising....

       

      Cheers

        • 1. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
          shooternz Level 6

          What is a "low res small file" ?

           

          Try it again with a PPRO supported file that is designed for editing.  (ie not a compressed delivery file)

           

          Report your results.

          • 2. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
            rkbkbvrkbqfvvkjbqfvkbkqfj Level 2

            Ah, yes, that was it...

             

            Now it seems to be working properly!

             

            Cheers

            • 3. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
              teho59 Level 1

              Hi,

               

              I saw an article (http://blogs.adobe.com/genesisproject/2009/11/technology_sneek_peek_adobe_me.html)  where I noticed the following:

              In my first  test of Mercury, I dropped several P2 clips on a timeline, made them  picture-in-picture and looked to see if there were any dropped frames during  playback...nada.  I added more clips, bringing it up to eight or nine on  my HP XW9400 with 12 cores of AMD... Think it's the CPU?   No! It's only being used at about 20-30% goodness...  .  It's GPU! I keep going and  there is no hesitation in Premiere Pro. Okay, lets add some color  correction to each one and while we're at it, lets drop in some blurs (that  will stop it right?)  Still playin' like buttah!

               

              This tells me it easy could be 100% on a 4 core cpu.  So to get the expected performance I am afraid it will cost hardware upgrade.

               

              - Terje

              • 4. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                rkbkbvrkbqfvvkjbqfvkbkqfj Level 2

                Hey hey

                 

                My problem was sorted using an uncompressed delivery file - now I'm adding multiple layers and no problem...

                 

                e.g. Real-time key, 3d, blur and even some supposedly non-real time effects are all happening without problems - so I suppose it's the codec that kills the engine...

                • 5. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                  Jeff Bellune Adobe Community Professional

                  All codec decoding is handled by the CPU exclusively.  The CUDA acceleration only helps playback, effects and rendering. If you are editing highly-compressed formats like AVCHD or H.264 from your DSLR and your CPU is weak, then you may not benefit from CUDA in the MPE no matter what other hardware you have installed.

                   

                  NB: Playback only occurs after the video has been decoded.

                   

                  -Jeff

                  1 person found this helpful
                  • 6. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                    rkbkbvrkbqfvvkjbqfvkbkqfj Level 2

                    Thanks Jeff for the clarification

                     

                    That'll help with future work. Appreciate the info

                     

                    Cheers

                    • 7. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                      vdoeditr Level 1

                      so basically......if you dont have an HP Z800 workstation 8-core Xeon and 12+ gigs of Ram, the greatest Quadro card, and Raid-0 setups, you are not gonna be experiencing the ability to edit AVCHD, Red, etc. In real-time.

                       

                      BTW that machine is a healthy $12,000.

                       

                      see below:

                       

                      here is the link to the site if any are interested in refinancing their house in order to buy one    LOL
                      cheers

                       

                      Product Description

                      ProEdit Z800 8-core "Nehalem" Workstation is a perfect workhorse for most demanding editing, encoding or rendering jobs.  With an award-winning HP Z800 as its base, configured with a 64-bit OS, high performance processors, graphics card(s) and storage, it will provide years of continuous powerhouse operation.

                       

                      Specifications:
                      • HP Workstation Z800 Tower
                      • Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
                      • 2x Quad-Core Intel® Xeon® W5580 3.2GHz Processors
                      • 12GB (6x2GB) DDR3-1333 ECC Ram
                      • nVidia Quadro FX 4800 1.5GB SDRAM PCIe x16 Graphics
                      • 450GB SAS 15Krpm System Drive
                      • 6TB (3x2TB) Internal Video Array
                      • HP Blu-Ray burner w/software
                      • USB 2.0, Gigabit LAN,
                      • HP Keyboard, Optical Mouse
                      • System Recovery Software
                      • HP 3-year on-site limited warranty
                      • 8. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                        Jeff Bellune Adobe Community Professional

                        You can do at least as well for half the price if you find an independent computer builder or DIY.

                         

                        But your point is essentially correct: without quality hardware, the performance improvements in CS5 may be unobtainable.

