|
|
Right now, multiple GB of RAM is being used for my pc to do almost nothing. Also, I have a feeling you have the feature enabled where it shows clips on the timeline at lower resolutions than whetat they really are.
https://www.cgdirector.com/ram-video-editing/
That is a good example of how almost "every" recommendation article is. That you'd need at least 16gb if you do much of anything and 32gb if you want to do a lot of background stuff. So all of the articles are wrong, when they all suggest the same thing? There's more to take into account than just the amount used from the program, as well, ie the other programs open at the same time and windows.
I'd for sure not go below 16gb, my only decision is on 16 vs. 32. But I already have the 32, so unless I want to lose a lot by resellling with ebay fees, I'm about stuckm, anyway. Otherwise, Id be tempted to get 16 gb of RAM designed for my cpu.
Was justr eading where even 32gb isn't enough for someone who uses premiere and after efects.... that he has to close one or thee other at times. So even just for futureproofing it sounds like you'd need 32 minimum.
Does cyberlink release info about the next version of this program before it releases, or not until release? I am waiting on PD17, hoping they fixed whatever gpu issues, or I may sell my rx 580 and buy a gtx 1060 or 1070.
|
|
|
Thanks for all of the thorough replies, everyone.
I doubt I'd be professionally using this, ie selling discs I create. Anything is possible, though. I'd say if vegas pro were on soem very, very, very good sale, down at like $150, i'd maybe get that, but otherwise will ahve to get one of this tier. I am sure not getting the adobe one and paying the stupid monthly fee.... And someone told me their elements version of it doesn't allow BR burning anymore. (I think it allows you to create them in a certain format, just not what is thought of as a blu-ray by some).
Also, I likely won't use effects much. I just never know for sure. I indeed thought with all of those packs that come with ultimate it was odd they said the effects weren't professional. Either they weren't using ultimate or else maybe there is something wrong with PD's implemntation of the extra effects?
As for building the pc and then trying both via trials, I may do that. Only problem is the whole gpu decision. I am leanign towards selling the rx 580 and buing a nvidia 1060 or 1070 if a good deal pops up. Of course PD17 may fix the amd issues and maske me frustrated I go to the toruble of selling and rebuying a gpu...
Then on cpu I can't deicde whether o get current tech, wait 2 months and get intel 9th gen, or wait until next year. But I've bought most parts and their warranties are ticking away while I decide.
Also, I forget if I mentioned this or not, but when I tlak about RAM, I am talking about when working with 4k video. And besidfes that. when they make RAM recommendations, they also are likely assumign that a professional may have multiple programs open, such as this one, hitfilm (or filmhit, w/e it's called), possible photo editing software, browsers, etc... But even just the video editing program being open should get mighty clsoe to 16gb use on some 4k projects with most editing software.
|
|
|
Quote
I kind of stepped back from this topic because I agree with what Jeff pointed out, plus he is more inclined to experiment. No need for me to mudd the waters.
- CPU is important, and specifically for video editing Intel CPU's have an edge in performance. Not necesarelly reflected in price, but that's another story.
- GPU encoding cuts out a lot of the time by using the integrated ASIC hardware. That hardware has nothing to do with gaming cores, so upping for a top of the line card makes no difference. I got the 580 because I do other things too on that computer. I am hot sure if the faster bus makes a difference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units#Radeon_RX_500_Series
- the GPU encoding might still have some issues and nVidia is usually better in this respect. I switched from a GTX960 myself, and it served me perfectly. I don't have a 10xx series, but I know that they improved the ASIC block (called nvenc in nVidia) significantelly.
- GPU memory and even system memory in my usage doesn't get used so much. Sure, there can be scenarious that will ask for more memory (like Jeff suggested), but... are you gonna use it like that?
- With all the faults, I found out that PD makes a better use of GPU and has better performance than may editors out there, proffesional or not. That's why I have stopped here.
