About GPU-accelerated export

Hello,
I saw that the new version of Final Cut Pro X supports GPU-accelerated export, but I'm curious about what export option actually uses GPU acceleration (like Share to Apple devices, DVD, h.264, ProRes...) and what video cards are actually supported.
I can't see any options to activate/deactivate this (for benchmarking purposes).
Has anyone seen a performance boost?

It's the Export command (Cmd+E) that uses it, and you can't turn it on or off, it's just on. I know what my system does for a standard export, and after the upgrade is almost twice as fast. A complex 3 minute project I know takes a good full minute to export now takes just under 30 seconds. It's extremely noticable. But you can't turn it on/off.

Similar Messages

Have functional difference with GPU acceleration and software processing of Mercury Playback Engine?

Used Decklink SDI and Premiere CS6 to testing.
I have a question~Have functional difference with GPU acceleration and software processing of Mercury Playback Engine?
(Can GPU acceleration export same used 59.94i external monitor export?).
IN specification，Is it need“software processing”？ whether other restrictions?
If Anyone know please tell me.
thank you.

Thank you for your help, and sorry about didn't make it clear.
Use Decklink SDI and Premiere CS6 to test.
In GPU mode of Mercury Engine, the signal form SDI is 1080i, but even fields will be missing.
Take a simple test:
Make quick slide for reproduce animationin in quadrangle(1080i 29.97), but it can't paly smooth and same gone to 30P.
If in Software mode, the action can be smooth.
Although use Software mode can be ok,but if GPU does not realize,it will take long time to render.
system info:
macpro 10.8.1
premiere cs6.0.2
blackmagic driver 9.6.4
GTX285
sequence of premiere
Presets/blackmagic/8bit YUV/interlace/59.94i
Have any problems with my System or the GPU mode can no external monitor output in 59.94?
IN specification，Is it need“software processing”？ whether other restrictions?
thank you!

Lightroom slower when GPU acceleration is enabled

My graphics card is OpenGL compatible and it is shown in the preferences under performance.
When the GPU setting is turned on my develop module is extremely slow. Turning it off is faster and more like LR 5 performance.
All the hype about GPU acceleration and in reality is slows me down.
I've also noticed then if you have an image open and then open the preferences windows and toggle the GPU setting on and off, the image changes.
When I say changes, I mean the image becomes lighter or darker as if the exposure or whites/blacks is being changed.

I agree with Adamnz. I have a slightly older system but using CC 6 is like going back to the early releases of 5.x when the clone tool was jerking around the screen.
Painting with a brush and the mask showing makes the lag time visible.
Jerky tool movements... like trying to paint with Parkinson's.
Screen blackouts while refreshing images.
Slow screen refreshes between images.
CPU usage slightly higher (60%) with GPU enabled
But since this version created a "New and Improved" catalog I can't (i don't think) go back to 5.x...
BTW, I have been waiting for a call back from support for an hour when the stated call back time was 25 to 30 minutes... Not Good.
Here are my specs in case Adobe is listening....
Lightroom version: CC 2015.0.1 [ 1018573 ]
License: Creative Cloud
Operating system: Windows 8.1 Business Edition
Version: 6.3 [9600]
Application architecture: x64
System architecture: x64
Logical processor count: 8
Processor speed: 3.3 GHz
Built-in memory: 16366.4 MB
Real memory available to Lightroom: 16366.4 MB
Real memory used by Lightroom: 3261.9 MB (19.9%)
Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 3324.1 MB
Memory cache size: 1469.4 MB
Maximum thread count used by Camera Raw: 4
Camera Raw SIMD optimization: SSE2,AVX
System DPI setting: 96 DPI
Desktop composition enabled: Yes
Displays: 1) 2560x1440, 2) 2560x1440
Input types: Multitouch: No, Integrated touch: No, Integrated pen: Yes, External touch: No, External pen: Yes, Keyboard: No
Graphics Processor Info:
GeForce GTX 560 Ti/PCIe/SSE2
Check OpenGL support: Passed
Vendor: NVIDIA Corporation
Version: 3.3.0 NVIDIA 350.12
Renderer: GeForce GTX 560 Ti/PCIe/SSE2
LanguageVersion: 3.30 NVIDIA via Cg compiler
Application folder: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Lightroom
Library Path: D:\Pictures\Lightroom\Lightroom Catalog.lrcat
Settings Folder: C:\Users\Dim\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\Lightroom
Installed Plugins:
1) Behance
2) Canon Tether Plugin
3) DxO Optics Pro 9
4) DxO Optics Pro 9 Importer
5) Facebook
6) Flickr
7) Leica Tether Plugin
8) Nikon Tether Plugin
Config.lua flags: None
Updated Toolkit: Adobe Camera Raw 9.0 for Lightroom 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: Book Module 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: Develop Module 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: Import Module 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: Library Module 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: Map Module 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: Monitor Module 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: Print Module 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: Slideshow Module 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: Web Module 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.AgNetClient 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.AgWFBridge 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.Headlights 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.LibraryToolkit 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.MultiMonitorToolkit 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.archiving_toolkit 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.bridgetalk 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.catalogconverters 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.cef_toolkit 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.coretech_toolkit 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.curculio 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.discburning 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.email 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.export 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.ftpclient 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.help 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.iac 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.imageanalysis 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.layout_module_shared 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.pdf_toolkit 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.sdk 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.sec 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.socket 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.store_provider 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.substrate 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.ui 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.video_toolkit 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.ag.xml 6.0 (build 1014445)
Updated Toolkit: com.adobe.wichitafoundation 6.0 (build 1014445)
Adapter #1: Vendor : 10de
D

