broughtonfilm
Well-known member
That is so rude!
FS7: XAVC-I Brings Even the Mighty i7-4770 to its Knees
- Thread starter basspig
- Start date
That is so rude!
basspig
Veteran
For reference, here is MY system configuration, just built this week:
Supermicro X10DRi server motherboard
EVGA 1000W Gold Power Supply
EVGA Titan X (12GB DDR5)
Dual Intel E5-2630 v3 CPUs
128GB ECC Samsung memory (recommended part number by Supermicro)
Crucial 240GB SSD (boot/OS drive)
Samsung 2TB SSD (projects, temp area)
Mushkin Reaktor 1TB SSD (Video drive one)
Mushkin Reaktor 1TB SSD (Video drive two)
HT Omega sound card
Main monitor: HP LP3065
4K Video monitor: LG 31MU97
Input device: Wacom Intuos tablet
WRT the PCI slot, slot number 1 is blocked by the memory DIMMs. Can't fit a full length GPU like the Titan X in there.
The problems existed from the get-go. They didn't get any worse when I added the sound card to the first slot. Actually, the glitches on the 4K DP monitor reduced by over 90% in occurance rate, so something was needing buss termination there, apparently and the sound card accomplished that over an empty slot.
The danger of skimming over my posts is that some folks are getting scrambled information. My friend's system has the i7-4770. It is limited to 32GB RAM. My dual Xeon system is the one with 128GB. It can support up to 1TB of 64GB LRDIMMs.
I've rounded the problem down to three file formats:
XAVC
Prores 422
AVCHD
Playback is NOT delayed with the following:
XDCam EX (MPEG2)
The other three suffer the 3 second delay before start. The CTI moves and sound plays, but the video is frozen for the first 3 seconds. About 77-96 frame drop on average. The rest of the 18 minutes play with no further dropped frames. CPU use is 16-18%.
I just did a test with XAVC-L at 24 and 60FPS files. The 24FPS can play, same as above, stutter beginning, then smooths out, but the 60FPS file drops frames continuously. 81 frames dropped in 24 seconds of video. CPU usage, about 55-100% over the duration of the video.
I cannot imagine how I could edit a 130 minute concert in UHD with four FS7s. Long GOP would be necessitated by the fact that XQD memory cards aren't big enough in capacity for long form work. So I'd either be stuck working in HD or MPEG HD.
I shot a car show last weekend and edited the whole thing. Once playback gets going, it's pretty smooth. And I can stop and start playback after the initial hiccup after project loading. But if I let the system sit a few minutes and THEN start play again, it goes through the 3 second delay again.
This is a different kind of motherboard, and only my second dual processor system in 20 years. The BIOS has very different options as does the way the board is set up with jumpers for many functions. There is a server management port on it too, in addition to the two 10Gb Ethernet ports. I've already moved the video drives to a separate 6 port SATA controller and the Windows drives to a 4 port SATA controller. No improvement, but at least I know it's not a port contention issue.
Supermicro X10DRi server motherboard
EVGA 1000W Gold Power Supply
EVGA Titan X (12GB DDR5)
Dual Intel E5-2630 v3 CPUs
128GB ECC Samsung memory (recommended part number by Supermicro)
Crucial 240GB SSD (boot/OS drive)
Samsung 2TB SSD (projects, temp area)
Mushkin Reaktor 1TB SSD (Video drive one)
Mushkin Reaktor 1TB SSD (Video drive two)
HT Omega sound card
Main monitor: HP LP3065
4K Video monitor: LG 31MU97
Input device: Wacom Intuos tablet
WRT the PCI slot, slot number 1 is blocked by the memory DIMMs. Can't fit a full length GPU like the Titan X in there.
The problems existed from the get-go. They didn't get any worse when I added the sound card to the first slot. Actually, the glitches on the 4K DP monitor reduced by over 90% in occurance rate, so something was needing buss termination there, apparently and the sound card accomplished that over an empty slot.
The danger of skimming over my posts is that some folks are getting scrambled information. My friend's system has the i7-4770. It is limited to 32GB RAM. My dual Xeon system is the one with 128GB. It can support up to 1TB of 64GB LRDIMMs.
