Latest post Thu, Dec 4 2014 9:35 AM by mjolnarn. 6 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (7 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • Wed, Nov 26 2014 6:36 AM

    • carlgmi
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Oct 13 2005
    • Western Australia
    • Posts 754
    • Points 9,415

    Video render performance - a general observation

    As a long time Boris/Avid user and advocate among my colleagues I am increasingly disappointed in the overall perfomance of the software on current gen PCs.  Moving from 5.5 to MC 8.2 I expected a significant boost in that, specifically render times.  True, an effect built in Avid FX on 5.5 now takes only 25% of the time to render in RED on this newer hardware but, compared to PP and AE, these renders are still painfully slow!  On a machine 18 months older than the current Avid/RED platform I can build an identical effect to RED in AE and have it complete the render in less than half the time of RED.  Similarly, I can add a Fluid Stabilise in Avid and a similar stabilise in AE and also see significantly faster renders on the older maching running AE.  A look at the task manager on Avid in RED sees only 18% CPU usage during the render - only 3 cores working away barely breaking a sweat.  A similar tale in Avid with a stabilise plugin render.

    I don't know what the next installment of the engine development will bring to this in performance but I suspect not much.  Whether Xeons offer more I am not convinced - if I saw 4 cores of an i7 being hammered I'd be inclined to investigate Xeons and more cores again as an option but given their price I am not sure it is worth it at all and the i7 choice I made was the correct one.

    Background rendering is a welcome inclusion but its render times are s l o w compared to the regular method.  Again, seeing cores sitting idle or under utilised is therefore a tad upsetting to a computer nerd who likes to see the hardware working for its existence!

    MC8.10 Win 7 64 with Dongle, Dual 10 core Xeon, Quadro K4000, Adaptec RAID 5-8x3TB, External TB2 4x3TB, 64G RAM, BM Intensity Pro 4K. NewBlue Titler 6... [view my complete system specs]

    Vote 1 - Dongles.

    UME an old engine, now with 4K, mags and furry dice....

  • Tue, Dec 2 2014 3:09 AM In reply to

    • carlgmi
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Oct 13 2005
    • Western Australia
    • Posts 754
    • Points 9,415

    Re: Video render performance - a general observation

    I've had a few renders to do over the last few days and have spent some time watching the task manger's performance tool.  Looking at RED, add a sharpen filter and 4 cores plus hyperthreading render away using ~60% of the CPUs capacity.  Do a layered FX with some 3D layers and 1 core is working at 80%, 2 cores at 20% and the final, not at all.  Overall the collective is at 16% capacity.

    Nothing new here, I know many have commented on this in the past but there is still a lot of work to do under the hood of the plugins to take advantage of current hardware.  The video cards too - how underutilised are they?  Stability is, of course, the primary goal but as recommended systems run multiple Xeons with K4000 vid cards, it would be nice if there was some return on this high end computing power in terms of speed.  4K and the next release - I will try and revisit this with the same hardware and FX and see how it performs.

    MC8.10 Win 7 64 with Dongle, Dual 10 core Xeon, Quadro K4000, Adaptec RAID 5-8x3TB, External TB2 4x3TB, 64G RAM, BM Intensity Pro 4K. NewBlue Titler 6... [view my complete system specs]

    Vote 1 - Dongles.

    UME an old engine, now with 4K, mags and furry dice....

  • Tue, Dec 2 2014 6:53 AM In reply to

    • mjolnarn
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on Wed, Feb 8 2006
    • Sweden
    • Posts 13,346
    • Points 160,330

    Re: Video render performance - a general observation

    Hi Carl, not what I see on my new build , more than 80 % on all 12 threads and about the same usage on all is what I normally see , could in fact go up close to 100 on certain operations and same on all threads.


    Mac: 17" Macbook Pro i7 2,66 ghz with 8Gb Ram, 500gb 7200rpm drive___ PC_NEW Win10 Pro Mbo Asus Rampage IV Black CPU Ivy Bridge-E 4960X ( = 12 x 4... [view my complete system specs]

    Tomas 

     

  • Tue, Dec 2 2014 1:16 PM In reply to

    • carlgmi
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Oct 13 2005
    • Western Australia
    • Posts 754
    • Points 9,415

    Re: Video render performance - a general observation

    what kind of FX Tomas?  I've seen some RED or traditional FX from the palett hammering 1 core while the rest are idle and other RED combos and plugins hitting 4 cores but not stretching them.  Seems a lot under the hood in terms of plugins still aren't optimised and some are but overall the experience is that it is slower than AE.  Take a flat solid BG, put it into a 3D environment and throw a light on it.  Add 2 logos and some text - not in 3D space, some shadows and a top layer consisting a softimage 3D export as a tif seq and a 20" clip in RED takes 5~6 times longer to render on brand new hardware (listed below) than the same in AE on 18 month old hardware.  Similar with a stabilise - AE is twice as quick with a better result than the fluid stabilise in Avid.  Just saying...!

    Tomas, if you have AE, try building your 8 core scorcher in there and time it.  I know each app treats things slightly differently but if the end result of your creation looksthe same I'm calling apples, apples!

    MC8.10 Win 7 64 with Dongle, Dual 10 core Xeon, Quadro K4000, Adaptec RAID 5-8x3TB, External TB2 4x3TB, 64G RAM, BM Intensity Pro 4K. NewBlue Titler 6... [view my complete system specs]

    Vote 1 - Dongles.

    UME an old engine, now with 4K, mags and furry dice....

  • Tue, Dec 2 2014 1:26 PM In reply to

    • mjolnarn
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on Wed, Feb 8 2006
    • Sweden
    • Posts 13,346
    • Points 160,330

    Re: Video render performance - a general observation

    Hi Carl, happy to help you with this , maybe you could PM me a preset for Red 5,5 in MC 8,2 and I will do a test, maybe on a 1 minutes clip, 1080 50i and DNx 185 x , please tell what you think

    Mac: 17" Macbook Pro i7 2,66 ghz with 8Gb Ram, 500gb 7200rpm drive___ PC_NEW Win10 Pro Mbo Asus Rampage IV Black CPU Ivy Bridge-E 4960X ( = 12 x 4... [view my complete system specs]

    Tomas 

     

  • Wed, Dec 3 2014 10:47 PM In reply to

    • R Scobie
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Sat, Jun 22 2013
    • Posts 33
    • Points 435

    Re: Video render performance - a general observation

    Carl is on Windows and Tomas is on OSX.

    As long as Avid continue to use Quicktime, the performance difference you see will persist.

    Quicktime on OSX is multithreaded, on Windows single threaded, for probably commercial reasons...

    In order to get around this problem, which is now a considerable handicap given today's CPU's, a number of other multimedia software vendors have either moved to other codecs or written their own multithreaded code to handle some Quicktime codecs.

    Hopefully Avid will make this move.

     

    Regards,

     

    Richard

  • Thu, Dec 4 2014 9:35 AM In reply to

    • mjolnarn
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on Wed, Feb 8 2006
    • Sweden
    • Posts 13,346
    • Points 160,330

    Re: Video render performance - a general observation

    R Scobie:

    Carl is on Windows and Tomas is on OSX.

    Actually I´m on both , and as this is the Windows side of the house it´s of course Avid under Windows that I´m telling about.

    Carl and I have had a nice mail conversation now and will do some comparing tests when there is some time for it .

    Mac: 17" Macbook Pro i7 2,66 ghz with 8Gb Ram, 500gb 7200rpm drive___ PC_NEW Win10 Pro Mbo Asus Rampage IV Black CPU Ivy Bridge-E 4960X ( = 12 x 4... [view my complete system specs]

    Tomas 

     

Page 1 of 1 (7 items)

© Copyright 2011 Avid Technology, Inc.  Terms of Use |  Privacy Policy |  Site Map |  Find a Reseller