B7 W10 Render Caused Hard Crash

Same footage I was having playback issues with. 1080 60P DNxHQX - Resolve says DNxHD 440X 1080P

Started render out to DNXHQX 10bit (the codec that I thought premiere rendered my source files to)- I have to bring back to premiere for some finish and publication stuff and don't want to lose a noticeable amount.

It was flying along at 127 frames a second for about 1:26 on the timeline, then it crashed. Thought it was the render alone that crashed so I tried to stop it. Then the whole thing crashed.

I attached the log.

OS on SSD 1.
Source Files on NVM1 and NVM2.
Target is SSD 2.
2 Display Port monitors on GPU1, 1 HDMI Monitor on GPU2. - Will putting all 3 monitors on one card be better? I am old school (relatively), I built my first computer when ATI couldn't do more than two monitors on 1 GPU, and using them since Win 3.1. I've just kept with that logic. I do not have the bridge cable connected, having it on has always caused immediately noticeable issues.

[Dwaine Maggart]

Please use the "Create Diagnostic Log on Desktop" selection in the Resolve Help menu to provide a proper and complete log file.

Attaching Full logs as requested.

Crashed Again - this time to the same codec that DR thinks the input files are. Ran at about 107 frames per second until 44 minutes into the timeline.

Should have looked at my SSD status before that last post, I filled it.

Still don't know why there wasn't a dialog from Resolve stating as such verses a crash.

Well it looks like I spoke too soon again.

It's actually crashed twice more since my last post. Figuring space was an issue I changed targets to my platters, that crashed rather quickly despite the reportedly high frame rates. Didn't write one single bite to the file. Then I picked a dnxhd 175 which should have fit on the ssd and changed targets to the SSD again, this time it got about 10 minutes down the timeline before it crashed and didn't write one byte of data.

The render that led to my ssd filling up had a slightly slower frame rate 107 vs 125, and jerky preview, but it did actually write out the file and about an hour further along the time line than the playhead indicated. This one I had walked away from and let it go overnight.
Maybe the threadripper is executing the code too fast? The more matched and subsequently faster renders crash, while the render that required a little bit of work actually succeeded....until the drive filled. Don't know. I kind of wish I wrote down what codec that was.

Formatted C, Reloaded Windows. Upgraded to W10 for Workstations
Installed 15 B8 fresh.
Moved third HDMI monitor to GPU1.

Same issues occurring. Frame rates while rendering as high as 147.

Formatted C, Reloaded Windows. Upgraded to W10 for Workstations
Installed 15 B8 fresh.
Moved third HDMI monitor to GPU1.

Same issues occurring. Frame rates while rendering as high as 147.

Hi Jeremy,

I would be you, somehow I would change GPU for a more powerful.

It is pretty sad to buy 32 GB of DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800) (it's very expensive) and invest nothing in a decent GPU (you only 2 GB VRAM).

We must find a balance price/performance..

Sorry I am not paying miner rates for GPU's. I have zero other issues. I did want to upgrade. But as a hobbyist, there is only so much money that one can justify giving away. I don't need a 1080ti on what's normally a media server. To be honest without this project I didn't need more than the FX-8350 and 24GB of RAM I had before.

I am not expecting faster render rates than what I am seeing, I just want it to finish.

At this point I consider my purchase of Resolve Studio a donation to the cause. Premiere will get me complete for this project. If I get another project I'll reload 14 to do the color correction and keep using Adobe for everything else.

My renders have been around 260GB for 2 hours, that's .036 GB Second. A 2GB GPU should be more than sufficent to render and play.

Whereas 2 gigs is enough for a media server or Premiere it's just barely enough for Resolve. You don't have to get a 1080ti. You could also get a 1060 for way cheaper that has 6 gigs of VRAM.

[Peter Chamberlain]

You need all the UI monitors on one GPU and I would set in Resolve preferences to not use the UI GPU for image processing

Well, not quite.

So I set all those settings manual. Open CL and use Both GPU's. Because I had it set exactly as Peter Suggested.

Flying along at 200 frames per second. Using 65% of one GPU and 55% of the other. I am now seeing CPU usage around 56% too.

I figured it was just a setting.

As of right now I have zero problems with Resolve.

I will certainly need new vid cards if I go to 4k. As when I had it locked down to a single GPU, the card didn't want to go faster than GPU Z reported as 75%.

To those who wonder why your CPU isn't being utilized, a weak GPU could definitely be the reason. Prior to locking in both GPU's my CPU usage was merely 26%. Bear in mind however I have a thread ripper and technically one of the vid cards is on each bus so the CPU is in the loop when passing data between them. Single CPU folks may not see the increased CPU usage I did.

Looking at my write throughput - I could easily get to 400 frames per second with better video cards.

My system RAM is sitting right at 9.7. But those familiar with my posts know that I am no pro and my system's primary function in life is as a Media Server, Silicon Dust DVR, and Rapid Fire weather underground reporting....while rendering 200 frames per second. Only 3.6 GB of that RAM is resolve.

This is with no effects processing, no audio repairs, basically stacking a pile of 440x files up and seeing if it will render to the end without crashing. This particular time I am rendering to Cineform YUV 10bit.