I've rounded the problem down to three file formats:
XAVC
Prores 422
AVCHD
Playback is NOT delayed with the following:
XDCam EX (MPEG2)
The other three suffer the 3 second delay before start. The CTI moves and sound plays, but the video is frozen for the first 3 seconds. About 77-96 frame drop on average. The rest of the 18 minutes play with no further dropped frames. CPU use is 16-18%.
I just did a test with XAVC-L at 24 and 60FPS files. The 24FPS can play, same as above, stutter beginning, then smooths out, but the 60FPS file drops frames continuously. 81 frames dropped in 24 seconds of video. CPU usage, about 55-100% over the duration of the video.
I cannot imagine how I could edit a 130 minute concert in UHD with four FS7s. Long GOP would be necessitated by the fact that XQD memory cards aren't big enough in capacity for long form work. So I'd either be stuck working in HD or MPEG HD.
I shot a car show last weekend and edited the whole thing. Once playback gets going, it's pretty smooth. And I can stop and start playback after the initial hiccup after project loading. But if I let the system sit a few minutes and THEN start play again, it goes through the 3 second delay again.
This is a different kind of motherboard, and only my second dual processor system in 20 years. The BIOS has very different options as does the way the board is set up with jumpers for many functions. There is a server management port on it too, in addition to the two 10Gb Ethernet ports. I've already moved the video drives to a separate 6 port SATA controller and the Windows drives to a 4 port SATA controller. No improvement, but at least I know it's not a port contention issue.
Ben Scott
Veteran
Well if you're not getting great performance on that it's a system issue and not a Sony/codec issue.
Andrew Stone
Veteran
The motherboard you have is not well designed for a video editing workstation. Important fast PCI slots are blocked. See page 10 (or 1-2) in the user manaual...
ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/CDR-X10_1.03_for_Intel_X10_platform/MANUALS/X10DRi-(T).pdf
It appears without further reading that your 16 lane slots are 1, 3 and 5. You can do the further reading. Second, as you say slot one is blocked with crap and slot 2 is as well. 3 looks partially blocked which leaves slot 5 for your video card. Put it in there and LEAVE the sound card out. Boot up your machine and test. If that works put your sound card in either slots 2, 4 or 6. Those are probably 4 lane slots and will not drag the performance of your video card down. If you are hell bent on using a server motherboard, Blackmagic Design for resolve recommends a Supermicro SuperServer 704GR-TR motherboard. Page 64 of the Windows config guide shows specific card placement which illustrates the importance of not having one PCI card drag another card down to the point where it is practically non-functioning. You can find the Windows config guide from this page...
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/support/family/davinci-resolve
EDIT:
Just read the next page in your the manual for your motherboard. The schematic on the next page, page 11, shows slots 1,3 and 5 are in fact 16 lane slots so any and all cards that are put in those slots will SLOW DOWN to the performance of the slowest card. Slots 2, 4 and 7 are actually 8 lane slots. I would be very surprised if your sound card needs more than 4 lanes of PCI. Most only need 1 lane of bandwidth. Eight lanes should be plenty.
ftp://ftp.supermicro.com/CDR-X10_1.03_for_Intel_X10_platform/MANUALS/X10DRi-(T).pdf
It appears without further reading that your 16 lane slots are 1, 3 and 5. You can do the further reading. Second, as you say slot one is blocked with crap and slot 2 is as well. 3 looks partially blocked which leaves slot 5 for your video card. Put it in there and LEAVE the sound card out. Boot up your machine and test. If that works put your sound card in either slots 2, 4 or 6. Those are probably 4 lane slots and will not drag the performance of your video card down. If you are hell bent on using a server motherboard, Blackmagic Design for resolve recommends a Supermicro SuperServer 704GR-TR motherboard. Page 64 of the Windows config guide shows specific card placement which illustrates the importance of not having one PCI card drag another card down to the point where it is practically non-functioning. You can find the Windows config guide from this page...
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/support/family/davinci-resolve
EDIT:
Just read the next page in your the manual for your motherboard. The schematic on the next page, page 11, shows slots 1,3 and 5 are in fact 16 lane slots so any and all cards that are put in those slots will SLOW DOWN to the performance of the slowest card. Slots 2, 4 and 7 are actually 8 lane slots. I would be very surprised if your sound card needs more than 4 lanes of PCI. Most only need 1 lane of bandwidth. Eight lanes should be plenty.
Last edited:
basspig
Veteran
I note that the addition of the sound card in slot 1 had zero effect on performance other than a reduction in the occurrence of noise bars on the DP monitor. It had the lag before the. Sound card was added.
