Blackmagic Forum

Hi,

I use Resolve 16 with my BMPCC4k footage. Currently my GPU is a 1070ti and it will regularly give me the "GPU memory full" message when I try to use TNR and other GPU effects. Presumably this is meaning the 8gb VRAM is maxing out.

With the new 3000 series cards approaching from Nvidia, it would be interesting to get peoples takes on which will be best for 4k video editing (without spending a fortune) i.e. is the 3070 plenty seeing as it more than doubles my current CUDA core count while maintaining 8gb VRAM? or should I get at least the 3080 with 10gb VRAM.

Here are the specs for the new cards.

3090:
CUDA cores: 10,496
VRAM: 24 GB GDDR6X
Memory interface: 384-bit

3080:
CUDA Cores: 8,704
VRAM: 10GB GDDR6X
Memory Interface: 320-bit

3070:
CUDA cores: 5,888
Memory: 8GB GDDR6
Memory interface: 256-bit

My current graphics card is as follows:
1070ti:
CUDA cores: 2,432
Memory: 8GB GDDR5
Memory interface: 256-bit

Derienzo wrote: "GPU memory full"

Hi.

In Resolve the CPU is used to run the app, disk I/O, fusion and compression and decompression of codecs.
Resolve does all its image processing in the GPU on the graphics card. More CUDA/OpenCL Cores are better.

There are two factors that is important for the Graphics card. The first is, that it have enough vRam. For 4K is the absolute minimum 6 GB of vRam, but minimum 8 GB of vRam or more are recommended.
I still remember people with GTX 1080 TI's with 11 GB of vRam reporting GPU memory full errors, while using Noise Reduction or other Resolve functions, that simultaneous use data from two or more video frames.

The other factor is the CUDA/OpenCL performance. Higher CUDA/OpenCL performance gives a faster Resolve.

We are all waiting for the next gen AMD High END Navi and also for the coming Intel Xe Graphic Cards.
The first are scheduled for 2nd half of 2020 and the Intel Xe for 1st half of 2021. Competition will be good for us consumers.

Regards Carsten.

Considering I've seen usage up to 14GB on my Radeon VII when working with a mix of 4.6K and 4K footage...Only 3090 makes sense.

If RTX IO (direct storage) acts like HBCC (which is a HBM only feature) this might change.

IvanovS wrote: If RTX IO (direct storage) acts like HBCC (which is a HBM only feature) this might change.

Hi.

Or a AMD RADEON RX 5600 XT. Here is a Google Translated version of a German link:

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... lasse.html

Quote above link: 'While our 8K test project in CUDA mode with an RTX2080Ti repeatedly breaks off due to memory overflows despite 11 GB DDR6 RAM, strangely enough, this does not happen with the 6GB AMD card. This acts much more slowly, but does not stop processing because the memory is full.'

But personally will I suggest you wait for the next version of it, or a faster AMD Radeon or Intel Xe Graphics Card.

Regards Carsten.

I've seen even the 2080Ti with 11 GB of memory throw up errors, so...my thinking is that Resolve has a bug on this front.

For speed, the two specs you want most are memory bus and CUDA cores.

Yep - During edits my vram consumption hovers at 6.8G max and while rendering it even drops down to 5.6GB over time - But I still get the "GPU memory Full" pop-up. It does not appear to stall the render though.. just annoying to see it repeatedly.

Memory allocation usually needs continuous region of mem to be available. It can fail when memory itself is not full. Why fragmentation happens, don’t know, could be lots of reasons like not reusing buffers, memory leaks where stuff lingers longer than it has to, driver problem (allocator logic) etc.

Thanks all,

To confirm when I am getting the "GPU memory full" message task manager says I am only actually using approx 5-6GB of VRAM so this seems to tie in with one of the comments above.

It seems that 8GB SHOULD be enough with 4k footage but perhaps Resolve is simply not utilising it correctly and maybe it just needs optimisation.

