The GTX480 may not be offically supported but you can modify the text file and use the Mecury Engine.
You cant expect Adobe to really test each and every card out there.
See Harms Link # 33
I'm running two PP CS5.03 systems with that card. They're fine.
I'm not smoking anything. If I were smoking anything I might not have so easily found the simple solution with a single search of this forum over a year ago.
I agree that the card should be supported by Adobe. There is a lot of talk of Adobe partnering with Nvidia, but the testing and support seems to focus on the Quadro line, with GTX cards left as an after thought. However, Adobe did make it simple to add a card to the supported list on any user's system.
If I had invested in that card and bought Adobe CS5.5, I don't think I'd give up on getting it working.
Yes, the 'hack' - I prefer the word 'tweak' - is devilishly simple. And if you're afraid of meddling with Premiere's configuration files, then you can even download a script that will do it for you. I think it's on studio1's website.
Worked a treat onmy humble nVidia 440 card. OK, preview isn't superb, but rendering times (to MPEG2 for DVD) are slashed.
Kudos to Adobe for permitting this tweak.
Oh for cryin out loud. If modifying a single line of a .txt file is too hard for you, then maybe FCP would be a better fit. Might I suggest FCP-X so you don't accidentally change something you shouldn't?
Please, don't insult one another on this forum. I'll delete any posts after this one that include personal attacks.
I did modify the text file but as people may think it only allows you to select mercury hardware but it really doesn't do any CUDA processing. I checked in my friends 470 the video doesn't lag at all in hardware mode it even maintains 60fps with lossless rgb videos.
If want to check it for yourself run gpu-z and set video to software check gpu usage it's at 10% and in hardware again it's 10% but with friends 470 same video and project the load is at 60% and very smooth. The txt file fix just allows you to select hardware but really still uses software.
My friends pc and mine have same spec but different gpu and there isn't any CPU load at all when in hardware.
I heard some Adobe PR saying they will support the remaining hardware with future update so it kept me patient until 5.5.2. Hope you guys understand that.
it only allows you to select mercury hardware but it really doesn't do any CUDA processing.
Uh...just what do you think hardware acceleration means, if not CUDA processing?
read it again. It only allows you to selectt "Mecury Playback Hardware" but doesn't do any processing(meaning it still using CPU). But its entirely different in 470 and other supported gpu's. Please check it with your friends who have the supported gpu then you will know what i'm talking about. I have done the nvidia fix and i'm able to select it as well, but it doesn't work.
I'd chalk this one up to fallacious reasoning.
The best way to test whether or not hardware acceleration is working is to export the same sequence twice, once with it on and once with it off. Be sure to use a difficult effect, something that takes a lot of time with hardware acceleration off.
The stress i'm doing is adding a lossless rgb video each 10sec file is around 30gb. and it uses your cpu not gpu.
download this software and check for yourself:- http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/
i'm telling you i saw how it works in 470. It uses gpu memory as well as gpu processing to do so.
This nvidia hack doesn't work as you people may think!
check for yourself in mercury hardware mode the cpu usage is around 50% on i7 LGAemail@example.com and GPU load is none. On true mecury playback supported by Adobe the CPU usage is less than 10% and gpu usage is around 60% with 0 jitter or video stutter at 60fps
Check CPU usage with Task Manager and GPu usage with Gpu-z(select Sensors->Click on Continue refreshing with GPU-z is in background) and see the gpu load.
if your friend lives close and you have the same system except for the video card maybe they would pull theirs out and you can run a test on your system and see if you get the same results.
If changing to your friends card makes a difference then maybe something is wrong.
I'll run that benchmark and let you know.
I apologize for being rude. It does work. If i select software only with my GTX560Ti I can play one layer of AVCHD with no effects. If I select Mercury Hardware I can play multiple layers of AVCHD and hardware accelerated effects in real time. It's obvious it works for me. It even worked with a lowly GTX260 I had previously but with fewer effects.
If you see no difference it's possible you have a faulty video card.
Dear Harm Millaard
Mecury playback engine hardware has nothing to do with rendering. The exporting job is carried out by Adobe Media Encoder which uses general CUDA which can run on any Nvidia GPU 8xxx and above. Mecury Playback is used only for editing in preview window,instant seek time if u have asio supported soundcard,for some cuda effects and scaling. That benchmark is completely unrelated to Mecury Playback hardware.
I'm 100% sure its not my GPU because i have 2 of them and tried both and i also tried my old Geforce 260 216 and it just doesn't work. Adding your gpu id to a txt file just doesn't work. It only allows you to select MPHardware and allows gpu accelerated features.And i can run AVCHD with multi layers and cuda effects in real time on software itself.