I could find nothing in the manual that suggests the motherboard is no good for video work. Performance in Maya with Viewport 2 real-time rendering at 4k is stunning. The Titan X is working effectively.
Other techs have told me this is an Adobe problem not a system problem.
I could find nothing in the manual that suggests the motherboard is no good for video work. Performance in Maya with Viewport 2 real-time rendering at 4k is stunning. The Titan X is working effectively.
Other techs have told me this is an Adobe problem not a system problem.
Andrew Stone
Veteran
Have you added the Titan card to the text file of acceptable CUDA cards? Have you googled as well to see if Titan cards will work with CS6?!
Have you determined if in actual fact, your audio card is a 16 lane card. If it is not it WILL impede the Titan when spools up to do live rendering.
I am reminded of the MP Bookstore Sketch.
Have you determined if in actual fact, your audio card is a 16 lane card. If it is not it WILL impede the Titan when spools up to do live rendering.
I am reminded of the MP Bookstore Sketch.
basspig
Veteran
I should reiterate that this system didn't have a sound card for the first four days of testing. Adding the sound card had no effect on performance. It was bad without the sound card too.
I did an interesting test where I exported a portion of XAVC-I footage to h.264, a process that too 12 seconds to export a 40-second sample of 4K XAVC, and imported the h.264 and played it. There was no detectable lag in start of playback and no frames dropped. So h.264 (MP4) and XDCam EX (MPEG2) are two formats that do not exhibit this issue on this system.
I am working with Supermicro tech support on the problem now. I'm going to see if there is a more current BIOS than the one my board shipped with.
Interesting related observation:
VLC Media Player can't play 4K XAVC at any better than about 1 frame per second. Taskman shows only one CPU core active.
But if I play a MOV file from my Shogun, at least a half dozen cores are active. Also interesting is there is no QT32 task running when this playback of Quicktime by VLC is happening. Interesting.
UPDATE: I found an advanced option under VLC's advanced menu to set number of threads. It was defaulted to 1. I increased it to 30 and VLC now plays 4K material smoothly with only 8% of CPU usage. So it's Adobe that has problems.
Even more amazing... XAVC-L 3840x2160 59.94fps, plays smoothly in VLC and uses 3% of the CPU. Can't play this file in Premiere.
I did an interesting test where I exported a portion of XAVC-I footage to h.264, a process that too 12 seconds to export a 40-second sample of 4K XAVC, and imported the h.264 and played it. There was no detectable lag in start of playback and no frames dropped. So h.264 (MP4) and XDCam EX (MPEG2) are two formats that do not exhibit this issue on this system.
I am working with Supermicro tech support on the problem now. I'm going to see if there is a more current BIOS than the one my board shipped with.
Interesting related observation:
VLC Media Player can't play 4K XAVC at any better than about 1 frame per second. Taskman shows only one CPU core active.
But if I play a MOV file from my Shogun, at least a half dozen cores are active. Also interesting is there is no QT32 task running when this playback of Quicktime by VLC is happening. Interesting.
UPDATE: I found an advanced option under VLC's advanced menu to set number of threads. It was defaulted to 1. I increased it to 30 and VLC now plays 4K material smoothly with only 8% of CPU usage. So it's Adobe that has problems.
Even more amazing... XAVC-L 3840x2160 59.94fps, plays smoothly in VLC and uses 3% of the CPU. Can't play this file in Premiere.
Last edited:
Andrew Stone
Veteran
And of course you took out the audio card today and made sure the text file of approved cards was updated. Read this all of it
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1224181
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1224181
basspig
Veteran
basspig
Veteran
I just installed the beta of DaVinci Resolve. It runs SMOOTHLY. Only 17% CPU usage. Responsive start/stop. I imported an AAF I exported from Premiere.
I just wish I could get monitor 2 to full screen video--it's hard to judge focus and quality of the image when it's in a window within the app. This will take major re learning after 15+ years with Premiere as everything is in the 'wrong' place for an editor used to Premiere.
Other options on the table are Sony Vegas, Avid, & Edius.
I fixed up VLC Media Player so it plays XAVC with ease. There's a CODEC menu buried within the advanced menu. In it, there is an option to set number of threads. Default is 1 thread. I set to 30. I also set the option below it for Direct X acceleration. Boom. Now even XAVC-L UHD 59.94 plays smoothy, with 8% CPU use. Regular 4K 23.976 Uses--get this--2% of the CPU at full screen playback in VLC now. An hour earlier, I could not get it to manage 1FPS, until I dug through the menus.
