Quote: Need some advice on PD 12 please.

I recently upgraded from PD 10 Ultra and all works well in PD 12 until I go to produce. Instead of being faster then PD 10 its 10 times slower. A 7-8 minute video produced in PD 10 might take a few minutes but, doing the exact same settings in PD 12 it takes well over an hour.

I have a Dell XPS 8500 i7 3770 12gb ram 2 TB HD and 1gb NVIDIA Geforce GT 640. The driver for the graphics card was updated. I did read somewhere that people were going back to an earlier driver and it worked but, I tried that and still the same issue.

Windows 7 Pro. It updates daily.

My c drive has over 800gb's of open space. I run my video files from a separate drive within the pc. Sometimes another external HD too. USB 3.0

Has anyone else had this issue and how did you fix it? My settings are set identical to PD10. PD 12 is slow no matter what format I produce to.

I run other software's just fine. Like Nikon NX2, PS CS4 suite etc... This PC can multi task with ease. No gaming, just photo and video editing.

Thanks and let me know if additional info is needed.

Hi BryanL,
I wonder if you could do a couple of things for me please.
1. Please provide the MediaInfo of the video you're editing in PDR12.
Guide, Part I, http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/29701.page
2. This one is a bit different.
2-1 Open PDR12 and place the Nature.mpg into Track 1 multiple times until you reach 8 minute mark - cut the last clip at the 8 minute mark.
2-2. Now select a Produce option that you want (tell us what that is please).
2-3. Note the length of time it takes for your PC to render the 8 minutes of video (tell us).
2-4. Close PDR12.
Next part is fun to
2-5. Open PDR10.
2-6 Go to the Sample files of PDR12, C:\Program Files\CyberLink\PowerDirector12\SampleClips\NTSC, locate Nature.mpg and drag that file into the PDR10 media Library.
2-7. Repeat the same as you did in PDR12, produce a 8 minute video, tell us what you selected and note the time taken.
Close PDR10 after completion.

How do they compare?

Dafydd

Hi Dafydd,

Thanks for the reply and detailed request.

I did what you asked and more. First what you asked for. The video loaded I used for my further testing. Its from a Gopro Hero 2 shot at 1080p HD.

1. Here is the link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkikKgd94jQ&feature=youtu.be

(I'm not seeing a youtube button for replying?)

2-1. Results, PDR12 produced at H.264 AVC AVCHD 1920 x 1080p/60i 24 Mbps took 3 mins 40 secs

2-7. The same settings in PDR10 Took 3 mins 43 secs

That all worked fine.
Even after adding my title image and transitions both are fast.

But, when I edit stuff like contrast, saturation and sharpness, PDR12 bogs down.

I did the same testing on the video linked to on youtube first on PDR10 so the media project file could also be used on PDR12.

For a 4 min 39 sec video with all the effects including saturation 110 and sharpness 4 (contrast settings didn't transfer to PDR12) PDR10 8 mins 19 secs and PDR12 31 minutes 9 secs.

I produced to H.264 AVCHD 1920 x 1080p/60i (24Mbps) because both 10 and 12 have those same settings.

Hopefully this helps and please let me know if more info is needed. Thanks for checking this out.

Quote: Hi Dafydd,

Thanks for the reply and detailed request.

I did what you asked and more. First what you asked for. The video loaded I used for my further testing. Its from a Gopro Hero 2 shot at 1080p HD.

1. Here is the link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkikKgd94jQ&feature=youtu.be

(I'm not seeing a youtube button for replying?)

2-1. Results, PDR12 produced at H.264 AVC AVCHD 1920 x 1080p/60i 24 Mbps took 3 mins 40 secs

2-7. The same settings in PDR10 Took 3 mins 43 secs

That all worked fine.
Even after adding my title image and transitions both are fast.

But, when I edit stuff like contrast, saturation and sharpness, PDR12 bogs down.

I did the same testing on the video linked to on youtube first on PDR10 so the media project file could also be used on PDR12.

For a 4 min 39 sec video with all the effects including saturation 110 and sharpness 4 (contrast settings didn't transfer to PDR12) PDR10 8 mins 19 secs and PDR12 31 minutes 9 secs.

I produced to H.264 AVCHD 1920 x 1080p/60i (24Mbps) because both 10 and 12 have those same settings.

