WebKit is no open standard. It is just an open source implementation of an open standard with proprietary extensions. Big difference!
Also, Apple has always supported open standards such as OpenCL, OpenGL, WebKit, Darwin, HTML and PCI Express, and will continue to do so in the future. Furthermore, as declared at WWDC last year, Swift (its replacement for Objective-C) will be open.
Is it? Show me the benches for the above application. Unless you recommend something without knowing the numbers. And remember the application in question got cuda support.
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/GTX-1070-and-GTX-1080-Premiere-Pro-Performance-810/
We already know Polaris is a terrible miner card due to low compute performance.
http://cryptomining-*********/tag/rx-480-hashrate/
Note something? Yep, lack of memory bandwidth is making it hard for both.
It sounds like you're already pretty set on the CUDA environment. Many users here have presented fairly reasonable arguments as to the benefits of OpenCL, but you've swatted them away without much consideration.
To be frank, the current state of the situation is in favour of CUDA. Adobe recommends it, many of Adobe's users/developers recommend it and CUDA support is a lot better than OpenCL support. No doubt about that. But this is all fairly natural when a vendor with as much clout as Nvidia comes out in support of its own in-house API.
However, there is no argument when it comes to OpenCL's momentum in the industry. Obviously, AMD is making a comeback -- it looks like Apple, which is a major supporter of OpenCL and open standards, is firmly sticking to Radeons and FirePros. But most importantly, Intel (remember those guys?) is making a push with its iGPUs and OpenCL support and compute performance.
If the programs you work with are better supported under CUDA today, then by all means invest in a GeForce/Quadro card. In a couple of years however (or maybe even next year?) expect to move towards OpenCL.
Just wait until the 480 is out and look at tests.
Is a really fast gpu even that important in editing? A lot still depends on the cpu right?
Uhh ok
So what exactly is the point of this thread if you already have your mind up on buying a 1070? It won't have better performance for Premiere than older cards or 480, yet you aren't a heavy gamer and at the same time want to spend a ton on a gaming card... :whiste:
It sounds like you're already pretty set on the CUDA environment. Many users here have presented fairly reasonable arguments as to the benefits of OpenCL, but you've swatted them away without much consideration.
+1 Always hate when people ask for advice or help but they already have their mind made up. Kinda annoying.
This.
What other software do you use? CUDA is generally more supported than OpenCL, but the latter is catching up. Keep in mind that while you cannot run CUDA workloads with an AMD card, you can still run OpenCL workloads with a NVIDIA card. Depending of the application used, some acceleration is better than no acceleration at all. That is probably why everyone from the Adobe community recommends CUDA over OpenCL most of the time.
That being said, there is little difference in performance between a cheap GTX 960 vs a Titan class card for Adobe Premiere. Adobe Premiere is so poorly optimized for GPU acceleration. GPU acceleration is only used when applying effects such as stabilizer or color correction. You will be better served by saving your money with a cheap RX480 and spending it on a beefy 6+ cores CPU.
Alternatively, if you are worried about speed and video editing is your livelihood, you could take a look at Final Cut X. Apple's implementation of GPU acceleration is miles ahead of Adobe's and allows for real time editing of 4k videos (something Premiere cannot achieve even on the beefiest rigs). I recon FCX is 400% to 600% faster than Premiere if you are willing to make the jump to the Apple platform.
OP, how well do your apps scale with CPU cores/threads?
Perhaps the best bang for your buck would be an older generation dual processor CPU rig?
What other software do you use? CUDA is generally more supported than OpenCL, but the latter is catching up. Keep in mind that while you cannot run CUDA workloads with an AMD card, you can still run OpenCL workloads with a NVIDIA card. Depending of the application used, some acceleration is better than no acceleration at all. That is probably why everyone from the Adobe community recommends CUDA over OpenCL most of the time.
That being said, there is little difference in performance between a cheap GTX 960 vs a Titan class card for Adobe Premiere. Adobe Premiere is so poorly optimized for GPU acceleration. GPU acceleration is only used when applying effects such as stabilizer or color correction. You will be better served by saving your money with a cheap RX480 and spending it on a beefy 6+ cores CPU.
Alternatively, if you are worried about speed and video editing is your livelihood, you could take a look at Final Cut X. Apple's implementation of GPU acceleration is miles ahead of Adobe's and allows for real time editing of 4k videos (something Premiere cannot achieve even on the beefiest rigs). I recon FCX is 400% to 600% faster than Premiere if you are willing to make the jump to the Apple platform.
What role does Apple play here? Their tech is being used by creatives, they support OpenCL, and use Intel CPUs + AMD dGPUs, which are both OpenCL devices.The creative arts industries are moving away from proprietary and flocking to open source compute, something to think about.
Yes. Especially when applying affects and wanting to keep your timeline editing real-time, rather than having to wait for it to render every time you edit something. If you don't edit video on the regular, it's hard to related the speedup difference. If you watch the Linus video you will see CPU only is 5-6x slower than GPU accelerated.
Sorry, most of this is information from 2014.
As far as your speed claims, I don't know if I truly believe that, as I have many colleagues using Macs and they still prefer using Premiere Pro, including a lot major editing houses. I think its personal preference.