If Premiere had some settings like this, I could probably fix it. I spent an hour experimenting with the various latency settings on the PCI X16 bus (to no effect), as well as toggling some of the Boolean values in Adobe's Debug Database text file which is buried deep in their system folders. All to no effect. It appears that Premiere is the faulty component in this system.
I ran a BiFrost simulation in Maya 2015 that would not complete on the old system after many hours due to running out of memory. This system crunches through that in about ten minutes and does the rendering of Mentalray images at HD resolution in under two hours. It's mind-boggling with every software application EXCEPT Premiere. Very strange.
I just wish I could get monitor 2 to full screen video--it's hard to judge focus and quality of the image when it's in a window within the app. This will take major re learning after 15+ years with Premiere as everything is in the 'wrong' place for an editor used to Premiere.
Other options on the table are Sony Vegas, Avid, & Edius.
I fixed up VLC Media Player so it plays XAVC with ease. There's a CODEC menu buried within the advanced menu. In it, there is an option to set number of threads. Default is 1 thread. I set to 30. I also set the option below it for Direct X acceleration. Boom. Now even XAVC-L UHD 59.94 plays smoothy, with 8% CPU use. Regular 4K 23.976 Uses--get this--2% of the CPU at full screen playback in VLC now. An hour earlier, I could not get it to manage 1FPS, until I dug through the menus.
If Premiere had some settings like this, I could probably fix it. I spent an hour experimenting with the various latency settings on the PCI X16 bus (to no effect), as well as toggling some of the Boolean values in Adobe's Debug Database text file which is buried deep in their system folders. All to no effect. It appears that Premiere is the faulty component in this system.
I ran a BiFrost simulation in Maya 2015 that would not complete on the old system after many hours due to running out of memory. This system crunches through that in about ten minutes and does the rendering of Mentalray images at HD resolution in under two hours. It's mind-boggling with every software application EXCEPT Premiere. Very strange.
SpareWheel
Active member
Crikey Mark,
That's one heck of a very expensive server you've got there... not (IMHO) an edit workstation.
I see you've been on the Adobe/Hardware Forum - good start. Bill Gerkhe and CC_Merchant (Haarm Millard) are extremely knowledgable and their PPBM Benchmarking tests have been around quite a while in different iterations.
Just like to repeat - your issues are NOT as a result of the Sony FS7 nor its XAVC Codec. Yes, it's a much more complex codec, but as you've seen here from other posters (like myself) we have no issue with XAVC on systems much humbler to your new build - now you've got to ask yourself why?
Personally, I think you have way over specc'd your system without sufficient research for the task required. For example the CPUs. You can get just as much in-your-face performance in an Edit Workstation from one standard i7 5930K (OC) than dual E5-2630s at one tenth the price. Plus a GTX 980 Ti than the Titan X (you do know they are the same chip?). Re CPUs in relation to Adobe and Workstations see the following:
http://ppbm7.com/index.php/tweakers-page/95-single-or-dual-cpu (Haarm Millard) Important: Read the very last two paragraphs...
You've persuaded yourself that all this high-end stuff more geared for extreme server processing rather than the very specific task of cutting and exporting video is going to outperform anything and ensure you success - sorry, but you've found different and probably have spent the kids' inheritance in the process. In the meantime, XAVC-I (even L-GOP 50Mb/s) is proving to be a winner, certainly for me and possibly for many others on a more rational budget with paying clients.
Mark I wish you well with your project and I truly hope it comes good for you.
Regards
Claire
Oh, I forgot to mention your ECC RAM. This is parity checking (error checking) RAM. It's for Servers. It will degrade the performance a little. You need to install Non-ECC Memory. Sorry I missed that.
Last edited:
basspig
Veteran
I've pretty much concluded that the problem is Adobe software.
Last night, I installed Resolve 12 beta, downloaded from Black Magic Design's web site.
An interesting note, their optimal system configuration is pretty much identical, part for part, to the system I built. Supermicro server motherboard, Titan X, etc., although I have way more RAM than their optimal configuration specs.