Hopefully this helps and please let me know if more info is needed. Thanks for checking this out.

Hi BryanL,
Thank you for the information.

The youtube video isn't suitable as a sample.

Your observation as to the processing time with the changes made are interesting.

Can you provide a sample clip please, 5 seconds long and attach it to your reply? I'll forward the data to CyberLink.

Dafydd

BryanL and Dafydd,

I've commented on other threads about the claimed performance improvement of PD12. My personal experience shows a decrease in performance using PD12 versus PD11 over several tes projects.

I thought I would give it one more try, following Dafydd's suggested scenario. I produced AVC 1280x720/60p (24 Mbps), using the Nature.wmv clip replicated so the movie totals 4mins 22secs in both PD versions. HW Video encoding, no DD 5.1, no x.v.Color, no SVRT (can't be selected anyway), no preview during production.

My results:
PD11: 3:32
PD12: 4:00

Not as bad as 10 times slower, but slower.

Are those of us with disappointing results having some common negative impacting config (HW, SW) ?

What would be revealing would be for those with a performance increase with PD12 reporting their results. Is anyone experiencing a performance increase? I7-4770, 3.40Ghz, 16GB RAM, Asus Z87-Plus Z87chipset, Sapphire ATI Radeon HD7850 PCI Express-16 3.0 2GB, Samsung EVO 840 SSD 1TB

Hi Dafydd,

Attach it via a link to either youtube or vimeo or something you can download from this reply?

Thanks.....

CV27,

Let me know if you figure something out.

Quote: BryanL and Dafydd,

I've commented on other threads about the claimed performance improvement of PD12. My personal experience shows a decrease in performance using PD12 versus PD11 over several tes projects.

I thought I would give it one more try, following Dafydd's suggested scenario. I produced AVC 1280x720/60p (24 Mbps), using the Nature.wmv clip replicated so the movie totals 4mins 22secs in both PD versions. HW Video encoding, no DD 5.1, no x.v.Color, no SVRT (can't be selected anyway), no preview during production.

My results:
PD11: 3:32
PD12: 4:00

Not as bad as 10 times slower, but slower.

Are those of us with disappointing results having some common negative impacting config (HW, SW) ?

What would be revealing would be for those with a performance increase with PD12 reporting their results. Is anyone experiencing a performance increase?

Can't replicate your performance difference with the 4:22 of Nature.wmv's in the TL produced to AVC 1280x720/60p (24 Mbps).

HW, GTX580, 327.23 driver
QS, Intel HD4000, 9.17.10.2932 driver
CPU, i7-3770
Win7 64bit pro, 16GB

PD11: 3:36 CPU
PD11: 1:23 HW
PD11: 0:59 QS

PD12: 2:39 CPU
PD12: 1:21 HW
PD12: 1:01 QS

CPU result benefits appear to be inline with 40% reported here for H.264 (unstated in graphic but most likely CPU encoded). http://www.cyberlink.com/products/powerdirector-ultra/news_en_US.html?&r=1

I posted a similar comparison here http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/29828.page#163370 , similar overall results but slightly different because of the hardware accelerated effect that was applied.

Jeff

Win7 Enterprise 64bit, 8GB
Core2Duo E8400 3Ghz
Sapphire ATI Radeon HD7850 PCI Express-16 3.0, 2GB

Ran the same project without HW encoding:
PD11: 14:48
PD12: 10:05

Not quite a 40% boost but at least it's positive. So I now realize PD's benchmark was most likely without Video HW assist. But who will CPU encode to benefit from that PD12 boost (h.264) when HW encoding is so much faster ? Even if there is no significant performance increase with HW assist going from PD11 to PD12, it still beats CPU encoding, right? I'm missing the logic here...

What gets my attention from your post is the dramatic overall performance increase with your setup, which I attribute to the i7's AVX2. I know my E8400 is getting old so I've been looking at an upgrade (i7-4770, may be -k); your results convince me to do so.

