GTX 460 & Premiere Pro CS5 at DVinfo.net

Alejandro Vargas · January 15th, 2011, 11:56 PM

hi,

i understand that this card will work with the .ini modification. I did the mod and premiere allows me to enable MPE.

Now, i enable it and what?

when i drop an AVCHD (by dragging in into the new sequence so i know it is the correct settings) into the timeline, i get a yellow bar. also, when playing on full is plays just as if it was doing software rendering. Now, adding Magic Bullet Looks, it is worse. Red Bar. and Rendering worse.

i have a GPU and CPU Speed gadget for windows 7. and when i do this stuff, the mac GPU usage i see is 7%, only when i render for output to MPEG or whatever do i see 20-30% usage, but that's it. it doens't encode faster, it doens't render faster and it doesn't play nice with AVCHD.

i have the latest drivers from Nvidia and nothing!

here are my system specs:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5000+ @ 2.60Ghz
6 GB DDR3 Ram
Running Windows 7 64-bit
media located on a barracuda 10k RPM 80GB Drive separate from the OS drive.

i am suspecting it is the RAM, what do you guys think?
i am close to returning it and just saving up some more money to beef up my system, but it frustrates me that i've seen people running lower end PC's with many success stories! what gives?

Thank you in advance for any help.

PS: i've spent about 16 hrs googling about this, everyone says it works and the few that say it doens't, not much info on that.

Harm Millaard · January 16th, 2011, 03:54 AM

It is your whole system. When rendering the CPU loads the frames from disk, stores it in memory, decides what to do with these frames, just encoding/decoding, or to hand it over to the GPU for CUDA processing. Then the GPU loads the frames from memory to VRAM, does its processing, hands it back to the CPU and the CPU stores it in memory again and on and on. After some time the results are written to disk to free up memory and new frames are loaded from disk and the process repeats itself.

This process requires continuous communication between CPU, RAM, GPU, VRAM and disk. As always the weakest link is decisive for performance and in your case your system is pretty weak overall, but the weakest link is the CPU, followed by only 6 GB memory and only two disks.

On a system that slow (around 50 - 80 times slower than a fast system) it is hard to see any benefit from a CUDA card, because the GPU is constantly waiting for the CPU.

Randall Leong · January 16th, 2011, 10:26 AM

Harm is correct. Not only are AMD processors relatively ill-suited to the Adobe Creative Suite programs (due to their lack of full SSE 4.x support), but the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ is slower in overall performance than any of AMD's current offerings (after all, the 5000+ dates back to the very beginning of the Socket AM2 platform). And the 5000+ does not support DDR3 memory at all; it uses DDR2 memory. The CPU has 940 pins - but Socket AM3 (which uses DDR3 memory) has only 938 pins. What's more, with that CPU using three 2GB sticks would have forced all 6GB of that RAM to run in single-channel-only mode - and at greatly reduced memory speeds (DDR2-400 speed, or 200MHz). Plus, the X2 5000+ does not run DDR2-800 memory at its full DDR2-800 speed - but a slower DDR2-743 instead. The end result is a system that is 80 to 100 times slower in CS5 than a moderately-priced fast system using a Sandy Bridge Intel i7-2600(K) CPU or an i7-950 CPU.

To illustrate the advantage of having more than 6GB of RAM, I have two LGA 1366 i7 systems that are overclocked to roughly the same GHz level (3.7-ish GHz) - one with 12GB, the other with 6GB. Both systems are equipped with Nvidia CUDA cards with 1GB or more RAM and a two-disk RAID 0 array with two 1TB 7200-rpm hard drives as the media/project drive. The 6GB configuration (as of 5.0.2/5.0.3) took more than 50 seconds longer (an increase of around 20 percent) than the 12GB configuration to complete all of the PPBM5 benchmark tests - 30-ish seconds longer in MPEG-2 DVD encodes, 20-ish seconds longer in H.264 Blu-ray encodes.

The AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ would have been slower than the slowest of the Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs in this test.