Resolve runs like a stallion on steroids. Even cutting four 4K XAVC camera angles, it's 19X faster than Adobe Premiere and totally responsive. I can even do a reasonable job cutting with multicam playing four cameras plus the final view--five 4K video screens playing at once. This would be impossible in Premiere with the XAVC footage and only possible with Prores footage. Premiere's decoding of XAVC is the worst I've seen. And their Creative Cloud Desktop behaves like malware. I had to re image my system drive to get rid of it.
I'm pretty sure it's not a hardware issue now. VLC Media player, configured to use more than 1 thread, and Resolve 12 both fly with 4K XAVC. Resolve, when cutting multicamera 4K uses in the low 20% range of CPU and 40% of the GPU. And I've not yet done the optimizations in the Resolve 12 Beta Config Guide yet. The PCI above 4GB option hasn't been changed yet in my BIOS (I have the same BIOS as in the config guide, so this is very helpful for understanding how to config my motherboard for video editing).
I chose the Titan X because it is on the recommended GPU list for Black Magic Design's DaVinci and also for the following reasons:
(Titan X on the left, GTX980 on the right)
[TABLE="class: specs, width: 732"]
[TR]
[TH="class: label"]Much more memory[/TH]
[TD="class: value left, align: right"]12,288 MB[/TD]
[TD="class: vs, align: center"]vs[/TD]
[TD="class: value right"]4,096 MB[/TD]
[TD="class: description"]3x more memory[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: label"]Better passmark score[/TH]
[TD="class: value left, align: right"]11,082[/TD]
[TD="class: vs, align: center"]vs[/TD]
[TD="class: value right"]9,718[/TD]
[TD="class: description"]Around 15% better passmark score[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: label"]Better floating-point performance[/TH]
[TD="class: value left, align: right"]6,144 GFLOPS[/TD]
[TD="class: vs, align: center"]vs[/TD]
[TD="class: value right"]4,616 GFLOPS[/TD]
[TD="class: description"]Around 35% better floating-point performance[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: label"]Higher pixel rate[/TH]
[TD="class: value left, align: right"]96 GPixel/s[/TD]
[TD="class: vs, align: center"]vs[/TD]
[TD="class: value right"]72.1 GPixel/s[/TD]
[TD="class: description"]Around 35% higher pixel rate[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: label"]Significantly more render output processors[/TH]
[TD="class: value left, align: right"]96[/TD]
[TD="class: vs, align: center"]vs[/TD]
[TD="class: value right"]64[/TD]
[TD="class: description"]32 more render output processors[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: label"]More shading units[/TH]
[TD="class: value left, align: right"]3,072[/TD]
[TD="class: vs, align: center"]vs[/TD]
[TD="class: value right"]2,048[/TD]
[TD="class: description"]1024 more shading units[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: label"]More texture mapping units[/TH]
[TD="class: value left, align: right"]192[/TD]
[TD="class: vs, align: center"]vs[/TD]
[TD="class: value right"]128[/TD]
[TD="class: description"]64 more texture mapping units[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: label"]Better passmark direct compute score[/TH]
[TD="class: value left, align: right"]6,079[/TD]
[TD="class: vs, align: center"]vs[/TD]
[TD="class: value right"]4,936[/TD]
[TD="class: description"]Around 25% better passmark direct compute score[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: label"]Slightly wider memory bus[/TH]
[TD="class: value left, align: right"]384 bit[/TD]
[TD="class: vs, align: center"]vs[/TD]
[TD="class: value right"]256 bit[/TD]
[TD="class: description"]50% wider memory bus[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Why would I pay $2000 for a 980 when a $1000 Titan X is demonstrably better?
My current configuration is based upon the high end workstations at Puget Systems. The board I chose supports dual E5-2699 v3 CPUs and 1TB ECC DDR4 memory. It handles enough drive controller channels and the Titan proves to be a beast in Resolve 12.
