Re: Improving Resolve Performance on Windows
![Post Post](./styles/bmd_universal/imageset/icon_post_target.gif)
Well, the Shogun has a pretty good screen actually.
But to work in HD from a computer, you'll need extremely good eyesight…
But to work in HD from a computer, you'll need extremely good eyesight…
https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/
https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=75892
Uli Plank wrote:Well, the Shogun has a pretty good screen actually.
But to work in HD from a computer, you'll need extremely good eyesight…
Piotr Wozniacki wrote:Thanks guys.
Of course, I did find an M.2 NVMe drive with parameters (capacity, transfer rates) as close to those of my Toshiba as possible; what I'm concerned is that with different on-board controllers it still may not work with my Toshiba in RAID 0.
Regards,
Piotr
Piotr Wozniacki wrote:Uli Plank wrote:Well, the Shogun has a pretty good screen actually.
But to work in HD from a computer, you'll need extremely good eyesight…
Sure - also, I have just edited my post adding that only makes sense if the Atomos device is also used as a field monitor/recorder - otherwise it's too expensive...
Piotr
Carsten Sellberg wrote:But Thank you for suggesting it. I would I never got the idea myself.
Piotr Wozniacki wrote:I'm using the M.2 drives as my cached media storage, and nothing else. Since I grade for HDR, the minimum format for me is DNxHR HDR (that's how Resolve calls it in the drop-won list). But with 2-3 such drives in RAID 0, I could also cache to uncompressed. And of course, the volatility of such array isn't that important as the cached media are sort of scratch, anyway.
Dan Sherman wrote:Piotr Wozniacki wrote:I'm using the M.2 drives as my cached media storage, and nothing else. Since I grade for HDR, the minimum format for me is DNxHR HDR (that's how Resolve calls it in the drop-won list). But with 2-3 such drives in RAID 0, I could also cache to uncompressed. And of course, the volatility of such array isn't that important as the cached media are sort of scratch, anyway.
Your Current drive is capable of 2.6 GB/s read, and 1.6 GB/s write.
The maximum DNxHR 444 bitrate is only 0.444 GB/s , and I believe what BM calls HDR is just a tweaked flavor of this. If I did the math right even uncompressed 10 bit is only 1.44 GB/s. so no matter what you are doing, you should be fine with your current drive, as long as your system doesn't have any other bottlenecks.
Piotr Wozniacki wrote:what would be uncompressed bandwidth for 4K DCI @50 fps? According to this calculator https://www.extron.com/product/videotools.aspx, it is 26.73 Gbps!!!
Piotr Wozniacki wrote:[
I did try caching to uncompressed and the single 2,500/1,500 drive was too slow. And I think your math isn't correct, what would be uncompressed bandwidth for 4K DCI @50 fps? According to this calculator https://www.extron.com/product/videotools.aspx, it is 26.73 Gbps!!!
Piotr
Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Piotr Wozniacki wrote:[
I did try caching to uncompressed and the single 2,500/1,500 drive was too slow. And I think your math isn't correct, what would be uncompressed bandwidth for 4K DCI @50 fps? According to this calculator https://www.extron.com/product/videotools.aspx, it is 26.73 Gbps!!!
Piotr
This website is not good for video files calculations. Use AJACalc which is good.
Resolve uncompressed cache is 16bit for HDR, so you need (for 50p UHD):
4096*2160*50*16*3 =21234Gbit/8= 2655MB/sec, so on the edge of your drive.
It will be converted into single frames as far as I understand, so bit harder to read.
Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Resolve uncompressed cache is 16bit for HDR, so you need (for 50p 4K DCI and RGB channels):
Andrew Kolakowski wrote:
4096*2160*50*16*3 =21234Gbit/8= 2655MB/sec, so on the edge of your drive. Because 16bit is 2^4 there is no padding needed so math is correct (when you count for 10bit it's not 30bit, but 32 as 2 bits are left empty due to need of 2^n alignment).
yea, uncompressed 16bit is completely bonkers! A 2TB SSD would only store ~12.5 minutes of footage.
MikeMeagher wrote:I have discovered my render times improved by the following hardware configuration:
Resolve studio and my OS is on m.2 drive;
My source files are in a 3 HDD drive Raid 0 array;
And my destination drive is another SSD RAID
0 array drive.