                         

                        -Jeff

                         

                        NB: Decoding AVCHD or H.264 on my 8-core system rarely pushes the CPU usage beyond 50%.  So a fast quad-core should do just fine.  You just need quality hardware, not necessarily ridiculous hardware.

                        • 9. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                          pmasters8941 Level 1

                          Let's be honest here for a moment. Premiere PRO CS5 is designed for professionals.  I have seen a ton of posts about the costsof the software and hardware. Again, this software is designed for use by professionals.  If you are a hobbyist and spent the money on the software and the hardware required to get the performance that you feel Adobe misadvertised (which they did not), then its on you.

                           

                          For professionals, chances are great that the cost of the software is made back on the very first project. If you are a professional and have deadlines to meet, chances are great that you can not only afford the beefier systems to get the Mercury benefits but that you would also recognize the abilities to make your workflow more efficient which allows you to complete more projects and ultimately earn more $$$.

                           

                          The problem with hobbyists is they think they are entitled to the same tools and performance as those who use this software professionally.  We don't want performance increases so we don't have to wait for little Johnny's birthday video to render out. We want the performance increase so we can better serve our clients and get their end product to them quickly and efficiently.

                           

                          Did Adobe mislead with advertisement? Not at all. It does what they say it will do. Is it their fault they don't tell you you need a beefier computer to take advantage of these enhancements? Nope. Most professionals already understand that upgrades to software and hardware will need to happen in order to remain competitve and many budget accordingly yearly to make sure they can afford the tools they need in order to continue earning a living.

                           

                          I do not know one consumer that will need to edit RED footage. Why? It's a professional format used by professionals.

                          • 10. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                            vdoeditr Level 1

                            Hey Jeff,

                             

                            I have a Quad core machine, 8gigs of RAM, 10k velociraptor C: drive, Raid-0 for scratches, Nvidia GTX260 graph card (1gb DDR3 VRAM)

                             

                            I would say that the weakest part of my system is my graphics card, not being "qualified" for MPB engine. (if you call that weak)  Otherwise though, my machine is certainly not the worst in my opinion.  I downloaded the CS5 trial yesterday, and since we can't try out AVCHD, I rendered out AVCHD files in CS4, to ProRes on my mac, then imported them into my PC to try in CS5.  I put all 4 clips (each one roughly 4 min. duration) on the timeline, and then loaded up the multicam window to give'em a whirl........and all I got was stuttering.  it wouldn't play it well enuf to make out anything.  Just freezes up the multicam viewer.  That was with the playback resolution as low as I could make it.  DISAPPOINTING.

                             

                            So again, that just makes me keep believing in the fact that you gotta spend ridiculous amounts of money to get the native performance.  So, i am going to stick to creating proxy files, and doing the online offline editing workflow.  more time-consuming, but it works great.

                             

                            have a great day!

                            • 11. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                              vdoeditr Level 1

                              Hey P,

                               

                              I guess I would consider myself a "professional" considering this is what I do for a full-time living.  I provide for my wife and child by running my production company.  I serve my clients, have deadlines, etc.  I am NOT a big hollywood production house, but I am by no means a hobbyist...rendering out birthday party vids.  I have been in business for 4 1/2 years, but I am not a huge company, that can afford to buy $12,000 editing machines.  I have been using an SD workflow for years now, and the adobe CS has been fantastic to me for all of my needs.  It IS pro editing software....and the machines I have, handle it all very well.  My gear is starting to wear, cameras, machines etc.  So this year I did some upgrading to my PC, got new cameras, etc.  Obviously everyone is moving toward the inevitable tapeless workflow, so i figured if i get on the band-wagon now, by the time that tapeless completely takes over, I will have already had my workflow down pat.

                               

                              My business is debt free from day one.......I will NEVER have the need to edit native RED ONE footage.....only "Hollywood" can afford that......or people with lots of "plastic"

                               

                               

                              (4) Panasonic HMC-150's, steadicams, quad-core editing system, Raid-0 arrays, etc. is hardly in my humble opinion..."hobbyist"

                               

                               

                              Your opinion on this please.......am I a hobbyist that makes money, or a professional?

                              • 12. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                Jeff Bellune Adobe Community Professional

                                I rendered out AVCHD files in CS4, to ProRes on my mac, then imported them into my PC to try in CS5.

                                I don't think that's a good workflow.  I haven't worked with ProRes on a Windows system, so I can't say what the decoding is like.  If it's expensive to decode ProRes, then my previous comments apply.  Do the ProRes files work OK in CS4 on a PC?  Have you got access to any Canon DSLR video?  It's possible that H.264 MOV files will work in the trial (no guarantees, though).

                                 

                                -Jeff

                                • 13. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                  Curt Wrigley Level 4

                                  You are a professional.

                                   

                                  But it sounds like you want to upgrade from SD to HD for free.  That wont happen.  HD is very demanding.  Highly compressed HD formats are even more demanding.   Spend the money on a good cam, or spend it on a good pc, or both.   But you dont get HD for free.   If you skimp on cameras and go with cheap avchd; you need to significantly beef up your system.   The good news is; Pr CS5 can handle it now, with proper HW.

                                  • 14. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                    vdoeditr Level 1

                                    Hey Jeff, I got the idea for this workflow from the way that Apple's Final Cut Pro works with AVCHD.  There is no "native support in FCP for AVCHD, so when ingesting from the camera, it automatically transcodes into either AIC (Apple Intermediate Codec) or Apple ProRes.  So I did the exact same thing in CS4's media encoder.  Ingested the AVCHD, then in AME I transcoded them to ProRes.  Now here is the hangup.......I created 1920x1080 prores files, and then also created a down converted version of the native AVCHD files to ProRes 720x480.  I tried the 1920x1080 files and they will not play smoothly in the multicam viewer, but the DV files play beautifully.  ProRes works great in CS4 on the PC as long as you have the proper quicktime installed. But when you try to edit the HD files, it stutters and freezes.

                                     

                                    The whole reason for me saying that if you wanna edit HD, you have to buy a $12,000 machine. 

                                    • 15. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                      pmasters8941 Level 1

                                      vdorditr,

                                       

                                      Allow me to clarify. The performance increase were designed for those that

                                      absolutely need it and most likely, they are the ones who can afford

                                      multiple $12K systems. Does this make you any less of a professional? Not at

                                      all. Having said that, if you find yourself absolutely needing that

                                      performance increase, then you have to upgrade the hardware. I think the

                                      semantics of hobbyist versus professionals make for interesting debate.

                                       

                                      My personal opinion, a hobbyist is someone who does not use the software to

                                      earn a living whereas professionals need this software to earn a living. But

                                      there are different levels of professional that need different software and

                                      gear. Perhaps your level of work does not require the additional investment

                                      of the $12K system. Again, there are those that do need that type of

                                      performance and this appears to be who it was designed for. It makes neither

                                      one of us less professional because we do not fit into that market.

                                       

                                      But let me ask you this question. If that $12K investment increased your

                                      ability to turnaround your projects more quickly and added an increased

                                      return on your investment, would you make that investment? This is what

                                      separates us from the hobbyists. We think in business terms whereas most

                                      hobbyists (consumers) just want to play around.

                                       

                                      My apologies if you thought I was knocking you. Not my intention at all.

                                      • 16. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                        vdoeditr Level 1

                                        Hey Curtis,

                                         

                                        I don't expect HD for free.....that would be rather naive on my part, however I agree with you, it will take a sizeable investment to get on the HD bandwagon.  I am finding quickly over the last few weeks, that it just will not be as smooth of a transition as I was hoping.  I was really stoked about CS5 being 64-bit, I thought that alone would at least open some of the floodgates on my machines power...cuz i know the 32 bit version is not making use of what my machine has to offer.  but yesterdays run with prores footage in the multicam viewer proved to me that the ONLY way HD will be edited smoothly is by making a HUGE system upgrade.  I hear of guys saying that their quad-core systems....simliar to what I have, and even sometimes less, are editing AVCHD smoothly....and there is NO WAY.  I put 60 sec. clips of it on the timeline and have tried every codec, from uncompressed, to prores, to you name it, and nothing.  So, I will start saving for a HUGE beefy workstation, because video is my passion, and i want to put out what i do, in the quality of HD now instead of just SD.  So........the journey (and the spending) begins  LOL

                                         