As for the ECC RAM questions, Pudget Systems already researched this (for those not in the know, they build high end editing workstations for 4K, 5K and 6K editing)
While it's true that you can get standard RAM that runs at a higher frequency or with tighter timings than ECC or Registered ECC memory, when simply comparing ECC to non-ECC memory our benchmarks have shown that the performance difference is almost negligible. In fact, if you compile all the results from our testing you end up with the following chart:
[TABLE="class: buying-guide, width: 100%"]
[TR="class: title, bgcolor: #105AB2"]
[TD="align: center"]Relative Performance[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Standard RAM[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]ECC RAM[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]REG ECC RAM[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Geekbench 3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100.1%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]96.98%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: alt, bgcolor: white"]
[TD="align: center"]PCMark 8[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]99.7%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]99.4%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Cinebench R15[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]99.7%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]99.65%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: alt, bgcolor: white"]
[TD="align: center"]Unigine Heaven Pro 4.0[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]99.1%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100.36%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Audio Encoding[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100.01%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]99.96%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: alt, bgcolor: white"]
[TD="align: center"]Adobe Photoshop CC[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]99.5%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100.6%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Adobe Premiere Pro CC[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100.1%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]99.97%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: alt, bgcolor: white"]
[TD="align: center"]Overall Average[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]99.75%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]99.56%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
I see a possible future with Resolve. I've played with the old version 11 and didn't like it, but 12 addresses the ergonomic issues that put me off in 11. Now if I can figure out how to configure for full screen 4K on the 4K client monitor, I think it's worth buying the license dongle and going to the full version.
I also do a fair amount of 3D work in Maya 2015. This system just tears through BiFrost simulations. I was able to do the calculations for creating a Tsunami wave hitting a small city in about ten minutes and render the HD frames with Mental Ray in under 2 hours. And I'm running entry level Xeons. I can more than double the core count with an upgrade to the 2699 v3 CPUs.
Another thing about ECC RAM. The failure rate is .09% vs. .6% for non-ECC. Up for debate is whether it affects color quality. I've read several reports that non ECC RAM is responsible for colors appearing on greyscale ramps. I get a smooth ramp with no false colors and no steps visible on this new system, whereas my old system always displayed that slight pink and green false color at the boundaries between 8-bit steps. I doubt the ECC RAM helps with that, but the Titan's 10-bit color probably does.
There are many misconceptions about using server motherboards for editing workstations. But they are the basis of the high end systems at Puget Systems and at Black Magic Design.
Last night, I installed Resolve 12 beta, downloaded from Black Magic Design's web site.
An interesting note, their optimal system configuration is pretty much identical, part for part, to the system I built. Supermicro server motherboard, Titan X, etc., although I have way more RAM than their optimal configuration specs.
Resolve runs like a stallion on steroids. Even cutting four 4K XAVC camera angles, it's 19X faster than Adobe Premiere and totally responsive. I can even do a reasonable job cutting with multicam playing four cameras plus the final view--five 4K video screens playing at once. This would be impossible in Premiere with the XAVC footage and only possible with Prores footage. Premiere's decoding of XAVC is the worst I've seen. And their Creative Cloud Desktop behaves like malware. I had to re image my system drive to get rid of it.
I'm pretty sure it's not a hardware issue now. VLC Media player, configured to use more than 1 thread, and Resolve 12 both fly with 4K XAVC. Resolve, when cutting multicamera 4K uses in the low 20% range of CPU and 40% of the GPU. And I've not yet done the optimizations in the Resolve 12 Beta Config Guide yet. The PCI above 4GB option hasn't been changed yet in my BIOS (I have the same BIOS as in the config guide, so this is very helpful for understanding how to config my motherboard for video editing).