Sorry, most of this is information from 2014. OpenCL is widely supported across all effects. It took time, but it's there now. Today, Fury X is the most stable and fastest card for the latest Premiere Pro released last week. You are right that most workloads are CPU driven and hence don't show off the GPU's potential. But drop in a heavy sequence - we are talking 8K on a light codec with a whole bunch of effects, and Fury X shows its might, outperforming even Quadro M6000. (Haven't tested 1080 yet)
Premiere Pro uses GPU acceleration extensively, everything from scaling, colour management transforms to exports. For exports, it even uses multi GPUs. How much your system is CPU limited is determined by the source format used. That is because decoding is almost always CPU bound.
So, if you are reading 6K R3D RED RAW files, it doesn't matter - you will be CPU bound till you have a 20-core system. If you are reading 4K XAVC or XF-AVC files from cameras like Sony F5 or C300 Mk II, you will be CPU bound till a 6-core system. Some codecs are storage I/O bound too. Such as ARRIRAW or F65RAW. These are uncompressed codecs with GPU accelerated debayer, so the CPU doesn't do much work. But you need a SSD or fast RAID0 subsystem to eliminate the bottleneck as they draw to the tune of 300 MB/s. Finally, we have mezzanine codecs like DNxHR, Cineform and ProRes. You can run 8K easily, little stress on CPU or I/O. Here the sequence become GPU limited as the GPU has to work to scale down the 8K to your sequence and display.
It's completely false that you can't edit 4K on Premiere Pro. We have finished multiple 6K RED Epic / Weapon projects. This is the most popular camera being used. Like I said above, with a light codec, 8K is pretty easy on Premiere Pro with a mid-range system. Check out Devin Super Tramp - he has multiple videos showing off his workflow - a lot of 6K footage finished at 4K. On a Mac with AMD graphics cards, by the way.
Finally, Final Cut Pro X is a massive improvement on the archaic FCP 7. But to say it's much faster than Premiere Pro is a myth propagated by Apple fanboys. For CPU limited decode, it's up to par with Premiere Pro but no faster. However, for scaling operations, such as using 6K footage in a 2K sequence and so on, Premiere Pro's GPU acceleration is much faster. It's not FCP X's fault, it's probably a case of graphics card drivers being much more mature on Windows than macOS. FCP X's only major performance advantage was the background transcoding, but that has now been mitigated by Premiere Pro's new Ingest features. Right now, the only thing FCP X does faster is colour correction and stabilisation, but Adobe's Warp stabiliser still produces better results and the Lumetri colour engine is far more sophisiticated.
Having said all of that, you can get significantly faster exports out of FCP X. But there's a bit of a trick with how it works. You see, unlike Premiere Pro which reads files natively, FCP X has a rendering engine, which renders file as an intermediate before displaying it. So if you are just editing and exporting, FCP X is indeed much faster, because it simply accesses the low overhead render files. (at the cost of lower quality) You can of course pre-render in Premiere Pro as well, but it isn't persistent like FCP X.
At the end of it, everyone's going to get different results based on what you are going to do exactly.
So, it's prudent to optimise your system according to your workload.
To be honest, I haven't made the jump to FCX yet because I am in my comfort zone with Premiere, and I am too lazy to spend the effort learning FCX. But it is well worth to take another look given the premise of performance improvement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P5UWEKSUXo
http://maxcamera.net/computers/2014vs2015macbookpro/
to all the haters, its post like these that make the thread and discussion very worthwhile. I was hoping to get people with experience and great knowledge on the matter to chime in and they have done so. Thank you trane.
I have to agree with your Apple/Final Cut assessment as that is exactly what I have experienced. I can throw any footage directly into a Premiere PrRo timeline and start editing right away. I cannot do the same with FCP X and unless you've edited with both, you're not really going to know that. It is defiantly not 400-600% faster than PPro.
It would be nice if Premiere could take advantage of multiple GPUs and I read that might change with Windows 10. IF that were the case I'd definitely get a RX 480
Sorry, most of this is information from 2014. OpenCL is widely supported across all effects. It took time, but it's there now. Today, Fury X is the most stable and fastest card for the latest Premiere Pro released last week. You are right that most workloads are CPU driven and hence don't show off the GPU's potential. But drop in a heavy sequence - we are talking 8K on a light codec with a whole bunch of effects, and Fury X shows its might, outperforming even Quadro M6000. (Haven't tested 1080 yet)
.........
So, it's prudent to optimise your system according to your workload.
trane has pretty much come in and swept the thread haha! That's a fantastic amount of detail and information.
2blzd, in light of the above information, perhaps a 2P SB/IB Xeon system with multiple GPUs would serve you best? It's looking increasingly difficult to justify the cost of a X99+6950X based system.
I'm getting a 6800k. Which he also mentioned, a good 6 core would be sufficient for most workloads. I've already did the price comparisons and I'd rather have the new system. The second Xeon would go largely unused in the workloads that I have and just be a waste. Also I would be limited in clockspeed. I'd much rather have 4+ ghz 6-core than 2x8cores at 3ghz.
He also mentioned multi-gpus only work for higher-end exports, I'm assuming 4k 60FPS and up + w/ heavy FX. And I'd be hard pressed to saturate one GPU, so again it'd be a waste getting a 2nd video card that would never be used.
Sounds good. Enjoy the build!
Yea, 1070 it is!
Polaris is a dud