GPU acceleration

I'd also like to throw my wish for GPU-acceleration into the balance. With APUs and hUMA here i can't understand why there's not even experimental, elementary support there. I'm still with Lightroom 3 and will get the first new version that is significantly faster when browsing through the images.
I guess you'll know about about the raw editing software "Darktable" - it's coded with so little manpower and they got a significant speed up by Opencl. (link http://www.darktable.org/2012/03/darktable-and-opencl/ ). I tried it and it's really fast and stable at the same time (at least for me).
I don't want to complain only...i really like working with lightroom.

Here's the thread about GPU acceleration in the official feedback forum:
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/gpu_mpe_support_for_lightroom_4_mult iprocessor_support
Here's a reference to Eric Chan's comment on the usefulness of GPUs for Lightroom:
http://www.lightroomforums.net/showthread.php?18114-OpenCL

Why Lightroom CC GPU Acceleration shows error?

Error due to "Check Open GL Support: Failed!" Using Intel HD Graphics 4600 and all specs show it has enough VRAM (1792 MB) and Open GL is 4.3 and Intel test shows it passed. The driver is up to date with latest version. I can't find any reason for the failure. I'm using an HP Envy Touchsmart M7-j120 dx Notebook with 16GB of RAM. I need help as I'm going around in circles.

Lightroom has indicated that they do not have a list of supported graphics cards. GPU acceleration is a new feature that is probably going to need some refining over time. Don't worry about GPU acceleration. From what I have read, the main difference is seen with those who have that Apple high-resolution retina screens. Lightroom performs adequately on my very basic HP desktop running Windows 7, 8 GB RAM, integrated graphics. I don't have a GPU processor. I haven't noticed any performance hit compared to Lightroom 5.7.

GPU acceleration not working when exporting images on Lightroom CC

I was monitoring CPU & GPU while exporting a timelapse sequence:
As you can see, GPU is idle when exporting images - CPU does all the work. So GPU is used only when moving the sliders in the Develop module for a fast preview of an image you are working on, but for export it isn't used.
What's your opinion? I'd like to have exports accelerated too. I was hoping for it. Exporting timelapses is really time consuming.
Adobe pls?

I couldn't find the Cuda-Supported-Cards.txt file at first, didn't know about right-click .app file "show package contents", but then found it. I also searched for the hack and some people said delete the file, others said add your Graphics cards to the file, others said add your graphics card to the the Opencl_supported_cards.txt file. I added my card to the Cuda-Supported-Cards.txt first, and it didn't work. I left the graphics card in that file, but also added it to the Opencl_supported_cards.txt file and now it works. Thanks so much.