                                        cheers

                                        • 17. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                          vdoeditr Level 1

                                          Hey P,

                                           

                                           

                                          totally cool    I agree with you 100%.  And yes, I want to be able to deliver a Full-HD end result to my clients, because i do believe that sometime in the next few years we will all be HD.....so that investment i think will create a nice workflow, and speed things up, as well as create a better end result for the client.  So.....yes i beleive it will be a worthwhile investment.  Just so frustrating though....it has taken me 4.5 years to get where I am, finally comfortable, with a KILLER SD workflow, and bam......cameras are starting to wear out and I figure if I have to spend more money, might as well improve quality too...and go with the HD cameras.  Only to find that it is next to impossible to edit the footage even on an average/to above average system.  kinda has me feeling like I am startin at the bottom again.  just frustrating as a business owner i guess....technology is outrunning us....and my wallet LOL

                                           

                                          I am locked into these cameras now, but i have found a way to work with the footage in an SD workflow, by transcoding to either prores SD or uncmprssd SD....so it isnt a total loss.

                                           

                                          Have a great day!

                                          • 18. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                            Jeff Bellune Adobe Community Professional

                                              I tried the 1920x1080 files and they will not play smoothly in the multicam viewer, but the DV files play beautifully.  ProRes works great in CS4 on the PC as long as you have the proper quicktime installed. But when you try to edit the HD files, it stutters and freezes.

                                            Just curious: What's your CPU usage when playing back the ProRes files in HD?  In SD?

                                             

                                            Maybe you could give us an idea of just how expensive it is in terms of CPU usage to decode ProRes in a CS4 sequence vs. a CS5 sequence?  If the CPU and the decoding is indeed the bottleneck, then the CPU usage should be roughly the same.

                                             

                                            -Jeff

                                            • 19. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                              ruzun Level 1

                                              What can one expect when editing 1920x1080 AVHD files from a 4 core, Core i7 system with 12GB of RAM and a GTX 285 card, timeline wise?  This is a "typical" higher end configuration that isn't too prohibitive or exotic.

                                               

                                              If one has say 12GB of DDR3 RAM, one of the 4 core Core i7 Extreme processors (3.2ghz or higher), and a 1GB GeForce 285 card should one expect decent real time performance editing AVCHD files in CS5, assuming most clips have some sort of color or level correction at least, say 1-3 effects per clip, one transition between clips, and for the most part one video track throughout the project.

                                               

                                              I know for myself and probably a lot of others, AVCHD is the most common input file for my videos these days, and I prefer not to transcode, I would rather just render the timeline than transcode all my input prior to editing.

                                               

                                              -Roger Uzun

                                              • 20. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                                pmasters8941 Level 1

                                                You could always cut your multicam with the SD ProRes and then replace clips

                                                with the HD ProRes after you edit. This could be one solution although

                                                probably not what you are looking for first and foremost.

                                                • 21. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                                  vdoeditr Level 1

                                                  Hey P,

                                                   

                                                  That's what I am doin for a workflow right now.....transcoding to ProRes 720x480 and then relinking the high res files for final export.  it works

                                                  • 22. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                                    PedroAlberto Level 1

                                                    I have CS5 and love it. But I did not have to pay 12k for a machine. Though I did upgrade my computer for this release.

                                                     

                                                    Cost me 3600 bucks (new computer with FX 3800) but it was worth every penny!

                                                     

                                                    The time I save with this new software I will easily make up with a few jobs.

                                                     

                                                    Great job Adobe!

                                                     

                                                    Simon

                                                    • 23. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                                      tacos1313

                                                      I would like to find out about this as well.  That is basically the machine I have, aside from the graphics card, which I plan on buying when

                                                      cs5 comes in.  However, this thread has lead me to beleive I should have just build a mac and used fcp.  I get much better results on fcp and as a student without the abillity to buy thousands and thousands of dollars worth of equipment, it seems like maybe adobe wasn't for me.  It's a shame.  It's also a shame that most of the jobs out there I see require fcp anyway.  I'm at a complete loss, now as a student, and for when I graduate, all because I went with adobe.

                                                       

                                                      Even with my new machine in cs4 I get decent playback with a few effects.  I'd only imagine with 12gb of ram and some gpu acceleration it would be significantly better in cs5.  I use a Canon with 1080p AVCHD files and playback doesn't rip my cpu apart.  However, rendering and exporting rape my i7.  I've had sustained 100% usage for all 8 logical cores.  Jeez, I guess I'm just worried.

                                                       

                                                      Any thoughts or help?

                                                      • 24. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                                        tacos1313 Level 1

                                                        In my opinion you wasted your money on the fx3800.  It's specs are very low and I understand not wanting to shell out the cash for the

                                                        5800, but the gtx285 has the same chipset as the 5800 and its only around $350. (There are also ways to soft mod the geforce so you can use the quadro drivers to run it, which is the main difference between the cards in the first place.  but shhhhhh.)

                                                         

                                                        Although it is worth it if you need the support.  The quadro cards come with better support from nvidia too.  But it does come at a price.

                                                        • 25. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                                          shooternz Level 6

                                                          ..and the difference between the 285 and the 3800 is the number of CUDA Cores which allow

                                                          more video tracks. The 285 is only three video tracks of MPE.

                                                           

                                                          Check out FX3800 /CS5 review

                                                           

                                                          http://www.studiodaily.com/studiomonthly/currentissue/12107.html

                                                           

                                                          Some have reported you can not soft mod the 285 anymore. Check out Scott C's post in the hardware forum.

                                                           

                                                          http://forums.adobe.com/thread/628441?tstart=0

                                                          • 26. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                                            PedroAlberto Level 1

                                                            Hello,

                                                             

                                                            Wow, I wasted my money on the FX 3800? Uh, thanks for the information.

                                                             

                                                            But I am not the one having problems with CS5, it is running smooth as butter.

                                                             

                                                            Also, FX 3800 is great for Autdoesk Inventor and 3DS Max which are professional 3D programs. So my FX 3800 covers all three professional programs that I use extensively whereas the gtx 285 may be cheaper but last time I checked is limited in CS5 as well as the other programs mentioned.

                                                             

                                                            But thanks for the information.

                                                             

                                                            Good luck!

                                                             

                                                            Simon

                                                            p.s.

                                                            I did my homework. Did you?

                                                            • 27. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                                              PedroAlberto Level 1

                                                              Cool.

                                                               

                                                              thanks shooternz. I read that article before I bought the FX 3800.

                                                               

                                                              I feel better now.

                                                               

                                                               

                                                               

                                                              Simon

                                                              • 28. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                                                shooternz Level 6

                                                                Made me feel good about the FX3800 I bought as well.

                                                                 

                                                                At least I knew someone had done a test.

                                                                • 29. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                                                  PBodytko Level 1

                                                                  Hello Everybody,

                                                                   

                                                                  I also downloaded the trial version od Premiere... (I hope my Master disks will arrive next week).

                                                                   

                                                                  For me the Mercury works as advertised! -- Including smooth multi-camera setup using Canon 5D MII source files in 1080p 30fps.

                                                                   

                                                                  As to the price of the computer to be able to do it, it is nowhere close to $12K. -- I paid about $3,500 for i7-980 (the new 6-core/ 12 treads CPU) with GTX285 and 12 gig of Ram... plus 1TB 7200 rpm SATAIII main drive i 2x150GB 10,000rpm drives in RAID-0

                                                                   

                                                                  I couldn't be more happy with the first impressions... It seems pretty stable as well!

                                                                  • 30. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                                                    Curt Wrigley Level 4

                                                                    vdoeditr wrote:

                                                                     

                                                                      ProRes works great in CS4 on the PC as long as you have the proper quicktime installed. But when you try to edit the HD files, it stutters and freezes.

                                                                     

                                                                    The whole reason for me saying that if you wanna edit HD, you have to buy a $12,000 machine. 

                                                                    I have never used AVCHD myself.  But I decided to try it out on my rather humble system.   Watch the demo and I think it might encourage you that you dont need a $12,000 system.  Maybe a $4000 would do fine...

                                                                     

                                                                    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/629474?tstart=0

                                                                    • 31. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                                                      PedroAlberto Level 1

                                                                      980x is what I have too. Wow! That is one fast CPU.

