Blackmagic Forum

Anybody know what parts of the software uses the GPU CPU cores or CUDA cores?

The Final rendering?
Preview Window presentation?
Optimized media generation?

I'm trying to spec out hardware for a GNU Linux workstation to dedicated for Resolve editing.The last I checked, the documentation on a GNU Linux build was pretty out-of-date in regards to graphics card recommendation. This is to address a problem I have on my macbook of stuttering and freezing when editing Prores multi-cam clips that are about 80GB each. (They're really lengthy non-stop clips.)

For the config we know and have in the development and QA, please use our recommendations from the config guide and RedHat or CentOS from our OS installer.

All image processing is in GPU, compression and decompression in CPU.

Peter Chamberlain wrote:For the config we know and have in the development and QA, please use our recommendations from the config guide and RedHat or CentOS from our OS installer.

All image processing is in GPU, compression and decompression in CPU.

Yeah, the config guide pretty much just states get pro studio grade gear. For independent and amateur film-makers, the budget is totally off the table. It'd be nice to know why only systems with dual socket motherboards are recommended over the consumer grade single socket motherboards.

Since you stated the CPU only handles compression and decompression, would it be safe to assume that the stuttering and freezing issues I'm currently getting in the preview windows of long/large Prores LT clips is due to insufficient CPU processing? That way I know whether to balance the budget for the CPU over the GPU.

In Resolve, I get the feeling it is less about software optimizations and more about throwing more powerful hardware at it. Use some hardware monitoring software, like GPUz, Perfmonitor 2 or HWmonitor to see if you are even utilizing 100% of your available resources while working. Personally, I have yet to get Resolve to use more than 40% or so of anything (CPU, RAM, GPU, Disk data bandwidth) it still has some performance issues. Dual socket MB, more CPUs and more cores... I would understand if it is maxed on anything, otherwise... it is simply a waste of resources being under-utilized and a waste of money if there are 0 bottlenecks. Simply throwing hardware at it shouldn't be the answer in that case.

Do some tests for yourself and monitor your hardware usage, you could find where your bottleneck lies, if nothing then it is software related. Cross check your performance with other applications, like Nuke, After Effects, Premiere etc.

Boyd Ako wrote: It'd be nice to know why only systems with dual socket motherboards are recommended over the consumer grade single socket motherboards.

Hi.

For single socket motherboards see what Peter Chamberlain wrote here:

Quote: 'I plan to update the Config guide to inc the AMD Threadripper as we now have one here are as the note says, performance looks ok.'

From:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=65486

Regards Carsten.

There is a single socket Asus option recommended in the guide.

Don't use Threadripper with Linux. Kernel isn't optimized yet. Works fine on Windows 10.

Might I ask why you aren't using Windows?

, I have yet to get Resolve to use more than 40% or so of anything (CPU, RAM, GPU, Disk data bandwidth) it

i see Resolve using 100% of CPU threads when rendering from a fast enought disk back to a fast enough disk, my arrays are fast enough that the CPU is a bottleneck.

to me, it's completly amazing how good the software has become in a short timeframe

Chip.Murphy wrote:Don't use Threadripper with Linux. Kernel isn't optimized yet. Works fine on Windows 10.

Might I ask why you aren't using Windows?

Because I'm an experienced IT professional that knows how bad and clunky Microsoft crap is. Linux is vastly more optimized at the foundation for optimal performance. In theory, I could run Resolve in GNU Linux installed on a thumbdrive for example. Why would I do something like that? I wouldn't at the moment, but it's possible. Maybe save all the internal sata connections for SSD/HDDs for the caching? Who cares. I can also configure it to only run the bare minimum of software required to do what I need to do. Which greatly opens up CPU and memory for other software like Resolve.

Also because I went through college as a broke butt kid with barely any money and a third degree hand me down laptop. So paying for stuff like microsoft that sucks is totally illogical.

That being said... the fact that Resolve can run on GNU Linux distros like the free CentOS greatly reduces the costs to operate when producing films.

Hell... When I get my workstation built and working. I wouldn't mind buying the GNU Linux install for Resolve AND donating a few extra bucks towards the Resolve GNU Linux efforts. Although personally, I'd prefer just to have the money I spend to purchase Resolve dedicated to either Mac OS X or GNU Linux efforts. Side note: if Resolve was written in Parallel C, I'd totally be down to help getting it to work in GNU Linux Beowulf cluster. Imagine... multiple computers combined into one giant video editing Frankenstein'd Hulk using computers you get for cheap off of craigslist.

Peter Chamberlain wrote:There is a single socket Asus option recommended in the guide.

Hmmm... missed that in the Guide. It wasn't under the "Linux Workstation" section I was looking into.

And seriously wish you guys good luck with AMD Threadripper stuff. Most of the Linux software is designed around Intel processing architecture.