New Mac Pro, AMD, Prem Pro CC & GPU Acceleration Issues

Hi,
I am not exactly what you would call an expert at Adobe Premiere Pro but I have been struggling to make a few exports over the last few days and yesterday discovered that the issue was about Premiere Pro not playing nicely with the AMD FirePro D500 installed.
With GPU Acceleration (OpenCL) turned on I get strobing and all sorts of glitchiness. Once it is turned off, everything works fine. The exports seems to take more than twice as long but they are perfect.
I have found very little about this online and nothing identically matched my experience.
Has anyone else had this? Have you found a work around?
Machine is nMP 3.5 Ghz 6-Core 64GB RAM with AMD FirePro D500.
[Text formatting corrected. Please type your posts into the forum, as copy/paste often carries with it unwanted code.]
Message was edited by: Jim Simon

samfaulkner wrote:
I have been struggling to make a few exports over the last few days and yesterday discovered that the issue was about Premiere Pro not playing nicely with the AMD FirePro D500 installed.
With GPU Acceleration (OpenCL) turned on I get strobing and all sorts of glitchiness. Once it is turned off, everything works fine.
Pr has been perfect on my new Mac Pro (D700s, but that shouldn't matter). Are you exporting direct from Pr or queuing to AME? If one, can you try the other and see if the same thing happens?
What are you exporting to?
Is OS X all up to date, I assume? And you're running the latest version of Pr CC?

GTX 470 lack of GPU acceleration

Windows 7 64-bit, 8GB RAM, MSI-branded GTX470, NOT gaming, using with Adobe CS5 applications. CS5 applications are updated to loatest patches.
I've read a few other posts but I still have some questions:
1) If the hardware monitor provided with my GTX 470 is correct, and during effects rendering in Premiere and in transcoding in Encore with AME, GPU % used is about 1%, is that expected?
2) I posted a question on the NVIDIA forum regarding my inability to add Premiere Pro CS5 and Encore CS5 to the list of GPU-accelerated applications using the NVIDIA Control Panel. The *CS4* applications are listed but Control Panel does not allow me to add CS5. I uninstalled CS4 some time ago, before I added the GTX 470.
3) Today when I attempted to load a Premeiere Pro project, I get a message saying that Mercury GPU acceleration "is not available on this system" and "software only" mode will be used. What changed? Any way to recover?
So basically two sets of questions:
a) Shouldn't transcoding use GPU acceleration? Shouldn't rendering in Premiere Pro use it? What else should I expect to NOT use GPU acceleration, aside from video effects, which are pretty clearly marked.
b) Is there a trick to configuring either CS5 or GTX470 to allow GPU acceleration to be used?

Some effects are hardware accelerated, these are CUDA effects, because they use the CUDA engine on the video card. Others are not.
The GPU usage during transcoding is dependant on the source material and the export format. For instance if you start with HD (1920 x 1080) material and transcode to 720x576 SD PAL, the scaling is done by the video card (CUDA enabled). If there is no scaling during the transcode, then there is no assistance from the video card.
The faster the CPU and the memory, the more work can be done by the GPU, but if the CPU is slow, the video card is constantly waiting for the CPU. A Phenom II X4 is pretty slow, so the GPU is waiting for the CPU and will show low usage.
Look at the Background Information page at the PPBM5 Benchmark

AME takes a long time to start encoding when using GPU Acceleration (OpenCL)

Have had this issue for a while not (current update as well as at least the previous one).
I switched to using GPU Hardware Acceleration over Software Only rendering. The speed for the actual encoding on my Mac is much faster that software only rendering. However, more often than not, the encoding process seems to stick at 0% waiting to start for a long time, say anywhere from 1 minute to several minutes. Then it will eventually start.
Can't seem to find what is causing this. Doesn't seem related to any particular project, codec, output format or anything else I can see. I'd like to keep using GPU Acceleration but it's pointless if it takes 5 times as long to even start as rendering by software-only would. It doesn't even pass any elapsed time while it's hanging or waiting. Says at 0 until it starts. Like I said, once it starts, it's a much faster render than what the software would take. Any suggestions? Thanks.
using an iMac, 3.4Ghz, 24GB RAM, AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2048 MB

Actually, I just discovered it doesn't seem to have anything to do with OpenCL. I just put the rendering back to software only and it is doing the same thing. hangs for a long time before it starts to run. Activity monitor shows it running 85-95% CPU, 17 threads and about 615 MB of memory. Activity Monitor doesn't say its not responding, it just seems kind of idle. It took almost 7 minutes for it to start rendering.
1- Running version 7.2.2.29 of Media Encoder,
version 7.2.2 (33) of Premiere.
2- Yes, a premiere project of HD 1080 source shot with Canon 60D, output to H.264 YouTube 720, fps 23.976
not sure what you are referring to by native rendering. The rendering setting i tried now is Mercury Playback Engine Software Only if that is what you are referring to. But OpenCL gives me the same issue now.
3- H.264 YouTube 720, 23,976 - seems to happen on multiple output types
4- In Premiere, I have my project timeline window selected. Command-M, selected the output location I wanted and what output codec, selected submit to Queue. Media Encoder comes up, the project loads and I select the run icon. It preps and shows the encoding process setup in the "Encoding" window, then just sits there with no "Elapsed" time occurring until almost 5-6 minutes later, then it kicks in.

IMAC's Top graphics card frustration - Cheap and no support for Adobe Mercury Playpack Engine GPU Acceleration?

If anyone has a solution for getting the Mecury Playpack Engine GPU acceleration to work with Premiere Pro CS6 on an iMAC 2011, please let me know. Like I wonder if you could Thunderbolt an External graphics card somehow? Or is an upgrade possible? Ahh...not worth the risk.
Please, if you have a solution for me, let me know. Otherwise I find it pretty frustrating that I purchased a top-end iMAC, fully maxed-out in every way possible, and that the iMac doesn't support Adobe Premiere's Mercury Playback Engine GPU acceleration. Also, an old USB 2.0 Hub and thus the built-in SD card reader is slow. If you have SD cards with 95MB/s Transfer, Read and Write speeds, the iMAC will only transfer at around 30MB/s if you're lucky. Technically 480Mbs which is around 50MB/s but I haven't seen those speeds.
I figured this could at least be circumvented with a Thunderbolt SD card reader or a Thunderbolt to USB 3.0 adapter but of course no such thing exists.
Well, nothing with a reasonable price tag. This all might seem trivial to some but when you're uploading 24 hours of HD video footage from a 128GB SDXC card, the speed makes a big difference.
And come on, no BluRay support? Ridiculous. I get the politics of why but still, just ridiculous. It would be nice to be able to burn a BluRay to watch in my home theater system. There are other methods but BluRay is convenient and great for backing up large Video Files. Unfortunately BluRay looks like it's not going to make it. Maybe cable distribution companies will increase their Internet upload speeds one day and I can just store everything in the cloud and watch full length movies(that I've created) on Vimeo.
Anyways, I went and took a look at the hardware Apple stuffed inside my fancy (3.4 Ghz i7, 16GB 1333 DDR3, 2GB AMD 6970M, 256 GB SSD Internal and 2TB 7200 Internal) machine and it appears to be pretty middle of the range stuff. It's an iMAC, not a Mac Pro so why am I griping? Because my 2009 PC(which I tricked out over the last two years) is faster and does support the Mercury Playback Engine. I spent $2100 total on this PC which includes all my upgrades. I spent around $3300 on the iMAC. I feel ripped off.
Yes, I do love my iMAC on multiple levels but had I known my dated 2009 PC would render video projects faster, I would have gone with a MAC Pro or just a new PC. It seems that Mac is moving completely away from making high-end computers for niche markets(video editing) and focusing on their tiny laptops, IPADS and IPhones for the masses. Obviously smart from a capitalistic perspective(at present at least) but very frustrating for some.
I was actually told to purchase a MAC for video editing. I've been a PC guy for 15 years. I went with the iMAC because I had read many good things about it(probably just Apple propaganda) and also the MAC PRO was to be discontinued. Also the MAC Pro would have been triple the cost for what didn't seem like a whole lot more.
It's one's thing to prepackage a computer with inferior hardware(the iMAC I have is fast for most things and more than enough for 99% of the population) but to not allow us to pop open the computer and make a quit upgrade to the machine is what really makes me feel like I'm using a computer built for Grannies. I mean there is a reason my mother loves iMacs and Iphones. Amazing that I was able to upgrade my memory from 4 to 16GB but I've heard Apple has even done away with that. I get why they do it. Apple Warranty, Apple Care issues, Profit and World Domination: Apple wants a monopoly on everything.
Was great to see Adobe bounce back after the whole Flash/HTML5 thing and knock Final Cut Pro off the face of the Earth for good. People are still buying it b/c of the brand name but Final Cut is done. David Fincher used Adobe's Workflow for everything when he made The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo. Hollywood is making the shift and the world will follow. The Adobe Workflow has finally come together and there is just no way Apple can compete with Adobe Creative Cloud and an Engine that can just swap from Premiere to After Effects to Prelude to SpeedGrade to Photoshop to Story with speed for $29 bucks a month(or $49 for some). Apple better start supporting Adobe's Mercury Engine or they may have a problem. And if you're using Final Cut X, you're severely handicapping yourself. Problem is that people don't want to take the time to learn Adobe's products(steep learning curve for sure) which is where Apple's Granny software, and perhaps computers, comes in to play. Arnold Schwarzenegger once said "Milk is for babies, Real Men Drink Beer". I'm beginning to think that "Mac's are for Grannies, Real Men Use Adobe and PCs".
The major problem with Apple is you're forced to use Apple. Not sure but history has proven that people don't like to be forced into anything. Autocracies don't work. These systems eventually topple, even in the corporate world.
Amazon.com, now that's the company to emulate. What an amazing machine!
I've read that Apple may even discontinue the iMAC after 2013. Who knows?
If anyone has a solution for getting the Mecury Playpack Engine GPU acceleration to work with Premiere Pro CS6 on an iMAC 2011, please let me know. Like I wonder if you could Thunderbolt an External graphics card somehow? Or is an upgrade possible? Ahh...not worth the risk.
1) Graphcis Card - AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2048 MB (6990 would have been better or something from NVIDIA.
2) USB 2.0 Hub with only 480 Mb/sec
3) Seagate Baracude SATA I 7200 RPM drive with 3GB/s transfer rate and only a 32 GB Cach. It's ok. I would have expected at least a Western Digital Caviar Black 2 TB SATA III 7200 RPM 64 MB or the Velociraptor at 10,000RPM.
4)APPLE SSD TS256C Flash Drive. As you can see, it doesn't stack up so well against other SSD Drive.
Just average. http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/hdd_lookup.phphdd=APPLE+SSD+TS256C

Whining and ranting about how iMacs can't do this or iMacs/orMacs can't do that is not going to get you a lot of help here.
Your "I love my MAC" is typical of the ever ubiquitous PC whiner.
If your video work needs were that computer intensive and critical , you should've done some online research and you should have budgeted for a Mac Pro.
Mac Pros are completely expandable and upgradeable unlike the iMac.
Mac Pros have much more faster and more CPU cores than the iMac line.
iMac line is limited to CPUs with 8 cores. The Mac Pros, I believe, are up to 16 core CPUs, now.
The Mac Pros can have their GPU upgraded and you even add/expand to use specialty audio/video cards.
Mac Pros are the defacto standard for real video work.
iMacs, even the high end model, is not really designed to do really heavy and intensive video work.
iMacs do do video creation and editing. Just not on the level that is needed from a more "Pro" computer.
It seems to me you are asking your iMac to do more than it was originally designed for, in terms of professional video editing.
You get a lot more out of a Mac Pro than an iMac for any real serious video, CGI or animation work.
You just didn't want to spend that much cash on one.
iMacs are not user upgradeable or friendly to user upgrades at all!!!
If you purchased a Mac Pro, you could've had that better, faster HD, better faster SSDs.
That said, I can offer no real help to but because of the nature of your post and the fact you just simply annoyed me, I feel some advice and explanations are in order
First off, you picked Adobe video editing software suite as your video creation software on the Mac. It's no secret to long-time video content creators on the Mac that Adobe products, especially those for video creation and editing are very user unfriendly on the Mac. Even though Macs are supported from Adobe, Adobe for a long time has treated the Mac and Mac users as second class citizens.
Before purchasing and installing Adobe Premiere, did you even check Adobe's site for the preferred system hardware and software requirements? Hmmm?
This is why you should KNOW what software you are going to be running on a computer first then research what computer make and model will run said software.
That's why Apple has its own apps like Aoerture, Logic and Final Cut.
Despite your ignorance in this matter, Final Cut Pro X is alive and doing well, thank you, and using this software on your iMac would kick Adobe Premier in the you know whats.
Final Cut Pro X is a complete video solution for and completely designed around the Mac.
Why are you using USB 2.0 connections for video work when you have a perfectly good FireWire 800 connection.
In case you are not aware, FireWire 800 is called so because it has a max throughput of 800 Mbps.
Your 2011 iMac can take up to 32 GBs of RAM. Not just 16 GBs.
This changed when the 2010 model iMacs came out.
Blu-ray? I believe you can buy external Blu-ray writers that work with Mac using said FW800 connection.
So you cite one movie and one videographer using Adobe Premier for your premise that Final Cut is dead in Hollywood?
Your argument that Apple locks you into everything in their world can be countered by saying Windows and Windows PCs lock you into the Windows world. What's your point?
Apple is not discontinuing their computers platforms any time soon.
All you are regurgitating is rumor. Probably from all of the PC crowd.
iMacs and professional desktop Macs are not going anywhere.
Currently, Apple is the only desktop/laptop computer maker that is still making a profit on their Macs and increasing their market share percentages for the last 5 years during which the PC market has continually slumped/dropped in its market share.

GPU Acceleration causes random frame in encode?

New Mac Pro (6 core, d500 cards, 32GB RAM, OSX10.9.4). Adobe Media Encoder CC 2014.0.1. Tested on two separate machines of the same configuration.
I have a just over 2 hour long 1080p ProRes file that I was encoding to MPEG2 for DVD. During QC of the disc, a random frame from another part of the movie was found in a spot about 39 minutes into the encode. The issue was in the encoded MPEG2 stream.
The client also wanted a lower resolution h264 proof of the video, and that was encoded on the same machine at a separate time. That had the same random frame at the exact same spot.
I encoded the preview h264 in just a few minute segment of the video around the glitch on the second Mac Pro. It showed up again. I used the same setting but turned off GPU Acceleration, and the frame is gone.
Does anyone have any ideas as to what is going on here? Obviously there is a problem with GPU acceleration on the new Mac Pro's with Media Encoder, but what could be specifically causing it and what could be done to fix this? With all of the issues in Premiere and After Effects, some of which are being caused by software updates, and the issues with the one Mac Pro needing to be replaced due to bad video cards, I feel like there is just a ton of problems that didn't exist on our outdated Mac Pro with Final Cut Pro 7.
Please let me know of any ideas to make me not doubt every encode I do on these machines with GPU Acceleration turned on. Thanks.
-Phil

Does anyone have any additional ideas on this? I heard from the CreativeCow forums that this has been a known bug with GPU Acceleration on the new Mac Pros. Is this the case? Has anyone else had this issue looked at by Adobe?

GPU Acceleration In Premiere Pro CC

Do you have it when exporting via Adobe Media Encoder?
I don't seem to. I ran some tests several weeks back which clearly showed that GPU acceleration was not working when exporting through AME, but worked fine when doing a direct Export. I ran the following test again today.
10 minutes of 1080p/24 AVCHD
ProcAmp, Gaussian Blur, Three-way Color Corrector (All accelerated, 32 bit, YUV effects.)
Export to H.264 Blu-ray, default settings. (No MRQ, no previews.)
Here's what I got.
AME GPU Off - 14:03
AME GPU On - 14:10
Direct - 6:12
As before, it's pretty clear that hardware acceleration is not working through AME. In fact, it routinely takes just a tiny bit longer with GPU acceleration on.
The first time around I ran a duplicate test with CS6, and it very clearly showed that GPU acceleration was working via AME.
So...what are your results?

