GPU Acceleration in DR 18 free vs Studio

I'm completely jazzed that the free version of DR 18 has hardware acceleration. My question is does the Studio version do this acceleration better? If so, can anyone quantify?

Yes. More effects and tools have acceleration in Studio than in Free.
I think it was great idea from BMD to have some GPU acceleration in free as a show for what is possible.

I agree but… I don’t think there’s any way to see what’s actually different with and without hardware acceleration. Am I mistaken?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only changes in regards to hardware acceleration are H.264/265 decode. V17.4 added h.265 accelerated export to free.

Any effect that is gpu accelerated in Studio is accelerated in Free and will run at the same speed.

Now, you have less effects to choose from, Free doesn't have NR, lens correction, camera tracking, etc.

But beginners are rarely going to run into something they can't do in free.

Resolve free on Windows does not support 10bit h.265 decode. So if you need to use this footage you have 3 options;
Transcode to DNxHR HQX with Shutter Encoder, free
Use a Mac
Buy a $300 studio key.

So you’re saying the ONLY difference that free users will see when upgrading to studio wrt gpu acceleration is 10 bit H.265? And that restriction doesn’t exist on Macs?

So we should stop telling people studio may fix their play performance issues in all other cases?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So....I'm just a noob, but a YT showing how fast a timeline renders under DR 18 free vs Studio might be interesting. Maybe a couple of iterations with simple to more complex projects. Showing a difference or no difference might garner views.

Anyone up to the challenge, or does everyone think it's a waste of time??

The Studio version also supports multiple GPUs so if you have deep pockets, you can get higher performance that way.

However, there are some caveats:

1. It is better to have a single, high-performance GPU with lots of VRAM than to have two lesser performers.
2. If you have two GPUs, they should match (if they don't, the lesser will probably drag down the overall performance to the point where it would have been better with just one).

Typically you would spend many thousands of dollars on a rig capable of running Resolve smoothly. For me, I would spend the extra $300 on Studio for the extra effects and in Windows, the 10-bit 4:2:2 decoding support.

My Windows rig (see signature) is underpowered by today's standards and if I could afford it, I would put at least a single high-end GPU in that chassis. The P4000 just doesn't have enough guts for many a task.

Resolve free on Windows does not support 10bit h.265 decode.

It does now.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=166300

I have upgraded my machine for relatively cheap. I bought a ryzen 9 5900x for $75, a 2060 with 6gb (ddr6) for $200 and an MSI x570 for $150. I had 5 2700x, 1050ti 4gb, MSI x450.

This was substantially beefier than my earlier rig. I saw huge drop in render times. It would take 45 to 50 minutes to render an hour long clip with two or three fusion transitions, a 60 second intro with green screen background. Now it is down to 12 minutes!

I'm not sure that I can justify $300 for Studio. I want to buy it, cause it would be my new shiny toy, but I can't imagine my times would be cut in half. Mostly, I'm just curious about what kind of performance (rendering) would happen if anyone upgraded to Studio now that hardware acceleration is included in the free version.

Resolve free on Windows does not support 10bit h.265 decode.

It does now.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=166300

No, it doesn't apparently. Dwaine was mistaken as he later noted.

Thanks, Steve. Good to know.

I have upgraded my machine for relatively cheap. I bought a ryzen 9 5900x for $75, a 2060 with 6gb (ddr6) for $200 and an MSI x570 for $150. I had 5 2700x, 1050ti 4gb, MSI x450.

This was substantially beefier than my earlier rig. I saw huge drop in render times. It would take 45 to 50 minutes to render an hour long clip with two or three fusion transitions, a 60 second intro with green screen background. Now it is down to 12 minutes!

I'm not sure that I can justify $300 for Studio. I want to buy it, cause it would be my new shiny toy, but I can't imagine my times would be cut in half. Mostly, I'm just curious about what kind of performance (rendering) would happen if anyone upgraded to Studio now that hardware acceleration is included in the free version.

If you don't use 10-bit 4:2:2 H265 footage (such as from a Canon R6 in CLog3), then in your case and with your hardware, you probably wouldn't experience any performance gains from moving to Studio. Of course, you wouldn't get any of the additional features of Studio, but it sounds like you don't need those.

If you don't use 10-bit 4:2:2 H265 footage (such as from a Canon R6 in CLog3), then in your case and with your hardware, you probably wouldn't experience any performance gains from moving to Studio. Of course, you wouldn't get any of the additional features of Studio, but it sounds like you don't need those.

I just do weekly youtubes of my pastor's sermons from Sunday. Very simple, nothing too fancy. I use a Lumix G4. Shoot 4k, render 1080 timeline, upload 1080, mp4 h264 or h265.

But I'm wasn't just asking for myself, or my use case. I'm really curious if rendering with Studio would have any difference. Everyone here seems to say not at all.

Thanks for all the replies.

I didn't say 'not at all'. In fact, if you have deep pockets and can afford multiple high-end GPUs, you will definitely see an increase in performance for some workflows (since Studio supports multiple GPUs).

I didn't say 'not at all'. In fact, if you have deep pockets and can afford multiple high-end GPUs, you will definitely see an increase in performance for some workflows (since Studio supports multiple GPUs).

True. You didn't. But from my perspective you might as well since I don't have deep pockets AND what was implied in my question was "if you don't change the hardware" will you see a difference. I did not make that explicit, so you can ding me for that.

One more time: I'd love to know if you only changed whether you are using free or Studio, would you see any difference in render speed? If you added more complexity to the timeline (but only with what you can do in both versions), would there be any difference in render times (which I equate with efficiency in hardware acceleration)?

What I think I'm hearing is the answer is a resounding no. The code for hardware acceleration in the free version is essentially the same in the Studio version. The difference might be that the Studio could make use of multiple gpus.

Peter said something on another thread that implied there might not be the same or as much hardware acceleration for H.264 in free. I asked him to chime in and I hope he does as I think his words would be pretty definitive on this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't say 'not at all'. In fact, if you have deep pockets and can afford multiple high-end GPUs, you will definitely see an increase in performance for some workflows (since Studio supports multiple GPUs).

True. You didn't. But from my perspective you might as well since I don't have deep pockets AND what was implied in my question was "if you don't change the hardware" will you see a difference. I did not make that explicit, so you can ding me for that.

....

Not to be 'too' argumentative, but you also mentioned that you were not just asking for yourself, hence, I was answering for others who may read this thread and be asking the broader question irrespective of hardware limitations.

I'd love to know if you only changed whether you are using free or Studio, would you see any difference in render speed?

Yes, for a start you have access to many more encoders. For example in mp4 you are restricted to DaVinci H.264 and H.265 encoder free , even if you have a Nvidia you can't use their encoder. In Studio you have the Nvidia encoder available.


PS: it is clear that we can't answer your question saying this have acceleration this don't have in each version. We don't have that detailed information. Maybe you can go deep into manual and find every GPU code word and check.

Not to be 'too' argumentative, but you also mentioned that you were not just asking for yourself, hence, I was answering for others who may read this thread and be asking the broader question irrespective of hardware limitations.

Steve, I really do appreciate your answer. I did think that the answer to my question might be of interest to others besides myself. So, thank you. It is hard to read people's intentions on forums. Sometimes it seems people are just answering questions to the best of their abilities and sometimes it feels like there is some level of animosity or something negative.

I'm trying to be positive and appreciate all the positivity that is here!

I'd love to know if you only changed whether you are using free or Studio, would you see any difference in render speed?

Yes, for a start you have access to many more encoders. For example in mp4 you are restricted to DaVinci H.264 and H.265 encoder free , even if you have a Nvidia you can't use their encoder. In Studio you have the Nvidia encoder available.


PS: it is clear that we can't answer your question saying this have acceleration this don't have in each version. We don't have that detailed information. Maybe you can go deep into manual and find every GPU code word and check.

Alex, please understand that I am both a noob with DR and I don't understand a lot of the technical aspects that go into video editing, hardware or software. You don't have to explain, but I'm not sure I understand part of your answer. I have Nvidia, but I can't use their encoder? I'm not sure what that means...and I'm not sure if I need to or want to. Don't take that in an insulting way, because that is not at all what I mean.

If my question is unanswerable, then forgive me for asking it. Chalk it up to an ignorant noob asking a dumb question. I really did think it was a simple question. If I had Studio, I would render the same timeline in both versions to see if it made any difference. If it did, I'd say cool. If it didn't, I'd say cool. And then, I'd move on with life!!

I don't really want to know everything about the differences between the coding in both versions. Some people have that level of interest. I'm not even close to that.

Thanks for the input though. I'm grateful that several people bothered to answer the question at all.

Encoder what makes your video render file, decoder is what make you see that video render file.
So when you make a render you have to choose an encoder. Both are part of what makes a Codec.
So if you have Studio version you can use Nvidia encoder if you have a Nvidia card with stronger acceleration. If you have Free version is not possible.

Encoder what makes your video render file, decoder is what make you see that video render file.
So when you make a render you have to choose an encoder. Both are part of what makes a Codec.
So if you have Studio version you can use Nvidia encoder if you have a Nvidia card with stronger acceleration. If you have Free version is not possible.

Thanks for the explanation. If I understand that, then it seems the render should be faster in Studio than in free. If the Nvidia encoder has "stronger acceleration" doesn't that translate into faster speed of render?

If I understand that, then it seems the render should be faster in Studio than in free. If the Nvidia encoder has "stronger acceleration" doesn't that translate into faster speed of render?

Here is a comparison on my system with Ryzen 3900x and RTX 3060

Render 1 hour of H.264 video with Native H.264 encoder: 15:30 minutes
With NVEncoder: 4:30 Minutes

Resolve free on Windows does not support 10bit h.265 decode.

It does now.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=166300

No, it doesn't apparently. Dwaine was mistaken as he later noted.

He didn't say that. WHY IS THIS SUCH A CONFUSING SUBJECT.

He said on a fresh windows install, it's not possible to play HEVC 10bit, but I believe he also said on a non fresh windows install he had access to the free version does play back certain HEVC 10BIT files, with a possible explanation being Windows HEVC extension made it possible.

Thanks for the explanation. If I understand that, then it seems the render should be faster in Studio than in free. If the Nvidia encoder has "stronger acceleration" doesn't that translate into faster speed of render?

The thing to understand is there is optimal money is no object. There is good enough. We're all somewhere in between usually.

Nvidia encoder is faster than your CPU. The question then becomes is the quality exactly the same. I'm not opening that can of worms

With Studio and for example an Intel IGPU feeding a NVidia card you could gain a bit. The IGPU does the decoding. The GPU the encoding. This would be even more obvious if you're currently using the CPU to decode . The first case is a smallish increase in speed. The second one likely a quite large one.

Studio awhile backed added Intel's hyperencode which claims a big jump in performance. Problem is Intel hasn't shipped the GPUs yet. All we have are the Intel tests showing 40-50% speed jump.

The simple answer would be: get a Mac (Apple silicon) if you use one of those recent cameras encoding to HEVC 10 bit and 4:2:2.
Please no ****storm. I know Macs are expensive, slow, need too much energy and are very unstable
(One of these points is correct, guess which)

Regarding my comment about Dwaine being mistaken re: Resolve 18 'Free' being able to playback HEVC 4:2:2 10-bit on Windows:

He didn't say that. WHY IS THIS SUCH A CONFUSING SUBJECT.

He said on a fresh windows install, it's not possible to play HEVC 10bit, but I believe he also said on a non fresh windows install he had access to the free version does play back certain HEVC 10BIT files, with a possible explanation being Windows HEVC extension made it possible.

What Dwaine did say is this:

"So with apologies and egg on my face, and bad news for Windows users of free Resolve, I was mistaken about the ability of the 18.0.1 free version to play H.265 10 bit files, and it appears that it really is a manual oversight that it doesn't show that the free version lacks this capability."

The number of people who post on this forum complaining that they cannot see their videos and it turns out that they are trying to view HEVC 4:2:2 10-bit and the answer is always 'You need the Studio version' (and not once have I read that you can just buy an HEVC extension for Windows to allow HEVC to playback in Resolve 'Free'). This may well be true - I can't say (and hopefully someone will be able to confirm this one day), but it is also possible that Dwaine had some other changes to the machine he tested that are internal to BMD and not available to the rest of us. In other words, we don't know what was installed on his 'non fresh windows install'.

Can anyone positively confirm that an extension to Windows will allow HEVC 4:2:2 10-bit playback in the free version of Resolve 18?

If I understand that, then it seems the render should be faster in Studio than in free. If the Nvidia encoder has "stronger acceleration" doesn't that translate into faster speed of render?

Here is a comparison on my system with Ryzen 3900x and RTX 3060

Render 1 hour of H.264 video with Native H.264 encoder: 15:30 minutes
With NVEncoder: 4:30 Minutes

You might just be my hero!
I assume you are using DR 18 in both cases. Please confirm. That is almost 4x faster!!

Can anyone positively confirm that an extension to Windows will allow HEVC 4:2:2 10-bit playback in the free version of Resolve 18?

I can test in 17.6 if you give me or point to a sample.

10bits 4:2:2 Aja Xena codec works without problems.

I just do weekly youtubes of my pastor's sermons from Sunday. Very simple, nothing too fancy. I use a Lumix G4. Shoot 4k, render 1080 timeline, upload 1080, mp4 h264 or h265.

Not wishing to muddy the waters further, but have you tried rendering to H.265 and comparing that to rendering in H.264? As ZRGARDNE mentioned earlier, V17.4 added H.265 hardware-accelerated export to free Resolve on Windows. You might get 4 times faster encoding in H.265 compared with H.264, plus smaller file sizes, all on the free version - with the caveat that this is probably only works for 8 bit H.265. Win-win!

For more info, take a look at Mr Alex Tech's video:

The studio version will additionally give you the option of using NVENC (i.e. the built-in encoding chip in an Nvidia card) to encode, but I've no idea whether that would now be any faster than free Resolve for H.265 on Windows, though it certainly speeds up H.264 encoding massively. Note that some people claim that NVENC encoding is inferior to other encoders, but I believe this trope is now straying into urban legend territory. I've never seen any differences myself using Nvidia GPUs made in the last few years when compared with the (much slower) CPU encoding.

We could really use some BMD clarification on the differences between free & Studio as these questions come up very often here. The FAQ is some years out of date and points to a Resolve v15 PDF which is the last-known official document to fully clarify the differences between the two versions!

Regarding my comment about Dwaine being mistaken re: Resolve 18 'Free' being able to playback HEVC 4:2:2 10-bit on Windows:

The number of people who post on this forum complaining that they cannot see their videos and it turns out that they are trying to view HEVC 4:2:2 10-bit and the answer is always 'You need the Studio version' (and not once have I read that you can just buy an HEVC extension for Windows to allow HEVC to playback in Resolve 'Free').

Can anyone positively confirm that an extension to Windows will allow HEVC 4:2:2 10-bit playback in the free version of Resolve 18?

Windows HEVC extension allows GPU DECODING (and a fallback to software decoding). I'm working on the premise that playback of 10bit HEVC is only possible via the GPU. Most people are unable to GPU decode HEVC 4:2:2 10-bit, so it won't play back on free version except possibly with 11th or 12gen Intel CPU, where decoder is set to Intel.

HEVC 4:2:0 10-bit of less than 4k should be able to be played back with HEVC extension installed if this is true, you're throwing further spanners of confusion into the works by talking about HEVC 4:2:2 10-bit. Also I don't know specifically what makes it possible for some Resolve free users to playback HEVC 4:2:0 10-bit but the HEVC extensions makes the most sense to me if you have a compatible GPU decoder for that format that needs playing back.

Could someone confirm or refute this please

What Dwaine did say is this:

"So with apologies and egg on my face, and bad news for Windows users of free Resolve, I was mistaken about the ability of the 18.0.1 free version to play H.265 10 bit files, and it appears that it really is a manual oversight that it doesn't show that the free version lacks this capability."

I'm not sure if this is only 10-bit 4:2:2 - THe problem is always reported by people trying to decode Sony or Canon log footage recorded on Full Frame cameras (not RAW) - and these seem to record 10-bit 4:2:2 HEVC. Maybe other flavours of 10-bit HEVC can be decoded with Resolve Free.

I wish I could install the free version alongside Studio so I could test this for myself. There does seem to be confusion. I guess it's possible people believe they're playing HEVC 4:2:0 10bit on free version but they aren't really. At this point I have no idea

I wish I could install the free version alongside Studio so I could test this for myself. There does seem to be confusion. I guess it's possible people believe they're playing HEVC 4:2:0 10bit on free version but they aren't really. At this point I have no idea

I have. Information based on MediaInfo.

I wish I could install the free version alongside Studio so I could test this for myself. There does seem to be confusion. I guess it's possible people believe they're playing HEVC 4:2:0 10bit on free version but they aren't really. At this point I have no idea

I have. Information based on MediaInfo.

Steve how do you respond to this?

I wish I could install the free version alongside Studio so I could test this for myself. There does seem to be confusion. I guess it's possible people believe they're playing HEVC 4:2:0 10bit on free version but they aren't really. At this point I have no idea

I have. Information based on MediaInfo.

Steve how do you respond to this?

I guess I'll defer to Dwaine who was pretty clear about the limitations of the free Resolve.

Maybe 4:2:0 10-bit HEVC can be played with the correct extension installed for Windows, but not 4:2:2?

If the limitation no longer exists, great, but it would seem that not everyone is getting these results so it would be nice if BMD would clarify this by telling users how they can decode this media with the free version. Even BMD is saying there are limitations (we just don't know what these limitations are, evidently).

Also worth considering and as you said GPU decoding, and HEVC playback is supposed to be a product differential, designed to make you pay for Studio. A BM employee most likely should not be verifying ways to circumvent a limitation(by design) of Free Resolve

Can anyone positively confirm that an extension to Windows will allow HEVC 4:2:2 10-bit playback in the free version of Resolve 18?