You're not saying if you mean intel is better for "this" program or video editing, in general. Because the latter is just not the case, assuming the amd has more threads. That is what eevry single article says is that you should go with amd if youa re going to sue the computer for a lot of productivity work, ie editing and that the itnels are only recommended for gamers. The only time the itnel would be better for videoe diting is if either it's an itnel with the same mor more cores than the amd or if the program is not properly optimized to utilize extra threads.
I don't have an example of useage that would use x amount of RAM or y amount of vram. The fact remains, if you search in any search engine for recommended pc specs for video editing, every one of them will recommend at least 16GB RAM, with it also syaing it's better to have 32 or even 64. Then for gpu, it will always sat amkiunt of VRAM is the most important aspect. So, again, if that is not the case for this program, soemthign is odd about this program's optimization, to go against all exprert articles' claims.
I'm not here to criticize the software, but I also read a professional revew that said powerdirector's effects are not close to professioanl level and thata nyone wanting effects would need to go with nero's product or that videostudio is better at that too, but that program is much slower encoding.
So I am just flat stuck now, not knowing what to do because most programs don't allow BR burning and then this program is apaprently not optimized to sue good pc specs and the other one I know of that still allows BR burning not only makes you pay a licensing fee to do so, but it is known for being a slow encoder.
|
|
|
Quote
doublethr33, since you attribute some comments to me, I can only suggest you reread and comprehend what you've been provided.
1) In no place did I state anything about 2GB of RAM being utilized, VRAM or RAM.
2) In no place did I state a good CPU would not be beneficial, in fact I never said anything about CPU performance.
3) In no place did I state no need for a good GPU, RX580_HE_PD16.png provided clearly showed what a good GPU can do with encoding H.265. In fact I did write: https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/76530.page#post_box_313332 "if you are planning on creating H.265 productions for playback and your pinch point is the long H.265 encode time, a Nvidia GPU is significantly faster than any equivalent cost consumer CPU for encoding on the market"....which the table provided clearly shows. A ~17000 passmark.com score CPU is a pretty good CPU spec to be beat by nearly 5x in H.265 encoding, but that's the beauty of a dedicated hardware encode with Nvidia NVENC SIP core vs software based CPU encoder, if you need that capability.
Best of luck with your build and editing software choice, whatever direction you go.
Jeff
Sorry, it was someone else who made the vram statement. I still don't understand that one, because it's not manufacturers who say more VRAM is good for editing. It's professional editors saying it. Same with the other specs I mentioned.
At this point, I just don't know what to do in so many areas. I already have RAM and I already have a gpu. I wanted to use PD and get a amd 2700x. Well, amd cards not as good for PD and my RAM is optimized for intel cpus. So then... if I decide on intel, well the 9700k and 9900k are reportedly being released this quarter. So wait on one of them, you ask? Well, then we come to the fact that I am worried about figuring out a cooler and thermal paste, whereas the amd oens already have a good coler with them.
As for the gpu situation, I could wait and see if PD17 performs better with the rx 580 or I could sell my rx 580 and buy an nvidia just to be closer to guaranteed. Then, of coruse, I could decide ona different software and maybe amd is better than nvidia for the other software. So any way I go could backfire.
I'm kind of leaning selling the card, getting an nvidia, getting an intel cpu. Then I'd have a better gaming setup, even though I'm unsure if I'd game, if I get a 1070, 1070 ti, or 1080 and I'd have the better performing card for this program... and I'd have the cpu my RAM is more guaranteed with.
Just a big hassle to do all of that. And more costly.
|
|
|
Quote
"Now, I guess I have to go through all of this back and forh on yet another manufacturer's forums before I ever find a softtware."
Hi,
If I might step in here.
It appears that what is being sought is a definitive hardware and software system configuration. However, over the years, as many folk have found out, and as many experienced folk have advised, there is no definitive system configuration. If I use a simplistic scenario to illustrate the point, you may liken your search to asking the general question of "what's the best vehicle?".
Many manufactuers will advertise, promote or stretch the merits of their vehicle - but what that means for any prospective user all depends on what the user actually, realistically, in practice wants,needs or can handle. So, in the car market (ignoring the best trucks and other vehicles), in purely technical terms the Hennessey Venom F5 has 1,600 hp whereas the Koenigsegg Agera RS has only 1,160 - a significant difference - but perhaps not meaningful for the average school run (or even on the racetrack??). Again, to quote a european SUV review - "While some SUVs are as talented off the beaten track as they are on the road, a large proportion are expected to stay on tarmac, having been chosen for their desirability rather than functionality." So what price the rave reviews and marketing blurb, not to mention the technical specs and debates on off road performance in the amazon jungle?
I realise I am being mildy provocactive, but it is only to make the point that there is no point in seeking a definitive answer to such broad questions.
Jeff and others have great experience in doing practical comparisons of system and software performance, usually in typical "real world" scenarios, and the advice they offer can be extremely valuable both to existing users and prospective users. But it will never produce the definitive system decision, that must be up to the user to take the advice, marry it to their own experience, other sources and comparators and make their own decision.
As to PDR, the software is not classed as top of the range professional, nor is it marketed and priced as such - so such comparisons might be seen as less useful. However, PDR is generally held to be among the top "prosumer" NLE software on the market. As with other NLEs it is not perfect, and there are idiosyncrasies, implementation issues, bugs etc. and perhaps some of these could be better addressed, better documented and better resolved - but, for a wide range of users, it broadly does what it says on the tin.
So if, after this thread has covered quite a wide range of ground, you are still unsure then, yes, you may well have to continue your search for your definitive software and harware configuration.
C'est la vie?
Adrian
It's not that I am trying to create the perfect specs for all situations. It's that what Jeff says is conflicting with every expert article that makes recommendations on how good of spoecs you should have when building a pc for video editing. This is not manufactuers' advertising, it is supposedly neutral sites' recommendations on specs. Then, when I ask Jeff to clarify some of what he said, he clearly got offended, believing I should just accept it with no questions, and stopped responding. If it's true that he's never seen more than 2GB of memory used, then it should be easy for someone to expolain why every professional article recommends 16gb or above on RAM and says you really should get even 32 or 64. Also, saying an intel cpu is always going to be better than an amd.... that's just not the case. There's a reason why the amd ones with more cores are recommended above similarly prices, lower core intels, when doing video editing.
So what i was really trying to get to the bottom of was the reason for thoese posts conflicting with expert advice. It either means this program is not optimized in a good way, the poster was incorrect, I misunderstood his points, or.... well that's about it, because 20 professional articles wouldn't be saying otherwise for no reason. I'm thus trying to figure out if I need to be looking at different software or if he's making some point different than it seems. If most software uses 12+gb of RAM in real world encoding and this one neevr uses over 2, AND this program is faster, it's just flat impossible that the result could be as good of quality as that from software that uses all of the higher specs to do it sjob.
|
|
|
|
Now, I guess I have to go through all of this back and forh on yet another manufacturer's forums before I ever find a softtware. There aren't really many options, though, since I want to create BRs. I think this and videostudio are the only ones that even have the option, for under-$300 software. But I'm sure any other software, with gpu acceleration, would be faster than without acceleration in PD. And pretty much everything Jeff has said leads me to believe this software isn't set up well, especially if when he said he ahsn't seen over 2GB RAM used, he meant actual computer RAM. There's a reason why the top professioanl software uses up in the 12+GB range. Anything that works with a lot worse specs than other software has to be cutting corners somewhere. No need for much RAM, no need for a good cpu, no need for a good gpu.... that is disturbing news. The content's got to suffer in that type of situation. Nobody would even need to bother to get a half way decent pc.
|
|
|
|
At this point, I have spent so much on this pc build, I am tempted to spend the extra ~$200 and get a 1070 ti or 1080, just to have the option thre for good gaming, even though I've never pc gamed.
|
|
|
Quote
When you get the specifics your ask for in the profile, I have not been able to detect a difference between CPU and Nvidia encoding during playback. Some scenes are challenging and both encoders show issues with slightly differing results. For instance, rippling water, glistening leaves, can poise issues to name a few, The poor bitrate for H.265 was mentioned several times in this thread as well as the links I had provided.
As mentioned previously in this thread, I'd never uppay to purchase a "TI" model for PD, I see no significant advantage in PD16 for the cost. Lot's of other potential reasons to purchase, just not PD16.
Your use of the word acceleration is a little unclear. If you mean the PD pref tab "Hardware Acceleration" and the two ticks for OpenCL and decode functionality. I'd never make the GPU purchase based on what PD supports for these two items:
1) I don't use enough accelerated FX in my timeline for OpenCL implementation to be of any significant value in the current product
2) As mentioned previously in supplied links, https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/65974.page#post_box_300990 item "c". Proper decoding support has been less than stellar. Many issues discussed in this forum over the years. Issues way to numerous to mention each discrete anomaly but such things as, hardware decoding not functional after applied transition, after applied FX, after a split, green screens.... and issues still exist for some source video formats. Multiple issues have been reported in the forums and CL has improved a few, I have NO confidence CL will ever put in the effort to have it work correctly. If my current timeline gets some benefit with decoding great, if not, I doubt it will be a CL correction focus as the CPU will just do the effort and most users appear just happy with that.
If you are asking if having a high end GPU vs mid level will be of some significant PD editing experience benefit if both options in pref are never selected/utilized and on the "Produce" tab, "Hardware video encoder" is never selected/utilized, then no from my experience. At best rather marginal differences and may even go unnoticed. For instance, my Nvidia GTX650 for all practical editing functions when no GPU features are utilized works the same as my Nvidia GTX1070 or AMD RX560. When my GTX650 hesitates and skips during timeline playback of high bitrate 4K source files with CPU decoding, so will my GTX1070. However, with say "Hardware video encoder" utilized, production time of a common supported profile between the two GPU's will be substantially different.
I never updated any GPU firmware which AMD and Nvidia both supply for special circumstances. In this case, for the RX580, I only updated the GPU software drivers, no GPU firmware update. Rather different updates.
I think you've been given more than enough info to make your own decision how to spend your money that's good for your intended use of PD, enjoy whatever you purchase.
Jeff
I've been given a lot of info, but I would not agree with the statement that I've been given enough to make a decision based off of. Basically what it all boils down to is apparently PD is a mess. For properly optimized software, gpu does matter and that is why countless expert articles say how important it is to get a good gpu with a lot olf VRAM. The fact that you say almost every spec is worthless in a gpu with the program shows the program has issues implementing this. I assume even poor multithread implementation, too, with someone in here saying intel works better than amd.... for any properly optimized program an amd with mroe threads than an intel would work far better. the amd 2700x is 30% faster at these types of activities than an 8700k, if the program is properly set up to utilize extra threads.
There's a reason why every article recommends these things, including 32gb RAM, as well. If good specs don't matter for this program, then it clearly can't be doing as well as othe rprograms or the sugegstions by experts would be don't care about cpu, memory, or gpu.
|
|
|
|
One thing's for sure... you sure gained a lot on that h.265 4k by using the better firmware. that old bitrate was pathetic.
|
|
|
Quote
Maybe this additional comparison will help you form your own opinion on what's right for you.
Based on SoNic67 comments of no issues with 18.6.1 Adrenalin drivers, I reinstalled my RX560 and used the new drivers not released when I tested previously. Below is a comparison of results. The timeline was just something I was working on and does not represent a pure transcoding head to head comparison but how a GTX1070 and a RX560 performed hardware encoding with this particular timeline. Canon, iphone, Galaxy, ipad, DSLR source footages, various bitrates and framerates, PIP photo/video insets, 4 video tracks, masks, just a common home use timeline.
As easily seen, still some issues with red numbers of H.265 and RX560 even with latest drivers, at least on my platform. Not as bad as previous drivers and H.265 which I added in the table as well for comparison. With 18.6.1 drivers, H.265 video bitrate short of profile by ~20% and echoed in overall file size as well, 6.83/5.63=1.21. Easily visible quality drop when viewing on large screen. RX560 encoding performance overall worse than GTX1070.
What's right for you from just a hardware encoding perspective, depends what profiles you plan to utilize and if you want to use GPU hardware encoding. My experience is the same basic itemized list I previously provided still applies, even with 18.6.1 drivers. If you plan to do CPU encoding, any mid range cheap card will do and put the money saved into the CPU which is beneficial for all stages of editing and producing.
Jeff
Is video quality of cpu encoded better than even the best gpu encoded? See, I thought the main problem with amd cards was time of encoding. I didn't notice, apparently, that people were saying that bitrates were even lower.
I originally planned on just getting a 1050 ti. I figured that owuyld be "good enough". And at the time they were $140. But I never bought it and out of nowehre theyw ere well voer $200. Well, this deal popped up on the rx 580 and after tax and everything I paid only $225. A no brainer to do that over paying $200 for a 150 ti.
And an intel igpu would just be going "too" far down. There are some 1050 ti cards now occasionally going for $150, but by the time I'd sell the rx 580, pay fees, etc... I may lose on the amd purchase and it not be worth the slight savings to go all the way down to a 1050 ti.
I don't want to be having freakin 6 hour encoding times, though. With my old crappy crappy crappy cpu and gpu I could be way below that with othe rporograms.
Btw, is it correct that a good gpu still helps even when not using gpu acceleration? I assume at the very least it would help during the process of doing the editing itself, ie streaming the video. I don't want to keep this gpu and feel like i just threw the money out the window if I don't use acceleration, so I am torn as to what to do now.
|
|
|
So, does anyone have an opinion on whether I should get PD16 and then buy an nvidia card vs. keep the rx 580 and then get PD17?
I saw a recent deal for a 1060 6gb for $230, so deals are popping up on it sometimes... If I sell my rx 580 when it's not on sale anywhere, I could probably get evry close to $230 after all fees, as I ahve not opened it yet. I took the UPC off to claim a rebate, but the packaging shows it's clearly unopened.
The 1060 is slkghtly beter than the 580 anyway... But just not sure if it's worth the trouble. My 580 is a highly rated 2 fan one, also, whereas the good 1060 deals are 1 fan ones.
If I KNEW they'd fix amd functionality in 17, I'd justw ait.
ps even the nvidia 10xx cards aren't listed on ehre as supported, by the way.
|
|
|
Quote
doublethr33, here's another user echoing the same experience I indicated to you which you didn't find palatable to accept. https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/20/63918.page#post_box_313461 6+hours for 30min H.265 production clip on a pretty capable i7-8700K. Using the GTX1060 with NVENC hardware encoding, 18min. That's pretty respectable performance benefit for those that need or desire it. So, if you know an outdated pc and another program that can do that task much better, I'd say, there’s your platform!
SoNic67, for my RX 560 eval with Adrenalin 18.3.4 drivers, any standard PD MP4 H.265 4K/30p 37Mbps profile yielded unsatisfactory results, often produced file was ~4-6Mbps verified by size and MediaInfo. I did not try the RX 560 with 18.6.1 drivers so I have no experience there.
Jeff
Not sure what you're saying I wouldn't accept. I didn't say that it cxouldn't take a long time to encode. I said if it does, then the program is not doing that great of a job, unless it includes a lot of effects. I know of programs that will burn a full disc in less time than the 6 hours with a evry, very old and bad cpu and gpu.