If I render to the same array as my source files the render framerate is slower.
My experience is that Resolve speed is more than simply GUI speed..data transfer speeds is a function of throughout through the entire pipeline and all components plays a huge role too.
Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Piotr Wozniacki wrote:[
I did try caching to uncompressed and the single 2,500/1,500 drive was too slow. And I think your math isn't correct, what would be uncompressed bandwidth for 4K DCI @50 fps? According to this calculator https://www.extron.com/product/videotools.aspx, it is 26.73 Gbps!!!
Piotr
This website is not good for video files calculations. Use AJA DataCalc which is good.
Resolve uncompressed cache is 16bit for HDR, so you need (for 50p 4K DCI and RGB channels):
4096*2160*50*16*3 =21234Gbit/8= 2655MB/sec, so on the edge of your drive. Because 16bit is 2^4 there is no padding needed so math is correct (when you count for 10bit it's not 30bit, but 32 as 2 bits are left empty due to need of 2^n alignment).
It will be converted into single frames as far as I understand, so bit harder to read. Single frame should be around 53MB for RGB and 70MB for RGBA.
I woud probably choose ProResXQ HDR as its quality is near lossless and there is no real need to waste space/bandwidth for 16bit uncompressed. Of course this requires bit more CPU, but you are about to get plenty, so no problem.
Carsten Sellberg wrote:Hi.
First, X399 Taichi is an ASRock motherboard. Just want to tell you if, you write to MSI again.
Carsten Sellberg wrote:Together with a MSI Meg X399 Creation you will receive a M.2 Xpander-Aero M.2 PCIe card.
Carsten Sellberg wrote:When I see the price in your link do I also wonder if it is the time to suggest a few faster SSD'd in a RAID and the use the Toshiba standalone?
Think it much will depend on your requirement for SSD disk space.
Carsten Sellberg wrote:Since last week did I find two links a like to share. First this user comment from Spooktra:
'Reading through all the reviews of this processor, not just this one but the ones done by other sites as well, I can't help but feel like everyone is testing this processor the wrong way. It's not meant to run one task as fast as possible, not even embarrassingly parallel tasks primarily because those are almost best handled by a GPU, this processor is meant to run multiple tasks simultaneously.'
Regards Carsten.
. Ultimately, the i9-7960X is a powerful CPU made for those those willing to custom water cool, or brave enough to de-lid. It's a CPU for enthusiasts and content creators with more money than sense chasing Reddit bragging rights, even when better value options exist. It's a CPU that, despite its strengths, I struggle to recommend to anyone but the most hardened of Intel fans.
The good
The fastest slice of silicon going
Good gaming performance
Improved memory support
Modern complement of I/O
The bad
Not that much faster than Threadripper 1950X
Fewer PCIe lanes than the competition
Power hungry
Continual use of TIM instead of solder
High clock speeds and quiet systems out of the question without custom liquid cooling or delidding
The ugly
There's little justification for the price tag. Buy a Threadripper 1950X instead.
Piotr Wozniacki wrote:*snip*
Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Piotr you are as always overthinking
Get something which you really need, not what you want
Most likely i9 14 cores is good enough to go with your Titans. No need to waste money.
Jack Fairley wrote:Piotr Wozniacki wrote:*snip*
I have a Threadripper 1950X and 2x 1080ti. I consider this a well balanced system - any 4K RAW format I have tried will play back in real time, and I can even use some NR or other GPU effects while doing it. 8K RED is another story, but I can set debayer quality to 4K and get along that way.
Piotr Wozniacki wrote:Thanks Carsten for your time and effort in answering me. One thing however, is still missing from what you wrote about the many and various reasons for similar mainboards to bear dramatically different price tags - and I'd like to kindly ask you to elaborate on it even more
Let's take the two boards I was comparing:
1. the Gigabyte X399 Aorus Xtreme - 10-phase VRM, Euro 640
2. the MSI X399 Carbon AC board - 10+3 phase power, below Euro 400
Now - as I also noticed before - those 2 board have identical layout, and even look basically the same. So my question remains:
- is the Aorus "better" for powering the 2990WX thanks to its 10-phase VRM? if so - how?
