Creative Communities of the World Forums

The peer to peer support community for media production professionals.

Activity Forums Adobe Premiere Pro I increased CPU utilization from 45-55% to 70-80% during renders

  • I increased CPU utilization from 45-55% to 70-80% during renders

    Posted by Michael Buie on September 27, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    Problem? Well, my Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4 GHz PC would max at near 100% during rendering, so I knew my CPU was the bottleneck.

    So, I built an I-7 950 Intel CPU with 12 GB of 1600 DDR3 Ram.

    My Mainboard:
    https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813188039

    Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 (to ensure use of GPU acceleration)

    Drives:
    C: 1.0 TB 5400 (System/OS)
    D: 1.5 TB 5400 (Office/Data)
    E: 1.5 TB 5400 (Old projects I may have to revisit)
    F: 2.0 TB 7500 (Current projects)
    G: 2.0 TB 7500 (Cache/Scratch)
    H: Blue-Ray DVD Drive
    I: DROBO FW800/USB with four 2.0 TB 5400 (5.4 TB usable) for off-line video project and critical files storage

    After setting up my I7 950, I was getting 45-50% CPU utilization during rendering or eek-ing out maybe 55% if I set Premiere Pro process to near Real-time priority.

    Now, I suspected my controller and drives may become the bottleneck with my new build… but really? 50% CPU utilization for rendering? What the heck?

    Doing some research and making the below-listed adjustments, I managed to get CPU utilization up to about 75% median (70%-80%) for BOTH export rendering AND sequence workspace rendering.

    1. Started by defragging C: (G: was empty)

    2. Changed PageFile to 1GB Fixed on C: and 24 GB Fixed on G: (Am upgrading Ram to 24 GB soon)

    3. Changed Adobe Cache Files (not database) from default C: drive location to G: (Edit > Preferences > Media )

    4. Changed Scratch Drive for Project from same drive/location to G: for Video and Audio

    My two fastest drives, F: is my “Current Video Projects” drive and G: I made into my Cache/Scratch drive

    ====

    Next step I plan in my quest for faster render AND better editing performance:

    – SAS Controller and 15,000 RPM SAS drives.

    But, that’s for when I have another paycheck to spare. LOL!

    I hope this helps someone. Critique and comments welcome.

    Michael Buie replied 14 years, 7 months ago 3 Members · 11 Replies
  • 11 Replies
  • Michael Buie

    September 27, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    I have found a lot of great advice here on these forums, so I thought I’d share my experience with you guys since I’ve seen similar questions pop up here. 🙂

  • Gary Huff

    September 27, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    What have you described in no way accounts for CPU utilization by Premiere. Altering Page File sizes like you have can also make Windows unstable.

  • Michael Buie

    September 29, 2011 at 1:07 am

    So, are you saying your CPU utilization does not go up when you render?

  • Gary Huff

    September 29, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    No, what I’m saying is that what you did with the hard drives shouldn’t have impact how much CPU was being utilized.

  • Michael Buie

    September 29, 2011 at 4:55 pm

    I posted my experience thinking someone here might want to see it since I saw some folk complain about why their CPU utilization is low on high-end machines.

    I felt since my old Q6600 2.4 GHz PC rendered at nearly 100% CPU utilization and my I7 950 PC was only rendering about 50% CPU utilization, my drives were the next suspect for being a bottleneck to overall performance.

    My actions of optimizing caching and rendering files to my fastest drives resulted in my PC rendering approx 35% faster! Higher CPU utilization resulted, more frames render per minute, files complete exporting quicker and sequence renders complete faster.

    I made no other changes. What would you attribute that to? Are you going to totally disregard the results of the change?