I chose the Titan X because it is on the recommended GPU list for Black Magic Design's DaVinci and also for the following reasons:
(Titan X on the left, GTX980 on the right)
[TABLE="class: specs, width: 732"]
[TR]
[TH="class: label"]Much more memory[/TH]
[TD="class: value left, align: right"]12,288 MB[/TD]
[TD="class: vs, align: center"]vs[/TD]
[TD="class: value right"]4,096 MB[/TD]
[TD="class: description"]3x more memory[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: label"]Better passmark score[/TH]
[TD="class: value left, align: right"]11,082[/TD]
[TD="class: vs, align: center"]vs[/TD]
[TD="class: value right"]9,718[/TD]
[TD="class: description"]Around 15% better passmark score[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: label"]Better floating-point performance[/TH]
[TD="class: value left, align: right"]6,144 GFLOPS[/TD]
[TD="class: vs, align: center"]vs[/TD]
[TD="class: value right"]4,616 GFLOPS[/TD]
[TD="class: description"]Around 35% better floating-point performance[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: label"]Higher pixel rate[/TH]
[TD="class: value left, align: right"]96 GPixel/s[/TD]
[TD="class: vs, align: center"]vs[/TD]
[TD="class: value right"]72.1 GPixel/s[/TD]
[TD="class: description"]Around 35% higher pixel rate[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: label"]Significantly more render output processors[/TH]
[TD="class: value left, align: right"]96[/TD]
[TD="class: vs, align: center"]vs[/TD]
[TD="class: value right"]64[/TD]
[TD="class: description"]32 more render output processors[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: label"]More shading units[/TH]
[TD="class: value left, align: right"]3,072[/TD]
[TD="class: vs, align: center"]vs[/TD]
[TD="class: value right"]2,048[/TD]
[TD="class: description"]1024 more shading units[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: label"]More texture mapping units[/TH]
[TD="class: value left, align: right"]192[/TD]
[TD="class: vs, align: center"]vs[/TD]
[TD="class: value right"]128[/TD]
[TD="class: description"]64 more texture mapping units[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: label"]Better passmark direct compute score[/TH]
[TD="class: value left, align: right"]6,079[/TD]
[TD="class: vs, align: center"]vs[/TD]
[TD="class: value right"]4,936[/TD]
[TD="class: description"]Around 25% better passmark direct compute score[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: label"]Slightly wider memory bus[/TH]
[TD="class: value left, align: right"]384 bit[/TD]
[TD="class: vs, align: center"]vs[/TD]
[TD="class: value right"]256 bit[/TD]
[TD="class: description"]50% wider memory bus[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Why would I pay $2000 for a 980 when a $1000 Titan X is demonstrably better?
My current configuration is based upon the high end workstations at Puget Systems. The board I chose supports dual E5-2699 v3 CPUs and 1TB ECC DDR4 memory. It handles enough drive controller channels and the Titan proves to be a beast in Resolve 12.
As for the ECC RAM questions, Pudget Systems already researched this (for those not in the know, they build high end editing workstations for 4K, 5K and 6K editing)
While it's true that you can get standard RAM that runs at a higher frequency or with tighter timings than ECC or Registered ECC memory, when simply comparing ECC to non-ECC memory our benchmarks have shown that the performance difference is almost negligible. In fact, if you compile all the results from our testing you end up with the following chart:
[TABLE="class: buying-guide, width: 100%"]
[TR="class: title, bgcolor: #105AB2"]
[TD="align: center"]Relative Performance[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Standard RAM[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]ECC RAM[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]REG ECC RAM[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Geekbench 3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100.1%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]96.98%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: alt, bgcolor: white"]
[TD="align: center"]PCMark 8[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]99.7%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]99.4%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Cinebench R15[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]99.7%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]99.65%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: alt, bgcolor: white"]
[TD="align: center"]Unigine Heaven Pro 4.0[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]99.1%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100.36%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Audio Encoding[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100.01%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]99.96%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: alt, bgcolor: white"]
[TD="align: center"]Adobe Photoshop CC[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]99.5%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100.6%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Adobe Premiere Pro CC[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100.1%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]99.97%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: alt, bgcolor: white"]
[TD="align: center"]Overall Average[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]100%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]99.75%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]99.56%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
I see a possible future with Resolve. I've played with the old version 11 and didn't like it, but 12 addresses the ergonomic issues that put me off in 11. Now if I can figure out how to configure for full screen 4K on the 4K client monitor, I think it's worth buying the license dongle and going to the full version.
I also do a fair amount of 3D work in Maya 2015. This system just tears through BiFrost simulations. I was able to do the calculations for creating a Tsunami wave hitting a small city in about ten minutes and render the HD frames with Mental Ray in under 2 hours. And I'm running entry level Xeons. I can more than double the core count with an upgrade to the 2699 v3 CPUs.
Another thing about ECC RAM. The failure rate is .09% vs. .6% for non-ECC. Up for debate is whether it affects color quality. I've read several reports that non ECC RAM is responsible for colors appearing on greyscale ramps. I get a smooth ramp with no false colors and no steps visible on this new system, whereas my old system always displayed that slight pink and green false color at the boundaries between 8-bit steps. I doubt the ECC RAM helps with that, but the Titan's 10-bit color probably does.
There are many misconceptions about using server motherboards for editing workstations. But they are the basis of the high end systems at Puget Systems and at Black Magic Design.
Last edited:
Sounds like a good idea.
