PD12 render speed slower than PD11

GGRussell

Senior Contributor Joined: Jan 08, 2012 11:38 Messages: 709 Offline

Solved by

Jan 01, 2014 23:42

Anyone else disappointed in PD12 render speed? All the hype on TrueVelocity4 appears to be just that. I mainly purchased PD11 (and now PD12) to do only one thing - import Windows Media .WTV files, remove TV commercials and then 'produce' the file as MP4 to stream to my LG Smart TV.

I was happy with PD11 render speed although I wished it was faster. Using AMD's system monitor app, render a TV show to MP4 would use my Quad core about 65-80% on the CPU and 18-25% GPU with hardware enabled.

Just did a test with PD12 and everything was much slower. CPU was 25-45% and GPU was only 9-12% with open CL/Hardware enabled. Granted I'm building a new Intel 4770k computer which I purchased with PD12 in mind. But I spent $1k on new computer parts thinking PD12 would render 2 or 3 times faster than on my this older AMD phenom.

I'll be doing more testing on this rig before I sell it and definitely rigorous testing on the Intel when it's built. So far, I'm not impress with PD12 render speed at all.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Jan 01. 2014 23:43

Intel i7 4770k, 16GB, GTX1060 3GB, Two 240GB SSD, 4TB HD, Sony HDR-TD20V 3D camcorder, Sony SLT-A65VK for still images, Windows 10 Pro, 64bit
Gary Russell -- TN USA

All vodi

Senior Contributor Location: Canada Joined: Aug 21, 2009 11:24 Messages: 1431 Offline

Jan 02, 2014 10:27

As a long time user of PD, I agree with you. PD12 is slower. It does not optimize itself to your PC. It appears to be optimized to NEW PC configurations.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Jan 02. 2014 10:30

Win 10, i7

JL_JL

Senior Contributor Location: Arizona, USA Joined: Oct 01, 2006 20:01 Messages: 6091 Offline

Jan 02, 2014 11:42

Quote: Anyone else disappointed in PD12 render speed? All the hype on TrueVelocity4 appears to be just that. I mainly purchased PD11 (and now PD12) to do only one thing - import Windows Media .WTV files, remove TV commercials and then 'produce' the file as MP4 to stream to my LG Smart TV.

I was happy with PD11 render speed although I wished it was faster. Using AMD's system monitor app, render a TV show to MP4 would use my Quad core about 65-80% on the CPU and 18-25% GPU with hardware enabled.

Just did a test with PD12 and everything was much slower. CPU was 25-45% and GPU was only 9-12% with open CL/Hardware enabled. Granted I'm building a new Intel 4770k computer which I purchased with PD12 in mind. But I spent $1k on new computer parts thinking PD12 would render 2 or 3 times faster than on my this older AMD phenom.

I'll be doing more testing on this rig before I sell it and definitely rigorous testing on the Intel when it's built. So far, I'm not impress with PD12 render speed at all.

It's been a discussion in many threads. I posted a few comparisons here http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/29828.page and here http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/30304.page

I didn't see you post what the elapsed time difference was between your above tests, just some % utilization numbers. For HA encoding and no edits, just video conversion, I'd of thought no difference in elapsed time as your HA GPU card is the same all things configured correctly.

From my use, elapsed time is better or on par with PD11, it is very timeline and output dependent as noted in the linked posts. To date for my work I have not seen any significant degradation in elapsed wall time with PD12 compared to PD11.

Jeff

PlaySound

Senior Contributor Joined: Dec 02, 2010 10:26 Messages: 2031 Offline

Jan 02, 2014 13:41

In PD10 11 and I always saved audio separately, for reasons that PD gave failures, especially in transitions.
PD12 in this process to save only the audio was very time consuming, felismente bug with audio and transition seems resolved, but I still have an error when I add the MP3 project.
Then I realized that leaving only the audio track active, except in the audio file very fast.
This audio added to the project, it seems to me that the video was saved but fast too.
Just my impressions cietificamente nothing confirmed. AMD-FX 8350 / 8GB DDR3
SSD SUV400S37240G / 2-HD WD 1TB
AMD Radeon R9 270 / AOC M2470SWD
Windows 7-64 / PD16 Ultimate

GGRussell

Senior Contributor Joined: Jan 08, 2012 11:38 Messages: 709 Offline

Jan 02, 2014 22:29

You should never use MP3 format with video if you need to sync it with the video. Has something to do with the 'seek' function during editing. Some editors will convert MP3 internally to WAV. Intel i7 4770k, 16GB, GTX1060 3GB, Two 240GB SSD, 4TB HD, Sony HDR-TD20V 3D camcorder, Sony SLT-A65VK for still images, Windows 10 Pro, 64bit
Gary Russell -- TN USA

BillyG1955

Newbie Joined: Jan 21, 2014 21:23 Messages: 6 Offline

Jan 26, 2014 08:25

Yes, I am disappointed with PD12 also. It is definitely slower than PD11. I am thinking about going back to PD11.

PlaySound

Senior Contributor Joined: Dec 02, 2010 10:26 Messages: 2031 Offline

Jan 26, 2014 09:11

Quote: You should never use MP3 format with video if you need to sync it with the video. Has something to do with the 'seek' function during editing. Some editors will convert MP3 internally to WAV.

In PD10 11 and I always saved the audio in WAV very fast and without problems.
Now in PD12 continues fast, but crashes when presents have MP3 music, save the solution in WMA CD quality, delay, but works well for me. AMD-FX 8350 / 8GB DDR3
SSD SUV400S37240G / 2-HD WD 1TB
AMD Radeon R9 270 / AOC M2470SWD
Windows 7-64 / PD16 Ultimate