AMD FX 8300 and Premiere Pro CC 2015

[Gabriel_89]

Hello,

I don`t know how to start this thread but here we go...

I have an AMD FX 8300 processor and i`m using it to make some video editing in Premiere Pro cc 2015, but when i apply some effects to the video, the processor goes up to 100% and is making the work very hard.

The effects that i noticed doing this are:
-Lens flare
-Luma key
-basically anything form Video Effects -> Generate
-if i add an effect and add a mask, when i try to stretch or move the mask, boom, 100%

I tried some effects that work with CUDA and those seem to work a lot better.

My system spec is as following:

-Msi 760GM p23fx (motherboard)
-AMD FX 8300 (stock cooler, no overclock)
-4 gb ddr3 (1 stick)
-Zotac GT 730 (~700mz 2gb ddr3)
-500W PSU
-Windows 7 service pack 1 and some updates it keeps making.

First i thought my memory was to blame, until i opened Task Manager and saw that all 8 cores were going at 100%, even with 1/4 playback resolution.
Without these effects, the processor works at around 20%.
I searched all over the internet to see if anybody else has this issues, but i could not find anything.
Is the 8300 that garbage?
I have around $200-$250 to spend on some upgrades, what do you advise?

Please someone help me figure this out.

Thank you.

 

[mrtoast72]

Hey man anything having to do with adobe is not optimized for amd. i know this because i use it as well and have the same procesor as you. try running everything you can off the gpu.

As for the upgrade try looking on ebay for a xeon with 10+ cores if all your doing is editing work and no gaming. that would work very well for you.

 

[weberdarren97]

This is because of the fact that AMD CPUs have low IPC. This means that they're not doing as much work per cycle as Intel chips.

A 4GHz AMD CPU with 8 cores may feel like a 3GHz Intel CPU with 4 cores. The reason I compare it four cores is because of a very information video here.

Because of all these problems with AMD CPUs, Adobe programs run much better on Intel CPUs.

 

[mrtoast72]

This is because of the fact that AMD CPUs have low IPC. This means that they're not doing as much work per cycle as Intel chips.

A 4GHz AMD CPU with 8 cores may feel like a 3GHz Intel CPU with 4 cores. The reason I compare it four cores is because of a very information video here.

Because of all these problems with AMD CPUs, Adobe programs run much better on Intel CPUs.

Ah yes he is very right. and the amd chips from the 8xxx series arnt real 8 cores *cough cough*

 

[weberdarren97]

They are really eight cores, but Windows is not coded to take advantage of all eight at the same time.

So unless you're running Unix, it'll feel like a quad core.

 

[Gabriel_89]

I am aware that AMD is nowhere near Intel, but at the moment, a CPU upgrade is not an option, i have to work with what i have.But, is it THAT bad? i thought it could do some work.
Any other suggestions that do not involve a cpu change from AMD to Intel?

 

[mrtoast72]

They are really eight cores, but Windows is not coded to take advantage of all eight at the same time.

So unless you're running Unix, it'll feel like a quad core.

If you look at the arcitecture of the cpu its self 2 cores share 1 cache and 1 lane basicly and therefore bottleneck each section. so yes your rigth they are 8 cores but they might as well be 4 for the way they work

 

[TerryLaze]

Your PC lags at 100% usage because adobe (or the filter) is running with a high priority.
Open task manager, click more details,go to the details tab,look at what has the most cpu usage do a right click go to set priority and choose low.
This way the filter will still work as fast as possible but it will allow enough resources for anything else to run as well.

I don't know premiere that much but it is very possible that you can change the priority within it's settings so you won't have to do all that every time.

 

[weberdarren97]

I am aware that AMD is nowhere near Intel, but at the moment, a CPU upgrade is not an option, i have to work with what i have.But, is it THAT bad? i thought it could do some work.
Any other suggestions that do not involve a cpu change from AMD to Intel?

AMD will have trouble processing anything Adobe. That's basically it. There are no real work-arounds here.

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

They are really eight cores, but Windows is not coded to take advantage of all eight at the same time.

So unless you're running Unix, it'll feel like a quad core.

Absolutely not true.

Windows has nothing to do with it (scheduler).

In Premiere (and other NLE's), the problem is the poor IPC. When people benchmark AMD to Intel they do it using final exported video, but ignore the general workflow, where most things don't even have multi thread support.

If you look at the arcitecture of the cpu its self 2 cores share 1 cache and 1 lane basicly and therefore bottleneck each section. so yes your rigth they are 8 cores but they might as well be 4 for the way they work

Not true either, they "bottleneck" about 10% in performance fully saturated, because they can reach 80-90%, which is far more than hyper threading, infact it's twice as efficient.


-------------

OP, the first step in troubleshooting this is to give us a https://mediaarea.net/en/MediaInfo report of one of the files you're using (if they're all the same).

A number of things could be causing this behavior, but we can't guess, we have to know what it is in order to find a solution.




All the best!

 

[Gabriel_89]

OP, the first step in troubleshooting this is to give us a https://mediaarea.net/en/MediaInfo report of one of the files you're using (if they're all the same).

A number of things could be causing this behavior, but we can't guess, we have to know what it is in order to find a solution.

I don`t know what you mean. You want a MediaInfo on a video i have edited? here it is:
"General
Complete name : C:\Work\Scarra\varus game -720p_h264-127kbits_aac.mp4
Format : MPEG-4
Format profile : Base Media
Codec ID : isom (isom/iso2/avc1/mp41)
File size : 452 MiB
Duration : 40 min
Overall bit rate mode : Variable
Overall bit rate : 1 563 kb/s
Writing application : Lavf55.49.100

Video
ID : 1
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : Baseline@L3.1
Format settings, CABAC : No
Format settings, ReFrames : 1 frame
Codec ID : avc1
Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding
Duration : 40 min
Bit rate : 1 427 kb/s
Width : 1 280 pixels
Height : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate mode : Variable
Frame rate : 30.000 FPS
Minimum frame rate : 19.608 FPS
Maximum frame rate : 62.500 FPS
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.052
Stream size : 413 MiB (91%)
Color range : Limited
Color primaries : BT.709

Audio
ID : 2
Format : AAC
Format/Info : Advanced Audio Codec
Format profile : LC
Codec ID : 40
Duration : 40 min
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 128 kb/s
Maximum bit rate : 130 kb/s
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel positions : Front: L R
Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
Frame rate : 46.875 FPS (1024 spf)
Compression mode : Lossy
Stream size : 37.0 MiB (8%)
Default : Yes
Alternate group : 1
"
I have installed Sony Vegas pro 13 and it works like a charm, i played a little bit with the effects and such and i have noticed no stuttering, no lag, no cpu overload nothing. The sad part is that i like Premiere alot more, i`m more proficient in Premier, the layout is better, my workflow is better, but it runs like crap.

 

[Gabriel_89]

I was thinking about upgrading the MOBO and adding 16 gb of ram, will that help at all? and next month upgrading the gpu aswell.

Some GPU related questions:
-Will an AMD gpu suffice? am i required to go the Nvidia way for the CUDA support? (i don`t really care about render times, only the running smoothness of the software)

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

"I have installed Sony Vegas pro 13 and it works like a charm"

I suspected it was a codec issue. If Vegas plays fine then I would contact Adobe. With that said, you're below minimum requirements to use Premiere Pro CC according to:

8GB of RAM (16GB recommended)

If you're really working with H.264 .MP4, try transcoding them to a edit friendly codec, such as DNxHD.

I use MPEG Streamclip and I use the free Avid DNxHD codec. This may be difference due to the difference in code between Adobe and Sony products.

I was thinking about upgrading the MOBO and adding 16 gb of ram, will that help at all? and next month upgrading the gpu aswell.

Some GPU related questions:
-Will an AMD gpu suffice? am i required to go the Nvidia way for the CUDA support? (i don`t really care about render times, only the running smoothness of the software)

No, AMD will work just as well, but AMD really pulls ahead of NVIDIA in Sony Vegas though.

However, I highly recommend contacting Adobe and let their experts handle the hardware questions, last thing I want is to recommend something that wasn't the best for the price you could get at the time. I don't use Premiere personally, I use DaVinci and HitFilm.



All the best!

 

[Gabriel_89]

"However, I highly recommend contacting Adobe and let their experts handle the hardware questions"

Are you saying that PP should run smoothly on a fx 8300?It does alright for minimal editing, but when it comes down to FX it becomes almost unworkable.
I have searched for similar topics on the internet, and found nothing, am i the only one with FX-8300 processor that uses Adobe products?


"With that said, you're below minimum requirements to use Premiere Pro CC according to:

8GB of RAM (16GB recommended)"

I am fully aware of that, but, the thing is, that my ram consumption does not go up while applying effects to the video, only the cpu gets overloaded. Maybe Task Manager is not accurate in that regard, but i still have like 800mb spare ram during this process. Maybe all my ram is full and the workload is loaded into the cpu, i really don`t know, it`s just a wild guess...

Thx for the replies thou.

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

The RAM issue is actually hard to explain for me, but basically if you went out and bought more RAM, it wouldn't only use 3.2 GB, it would use more, does that make sense?

You're currently bottlenecked, and you would only notice when that bottleneck goes away if you buy more RAM.

16 GB is considered to be minimum for a smooth workflow (1 of many important components need balancing) when editing HD video.

Please contact Adobe support, but since Adobe isn't Sony, comparing performance isn't an easy task, as it's far more complicated than that.