The 10+3 phase power of the MSI X399 Carbon AC worse looks (or sounds) not worse to my lame eyes and ears than that for the Gigabyte Aurus, but if it isn't the same (VRM power section), which would indeed explain the Euro 250 price difference - please, oh please explain :) Euro 250 is lots of money to our Polish standards!
Thanks again,
Piotr
Piotr Wozniacki wrote:
Now - as I also noticed before - those 2 board have identical layout, and even look basically the same. So my question remains:
- is the Aorus "better" for powering the 2990WX thanks to its 10-phase VRM? if so - how?
The 10+3 phase power of the MSI X399 Carbon AC worse looks (or sounds) not worse to my lame eyes and ears than that for the Gigabyte Aurus, but if it isn't the same (VRM power section), which would indeed explain the Euro 250 price difference - please, oh please explain :) Euro 250 is lots of money to our Polish standards!
Dan Sherman wrote:Piotr Wozniacki wrote:@Piotr
Unless you really want to go down a pcb design rabbit hole, I suggest you just pick one you like and call it a day, because all the 2nd gen boards should be plenty for what you are going to do with it..
Piotr Wozniacki wrote:One thing stroke me though in your above statement: I was under impression from Carsten's excellent input here, that the only 2nd generation boards (i.e. coming as such from factory) among those discussed here are:
- the MSI Meg X399 Creation (unfortunately out of the question for me because of its PCIe slots arrangement
- the Gigabyte X399 Aorus Xtreme
I probably misunderstood Carsten, which is just another proof I must not overthink my purchase
Piotr
Dan Sherman wrote:I think those are the only two gen 2 boards available today, but that could change tomorrow, next week or next month.
MishaEngel wrote:All Gen 1 boards support Threadripper 2 with a bios update.
Piotr Wozniacki wrote:Very wise approach, Dan - my "only" problems. making the decisions rather urgent, are:
- at my age, postponing purchase of what one wants and needs is rather silly
- it's high time my rather expensive components which didn't fit on my current X99 board (or inside the rather small case), and have been relegated outside using PCIe extenders - stop gathering all the dust literally lying on the floor, and without any protection (and one of them is my Decklink Extreme 12G card for which I paid almost USD 2,000 at the time of purchase)...
Cheers
Piotr
Piotr Wozniacki wrote:MishaEngel wrote:All Gen 1 boards support Threadripper 2 with a bios update.
Yes, but one with 10+3 phase VRM power - provided adequate cooling - will do it better even with O.C.
Piotr
MishaEngel wrote:It's your money, you can spend it on marketing blabla or value.
Piotr Wozniacki wrote: What is the consensus here on this - i.e. the reliability and longevity of MSI vs. Asus vs. Gigabyte?
Carsten Sellberg wrote:Misha mention the possibility to 'Raise the DRAM voltage to 1.55-1.6 volt'. But I wonder where he got the idea from, and what kind of cooling they use?
May be he have a link to share. If it is not a English link, is it may be possible to translate it with google translate, and then share the translated link with us.
MishaEngel wrote:For the cooling we just let a 12 cm fan blow air over the DRAM-banks(in the begining we used it to cool the VRM heatsink, but now we have a waterblock that cools both the CPU and the VRM's).
Piotr Wozniacki wrote:MishaEngel wrote:The only thing I'm a bit uneasy about is the overall build quality of MSI products in general, as I've always been an Asus mainboards' guy. What is the consensus here on this - i.e. the reliability and longevity of MSI vs. Asus vs. Gigabyte? The MSI X399 Gaming Pro Carbon AC - if I go with it - would be the very first MSI product in the many various level and price PCs I put together in my life...
Piotr
Piotr Wozniacki wrote:MishaEngel wrote:For the cooling we just let a 12 cm fan blow air over the DRAM-banks(in the begining we used it to cool the VRM heatsink, but now we have a waterblock that cools both the CPU and the VRM's).
Hi,
My I know which water cooling block exactly are you using with your 2990WX? Does the choice need to consider also the specific motherboard an possibly case? TIA
Piotr
PS. I should have remained once more that I never ever used water cooling, so please be as specific as possible answering my lame question
Piotr Wozniacki wrote:Thanks - on the second page of the Configurator = "which part I want to cool" - what to choose in order to have both CPU and VRM cooled?