Alejandro Vargas · January 16th, 2011, 08:56 PM

ok, understood
at this point, having the gTX 460 means nothing to me.

i will then, return it to best buy and continue editing video, as i have been doing, using software.
yes, much slower, but i just don't have 1000$ laying around to invest on editing.

also, i want to expand on video gear before as computer become faster and cheaper, while gear can last years and still serve a purpose.
i will wait until my brother hands me down his system, which i heard is pretty good :)

all on a budget!

sucks being poor :(

January 15th, 2011, 11:56 PM	#1
Alejandro Vargas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 39	GTX 460 & Premiere Pro CS5 hi, i understand that this card will work with the .ini modification. I did the mod and premiere allows me to enable MPE. Now, i enable it and what? when i drop an AVCHD (by dragging in into the new sequence so i know it is the correct settings) into the timeline, i get a yellow bar. also, when playing on full is plays just as if it was doing software rendering. Now, adding Magic Bullet Looks, it is worse. Red Bar. and Rendering worse. i have a GPU and CPU Speed gadget for windows 7. and when i do this stuff, the mac GPU usage i see is 7%, only when i render for output to MPEG or whatever do i see 20-30% usage, but that's it. it doens't encode faster, it doens't render faster and it doesn't play nice with AVCHD. i have the latest drivers from Nvidia and nothing! here are my system specs: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5000+ @ 2.60Ghz 6 GB DDR3 Ram Running Windows 7 64-bit media located on a barracuda 10k RPM 80GB Drive separate from the OS drive. i am suspecting it is the RAM, what do you guys think? i am close to returning it and just saving up some more money to beef up my system, but it frustrates me that i've seen people running lower end PC's with many success stories! what gives? Thank you in advance for any help. PS: i've spent about 16 hrs googling about this, everyone says it works and the few that say it doens't, not much info on that.

January 16th, 2011, 03:54 AM	#2
Harm Millaard Trustee Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands Posts: 1,832	It is your whole system. When rendering the CPU loads the frames from disk, stores it in memory, decides what to do with these frames, just encoding/decoding, or to hand it over to the GPU for CUDA processing. Then the GPU loads the frames from memory to VRAM, does its processing, hands it back to the CPU and the CPU stores it in memory again and on and on. After some time the results are written to disk to free up memory and new frames are loaded from disk and the process repeats itself. This process requires continuous communication between CPU, RAM, GPU, VRAM and disk. As always the weakest link is decisive for performance and in your case your system is pretty weak overall, but the weakest link is the CPU, followed by only 6 GB memory and only two disks. On a system that slow (around 50 - 80 times slower than a fast system) it is hard to see any benefit from a CUDA card, because the GPU is constantly waiting for the CPU. Last edited by Harm Millaard; January 16th, 2011 at 07:12 AM.

January 16th, 2011, 10:26 AM	#3
Randall Leong Major Player Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Melrose Park, Illinois, USA Posts: 936	Harm is correct. Not only are AMD processors relatively ill-suited to the Adobe Creative Suite programs (due to their lack of full SSE 4.x support), but the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ is slower in overall performance than any of AMD's current offerings (after all, the 5000+ dates back to the very beginning of the Socket AM2 platform). And the 5000+ does not support DDR3 memory at all; it uses DDR2 memory. The CPU has 940 pins - but Socket AM3 (which uses DDR3 memory) has only 938 pins. What's more, with that CPU using three 2GB sticks would have forced all 6GB of that RAM to run in single-channel-only mode - and at greatly reduced memory speeds (DDR2-400 speed, or 200MHz). Plus, the X2 5000+ does not run DDR2-800 memory at its full DDR2-800 speed - but a slower DDR2-743 instead. The end result is a system that is 80 to 100 times slower in CS5 than a moderately-priced fast system using a Sandy Bridge Intel i7-2600(K) CPU or an i7-950 CPU. To illustrate the advantage of having more than 6GB of RAM, I have two LGA 1366 i7 systems that are overclocked to roughly the same GHz level (3.7-ish GHz) - one with 12GB, the other with 6GB. Both systems are equipped with Nvidia CUDA cards with 1GB or more RAM and a two-disk RAID 0 array with two 1TB 7200-rpm hard drives as the media/project drive. The 6GB configuration (as of 5.0.2/5.0.3) took more than 50 seconds longer (an increase of around 20 percent) than the 12GB configuration to complete all of the PPBM5 benchmark tests - 30-ish seconds longer in MPEG-2 DVD encodes, 20-ish seconds longer in H.264 Blu-ray encodes. The AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ would have been slower than the slowest of the Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs in this test. Last edited by Randall Leong; January 16th, 2011 at 08:39 PM.

January 16th, 2011, 08:56 PM	#4
Alejandro Vargas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 39	ok, understood at this point, having the gTX 460 means nothing to me. i will then, return it to best buy and continue editing video, as i have been doing, using software. yes, much slower, but i just don't have 1000$ laying around to invest on editing. also, i want to expand on video gear before as computer become faster and cheaper, while gear can last years and still serve a purpose. i will wait until my brother hands me down his system, which i heard is pretty good :) all on a budget! sucks being poor :(