Either way it sounds like waiting for Big Navi would be wise to see what they offer. I think a 16GB card with 5000+ CUDA cores could be a great shout over the 3080 which has 10GB and 8000 CUDA cores.

Thanks,
Gio

Derienzo wrote:Thanks all,

To confirm when I am getting the "GPU memory full" message task manager says I am only actually using approx 5-6GB of VRAM so this seems to tie in with one of the comments above.

It seems that 8GB SHOULD be enough with 4k footage but perhaps Resolve is simply not utilising it correctly and maybe it just needs optimisation.

Either way it sounds like waiting for Big Navi would be wise to see what they offer. I think a 16GB card with 5000+ CUDA cores could be a great shout over the 3080 which has 10GB and 8000 CUDA cores.

Thanks,
Gio

Windows Task Manager is not an accurate measurement tool. Get something like hwinfo64 for accurate measurements.

Also AMD doesn't have cuda cores they have stream processors. Same end result, different stuff behind the scenes.

Also I really doubt its a Resolve issue. Nvidia cuts a lot of corners to gain max performance (not talking about resolve here but games and such) like extreme delta color compression, dlss, vrs and so on so I wouldn't be surprised if that's just how memory works on nvidia cards. Not as efficient as AMDs.

IvanovS wrote:

Derienzo wrote:Thanks all,

To confirm when I am getting the "GPU memory full" message task manager says I am only actually using approx 5-6GB of VRAM so this seems to tie in with one of the comments above.

It seems that 8GB SHOULD be enough with 4k footage but perhaps Resolve is simply not utilising it correctly and maybe it just needs optimisation.

Either way it sounds like waiting for Big Navi would be wise to see what they offer. I think a 16GB card with 5000+ CUDA cores could be a great shout over the 3080 which has 10GB and 8000 CUDA cores.

Thanks,
Gio

Windows Task Manager is not an accurate measurement tool. Get something like hwinfo64 for accurate measurements.

Also AMD doesn't have cuda cores they have stream processors. Same end result, different stuff behind the scenes.

Also I really doubt its a Resolve issue. Nvidia cuts a lot of corners to gain max performance (not talking about resolve here but games and such) like extreme delta color compression, dlss, vrs and so on so I wouldn't be surprised if that's just how memory works on nvidia cards. Not as efficient as AMDs.

I agree this is likely a BM DR + NVidia issue, I'm not sure how "DLSS, VRS and so on" applies to this. Those are features that are optionally can be implemented by the developers.

mpetech wrote:

IvanovS wrote:

Derienzo wrote:Thanks all,

To confirm when I am getting the "GPU memory full" message task manager says I am only actually using approx 5-6GB of VRAM so this seems to tie in with one of the comments above.

It seems that 8GB SHOULD be enough with 4k footage but perhaps Resolve is simply not utilising it correctly and maybe it just needs optimisation.

Either way it sounds like waiting for Big Navi would be wise to see what they offer. I think a 16GB card with 5000+ CUDA cores could be a great shout over the 3080 which has 10GB and 8000 CUDA cores.

Thanks,
Gio

Windows Task Manager is not an accurate measurement tool. Get something like hwinfo64 for accurate measurements.

Also AMD doesn't have cuda cores they have stream processors. Same end result, different stuff behind the scenes.

Also I really doubt its a Resolve issue. Nvidia cuts a lot of corners to gain max performance (not talking about resolve here but games and such) like extreme delta color compression, dlss, vrs and so on so I wouldn't be surprised if that's just how memory works on nvidia cards. Not as efficient as AMDs.

I agree this is likely a BM DR + NVidia issue, I'm not sure how "DLSS, VRS and so on" applies to this. Those are features that are optionally can be implemented by the developers.

Notice I said DLSS VRS are not related to Resolve but related to Nvidia cutting corners and bringing performance at the expense of image quality / raw power. Hence I wouldn't be surprised if their memory management is not as efficient as AMDs.(Not efficient = not as good in everything else but games).

I've been waiting for the 30xx cards.
But now I'll be waiting even more.....
The 2nd release of these cards might/could/should/would have 2x VRAM.
So a 3080 with 20GB and a 3070 with 16GB.
At this point, for me, it's worth the wait of a few more months to hopefully get a card with more memory to work better with resolve as my 2070 Super 8GB gives 'out of memory' messages sometimes when working in 4k and with a large(r) number of corrections that include NR.
(it seems adding OFX effects fills it up)

IvanovS wrote:
Notice I said DLSS VRS are not related to Resolve but related to Nvidia cutting corners and bringing performance at the expense of image quality / raw power. Hence I wouldn't be surprised if their memory management is not as efficient as AMDs.(Not efficient = not as good in everything else but games).

But you are painting a picture that Nvidia is doing something underhanded. I don't see how those 2 things are.

capthook wrote: At this point, for me, it's worth the wait of a few more months to hopefully get a card with more memory to work better with resolve as my 2070 Super 8GB gives 'out of memory' messages sometimes when working in 4k and with a large(r) number of corrections that include NR.

Hi.

Quote: 'GDDR6X does come with one somewhat immediate drawback however: capacity. While Micron has plans for 16Gbit chips in the future, to start things out today they’re only making 8Gbit chips'

From: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16057/nv ... 0-rtx-3090

Personally I first expect to see the "twice the vram" cards, when Micron change, from the its current 8Gbit chips to the next 16Gbit chips. I am sorry, but I expect you have to wait until sometime in 2021.

Regards Carsten.

mpetech wrote:

IvanovS wrote:
Notice I said DLSS VRS are not related to Resolve but related to Nvidia cutting corners and bringing performance at the expense of image quality / raw power. Hence I wouldn't be surprised if their memory management is not as efficient as AMDs.(Not efficient = not as good in everything else but games).

But you are painting a picture that Nvidia is doing something underhanded. I don't see how those 2 things are.

I never said underhanded. Crappy? Definitely. They're pushing upscaling and VRS which are image degrading methods as the new normal...I can hardly wait for the games to decide which parts of the image are in focus and detailed and which aren't /s....

IvanovS wrote:I can hardly wait for the games to decide which parts of the image are in focus and detailed and which aren't /s....

Like the crappy evolutionary invention... eyes

Hendrik Proosa wrote:

IvanovS wrote:I can hardly wait for the games to decide which parts of the image are in focus and detailed and which aren't /s....

Like the crappy evolutionary invention... eyes

I think you're confusing things. Variable Rate Shading (VRS) will decide which part of the frame is detailed
and which one will have way lower details. I'd like to decide this thing with my crappy evolutionary invention (like you put it)...my eyes...not some random algorithm.

If you can wait a little, get the 3080 ti....it will have 20GB of Vram

IvanovS wrote:I think you're confusing things. Variable Rate Shading (VRS) will decide which part of the frame is detailed and which one will have way lower details. I'd like to decide this thing with my crappy evolutionary invention (like you put it)...my eyes...not some random algorithm.

Not confusing anything. VRS does not randomly decide it, it is an additional method that developers can use and control if they want to. Which way it relates to nvidia being crappy i don’t get. Same way you could say amd is crappy because they support opengl that isn’t physical multispectral path tracing framework but crappy fake shading. User isn’t deciding anything anyway, with or without VRS, game/application devs are. Just as you don’t decide on the implementation of Resolves color engine, bmd does.

Hendrik Proosa wrote:

IvanovS wrote:I think you're confusing things. Variable Rate Shading (VRS) will decide which part of the frame is detailed and which one will have way lower details. I'd like to decide this thing with my crappy evolutionary invention (like you put it)...my eyes...not some random algorithm.

Not confusing anything. VRS does not randomly decide it, it is an additional method that developers can use and control if they want to. Which way it relates to nvidia being crappy i don’t get. Same way you could say amd is crappy because they support opengl that isn’t physical multispectral path tracing framework but crappy fake shading. User isn’t deciding anything anyway, with or without VRS, game/application devs are. Just as you don’t decide on the implementation of Resolves color engine, bmd does.