Jim Simon wrote:
I suspect operator/observer error on the first go round. Mind trying again through AME?
Uh, I can, but I'm not sure what you're hoping for. The times I reported were right from the text file log that AME keeps, and they were all done last night, just at different times.
07/31/2013 04:47:46 PM : Queue Resumed
- Source File: /Volumes/Opt/Users/jvp/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/fatt-10122012-cc.prproj
- Output File: /Volumes/Opt/Users/jvp/Desktop/front.mp4
- Preset Used: Custom
- Video: 1280x720 (1.0), 29.97 fps, Progressive
- Audio: AAC, 320 kbps, 48 kHz, Stereo
- Bitrate: VBR, 1 pass, Target 5.00 Mbps, Max 5.00 Mbps
- Encoding Time: 00:13:19
07/31/2013 05:01:06 PM : File Successfully Encoded
07/31/2013 05:01:06 PM : Queue Stopped
07/31/2013 05:39:32 PM : Queue Resumed
- Source File: /Volumes/Opt/Users/jvp/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/fatt-10122012-cc_1.prproj
- Output File: /Volumes/Opt/Users/jvp/Desktop/front_1.mp4
- Preset Used: Custom
- Video: 1280x720 (1.0), 29.97 fps, Progressive
- Audio: AAC, 320 kbps, 48 kHz, Stereo
- Bitrate: VBR, 1 pass, Target 5.00 Mbps, Max 5.00 Mbps
- Encoding Time: 00:09:17
07/31/2013 05:48:50 PM : File Successfully Encoded
07/31/2013 05:48:50 PM : Queue Stopped

How did I get better compression when using GPU acceleration?

Hello,
I was just making a short, 1:12-long video encoded as H.264 in an MP4 wrapper. I had edited the video in Premiere Pro CC, and was exporting through Adobe Media Encoder at a framerate of 29.97 FPS and a resolution of 1920x1080. I wanted to do a test to see how much GPU acceleration benefits me. So, I ran two different tests, one with and one without. The one with GPU acceleration finished in 2:09. The one without it took 2:40, definately enough to justify using GPU acceleration (my GPU is an NVidia GTX 660 Ti which I have overclocked). I am sure my benefits would be even greater in most videos I make, since this one had relatively few effects.
However, I checked the file sizes out of curiosity, and found that the one made with GPU acceleration was 175 MB in size, and the other was 176 MB. While the difference is pretty small, I am wondering why it exists at all. I checked the bitrates, and the one made with GPU acceleration is 19,824 KB/s, whereas the other is 19,966 KB/s. I used the exact same presets for both. I even re-encoded the videos again just to test it and verify the results, and the second test confirms what the first showed.
So, what I am wondering is: What is it that made this possible, and could this be used to my advantage in future productions?
In case it is in any way relevant, these are my computer's specifications:
-Hardware-
Case- MSI Interceptor Series Barricade
Mainboard- MSI Z77A-G45
Power Supply Unit- Corsair HX-750
Processor- Third-Generation Quad-Core Intel Core i7-3770K
Graphics Card- ASUS NVidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti Overclocked Edition (with two-gigabytes of dedicated GDDR5 video memory and the core overclocked to 1115 MHz)
Random Access Memory- Eight gigabytes of dual-channel 1600-MHz DDR3 Corsair Dominator Platinum Memory
Audio Card- ASUS Xonar DSX
System Data Drive- 128-gigabyte Samsung 840 Pro Solid-State Drive
Storage Data Drive- One-terabyte, 7200 RPM Western Digital Caviar Black Hard Disk Drive
Cooling System- Two front-mounted 120mm case fans (intake), one top-mounted 120mm case fan (exhaust), and a Corsair Hydro H60 High-Performance Liquid CPU Cooler (Corsair SP120 rear exhaust fan)
-Peripherals-
Mouse- Cyborg R.A.T. 7
Keyboard- Logitech G110
Headset- Razer Tiamat Elite 7.1
Joystick- Saitek Cyborg Evo
-Software-
Operating System- Windows 8.1 64-bit
DirectX Variant- DirectX 11.1
Graphics Software- ASUS GPU Tweak
CPU Temperature/Usage Monitoring Software- Core Temp
Maintainance Software- Piriform CCleaner and IObit Smart Defragmenter
Compression Software- JZip
Encryption Software- AxCrypt
Game Clients- Steam, Origin, Games for Windows LIVE, and Gamestop
Recording Software- Fraps and Hypercam 2
Video Editing Software- Adobe Premiere Pro CC
Video Compositing/Visual Effects Software- Adobe After Effects CC
Video Encoding Software- Adobe Media Encoder
Audio Editing/Mixing Software- Adobe Audition CC
Image Editing/Compositing Software- Adobe Photoshop CC
Graphic Production/Drawing Software- Adobe Illustrator CC