A few questions:
1- what is 'QS', associated with the onboard graphics HD4000 ?
2- If 'QS' means you ran the project encoding with the HD4000 (presumably disabling your GeForce) and given the results, why would you not always run with only the HD4000 enabled?
3a- First assumption: on your CPU encode test, the better results of PD12 versus PD11 are due to PD12 making AVX2 calls.
3b- Second assumption: based on very similar results between PD11 and PD12 in your test when HW encoding is used, video HW encoding is so significant in improving rendering performance that AVX2 becomes irrelevant.
3c- Third assumption: calls to AVX2 will be made (by PD12) regardless of HW encoding

What is your take on my assumptions ? I7-4770, 3.40Ghz, 16GB RAM, Asus Z87-Plus Z87chipset, Sapphire ATI Radeon HD7850 PCI Express-16 3.0 2GB, Samsung EVO 840 SSD 1TB

Quote: Win7 Enterprise 64bit, 8GB
Not quite a 40% boost but at least it's positive. So I now realize PD's benchmark was most likely without Video HW assist. But who will CPU encode to benefit from that PD12 boost (h.264) when HW encoding is so much faster ? Even if there is no significant performance increase with HW assist going from PD11 to PD12, it still beats CPU encoding, right? I'm missing the logic here...

Just a view on numbers I believe, CL chart data, 194/138=1.406 so the claimed 40%, keep in mind, in words at top of the stated link they said up to 40%, it is TL dependent. Your data 888/605=1.468, I'd say the hype lived up to the results for you.
I do virtually 100% CPU encoding for any final project, too each their own. It really depends on what source footage quality you have, what final format and output quality you desire. Everyone views quality differently, do what works for you. For many, over the various versions of PD, HW encoding often leaves some artifacts buried here and there in the video, CPU encoding has been much more robust to that.

What gets my attention from your post is the dramatic overall performance increase with your setup, which I attribute to the i7's AVX2. I know my E8400 is getting old so I've been looking at an upgrade (i7-4770, may be -k); your results convince me to do so.

On a large scale basis, my experience is that PD CPU encoding appears to trend well with basic CPU horsepower, a E8400 vs 3770, about 4x difference, passmark.com provides a good overall measure of CPU capability. This is pretty much the difference in results, Your PD12 results of 605 seconds vs my 159 seconds, 3.8x, likewise, a 4.1x for PD11 results.

Quote: 1- what is 'QS', associated with the onboard graphics HD4000 ?
2- If 'QS' means you ran the project encoding with the HD4000 (presumably disabling your GeForce) and given the results, why would you not always run with only the HD4000 enabled?
3a- First assumption: on your CPU encode test, the better results of PD12 versus PD11 are due to PD12 making AVX2 calls.
3b- Second assumption: based on very similar results between PD11 and PD12 in your test when HW encoding is used, video HW encoding is so significant in improving rendering performance that AVX2 becomes irrelevant.
3c- Third assumption: calls to AVX2 will be made (by PD12) regardless of HW encoding

What is your take on my assumptions ?

1- Yes, QS is Quick Sync associated with Intel Quick Sync which is part of recent CPU designs. Encoding was a specific design objective.
2- Yes, for the test the GTX580 was disabled. Likewise for the GTX580 testing, the integral HD4000 was disabled.
3a-c- I doubt it, my tested 3rd generation CPU does not support AVX2, you need the 4th generation CPU of Intel.

Jeff

Jeff,

Thanks for the detailed reply. It all makes better sense now.

As I said, I'm looking at the i7-4770 with AVX2:. As opposed to blindly diving into the upgrade to PD12, this time around I did some major research on this CPU, chip set (Z87) and compatible motherboards. Can't wait to give PD12 a spin on the new configuration.

'Last' question: what memory speed did you choose for your 3770 ? Was it a performance or financial decision ? The 4770 and compatible chip sets apparently can benefit from DDR3 memory bandwidth up to 2400mhz, but one has to pay for that premium. I7-4770, 3.40Ghz, 16GB RAM, Asus Z87-Plus Z87chipset, Sapphire ATI Radeon HD7850 PCI Express-16 3.0 2GB, Samsung EVO 840 SSD 1TB

So I got my new gear together and reran the same project as in post http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/30304.page#166247

New system:
Asus MB Z87-Plus
i7-4770
16GB DDR3 memory 1600Mhz
Sapphire ATI Radeon HD7850 PCI Express-16 3.0, 2GB
Win7 64 bit Enterprise

The new timings:
2:12 HW accelerated (ATI)
1:44 CPU encoding

Comparisons are between my previous and new system using PD12 in both cases.