Ben Scott
Veteran
I'm wondering why you made this thread. A ton of people have all offered very useful suggestions and you've simply told them they are wrong because you have a jpeg of some benchmarks on it and because your system runs two other pieces of software really well but that isn't the piece of software you're actually wanting to use. I'll leave you well alone now because I don't think you actually want anybody's help on here. Enjoy your day
Oh, and a 980 GTX around half the price of a Titan X.
Oh, and a 980 GTX around half the price of a Titan X.
Paul schefz
Well-known member
just came across this video showing 4K fcpx vs premiere performance on 2014 and 2015 mbp....
http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/art...be-premiere-pro-render-and-export-speed-tests
not showing this to feed mac vs pc or fcpx vs premiere.....it just shows what a huge difference there is if you have hardware and software optimized for each other......
i think he has some mac pro vs iMac tests in there as well....
http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/art...be-premiere-pro-render-and-export-speed-tests
not showing this to feed mac vs pc or fcpx vs premiere.....it just shows what a huge difference there is if you have hardware and software optimized for each other......
i think he has some mac pro vs iMac tests in there as well....
basspig
Veteran
Already tried the CC version. Adobe Cloud "desktop" acted like malware. I had to re-image my drive to get rid of it. Very poor performance, lags, dropped frames.
I'm redirecting my focus to Resolve 12 now. It looks promising, and it seems to combine some of AfterEffects features into one integrated package, has enormous performance benefits and seems stable on the new system.
That FCP vs Premiere only serves to support my assessment of latest versions of Premiere. The programmers at Adobe have lost their edge, or they've had some talented people leave the company recently. Looking at their forums, the latest CC 2015 and the June update are riddled with playback performance issues. Methinks they have created a mess and the whole thing needs to be scrapped and reengineered from the ground up.
From what I can tell, Resolve is fully GPU enabled, whereas Premiere only uses it for 10% of its functions, like scaling and adding a limited array of accelerated effects.
CS6 is fine for my XDCam EX projects and really flies nice and fast, even with Unsharp Mask applied to the final edit timeline (which wouldn't play on my old machine due to lack of CPU capability). So it's still good for working with the older MPEG2 footage in multicam. But Resolve seems to be the future of 4K work. Now if I can find the titler...
I'm redirecting my focus to Resolve 12 now. It looks promising, and it seems to combine some of AfterEffects features into one integrated package, has enormous performance benefits and seems stable on the new system.
That FCP vs Premiere only serves to support my assessment of latest versions of Premiere. The programmers at Adobe have lost their edge, or they've had some talented people leave the company recently. Looking at their forums, the latest CC 2015 and the June update are riddled with playback performance issues. Methinks they have created a mess and the whole thing needs to be scrapped and reengineered from the ground up.
From what I can tell, Resolve is fully GPU enabled, whereas Premiere only uses it for 10% of its functions, like scaling and adding a limited array of accelerated effects.
CS6 is fine for my XDCam EX projects and really flies nice and fast, even with Unsharp Mask applied to the final edit timeline (which wouldn't play on my old machine due to lack of CPU capability). So it's still good for working with the older MPEG2 footage in multicam. But Resolve seems to be the future of 4K work. Now if I can find the titler...
Paul schefz
Well-known member
i agree with the adobe "malware"....i pretty much have to use photoshop and lightroom these days since there really is no alternative and apple scratched aperture and i am appalled with the apps and extensions and who knows what and most of all the size of all this junk....
the problem adobe has is that they simply have to support so many different platforms and parts and all that makes lean software impossible....fcpx does not have this issue...on the contrary: the comparison between the 2014 and 2015 mbp shows that the switching the GPU while keeping the same specs can provide pretty amazing speed bump....if the software is optimized....
the iPhone is a good example....apple can put a slower chip with smaller battery and less ram and still get better performance because it does not have to support 20 different products (with different GPU, CPU,...) and 5 different versions of the same OS....
resolve is legendary for grading, no question but it has always been hard on the GPU(s) requires quite the beast to run well and the editing capabilities are improving...i haven't been able to start v12 without crashing so i haven't really tried editing in 12....v11 just wasn't there yet....but it is also worth to mention that the free version only goes up to UHD and the full version is 1000$ although at that point it pretty much makes sense to buy one of their cameras to go along with it or buy it used because a lot of people sell their USB sticks when they get their cams....
either way, a lot is happening and apple, adobe and blackmagic are pushing each other pretty hard right now....good for all of us...