So, instead of having a full quality image you get some blurry garbage mess and you're telling me ''the developers decide that". No they don't, the nvidia implementation does. Same with DLSS. Go look-up their video on what VRS does. Just like some developers are forced to use TAA, same will happen with VRS.

You don't seem to get it that the developers can only choose from "crappy" "crappier" and "crappiest" settings. They have no control on anything else because nvidia code is a black box.

So, no thank you, I'd like my image rendered with full details and I would like to decide which parts of the image to look at. I'm not a horse.

Also OpenGL and Resolve engine have nothing to do with nvidia and DLSS VRS. When BM will present to me a debayered RAW image and BM decides that only the center of the frame should be full quality, the rest can be 1/4 and will force this, like the trend is with nvidia and dlss vrs, then I will treat them the same way.

Edit: This is my last msg on this subject to you, I'm not here to convince you on anything. You are free to enjoy VRS and DLSS to your heart's delight. Nvidia pushing for DLSS and VRS and god knows what image degrading ''methods'' they come up with to be used is them being crappy. Clear as night and day

I don't think it's worth starting arguments on this thread. All of the arguments above have their validity and none are spot on so not worth bickering about!

Clearly Da Vinci Resolve and Nvidia cards have issues given that people with 2080ti's with 11gb VRAM are experiencing maxing out when they shouldn't be.

That being said, I don't think specific gaming optimisations such as DLSS are relevant to video editing software. The only thing we should be looking at is VRAM and CUDA cores (or the AMD equivalent). It is quite bold to state that Nvidia are cutting corners with these aspects.

I think the issue is clearly that Nvidia cards are not very well optimised with Resolve and this is something that can only be fixed with the correct drivers and co-operation between Blackmagic and Nvidia.

It seems the smartest thing to do right now based on the comments is to wait to see what AMD bring out next, and to also wait and see what Nvidia bring out next year with potential doubling of VRAM.

As for my VRAM usage, I should note it's not just task manager I used to check the usage, it was also CPUID which said the same thing i.e. <7gb VRAM usage but Resolve throwing errors out that it's maxed out (despite 8gb being available).

In this video by the youtube channel 'Optimum Tech' @2:34, he makes the point that even a 2080 TI with 11GB of VRAM it is not enough to edit 6K footage on a 4K timeline.



Over the last year or so, I've gleaned that VRAM is really important for Fusion.

It could be that it's best to hold out for the rumored increases in VRAM that could result if AMD presents a challenge.

Derienzo wrote:I don't think it's worth starting arguments on this thread. All of the arguments above have their validity and none are spot on so not worth bickering about!

Clearly Da Vinci Resolve and Nvidia cards have issues given that people with 2080ti's with 11gb VRAM are experiencing maxing out when they shouldn't be.

That being said, I don't think specific gaming optimisations such as DLSS are relevant to video editing software. The only thing we should be looking at is VRAM and CUDA cores (or the AMD equivalent). It is quite bold to state that Nvidia are cutting corners with these aspects.

I think the issue is clearly that Nvidia cards are not very well optimised with Resolve and this is something that can only be fixed with the correct drivers and co-operation between Blackmagic and Nvidia.

It seems the smartest thing to do right now based on the comments is to wait to see what AMD bring out next, and to also wait and see what Nvidia bring out next year with potential doubling of VRAM.

As for my VRAM usage, I should note it's not just task manager I used to check the usage, it was also CPUID which said the same thing i.e. <7gb VRAM usage but Resolve throwing errors out that it's maxed out (despite 8gb being available).

Thread got derailed. I gave an example outside Resolve where Nvidia is pushing technologies that reduce image quality to save bandwidth(instead of giving their cards more RAM), so I wouldn't be surprised if their memory management isn't as good as AMDs and its geared towards heavy compression (because AMD does more of a brute force kind of thing). Probably their Quadro cards act better...