I can test in 17.6 if you give me or point to a sample.

10bits 4:2:2 Aja Xena codec works without problems.

This is interesting. Is the Aja Xena codec a flavour of HEVC? Can you post a media info screen shot of the media? Also the media you noted above in response to HEVC 4:2:0 10-bit playback. This will help others who want to know which 10-bit HEVC codecs will playback in the free version of Resolve. Thx.

I can give you better.
The 10bit 4:2:0 are here to download https://www.eoshd.com/news/download-my- ... ware-v1-0/


The Aja Xena was from the post our fellow from Isramedia member made recently about a job here in forum. I downloaded it to try myself what i can do in Fusion but other stuff got in away.
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=166434

Since it is a 4Gb file i attached the Mediainfo

ForBlackmagicForum.jpg (59.38 KiB) Viewed 24290 times

Very cool. Thanks Alex.

Note i am in V17 with HEVC codec extension. I don't think AJA is related to HEVC.

Right. Thanks. I looked it up and I agree that the Aja codec does not appear to be related to HEVC.

Cheers

Update: I'm in the process of uploading a 5 second clip from my Canon R6 shot in CLog3 / Cinema Gamut - This is an IPB UHD shot. I'll post a link here when done. It's about 125 MB in size.

Update2:

Here's the link to the sample footage: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lbtFiU529IJ-QVH1H8NKIwFqh2-h9qVe/view?usp=drivesdk

(Resolve reports as H.265 Main 4:2:2 10 L5.1 with Linear PCM 48kHz audio 2CH)

I also recall years ago that my Sony that shot XAVC-L 4:2:2 10-bit Full HD could not be played by the Free version but that was back in Resolve 15 or so... just interesting that I ran into this limitation so long ago that I guess I never considered that BMD would change this limitation (it was one of the reasons I purchased the Studio version back then).

That file plays only the sound in DR17 but the issue is not only DR17, PotPlayer starts grey and appear an image at end, Beta VLC4 and MPV play okay.
In DR17 sound goes to timeline but the video don't. In media page the video is just grey.

Thanks for testing, Alex. That’s the issue with the free version of Resolve I was referencing.

Playing fine here.

Playing fine here.

On Studio, correct, Uli?

I'm not sure why Resolve free can't play it. It sounds like it's the 4:2:2 combined with the 10-bit. Maybe there is something that can be installed on Windows to allow Resolve free to play these but I didn't bother to look for it 'cause the $300 for Studio was a no-brainer for me (personal choice).

Apparently on a Mac the limitation does not apply, of course (I can even play these files on my iPad Pro 2018).

Yes i think it is a bit silly limitation for just 4:2:2 HEVC. I agree about the price, i'll probably buy it before end of the year.

Just got off the phone with someone at BMD and the guy had to put me on hold in order to find out if it was true the free version didn't accept 4:2:2 10Bit. Nice guy but wasn't sure about some things.

I asked to see if they have a run down check list of features for the free vs the Studio and they don't have any. I really hoped they did instead of me hunting down other sources.

It's news to me but may not be for others, 4:2:2 10 bit works on Mac's because of their relationship with ProRes Raw. PC bites the dust once more. This was also another thing the agent was not able to explain. I'm not complaining, I just thought the source would have these details

Just got off the phone with someone at BMD and the guy had to put me on hold in order to find out if it was true the free version didn't accept 4:2:2 10Bit. Nice guy but wasn't sure about some things.

You would be better off finding out what are the capabilities of the Microsoft HEVC extension. The free version of Resolve doesn't allow HEVC decode. Most likely codec support is related to your GPU's decoder, and where your GPU can not decode a particular HEVC type, it's related to the software decoding support of Microsoft HEVC extension.

In a sense you're using a method to circumvent the rights of the Software copyright holder, but BM choose not to block it, or worse for you, the executives don't know this is possible, and will eventually block the extension's capability to provide HEVC codec and GPU decode support for a product that's not supposed to have it. Another take: HEVC decode is not supported internally in free version due to patent fee's, if you use a 3rd party extension to allow decode that's fine.

Just got off the phone with someone at BMD and the guy had to put me on hold in order to find out if it was true the free version didn't accept 4:2:2 10Bit. Nice guy but wasn't sure about some things.

I asked to see if they have a run down check list of features for the free vs the Studio and they don't have any. I really hoped they did instead of me hunting down other sources.

Amazing how they sell a product without documentation of what it supports. I thought it truly embarrassing they didn't have a supported codecs document for V17.

I submitted a ticket to get the V18 one fixed, so hopefully that clears up the confusion soon.