As I said in my original post, I did test it again. I have also ran other tests, with other sequences, and they all confirm that the final file is smaller when GPU acceleration is used.
Yes, the difference is small but I'm wondering how there can even be a variable at all. If you put a video in and have it spit it out, then do that again, the videos should be the same size. It's a computer program, so the outputs are all based on variables. If the variables don't change, the output shouldn't either. For this reason, I cannot believe you when you say "I can, for example, run exactly the same export on the same sequence more than once, are rarely are they identical in export times or file size."

GTX 750 Ti sufficient for GPU Acceleration in CC 2014?

Hi all,
Upgrading from a HD 5870 hopefully - just wanted to know if the GTX 750 Ti with its CUDA technologies would be sufficient for GPU accelerated applications like Pr, Ae, Sg, Ps, Lr and so on? Asking in the Pr forums because that's the application I use the most.
System specs:
ASUS P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3
Core i5 2500K @ 4.3GHz
Arctic Cooling Freezer 13
16GB RipJaws-X 1648MHz
ATI Sapphire Radeon HD 5870
OCZ Vertex 4 128GB | WD Green 2TB | WD Green 3TB
LG BH16NS40 Blu-Ray Burner
OCZ ZS 650W
NZXT Lexa S
Windows 8.1 Pro x64
Not too bothered about gaming performance. I don't want to spend a lot of money and the 750 Ti at around £100 seems a good balance between value for money and performance.
The 5870 did work fine with OpenCL and Adobe CC 2014 but for various reasons I'd like to upgrade and go back to NVIDIA.
Thanks all

I have just completed running the entire PPBM8 script with the GTX 750 Ti, and compared it to the results that I had obtained over two weeks ago with the older GTX 560 card.
GTX 750 Ti on CC 2014.8.2 (1TB Samsung F3 as project disk):
GTX 560 on CC 2014.8.1 (1TB Western Digital Black WD1002FAEX as project drive):
It appears that the first-generation Maxwell (GM107) GPU somehow improved the H.264 rendering/encoding performance compared to the older Fermi (GF114) GPU. The MPEG-2 rendering/encoding performance is practically equal with both of these particular GPUs.
Verdict? The GTX 750 Ti is the right choice for a PC that's equipped (however less than ideally) with a higher-end i5 without hyperthreading or a quad-core i7 that cannot be overclocked much if at all (and this is assuming that that PC has a sufficiently fast disk subsystem).
By the way, the GT 740 that was suggested for the OP's system (given the "Green" drives) is not a Maxwell-generation GPU at all - but a Kepler-generation GPU (in this case, based on the GK107) instead. The GT 730 with GDDR5 memory that I recommended as an alternative to the GT 740 DDR3 is based on the GK208 GPU. (And I do not recommend most GT 730s on the market as they are based on an old Fermi-generation GPU - the GF108 that debuted with the GT 430 back in 2010.)

GPU Acceleration in Lightroom CC

This is the page talking about GPU usage in Lightroom CC: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Help | Lightroom GPU FAQ.
This is the page talking about GPU usage in Photoshop: Photoshop CC and CC 2014 GPU FAQ
As you can see, I havn't seen much details about the actual use case of OpenGL/OpenCL acceleration in Lightroom. I assume now Adobe name Lightroom "Adobe Photoshop Lightroom" now, does that mean Lightroom is using the same kind of engine? I would think the new photo merge function would be a good candidate for GPU acceleration given some use case like panorama or large pixel image rotation could be quite heavy duty. Does anyone know where to find these under the hood details?
Having this said, I wonder what is the official graphics card vendor Adobe would recommend? Perhaps nVidia?

You can also install an "old" version from april 2014 (V 14.4) which works with Lr6 after having un-installed your actual actual drivers.
You can find it here: http://support.amd.com/en-us/download/desktop/previous?os=Windows%207%20-%2064
Be aware that with this driver you could activate the GPU Acceleration but it's possible that you didn't obtain any benefit...bug or not nobody knows...
Try

About GPU-accelerated export

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for