  • Michael Buie

    September 29, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    Check out this post by a guy discussing Pipelines and Performance:

    https://www.virtualdub.org/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=31

    Pipelines and performance

    First, a classic laundry analogy: think of pipeline stages in terms of your washer and dryer. The fact that your washer and dryer are separate instead of being one washer-dryer amalgam is that you can get more done by keeping both busy: while one load is drying, you can start the next one in the washer. However, there are some gotchas to this:

    The washer and dryer probably don’t run at the same speed, so one of them will always be the bottleneck. If your washer takes longer than the dryer, the dryer will be idle some of the time (pipeline stall). If your dryer takes longer, you’ll sometimes have clothes sitting in the washer (underutilization).

    The pipeline only runs as fast as its slowest stage. If your washer takes 30 minutes and your dryer takes an hour, getting a faster washer isn’t going to speed up four loads of laundry as much as a faster dryer.

    You can keep the washer and dryer running more often if you have an extra basket lying around. That way, you can empty the washer and fill the dryer as soon as they’re ready, and you can merge or split loads as necessary. (When I was a college student, I quickly learned that a full washing machine will work about as well as a half-empty one, but a full dryer takes forever compared to a half-empty dryer, so sometimes it pays to dry smaller loads. Part of the reason is that you can empty the lint trap more often.) However, having ten baskets instead of one or two doesn’t help and is just a waste of space.

    There is some overhead to shuffling clothes into the washer, from the washer to the dryer, and out of the dryer; the longer you take, the longer the units sit idle and the lower the overall throughput. This means that putting one load through actually takes slightly longer than if you had both in one unit. The longer the washer and dryer take, though, the less your movement delay matters. One way to do this is to do bigger loads.

    It’s embarrassing to store up dirty clothes for three weeks and then have to tell people you can’t do something because you have to spend the next three hours doing laundry.

  • Walter Soyka

    September 29, 2011 at 7:44 pm

    [Gary Huff] “No, what I’m saying is that what you did with the hard drives shouldn’t have impact how much CPU was being utilized.”

    If hard drive access was a bottleneck, the CPUs wouldn’t be fully utilized because they couldn’t be fed data to crunch from disk fast enough. By improving disk throughput (in this case, by distributing the system, media, and caches across separate spindles), Michael has reduced or eliminated that bottleneck, allowing the CPUs to work closer to their capacity.

    Rendering requires multiple subsystems (CPU, RAM, and disks) to work together. Any one of these subsystems can be a performance bottleneck which slows the others down.

    Michael, I’d suggest you consider getting a high performance RAID system rather than faster individual disks. You can get very fast read and write speeds and a larger volume size. RAID is not backup, but you’d also get some redundancy protecting you against the failure of a single drive.

    Walter Soyka
    Principal & Designer at Keen Live
    Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
    RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
    Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events

  • Michael Buie

    September 30, 2011 at 12:58 am

    Walter! Finally! A great reply!

    Your response backs up similar advice from a Adobe Forum member who helped write PPBenchmark. HE also agreed I had taken some steps in relieving a bottleneck and his number one advice to increase my performance further was to RAID, as well. 🙂

    I WAS going to get a 15K RPM SAS drive and controller (I already have the controller, Dell XT257 Perc5/i PCI-e SAS RAID 256Mb Controller, as a matter of fact). But, the RAID solution seems more cost effective, based on what you guys are telling me.

    Thank you so much for the verification and the advice!

  • Gary Huff

    October 6, 2011 at 2:56 am

    Adding a RAID is great advice. Defragging won’t show any difference and changing the page file can make your system unstable.

  • Michael Buie

    October 6, 2011 at 10:04 am

    I can’t evin BEGIN to explain how wrong you are about defragging on so many levels. You revealed a lot about your lack of knowledge of hard drive performance with that one statement right there. Sorry to be blunt … but, that is just being real.

    Changing the pagefile CAN make your system unstable if you don’t do it right. But, that is such a broad, misleading statement.

    Editing your Registry can also destabilize your system if you don’t do it right.

    Deleting files from your hard drive can make your system unstable if you don’t do it right.

    That doesn’t mean you never do it.

Page 1 of 2

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