                                                                       

                                                                      I did my test with AVCHD. It worked very well and looks great.

                                                                       

                                                                      However, I am curious to see how cineform handles in CS5. A Beta version will be out  next week.

                                                                       

                                                                      Simon

                                                                      • 32. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                                                        Curt Wrigley Level 4

                                                                        PedroAlberto wrote:

                                                                         

                                                                        980x is what I have too. Wow! That is one fast CPU.

                                                                         

                                                                         

                                                                        When I first got her she was a beast.  But not by today's standards.

                                                                        • 33. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                                                          PBodytko Level 1

                                                                          Curt Wrigley wrote:

                                                                           

                                                                          PedroAlberto wrote:

                                                                           

                                                                          980x is what I have too. Wow! That is one fast CPU.

                                                                           

                                                                           

                                                                          When I first got her she was a beast.  But not by today's standards.

                                                                          It was released not even two months ago (March 12). I don't think there is anything faster for a single CPU computer right now -- or am I wrong?

                                                                           

                                                                          I understand there are dual and quad Xenon motherboards that can add cores -- but at that point you will get to the $12K before you blink..

                                                                          • 34. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                                                            PedroAlberto Level 1

                                                                            Yeah, I am confused too.

                                                                             

                                                                            It is a 6-core processor with hyper-threading which means 12 cores.

                                                                             

                                                                            Yes, two quad cores with hyper-threading would mean 16 cores but still, 12 cores ain't bad and the price is actually affordable compared to 12k.

                                                                             

                                                                            lol!

                                                                             

                                                                            Simon

                                                                            • 35. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                                                              FelixUnderwood Level 2

                                                                              One thing to keep in mind with Quad Cores is that they use the yesteryear front side bus (DDR2 memory). The i-series, including the processors you mention use DDR3. Way faster memory that probably outshines the additional 2 cores (4 virtual) that the Quads have when paired.

                                                                              • 36. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                                                                Curt Wrigley Level 4

                                                                                PBodytko wrote:

                                                                                 

                                                                                Curt Wrigley wrote:

                                                                                 

                                                                                PedroAlberto wrote:

                                                                                 

                                                                                980x is what I have too. Wow! That is one fast CPU.

                                                                                 

                                                                                 

                                                                                When I first got her she was a beast.  But not by today's standards.

                                                                                It was released not even two months ago (March 12). I don't think there is anything faster for a single CPU computer right now -- or am I wrong?

                                                                                 

                                                                                Then Ive been time traveling cause Ive had that system just shy of two years.

                                                                                • 37. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                                                                  PedroAlberto Level 1

                                                                                  LOL!

                                                                                   

                                                                                  Yeah, I guess so. This is the CPU we are referring to:

                                                                                   

                                                                                  http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1245/2/

                                                                                   

                                                                                  Simon

                                                                                  • 38. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                                                                    PedroAlberto Level 1

                                                                                    Very true about the RAM.

                                                                                     

                                                                                    good point!

                                                                                     

                                                                                    Simon

                                                                                    • 39. Re: Mercury Engine Not as Advertised....?!
                                                                                      dradeke Adobe Employee

                                                                                      Hi all,

                                                                                       

                                                                                      I'll jump in and contribute a couple of comments.

                                                                                       

                                                                                      1. Even Adobe field people like myself are still discovering things, so we're experimenting like mad to scope out the real potential of this.
                                                                                      2. The MPE is not about how much real-time you can do but rather (IMO) about enabling productive workflows regardless of the media and design ideals.  So, a more realistic scenario is something like a HD multicam shoot, or a 4K RED shoot with effects. 
                                                                                      3. I did a demo on a Mac tower with 4800 that had an external firewire 800 drive array and it didn't perform as well as it should have.  I learned that an internal drive system would have solved this.  lesson being that the drive subsystem may be the weakest link in some setups.  Throughput is critical to real-time as a rule and making sure a system is balanced (memory, bus speeds, CPU, GPU, drive system) is important.

                                                                                       

                                                                                      Hope this helps and please continue to give feedback on the forums!

                                                                                       

                                                                                      Dennis

                                                                                      1 2 3 Previous Next