Also, notice your example is with an nvidia card, whereas I ahve an amd, which has been said to be broken with gpu acceleration.
Too bad, too, because someone has PD16 ultimate on sale for an amazing price right now. But I can't buy it if I'm going to ahve broken gpu acceleration. I'd have to either sell my gpu, pay a big portion of the molkney I get in fees, and buy an nvidia card.... just to get this good price on PD16, or else wait for PD17 and hope they fixed it.
My luck will be that it won't get fixed for PD17, too, so then I would have kept waiting for nothing. Seriously, how could anyone recommend this if it's going to take 6 hours because of broken gpu acceleration? And a 1060 is what I was originally planning to buy, too.
|
|
|
As far as intel being better than amd for video editing, that's just not the case, unless you are saying for PD, specifically. In most situations, the cpu with the most cores and threads is the fastest for encoding. I am talking about mainstream cpus, the 8700/8700k and the 2700/2700x, so yes an intel with equal cores and threads would be better than an amd, but an amd with more cores and threads will be far superior for any program optimized properly for high core and thread uses. Of course intels with many threads would be best, but I'm talking $300-$400 cpus with the amd in the comparison having more threads. And even if you go with a higeher core/thread intel, then you have amd threadripper which would outdo it.
My memory, however, is optimized for intel (as 99% is). There was a great sale on ebay today where people got the 2700x for under $250, but I was too scared to risk it, since it wouldn't be considered an authorized dealer.
As for gpu choice, I originally was going to get a 6gb 1060. But every single place I read about video editing said the more VRAM for your card, the better it will be for video editing, and the rx 480 was constantly recommended. So when I saw the 580 on sale for $250 minus $20 rebate minus $30 I saved on gift cards, I thought it was a no brainer to spend that $200 plus tax instead of $300 for a 1060.
But now I am wondering if I should have listed my 580 today while everyone went crazy on ebay, then after fees, maybe could still have gotten a 1060 without being out more... or spend more and get a 1070 or 1070 ti.
As for the broken amd acceleration... I sure hope they address that in PD1`7. as I was leaning towards waiting on that, anyway, as my assumption is it will be released in approximately 2 months. Obviosuly the most important part of my purchase is wanting it to perform well, with great quality. PD is known for being one of the fastest at encoding. I'd much rathe rit slow down if that's what it takes for the great bitrates. But I'd rather not slow it down to the point of using no gpu acceleration, just on principle due to me buyingn a good gpu.
|
|
|
The bottom line here is almost any article you read about video editing says you should have a good gpu. Then they make a big deal about VRAM being the most important aspect of the card. Thus why I got an 8GB RX 580. But if this program's encoding with an amd card is broken (I don't think anyone's said how, but anyway...), it defeated the whole purpose. I see a 6gb GTX 1060 ons ale today for a pretty good price and I could sell the amd, but that feels like a lot of trouble when apparently the amd would be better with most programs.
Even cpu choice is a big headache, because some programs work better with intel and some work better with amd ryzen.
|
|
|
Quote
You can always buy what you wish, I'm no salesman. But yes, the Nvidia GPU hardware encoding for creation of H.264 BD's was turned off in a PD15 patch and still is off in PD16. (Attached is a PD16 pic for proof). CPU encoding of timeline will be used during PD16 BD creation when encoding needs to be done if one has a Nvidia GPU.
I think you continue to confuse OpenCL, CUDA, and NVENC (Nvidia hardware encoding) or VCE (AMD hardware encoding) functionality. Nvidia dropped the CUDA based encoder at driver release 340.XX, yes, nearly 4 years ago! I don't recall the exact timeframe for AMD adopting only VCE encoding via drivers but about 3 yrs ago too. PD does use OpenCL (Nvidia or AMD) to accelerate FX playback and encoding, only the FX though. Not much of a typical timeline is FX so of little real value for most. Acceleration via OpenCL is not GPU hardware encoding.