So, for CPU encoding, I went from 10:05 to 1:44, a stunning 5.8 improvement!

As for HW encoding, I went from 4:00 to 2:12, a 1.8 improvement.

My bewildering observations:
1- CPU encoding gets a tremendous boost, presumably because of AVX2 on 4th generation CPUs and the CPU speed bump of the 4770 versus my old E8300; keep in mind I'm not comparing PD11-PD12 anymore, just the impact of my HW upgrade
2- I'm a bit perplexed that I only got a 1.8 improvement on HW encoding; I'd be tempted to speculate that I didn't benefit for the AVX2 instruction set because the ATI did the encoding; the improvement would simply be because of the CPU speed bump
3- There's a 1.3 improvement running CPU encoding versus HW (ATI) encoding; either my Radeon HD7850 isn't tuned for this type of work or my i7-4770 is light years ahead (?). Needless to say I'll be sticking to CPU encoding from now on considering as well that CPU encoding is supposed to produce a cleaner video
4- I'm somewhat baffled by the fact that Jeff (JL_JL) gets 1:01 (QS) with his system versus my best score of 1:44 (CPU); not that I need to be the tallest building, but I can't figure this one out

Bottom line: notwithstanding some weird results, I'm pretty happy with the 1:44 versus the 4:00 I was getting before I7-4770, 3.40Ghz, 16GB RAM, Asus Z87-Plus Z87chipset, Sapphire ATI Radeon HD7850 PCI Express-16 3.0 2GB, Samsung EVO 840 SSD 1TB

Quote: 4- I'm somewhat baffled by the fact that Jeff (JL_JL) gets 1:01 (QS) with his system versus my best score of 1:44 (CPU); not that I need to be the tallest building, but I can't figure this one out

Easy, run your 4770 with the embedded Intel HD4600 GPU and see what you get with PD12. As I indicated earlier, QS was totally designed with certain video encoding formats so it will shine under certain situations. It's not a solution for everything, but an attractive option. When configured correctly it will smoke my 3770, I've done the test.

Quote: As for HW encoding, I went from 4:00 to 2:12, a 1.8 improvement.

Just a wild guess, what was the model of your previous MB or the PCI version compared to your 3.0PCI on the Asus Z87. This ratio simply looks like a PCI slot performance ratio difference which you would see this difference in PD HW encoding. I would doubt that a MB that supported a E8400 at the time would have a gen 3 slot.

Jeff

Quote:

Quote: 4- I'm somewhat baffled by the fact that Jeff (JL_JL) gets 1:01 (QS) with his system versus my best score of 1:44 (CPU); not that I need to be the tallest building, but I can't figure this one out

Easy, run your 4770 with the embedded Intel HD4600 GPU and see what you get with PD12. As I indicated earlier, QS was totally designed with certain video encoding formats so it will shine under certain situations. It's not a solution for everything, but an attractive option. When configured correctly it will smoke my 3770, I've done the test.

Here are my results with PD12 and my new system (described in an earlier post of this thread), running with the integrated Intel HD4600:
1:07 QS only
1:03 QS + HW encoding

Note: Although I connected the HDMI cable to the HD4600, I forgot to disable the Radeon HD7850 driver. No harm done until I hit 'Produce' in PD12: then blue screen caused by the ATI driver and reboot (repeatable).

Quote:

Quote: As for HW encoding, I went from 4:00 to 2:12, a 1.8 improvement.

Just a wild guess, what was the model of your previous MB or the PCI version compared to your 3.0PCI on the Asus Z87. This ratio simply looks like a PCI slot performance ratio difference which you would see this difference in PD HW encoding. I would doubt that a MB that supported a E8400 at the time would have a gen 3 slot.

Good point there! My old MB: Intel, DQ35JO, Series 3, rev 2, socket LGA775, FSB 800mhz, Q35 Express chipset, GMA3100 Graphic, Intel® 82566DM Gigabit Ethernet Controller, PCI Local Bus Rev. 2.3, PCI Express Rev. 1.0a ... I7-4770, 3.40Ghz, 16GB RAM, Asus Z87-Plus Z87chipset, Sapphire ATI Radeon HD7850 PCI Express-16 3.0 2GB, Samsung EVO 840 SSD 1TB