Adobe CS5: 64-bit, CUDA-Accelerated, And Threaded Performance

[panz3r]

When can we hope for an article that compare and benchmark opencl on Nvidia and amd instead of this "cuda is so cool" ?
I know is hard to compare apples with oranges but there are some opencl application in the wild.

 

[Chris_TC]

I switched from Vegas to Premiere CS5 precisely because of the CUDA acceleration.
Once you've experienced it you don't want to go back.

 

[CptTripps]

[citation][nom]panz3r[/nom]When can we hope for an article that compare and benchmark opencl on Nvidia and amd instead of this "cuda is so cool" ?I know is hard to compare apples with oranges but there are some opencl application in the wild.[/citation]

Lame comment on the "cuda is cool".

This article is straight up proof that cuda is very cool and very fast. I would love to see some OpenCl benchies as I run ATI currently but; snarky comments about a tech that "is" very kickass is ridiculous.

 

[mauller07]

[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]This is a great case for that chip that allows people to mix and match different video architectures that Tom's covered last week.[/citation]

i do not think that will work as cuda has custom instruction sets which the ati cards would not recognise, but if you remove the card checker on nvidia drivers you can always just have a nvidia card in your system for video processing while using your ATI card for graphics.

windows 7 allows heterogeneous graphics cards as it allows the loading of more than 1 graphics driver.

 

[jacobdrj]

[citation][nom]mauller07[/nom] but if you remove the card checker on nvidia drivers you can always just have a nvidia card in your system for video processing while using your ATI card for graphics.windows 7 allows heterogeneous graphics cards as it allows the loading of more than 1 graphics driver.[/citation]
This will actually work? It sounds like I have to get kind of messy with the nvidia drivers to get the benefit of a CUDA 'co-processor'.

 

[eodeo]

A very interesting read for sure. I was curious the most about how various cards perform under MPE using CUDA. I got excited when you mentioned GTX 480, an unofficial card, but you didnt compare it to anything.

How well does it perform compared to gtx 285, gtx 460/470... how do quadros fare here and so on...

Thank you for the comprehensive CPU utilization comparison, that is very important aspect to measure too.

 

[dennisburke]

Fortunately, 99.9% of CUDA users are not fanboys of either AMD or Nivida, they are simply using the best tools available at this time. Is this fair? In our capitalist system it is. OpenCL is young and early in its developement, and we can expect good things to come of it.

 

[Chris_TC]

[citation]I got excited when you mentioned GTX 480, an unofficial card, but you didnt compare it to anything.How well does it perform compared to gtx 285, gtx 460/470... how do quadros fare here and so on...[/citation]
This would certainly be interesting as well.

The test seemed to focus mainly on how well the GPU does against the CPU. And considering that the i7 980X used in this test costs twice as much as a 480, seeing it left in the dust like that paints quite a clear picture.

 

[kelemvor4]

[citation][nom]Scott2010au[/nom]Surely they mean the 2GB memory limit (for Win32 processes)?Which is one reason why the Apple Mac version is so popular (Unix/BSD can handle more per process).[/citation]
Your data on the mig (mac) is inaccurate! 32 bit MacOS x86 has the same limitation of 4Gb ram. Photoshop CS4 supported 64 bit in windows but not for mac, so until CS5 you were better off on windows for the reason you were specifically concerned about. Adobe released 64 bit versions for both platforms in CS5 (although there are other limitations in the MacOS version that make windows a better choice as I've already mentioned).

 

[iam2thecrowe]

isnt there some more open standard they could use to support GPU rendering for all GPU's? If there isnt, someone should get working on one.

 

[dertechie]

[citation][nom]kelemvor4[/nom]Then you'll get no GPU acceleration. If you use the Adobe suite, you'll have to decide which is more important. Your desire to use an ATI card, or the time you'll save by going nVidia. This works even on a sub $100 gt240 btw.[/citation]

GT240 may work but you won't see nearly the gains on a cheap card like that. It's about 6 times slower than a GTX 480 (assuming the shaders are even clock-for-clock). If you'll note, the speedups on their best test were about 5:11 to 50 seconds, a factor of about 6.

I'm not sure how that translates to GT240s, but a first-order approximation (based on some really sketchy assumptions) gives me something on the order of 2.5x speedup compared to working on the i7 alone. If you're putting down the money for CS5, you can afford to shell out for a GTX 470.

[citation][nom]iam2thecrowe[/nom]isnt there some more open standard they could use to support GPU rendering for all GPU's? If there isnt, someone should get working on one.[/citation]

It's called OpenCL and DirectCompute. They're kind of new and still have rough edges that need smoothed over. As much as I don't like proprietary APIs, CUDA has been around for 4 years now and that means Adobe has had time to figure out how to actually use the thing. I expect we'll see it in OpenCL eventually (perhaps late 2011).

 

[kelemvor4]

[citation][nom]dertechie[/nom]GT240 may work but you won't see nearly the gains on a cheap card like that. It's about 6 times slower than a GTX 480 (assuming the shaders are even clock-for-clock). If you'll note, the speedups on their best test were about 5:11 to 50 seconds, a factor of about 6.I'm not sure how that translates to GT240s, but a first-order approximation (based on some really sketchy assumptions) gives me something on the order of 2.5x speedup compared to working on the i7 alone. If you're putting down the money for CS5, you can afford to shell out for a GTX 470.[/citation]

I was thinking someone who would be considering using a older video card at that price point wouldn't be running an i7 cpu, either. On the other hand, a traditional adobe workstation user probably never considered putting money into a GPU before as it didn't buy much performance wise in adobe land until CS5.

 

[Mousemonkey]

That was an AMD fanboy reply to an Nvidia fanboy statement. The fact that I pointed this out and you want to complain that it wasn't a fanboy opinion shows how you can't take criticism. You could have easily ignored him, and thumbed him down where he would be marked as spam/hidden message. Because you know mouse will randomly come in here and explain why he thinks your statement is wrong, and you know he will based on past occurences.
You never corrected him in the first place, but randomly said "as a space heater." [Appropriate emoticon that I can't find]

I've mentioned before how those kinds of posts from ares1214 tend to come across, a point which you've illustrated quite nicely and thus saved me the task so thanks for that.

 

[nebun]

[citation][nom]ares1214[/nom]As a space heater...[/citation]
ha ha ha, at least you get something for free, not many companies do that anymore, lol

 

[Proximon]

Really good article. Cudos to Bunnyblaster as well. That drop-down menu is a true pain when I'm using the laptop touchpad.

 

[kg2010]

Great article, I found this hack a couple months ago, and in Premiere there's a Last step that needs to be enabled in order to take full advantage of it.

Project > Project Settings > General > Video Rendering and Playback = Mercury Playback Engine GPU Acceleration

Make sure it's not set to Software only.

Here's a cool video that shows the Mercury Playback Engine in action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sylAonfVp9k

 

[kg2010]

Also it's important to note that you'll want your Nvidia card to have a minimum of 96 CUDA cores.
The GTS 250 has 128 CUDA cores, the GTX 460 has 336 and so on.

Have a look at this very informative article:
http://www.studio1productions.com/Articles/PremiereCS5.htm

Tom's article gets you to the meat of how to get it done, the article above give you a lot more info if you're interested in the topic.

Also, this article sheds light as to why ADOBE CS5 and specifically Premiere are optimized for CUDA Only:
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/12/14/adobes-mercury-playback-engine-for-cs5-is-cuda-only!.aspx

 

[panz3r]

[citation][nom]CptTripps[/nom]Lame comment on the "cuda is cool".This article is straight up proof that cuda is very cool and very fast. I would love to see some OpenCl benchies as I run ATI currently but; snarky comments about a tech that "is" very kickass is ridiculous.[/citation]

Cuda is past and present and was first api which properly helped GPGPU however the future is Opencl. This "IS" a very good article (between 2 ati card launch) .
BTW I owe 3 Nvidia cards including a GTX 470 .

 

[kg2010]

I can personally attest to the power of the Mercury Playback Engine, my previous computer was an AMD Dual Core and running Premiere was SLOW as heck, and encodes took upwards of 20 hours! Now the same video "30 Minute video"encodes in about 22 minutes, and editing in Premiere is a smooth and enjoyable experience.

Just to quote the article I linked to above, and shed light as to why CUDA was chosen over OpenCL:
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/12/14/adobes-mercury-playback-engine-for-cs5-is-cuda-only!.aspx

In order to harness the power of GPU, Adobe took one step back, though. Unlike the OpenGL effects Adobe was using in Creative Suite 4, resulting in sub-optimal acceleration for some GPUs, Premiere Pro CS5 is being built using nVidia CUDA software architecture. Yes, this singlehandedly gives the Adobe CS5 market to nVidia but given the share of nVidia Quadro boards versus ATI FirePro - we can't say we're surprised.

The reason for this decision wasn't a move akin to "The Way It's Meant To Be Played" affairs such as Batmangate or Assassin's Creed, but something more simpler: Adobe needed a stable software toolkit to work on it and according to Dennis: "The 64-bit native code has been announced and now we bring in NVIDIA CUDA technology to be the icing on the cake and a powerful new engine to squeeze out performance in Premiere Pro. Before I wax philosophic on GPU, let me officially tip my hat to the incredible engineers at Adobe and their work here for the Mercury Playback Engine."

If you are wondering what is the real deal with GPGPU API's, there is a telling tale of why Adobe opted to base its Mercury Engine on nVidia's CUDA language. While AMD will tell you that they're all for open standards and push OpenCL, the sad truth is that the company representatives will remain shut when you ask them about the real status of their OpenCL API - especially if you quote them a lead developer from a AAA software company with 10x more employees than AMD themselves that goes something like this: "I struggled to even get ATI's beta drivers installed and working, it was just problem after problem. Maybe once ATI gets their drivers out of beta and actually allow you to install them then I will have some performance numbers. I mean at this point AMD is so far behind in development tools they are not even worth pursuing right now."

 

[panz3r]

Amd just launched cat 10.10 with opencl integrated supporting opencl 1.1 but i have to agree their support for opencl was suboptimal and required developer registration which was a bummer. I guess it was because 4000 series was not having all hardware support for opencl.
I am learning myself gpgpu programing and I choose opencl as a safer bet.

 

[kg2010]

Hey - to each his own - Adobe a multi-billion dollar company had the choice of OpenCL or CUDA or both, and they chose CUDA technology exclusively to BUILD Adobe Premiere around.

( Btw - You don't need a GTX 480 to fully take advantage of MPE, as these tests show what's possible )

This article would be nicely updated if it tested an MSI Hawk GTX 460 both stock and overclocked to show the difference in minimum and max times one can expect from the Fermi architecture.

When I was building my computer, I actually considered getting a 5870 until I fully did my research, and since my primary use was Adobe Premiere CS5, ATI was simply not an option for me.

The GTX 470 AND 480 were not an option for me either because of how hot they run, and how noisy they are. ( I wanted a cool, quiet, yet powerful computer that could run Premiere smoothly, and I could certainly afford a GTX 480 )

Therefore...

I chose a GTX 460 for several reasons, 336 CUDA cores, runs cool and quiet, and well, as I was encoding a video for a client I decided to take a screenshot.

I made sure to wait to capture the screenshot on FULL load during the encode, and got it when the CPU was at 93.8%

In case the image doesn't embed, here's the direct link:
http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/7411/gtx460encoding.png

Are all Fermis space heaters? LOL

The GTX 460 on idle runs @ 26 Degree Celsius
On FULL LOAD During an Encode runs @ 37 Degree Celsius

I've yet to see my card go past 40 Degree Celsius on Prime95 or other full loads.

This 23 Minute & 14 second video encoded in 23 Minutes & 56 seconds.
( Compared to my previous 20+ hours encodes! For the exact same video on an AMD based Dual Core Computer )

I wonder what 2nd generation GTX 470's & 480's may run like, I'm sure Nvidia has learned a few lessons.

 

[panz3r]

[citation][nom]kg2010[/nom]Hey - to each his own - Adobe a multi-billion dollar company had the choice of OpenCL or CUDA or both, and they chose CUDA technology exclusively to BUILD Adobe Premiere around. ( Btw - You don't need a GTX 480 to fully take advantage of MPE, as these tests show what's possible )This article would be nicely updated if it tested an MSI Hawk GTX 460 both stock and overclocked to show the difference in minimum and max times one can expect from the Fermi architecture. When I was building my computer, I actually considered getting a 5870 until I fully did my research, and since my primary use was Adobe Premiere CS5, ATI was simply not an option for me. The GTX 470 AND 480 were not an option for me either because of how hot they run, and how noisy they are. ( I wanted a cool, quiet, yet powerful computer that could run Premiere smoothly, and I could certainly afford a GTX 480 )Therefore...I chose a GTX 460 for several reasons, 336 CUDA cores, runs cool and quiet, and well, as I was encoding a video for a client I decided to take a screenshot.I made sure to wait to capture the screenshot on FULL load during the encode, and got it when the CPU was at 93.8% In case the image doesn't embed, here's the direct link:http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/7 [...] coding.pngAre all Fermis space heaters? LOL The GTX 460 on idle runs @ 26 Degree CelsiusOn FULL LOAD During an Encode runs @ 37 Degree Celsius I've yet to see my card go past 40 Degree Celsius on Prime95 or other full loads. This 23 Minute & 14 second video encoded in 23 Minutes & 56 seconds. ( Compared to my previous 20+ hours encodes! For the exact same video on an AMD based Dual Core Computer ) I wonder what 2nd generation GTX 470's & 480's may run like, I'm sure Nvidia has learned a few lessons.[/citation]
Did your research included double precision too ?
GTX 470 (not overcloked) is ~50% faster than 460 (not overlcoked ) in nbody benchmark . Yes it may not be the perfect example but that's why i suggested an article. If you look at prices for 460 and 470 then 470 look like a better choice .
AMD can achieve much higher theoretical peak performance although harder to program.

 

[liemfukliang]

Please benchmark which one is better if I buy more expensive prossesor vs more expensive GPU (give a same balance, with many combination spec of proccesor and GPU).

Why Adobe choose CUDA, because Adobe CS5 is target for professional. In Proffesional Quadro is the King, so that why Adobe support CUDA. CMIIW.

 

[Guest]

I've yet to see my card go past 40 Degree Celsius on Prime95 or other full loads.

Maybe because Prime95 is CPU load (and not so full on top of that). Try Furmark. :E :E :e

Anyways, nVidia has AMD covered here. A bit niche, but still.

 

[kg2010]

[citation][nom]panz3r[/nom]Did your research included double precision too ?GTX 470 (not overcloked) is ~50% faster than 460 (not overlcoked ) in nbody benchmark . Yes it may not be the perfect example but that's why i suggested an article. If you look at prices for 460 and 470 then 470 look like a better choice .AMD can achieve much higher theoretical peak performance although harder to program.[/]

I totally agree with you, but... My needs are rather unique.

Like I said - the 470 and the 480 run way too hot and loud for my liking. Check out my temps with the 460, plus I can't hear it over my rather quiet NH-D14 cooler, low heat and low noise levels were a plus for me.

For people who don't care about noise and heat levels, and want sheer performance, of course the 470 is a better card with 448 CUDA cores vs 336 CUDA cores for the 460.

I originally had a GTS 250 with 128 CUDA cores, so upgrading to a 460 made sense, as it gave me increased performance.

Also, the price comparison today vs 2-3 months ago is way different, I know the 470's have dropped in price, but back then, they were around $350+ vs $229 for the 1GB 460's.

Also, price wasn't as much a factor for me as Heat and Noise levels were, but I did save at least $120 going with the 460.

I work from home, and I'm on my computer most of the day, and I wanted a rather quiet and cool computer to work on, when I wasn't encoding or video editing.

For my unique needs, the MSI Cyclone 1 GB 460 fits in perfectly, I chose this card over the EVGA OC'ed cards which were reported to be loud. heck, I may OC my card during my next encode to see how much faster it goes.

On a side note: I've seen some benchmarks where an Overclocked MSI Hawk matched the 470's performance in gaming, but that's a whole other discussion, and right now were talking strictly about the performance in Premiere CS5.

The Hawk wasn't out when I was putting my computer together.

That's why it would be great to see some other benchmarks added to this article, perhaps a 470 & a 460 would be nice to see, so we can get a better "overall" picture.

Also, remember, in the grander scheme of things, I've gone from 20+ HOUR encodes, to 23 minute encodes for the same video, which I'm very happy with.

Point well taken though, and I hear what you're saying.