You obviously do not understand what the Mercury Playback Engine is all about and what rendering means. I suggest you have a look at the FAQ section and look up a clear and complete article by Todd Kopriva about MPE and what it does mean. Also it may be wise to look up the diference between encoding and rendering, because you are mixing things here and that only leads to confusion and misunderstandings.
sorry encoding bro! Not rendering. Just a sec i'm benchmarking
These are my results. No raid and Single 5400rpm HDD
Output - "177","139","84","109"
If you clearly notice the person who has more no.cores and higher clock with raid setup has got the highest scores. The just gpu's doesn't help at all. When i render timeline it does render at 6secs when i select MPE hardware and 109 secs when i select software but it does skip frames when rendered by MPEhardware unlike the CPU.
Actually, even with an officially supported card, MPE hardware rendering does skip frames because the sections that are being skipped do not require re-rendering while software-only MPE re-renders most if not all of that video project.
Could you post your system specs.
Your hard drive is not up to spec. You should have a dedicated 7200 rpm video drive, not that this is your issue. However with those file sizes, it is a possibility.
Again, I'm using the same card on two CS5.03 systems and the difference with MPE enabled is huge.
Are you queing your exports or an immediate export from the Premiere AME dilog box? It is faster from the Premiere AME dilog box.
Don't despair. This should get worked out.
ps. 5.5.02 is out, has been for a couple of weeks.
MPE with GPU acceleration does indeed speed up both renders and encoding (when exporting from Premiere Pro 5/5.5) by a factor of generally between 1.5 and 1.8. See the following thread to better understand what I mean by this:
I just ran a test with all files on a single drive and to export 7.25 minutes of AVCHD to MPEG2-DVD (NTSC, progressive, wide, HQ) and comparing HW assisted vs. SW only I get:
w/ GTX 580 = 90% CPU + 54% GPU (takes 1:21)
software only = 98% CPU + 0% GPU (takes 2:00)
As you and others point out, when using MPE w/ GPU can speed up the time required for "Timeline Rendering" by up to a factor of infinity, but that can be useless if only doing a "render effects in timeline" (Enter key) is not enough rendering for your hardware to provide smooth playback from the timeline!
For example, if you have a timeline that show fully "red", as the AVCHD example above does on my PC, then PPro will force a partial render before it will even play back the clip (even though on my PC it plays flawlessly by simply pressing the spacebar). Then, when I shift over to "MPE with GPU accelaration" the whole timeline shows a yellow bar indicating that it is ready for playback without any rendering.
Finally, try to give PPro a chance; FCP had years of being at the top, but it is PPro's time now!
I've noticed some confusion on this thread, so I want to say something explicitly to make it clear:
Premiere Pro and Adobe Media Encoder do not use CUDA for encoding. But that does not mean that CUDA is not used for export. Exporting a movie consists of two major phases: 1) rendering the images from various inputs and 2) encoding those rendered images into an output file. CUDA is used for the rendering phase; this can accelerate output.
Also, references to "tests" on this thread haven't mentioned doing anything that would actually stress the GPU with features that use CUDA processing (e.g., effects, frame-rate conversions, scaling). Any attempt to determine how effective a given GPU is should exercise the features that can actually be processed on the GPU.
Details of what can be processed are here:
Any attempt to determine how effective a given GPU is should exercise the features that can actually be processed on the GPU.
Precisely what I suggested back in post 10. Looks like it hasn't been done yet, though.
Until it is, all further discussion may be moot.
These are my results. No raid and Single 5400rpm HDD
Output - "177","139","84","109"
Isn't it the last number that calculates the MPE? 109 vs 6? The MPE would be 6.
I agree they should support the 480.
Actually, the CPU usage should be near 100% and the GPU usage should be near 0% even with an officially supported card with that kind of work. This is because absolutely nothing at all whatsoever (as far as the use of and accelerated effects is concerned).Just simply re-encoding lossless RGB video to a compressed YV12 format at the exact same resolution with no effects added will use only the CPU even with an officially supported GPU. I tried that exact same test, and with my 470 the CPU usage exceeded 80% while the GPU usage stayed at zero. (Though in this case, the smooth playback of uncompressed RGB video at 1080p or even 1080i requires an extremely fast disk subsystem, such as a three-disk (r)aid0 or a large parity RAID array since singke disks and even most two-disk aid0 arrays still cannot keep up with the requirements of uncompressed RGB video.)