Maybe this somewhat old but still rather relevant long winded response for PD options will provide some clarity for you: https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/51023.page#post_box_267891
EDIT: oh, for a days comparison, have a read here, particularly last sentence: https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/20/49202.page#post_box_258666 Have you done any H.265 encoding? I think OP of this thread gets about 2-3X realtime encoding with his then Nvidia GTX960 GPU for his H.265 needs, so yes it still can be a few hours. At the time of his comment I believe he also had a i7-920 CPU.
Jeff
I by no means know much about the technical talk on a GPU, but everything I've come across, which makes recommendations for video editing, mentions that your gpu choice can speed up encoding due to OpenCL support (which is from the gpu)? And also, if CUDA was done away with, why do all of the mdoern nvidia cards list cuda core count and a lot of programs which use gpu acceleration have it listed as "cuda acceleration"?
I've barely had experience, but I know of a program that takes only a few hours even with very outdated pc specs. All I know is that reviews have shown comparisons where PD is suppsoedly one of the fastest encoding editing software out there. But just the fact that it's said in ehre that amd acceleration is broken makes me almost rather get somethign that will take longer to encode, just to know the gpu is actually being used...
A lot of the articles are really misleading if gpu doesn't affect much other than effects. They go on and on about how you should get at least a 1050 ti minimum.... well that makes no sense, if the gpu isn't even needed if you don't use effects. Articles also suggest 32gb of RAM, which I got... and I read some firsthand experience where someone used a high end video editor and never went above 16gb of his 32gb RAM used... so I feel like I am just throwing a lot of money away, due to believing articles' minimum requirement listings and buying based off of it.
I can only think of 1 other well reviewed program that even allows BR burning, so I don't even have much choice (unless I spent big bucks, which i won't do.,... this is only for a rare instance of use by me (hobby), not constant use).
|
|
|
Quote
Quote
It's hard to know what to do because that post seems to say there's not even a lot of impact by usign a good gpu.
I don't think it said that at all, the benefit really depends on what your workflow is and what you have as perceived bottlenecks in that approach. If you think the GPU purchase makes everything significantly better, no, definitely not the case. The post highlighted several unique complexities of GPU's and PD16 to help guide what's right for your situation.
For instance, if you are planning on creating H.265 productions for playback and your pinch point is the long H.265 encode time, a Nvidia GPU is significantly faster than any equivalent cost consumer CPU for encoding on the market and in this case the AMD GPU H.265 encoding with PD is broken. Some users on this forum use Nvidia GPU extensively for this and it works extremely well for their situation. From days to encode with their current CPU to hours with a Nvidia GPU. If your projects are only a 30 second clip, not much pain, someone creating several hour projects and waiting overnight to a day to encode, that maybe their pain point.
Similarly, if your intent is to produce GPU encoded BD discs because that's the workflow you want to do, no need to get a Nvidia GPU as that features is no longer supported in PD16.
In any case, I'd never pay the upcharge for a 1050TI for video editing within PD16. As SoNic67 pointed out, the Nvidia NVENC SIP core is nearly identical (minor clock speed changes) as other similar generation chips and it's encode performance is not really a function of CUDA capability. So for example a GTX1050 will be the same as a GTX1050TI for encoding so take the extra $70 or so and put it someplace in your system that would add value.
Jeff
The comparison charts for PD16 say it does allow burning blu-ray discs. If that is not true, I'm not getting the product. Even if you're just saying gpu acceleration for it was stirpped, I may not get the product. All articles about video editing talk about how important a good gpu is. If this program is not set up in a way for the gpu to be a worthwhile purchase, I'll find a different software.
And it's very odd news that gpu acceleration with an amd card would be broken, when PD has had acceleration from OpenCL far before cuda acceleration (notice even the name of the acceleration has cuda in it).
