Creative Communities of the World Forums

The peer to peer support community for media production professionals.

Activity Forums Adobe Premiere Pro Adobe Premiere Pro 2.0 poor Rendering Performance hardware bound or deliberate

  • Adobe Premiere Pro 2.0 poor Rendering Performance hardware bound or deliberate

    Posted by Delete Me please creative cow junkmail on November 3, 2006 at 12:02 am

    I have a core 2 duo E6600, 2 gb memory and premiere pro rendering time is no better than my 2 year old 3.0 P4. Adobe make claims about multi processor and GPU support. Well i have multi processors and a decent GPU (Nvidia 7950) and i can see no difference.

    Is this marketing lies or is there some config parameter i am missing ? Premiere is clearly not CPU bound so where is the bottleneck in getting better perforamnce. Is there anything that can be done in hardware to fix it ? Or do Adobe just deliberately make it slow so you have to buy higher end software ?

    Can anyone comment on Vegas 7 rendering performance ? As i own Soundforge sony software keep sending me junkmail offering a cheap upgrade to Vegas 7. Adobe Premiere always seems on the verge of becoming great but never quite getting there – maybe its time to switch vendors.

  • 9 Replies
  • Pinner

    November 3, 2006 at 1:07 am

    I had the same setup as the p4 and currently have the E6700 with 2 gig of RAM and there is massive differance in render speed

  • Blast1

    November 3, 2006 at 1:10 am

    [noteapot] “I have a core 2 duo E6600, 2 gb memory and premiere pro rendering time is no better than my 2 year old 3.0 P4.”

    Rendering what, timeline or encoding?

    [noteapot] “Adobe make claims about multi processor and GPU support.”

    GPU support is only for certain effects, you will find these listed under GPU in the Effects and Transitions menus.

  • Steven L. gotz

    November 3, 2006 at 1:37 am

    It is important to know if you mean “rendering” as in creating Preview Files, or “rendering” as in creating a new file via exporting.

    The first is processor intensive and the second is disk intensive.

    When I got my E6800 system I was unable to get a good score on the Premiere Pro benchmark. But after tweaking my disk drive settings, I blew past the competition.

    The benchmark is here: https://mysite.verizon.net/wgehrke/ppbm

    Steven
    https://www.stevengotz.com

  • John Baum

    November 3, 2006 at 7:56 pm

    Vegas is notoriously slow at rendering, though I haven’t tried the newest version.

  • Delete Me please creative cow junkmail

    November 4, 2006 at 6:30 am

    I am importing PSD stills (exported from Maya) and putting a fade in and fade out on them. No effects or after effects at this point – i’m already dreading that.

    When i bring them in there is a big red bar across the top and i hit render to get rid of it. I have to say i’m not clear on what the render process is doing. I understand with effects of course but since i’m bringing in 1024*768 stills and exporting as 1024*768 sequence the same …..

    The render seems to start well about a frame a second but after 30 or 40 frames or so slows down dramatically.

    Actually my CPU is a 6700 also so if there is a render test file i would like to compare results – maybe it is some other issue.

  • Delete Me please creative cow junkmail

    November 4, 2006 at 10:22 am

    I downloaded the 30 day trial version of Vegas 7. Its yet another interface to learn (although fortunately similar to soundforge). The rendering issues i was having in Premiere do not seem to exist in Vegas. It loads the .psd sequence and renders them to wmv very quickly without any significant rendering overhead. Excluding editing or setup but including similar transitions the workflow time in Vegas is 50% of the time in Premiere Pro 2 . The primary reason is there is no timeline rendering required. Writing time to WMV is the same as using the microsoft encoder (fast). There is no write to flash in the Vegas demo version so i cant test that. For uncompressed AVI if i do a timeline render in Premiere first then the Vegas export .AVI render (to 1024 * 768 ) was about the same time as Premiere export.
    Right now Vegas offers a significant workflow advantage because i dont need to do any timeline rendering. The .AVI rendered output from Vegas seems to be artifact free and the Premiere output is not. Because of this I still suspect i’m missing something in Premiere – but that said Vegas just loaded the .PSD video and it worked.

  • Blast1

    November 4, 2006 at 12:38 pm

    What are you using for project setting in Ppro? A preset or custome settings?

  • Mike Cohen

    November 6, 2006 at 8:59 pm

    how did you tweak your hard drive?

    Mike

  • Delete Me please creative cow junkmail

    December 25, 2006 at 8:49 am

    Just as an update on this. I was very happy with Vegas 7 performance and rendering time. Was ready to buy. Unfortunately for some reason Vegas does not like more than one video track of 1024 * 768 in the timeline and crashes . If you do it all in one video track its ok. Sony say this is a known problem with larger than TV frame sizes- Unfortunately the current fix is dont do it.

    So am sticking with Premiere for the time being but am still very disappointed with multi processor performance.
    There are lots of claims being bandied about premiere multi-processor rendering performance but as far as i can see these are gained in the third party renderers only. Windows media and Apple mov rendering from Premiere are significantly faster on a quad processor but having run some tests with the standalone renderers they are even faster outside of Premiere. The best MP workflow with Premiere seems to be to render to AVI first and then use one of the standlone renderers to go from AVI to WMV/Mov.

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy