Premiere Pro CS4 Benchmark

Pete Bauer · November 4th, 2009, 09:30 PM

Thanks, Harm. Yup, with its overclockability (is that a word?), certainly seems a better bang for buck than the i975, even though that can be overclocked a bit, too. Lots more money for a little more performance.

And I see that Bill has already updated the chart on the PPBM web site to include my system runs. You guys are on top of things!

Steve Kalle · November 4th, 2009, 11:29 PM

David: using the Matrox Mini with Premiere CS4, my editing was actually slowed down quite a bit due to the lag in switching from Source monitor to Program and vice versa. The Mini took about 2-3 seconds to switch video source and then another 3-4 seconds before I could click on anything. I like to set the in/out in Source and drag to the timeline and then go back to Source. The Mini added about 15 or so seconds to this process. Plus, you must use Matrox's presets for a timeline and opening this sequence in a non-Matrox system caused Premiere and AE to crash.

Harm: thanks for the reassurance. Also, what cpu cooler are you using and what are your cpu temps during full load? My Zalman 9500 can only keep temps around 60c according to Core Temp so I haven't explored overclocking yet.

While we are on the topic of performance, I must say that once you go SSD, you will never go back (provided you are using a good SSD). I have a G1 Intel X-25 80GB for the OS+Apps, and during boot up, once you see your desktop, booting up is done. Photoshop opens in 2 seconds; I first tested opening Photoshop, Premiere and AE as quickly as I could click on their icons and they all were open in 8 seconds from the first click. I made the switch from 4 74GB Raptors(10k rpm) in Raid 10 and its night and day. The only bad part is now I can't stand using anyone else's computer because I must wait.

David Dwyer · November 5th, 2009, 03:56 AM

Cheers Steve,

I'm having slow rendering compared to most other people and I'm wondering if a SSD or even a Matrox CompressedHD card would speed things up.

SSD is the easy option but once the application is open would I see any performance gains?

Harm Millaard · November 5th, 2009, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete Bauer

And I see that Bill has already updated the chart on the PPBM web site to include my system runs. You guys are on top of things!

Pete,

Since Bill did not have your email adress, he asked me to pass this message on to you:

Harm, I do not have a way to contact Pete Bauer, maybe you could pass this on to him.

[I]Pete, your results are posted. Thanks for being persistent enough to find Harm’s back door route.

Unfortunately your RAID 0 configuration is not as good as the non-RAID configuration, the big difference was the Render Timeline test. This is a single test and I have found has quite a bit of variation from test to test.

Did you have two RAID 0 arrays or was it one that you used for both sets of files? I would suggest (if feasible) that you put your all the benchmark files on the RAID array and retest. I have never tried using a standard disk for just the project and my RAID 0 for the preview and output. Looking at your scores and my own tests I do not see much difference between two 7200 rpm drives in RAID 0 and a 10,000 rpm Raptor.

Your scores for the CPU intensive testing (MPEG encoding) seems slightly high compared to the VRV test of a 2.4 GHz Q6600. You might see if you could remove any CPU sucking processes that would be wasting your CPU cycles. I am guessing but you might be able to knock as much as 10 seconds off your MPEG score. That would also reduce the Render Timeline somewhat.

Also going to Win 7 64 will also speed up the benchmark by up to 10%

David Dwyer · November 5th, 2009, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harm Millaard

Steve,

I have not experienced any problems with the Areca controller. In fact I am quite happy with it, since it gives me a sustained read transfer rate of over 850 MB/s and a sustained write transfer of around 600 MB/s, regardless of fill rate, and 10 TB of net space (12 TB gross in raid30). I have not experienced any delays under Vista 64, nor under Win7 64. Just today I installed the official Win7 drivers for the 1680iX, no hiccups, and a slight performance improvement over the Vista drivers, around +7%.

Raid 30? Never looked at this can you help me with a few questions then?

How many disks are you using?
What controller card?

Seems I might have to go changing my editing machine to get some decent speed out of it.

Pete Bauer · November 5th, 2009, 06:47 AM

Thanks, Harm. I removed Bill's personal contact info from this public forum (safety first!) and will contact him via the email you listed. I emailed my results directly to the address that PPBM lists and I didn't get a bounce message so not sure why he didn't receive my results directly.

I was just helping populate the chart since the QX6700 wasn't yet represented -- and I was curious where my current system stood. I don't plan to mod/troubleshoot it as it is long in the tooth anyway, although it still does routine editing quite nicely. My main thing is that AE tends to bog it down.

When I decide what new system I will next build, that'll be my performance boost.

Harm Millaard · November 5th, 2009, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Dwyer

Raid 30? Never looked at this can you help me with a few questions then?

How many disks are you using?
What controller card?

Seems I might have to go changing my editing machine to get some decent speed out of it.

I have 12 disks, 1 TB each in a raid30 on an Areca ARC-1680iX-12 controller with 2 GB cache and a BBM (battery backup module) with expansion capabilities for another 4 disks. Due to the nature of raid30 (2 raid3 arrays of 6 disks each and then striped to form a raid30) of course you lose 2 disks for parity, so the effective net space is only 10 TB.

Pete, thanks for the thoughtful removal of Bill's contact data.

Steve Kalle · November 5th, 2009, 01:15 PM

To give you an idea of how screwed up my pc is:

Everything on 4-drive Raid 10 (Areca 1680ix)
Total: 73.6s
AVI: 5.4s
MPEG: 46.2s

Output now on 2 150GB Raptors(connected to 3ware Raid card)
Total: 79.5s
AVI: 11.8s
MPEG: 45.7s

During the first run, Vista had an error: a Host Process stopped working, the screen flashed and changed from Aero to regular. Then it flashed again during the end of the first run and was back to Aero.

This is with an i7 920 @ stock clock and 12GB ram.

Windows 7, here I come!

Harm Millaard · November 5th, 2009, 01:36 PM

Steve,

Once you have submitted your data to Bill and they have been incorporated in the listing, it is easier to give you some feedback, but the results are not overwhelmingly good in comparison to others, even though the 22 second render time is pretty good. The AVI test on the 3Ware is a bit disappointing. This can be caused by background processes or services, or just by the 3Ware. The Areca gives much nicer results, especially with the latest drivers and firmware.

Steve Kalle · November 5th, 2009, 04:34 PM

David: could you post your current computer details and I can tell you what might be slowing you down.

About the Matrox CompressHD, it only assists the encoding, not the rendering. If you are using multiple filters/effects, then the CPU is the most important for speed.

I just learned about flashing my nvidia 8800GT to function as a Quadro FX3700. With Premiere CS4, there is a plug-in available - Elemental Accelerator for $250 which uses certain Quadro video cards(incl FX3700). The plug-in is $250 and ebay has 8800GTs for $70-80. I am thinking of trying this route as I don't trust Matrox drivers anymore. There are some reviews of this accelerator including More Info - Elemental Accelerator 2.0 - Authorized Reseller - Safe Harbor 800-544-6599

To speed up AE rendering, there is Nucleo Pro. I am about to buy this program as it greatly speeds up rendering by always rendering the timeline while you work.

David Dwyer · November 5th, 2009, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Kalle

David: could you post your current computer details and I can tell you what might be slowing you down.

About the Matrox CompressHD, it only assists the encoding, not the rendering. If you are using multiple filters/effects, then the CPU is the most important for speed.

I just learned about flashing my nvidia 8800GT to function as a Quadro FX3700. With Premiere CS4, there is a plug-in available - Elemental Accelerator for $250 which uses certain Quadro video cards(incl FX3700). The plug-in is $250 and ebay has 8800GTs for $70-80. I am thinking of trying this route as I don't trust Matrox drivers anymore. There are some reviews of this accelerator including More Info - Elemental Accelerator 2.0 - Authorized Reseller - Safe Harbor 800-544-6599

To speed up AE rendering, there is Nucleo Pro. I am about to buy this program as it greatly speeds up rendering by always rendering the timeline while you work.

heh Steve I was the one who posted the 8800 to 3700's.

Hp Proliant 2.1ghz Quad Core
8GB RAM
150GB 10,000 OS
800GB Raid 0 Project
750GB Scratch Disk
FX3700/8800

Steve Kalle · November 5th, 2009, 04:51 PM

"heh Steve I was the one who posted the 8800 to 3700's."

Duhhh! Dummy me, I forgot.

What processor(s) is in the HP?

Looking at benchmarks, the Intel i7 920 with 12gb ram can keep up with the prior generation dual-quad core systems.

Your hard drives certainly aren't slowing you down. I am assuming you are using Vista x64 and Premiere CS4.

David Dwyer · November 5th, 2009, 05:07 PM

Steve,

I'm using Windows 7 x64 and the HP has

AMD Opteron™ Processor Model 1352 (2.1 GHz, 75W, 2MB) Quad Core.

The machine was only purchased for $500 so its cheap editing but my benchmark times doesnt look good at all!

Steve Kalle · November 5th, 2009, 05:57 PM

Yep, the i7 920 plus 12gb ram would be much faster. The i7 has been one of the largest increase in performance from a prior generation. Then, sometime next year(first half of 2010), Intel will release their hex-core i7 so increasing performance can still be done without buying a whole new system.

David Dwyer · November 6th, 2009, 06:23 AM

I'll wait to early next year and will also see Nvidias Fermi card as well.

November 4th, 2009, 09:30 PM	#16
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	Thanks, Harm. Yup, with its overclockability (is that a word?), certainly seems a better bang for buck than the i975, even though that can be overclocked a bit, too. Lots more money for a little more performance. And I see that Bill has already updated the chart on the PPBM web site to include my system runs. You guys are on top of things! __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress!

November 4th, 2009, 11:29 PM	#17
Steve Kalle Trustee Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,554	David: using the Matrox Mini with Premiere CS4, my editing was actually slowed down quite a bit due to the lag in switching from Source monitor to Program and vice versa. The Mini took about 2-3 seconds to switch video source and then another 3-4 seconds before I could click on anything. I like to set the in/out in Source and drag to the timeline and then go back to Source. The Mini added about 15 or so seconds to this process. Plus, you must use Matrox's presets for a timeline and opening this sequence in a non-Matrox system caused Premiere and AE to crash. Harm: thanks for the reassurance. Also, what cpu cooler are you using and what are your cpu temps during full load? My Zalman 9500 can only keep temps around 60c according to Core Temp so I haven't explored overclocking yet. While we are on the topic of performance, I must say that once you go SSD, you will never go back (provided you are using a good SSD). I have a G1 Intel X-25 80GB for the OS+Apps, and during boot up, once you see your desktop, booting up is done. Photoshop opens in 2 seconds; I first tested opening Photoshop, Premiere and AE as quickly as I could click on their icons and they all were open in 8 seconds from the first click. I made the switch from 4 74GB Raptors(10k rpm) in Raid 10 and its night and day. The only bad part is now I can't stand using anyone else's computer because I must wait. Last edited by Steve Kalle; November 5th, 2009 at 12:25 AM.

November 5th, 2009, 06:47 AM	#21
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	Thanks, Harm. I removed Bill's personal contact info from this public forum (safety first!) and will contact him via the email you listed. I emailed my results directly to the address that PPBM lists and I didn't get a bounce message so not sure why he didn't receive my results directly. I was just helping populate the chart since the QX6700 wasn't yet represented -- and I was curious where my current system stood. I don't plan to mod/troubleshoot it as it is long in the tooth anyway, although it still does routine editing quite nicely. My main thing is that AE tends to bog it down. When I decide what new system I will next build, that'll be my performance boost. __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress!

November 5th, 2009, 03:56 AM	#18
David Dwyer Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Chester, North West Posts: 565	Cheers Steve, I'm having slow rendering compared to most other people and I'm wondering if a SSD or even a Matrox CompressedHD card would speed things up. SSD is the easy option but once the application is open would I see any performance gains?

November 5th, 2009, 01:15 PM	#23
Steve Kalle Trustee Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,554	To give you an idea of how screwed up my pc is: Everything on 4-drive Raid 10 (Areca 1680ix) Total: 73.6s AVI: 5.4s MPEG: 46.2s Output now on 2 150GB Raptors(connected to 3ware Raid card) Total: 79.5s AVI: 11.8s MPEG: 45.7s During the first run, Vista had an error: a Host Process stopped working, the screen flashed and changed from Aero to regular. Then it flashed again during the end of the first run and was back to Aero. This is with an i7 920 @ stock clock and 12GB ram. Windows 7, here I come!

November 5th, 2009, 01:36 PM	#24
Harm Millaard Trustee Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands Posts: 1,832	Steve, Once you have submitted your data to Bill and they have been incorporated in the listing, it is easier to give you some feedback, but the results are not overwhelmingly good in comparison to others, even though the 22 second render time is pretty good. The AVI test on the 3Ware is a bit disappointing. This can be caused by background processes or services, or just by the 3Ware. The Areca gives much nicer results, especially with the latest drivers and firmware.

November 5th, 2009, 04:34 PM	#25
Steve Kalle Trustee Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,554	David: could you post your current computer details and I can tell you what might be slowing you down. About the Matrox CompressHD, it only assists the encoding, not the rendering. If you are using multiple filters/effects, then the CPU is the most important for speed. I just learned about flashing my nvidia 8800GT to function as a Quadro FX3700. With Premiere CS4, there is a plug-in available - Elemental Accelerator for $250 which uses certain Quadro video cards(incl FX3700). The plug-in is $250 and ebay has 8800GTs for $70-80. I am thinking of trying this route as I don't trust Matrox drivers anymore. There are some reviews of this accelerator including More Info - Elemental Accelerator 2.0 - Authorized Reseller - Safe Harbor 800-544-6599 To speed up AE rendering, there is Nucleo Pro. I am about to buy this program as it greatly speeds up rendering by always rendering the timeline while you work.

November 5th, 2009, 04:51 PM	#27
Steve Kalle Trustee Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,554	"heh Steve I was the one who posted the 8800 to 3700's." Duhhh! Dummy me, I forgot. What processor(s) is in the HP? Looking at benchmarks, the Intel i7 920 with 12gb ram can keep up with the prior generation dual-quad core systems. Your hard drives certainly aren't slowing you down. I am assuming you are using Vista x64 and Premiere CS4.

November 5th, 2009, 05:07 PM	#28
David Dwyer Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Chester, North West Posts: 565	Steve, I'm using Windows 7 x64 and the HP has AMD Opteron™ Processor Model 1352 (2.1 GHz, 75W, 2MB) Quad Core. The machine was only purchased for $500 so its cheap editing but my benchmark times doesnt look good at all!

November 5th, 2009, 05:57 PM	#29
Steve Kalle Trustee Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,554	Yep, the i7 920 plus 12gb ram would be much faster. The i7 has been one of the largest increase in performance from a prior generation. Then, sometime next year(first half of 2010), Intel will release their hex-core i7 so increasing performance can still be done without buying a whole new system.

November 6th, 2009, 06:23 AM	#30
David Dwyer Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Chester, North West Posts: 565	I'll wait to early next year and will also see Nvidias Fermi card as well.