Very few products are optimized for nvidia, to begin with. So if this is "more" optimized for nvidia cards, then it's disappointing, as they must have just not cared about it, in order to make people with nviia cards happy. No matter how good this program may be, I don;'t want my gpu purchase to be a waste when there are other programs that take advantage of amd cards. And due to all the fees on ebay and amazon, I probably couldn't sell the 580 and get an nvidia 1060 without being out extra money.
Also, I am building a pc, ie havent even opened the 580. My curent pc is very ancient and even on it, encoding wouldn't take days, so the fact that any confiuguration could cause a product to take days to encode is interesting, itself.
|
|
|
Quote
This post maybe of interest: https://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/65974.page#post_box_300990
PD17, hopefully address many of the hardware encode, hardware decode, BD hardware encode, timeline hardware decode anomalies that have been present for way too long as well as support for formats supported by GPU's for yrs but still PD unsupported i.e bit depth.......on and on.
Jeff
It's hard to know what to do because that post seems to say there's not even a lot of impact by usign a good gpu. And as far as the issues you mentioned, I sure don't want to buy software of this type and it end up buggy and BR discs not burning properly. I could use free or cheaper programs if that's going to be happening.
I'm really feeling like I shouldn't have gotten much of a gpu. Although I only spent about $50 more than a 1050 ti would have cost, so I guess I couldn't have really saved much without going "toio" far down in gpu quality...
|
|
|
Quote
I have an AMD RX 580 and I can confirm that it is supported.
Now you are making a confusion about "cores". Those cores are used only for a few effects (less than 1% in the time budget).
The rest of the decoding and encoding in all the modern GPU's (Nvidia, AMD or even Intel) is done by a dedicated hardware (ASIC) block, separated from the general cores.
So, as long as the generation of that GPU is the same, it doesn't matter how many actual cores the GPU has, it does not influence the speed of decoding or encoding, they all have the same ASIC block.
Cores are important for games, but not used al lot for actual video editing.
What I meant is hardware optimization when using nvidea cards is dependent on cuda cores. That's what everything I have read has said, anyway.
Either way, it's irrelevant to me, I guess, because I have an rx 580, not an nvidea card. So, anyway, at this point my decisions are just ultra vs. ultimate and 16 vs wait on 17.
Anyone have any guesses as to what "may" have room for improvement for the 17 version? (I guess I a going way off topic here.)
|
|
|
Quote
RX570 on one of my PC works fine with PowerDirector 16, and the CPU is Intel Core i5 8400.
Actually you may download the free trial to check if the hardware acceleration works with your GPU.
Thanks. I can't test it because this is for a build I haven't yet made. My current pc has a hilariously old gpu.
So I guess they just didn't update their list in the knowledgebased/faq?
Do you know what the general consensus is for whether their nvidea (ie using cuda cores) implementation is better or worse than the amd implementation?
I am leaning towards purchasing this software. Only thing now would be me figuring out if the extra effects in ultimate are worth it and also if I want to wait until 17 comes out or not.
|
|
|
|
How could I be the only one who seriously would care about it not supporting current generation graphics cards? And by current generation... I mean it doesn't even list support for ones that came out years ago. Why would it even make sense to not support the better graphics cards? (again, I read where someone claimed cyberlink even told amd to lock it out from being used).
|
|
|
I was consideirng buying this program, but the knowledgebase for version 16, where it lists compatible gpus, does not list any recent ones! It seriously is not compatible with 10xx nvidea cards or amd rx cards? I bought an rx 580 almost solely for when I'd consider using an editor, so I wouldn't want to use this software and then it not even be using the gpu or it was wasted money, I feel.
I also read a post by someone on AMD's site complaining that in powerdirector 15, it would not let him use a good amd card, either. It greyed it out and forced him to choose intel's igpu, due to cyberlink apparently having amd lock it?
And one more thing... is this optimized enough for extra cores and threads to where an amd 2700x would work better with it than an intel 8700 or do the extra threads not help much for this particular program?
Thanks!
|
|
|
