Is there an optimal amount of Ram for Davinci?

Hi everybody,
I'm planning to build a Davinci dedicated PC (as soon as 4090 cards will be available). I have a precise idea about all the hardware (also thanks to Puget's tests), BUT ram...
More or less: hardware should be one 4090, AsRock WRX80 Creator, trp 5965WX, and 128GB ram (4 banks).
I've read someone testing that 128GB was a perfect amount for Davinci, and that increasing to 256GB (8 banks) doesn't improve meaningfully the actual performance.
Is it true?
Anyone here has experience in performance comparison between 128 vs 256GB of ram?
Many thanks in advance.

I'd say that even between 64 and 128 there are diminishing returns. But Fusion loves RAM.

I'd say that even between 64 and 128 there are diminishing returns. But Fusion loves RAM.

Thanks Uli, so you'd confirm that 128GB is "optimal" for Davinci, but correctly you say that Fusion eats... Well, I don't use Fusion that much... I still don't know...

i have 4 machines, one at 96g, three at 128, no issues with sys ram
never seen resolve useing more than 70ish gig, so for my use case, 96 is workable,
but 128 fills all my ram slots, and that has advantages

but 128 fills all my ram slots, and that has advantages

Ah! So, instead of using 128GB in 4 banks of 32GB/each, it's preferable to use the same amount but subdivided in 8 banks of 16GB/each?

If you do that you're blocking any future upgrades. Short of tossing eight DIMMS. Better to get 4x32 now and IF some time in the future you need more you can add it.

If you do that you're blocking any future upgrades. Short of tossing eight DIMMS. Better to get 4x32 now and IF some time in the future you need more you can add it.

Theoretically... WRX80's manual says that if all 8 slots are occupied, then all 8 banks must be same type/model. Who knows if the specific banks I buy today will be available in a year? This is why I'm in doubt to buy immediately 256GB instead of only 128GB.

I'd say that even between 64 and 128 there are diminishing returns.

I agree(d), but this happened: after compared a couple of tests by Puget I realized that AMD 7950X and TRP 5965WX had pretty close performance results. I wrote to Puget and they confirmed that the cheaper 7950X was just 8% less performative than the much more expensive TRP 5965WX! Since that, 7950X should be the best bang for the buck, right? Well, Puget said no: they said that TRP 5965WX can handle more than 128GB ram, and - they say - I need at least 256GB ram for a 6-8K Color grading projects with BRAW.
If it's true, that means 128GB is far from being a perfect amount of ram for Davinci...

@Nick2021 has your answer - buy RAM in a configuration that allows you to expand later if you want to. Who knows, some new feature in the next release might benefit from tons of RAM.

Also, even if you don't use Fusion yourself, bear in mind that some effects are Fusion-based.

@Nick2021 has your answer - buy RAM in a configuration that allows you to expand later if you want to.

But the point is that ram expandability implies a complete different machine and a drastic change of price range. Example: if you need only 128GB ram you can go for a 7950X and then an X670E mb, so that the ENTIRE PC will cost half the price (or so) of an "expandable machine". Infact, if you buy 128GB ram planning a possible future increase of ram, then you have to go for a completely different machine, with (for example) the TRP 5965WX and a WRX80 mb, so that the expandability will cost you the double of the money!
That is not an easy choice (specially nowadays).
I'm tempted to say that if 128GB ram is considered an "optimal" amount for color grading in Davinci (even for grading 6K-8K RAWs), well I'd go for 128GB ram, 7950X and a cheap X670E mb.
Instead, if a 6K-8K RAW grading project actually needs more ram... then I'd go for the TRP 5965WX and a WRX80 mb.
So, please tell me, what is your experience with 6/8K RAW projects (in color grading only)?
Thanks a lot.

For grading only, 128 GB is the maximum DR will realistically use as it is today.
Now, I have some difficulties to predict the future

For grading only, 128 GB is the maximum DR will realistically use as it is today.

Is this currently true also for magic-mask, depth-map, surface-tracker and plugins like neat-video and dehancer-halation? Or they'd need more ram?
(Thanks)

For computers worrying about future upgrades is often a waste of time. If you believe the rumours this time next year both Intel and AMD will have new HEDT platforms on the market. Buy what you need right now. Over buying just in case often ends up a waste of time and money.

Over buying just in case often ends up a waste of time and money.

I agree! In fact I simply would like to know if now, with the current Davinci, I can see a performance difference between 128GB and 256GB in using magic-mask, depth-map, surface-tracker and plugins like neat-video and dehancer-halation. They are not strictly grading, right? But I'd use them a lot. So, if they would need more ram, I'd simply go for a 256GB system.

No. Those need a lot of VRAM and a strong GPU, not heaps of CPU RAM.

No. Those need a lot of VRAM

Do you mean rtx4090 (24G) or rtx6000 (48G)?

If you have to work with 8K (and beyond), go for 48.

You might want to consider an Intel 12 Gen CPU if you expect to deal with HEVC 10bit 4:2:2 chroma.

If you have to work with 8K (and beyond), go for 48.

So, if I correctly understand, VRAM is more important than cuda cores? Well, I don't use 8K, but 4K RAW often cDNG uncompressed. In my case do you still recommend A6000 against 4090?

You might want to consider an Intel 12 Gen CPU if you expect to deal with HEVC 10bit 4:2:2 chroma.

Thanks for your reply, but I don't use HEVC in my workflow.

The 4090 should be better for 4K. But I don't have one tested myself.

The 4090 should be better for 4K.

Uli, really thanks for your help. I just found THIS post in Davinci forum where the link goes HERE: a comparison between 3090 vs A6000. Well, 3090 is not 4090, but 4090 is absolutely new and may have inherited the same power consumption spikes and throttling issues.

Do you think there are benefits in coupling an A6000 with an expensive WRX80 mb, over coupling the same card with a cheaper X670E mb?

And when you say that neat-video or depth-maps need for a "robust" CPU, do you think the 7950X is good, or you'd prefer the TRP 5965WX?

Many thanks

CPU will mainly matter for export times (unless you use some CPU powered effects).
CPU will matter for some of the source decoding (unless your GPU supports them).
If you want A6000 then probably better match would be faster CPU.

But...it's all bit more complex.

Do you have 8K or even 4K proper monitoring setup?
Do you have a need to deliver 8K ?
What type of 8K sources (RED?) do you work/may work ?

People build those powerful PCs and then they use their power only for 10% time of all work. A6000 is very expensive, so think if you really need it.

I would not really focus on 8K unless I really knew I will work on it and need to deliver at 8K (atm. this is rare case). Problem with 8K is VRAM. You either have enough to render your project or not. You can always work and monitor at 4K, but you need VRAM to be able to render 8K. Same with 4K. You can deliver 4K project on rathe low powered machine as long as it can render it and you don't mind waiting eg. 3h instead 1h for final render.
Over-investing in hardware is just pure waste of money as it gets obsolete so quickly.
128GB should be plenty when it comes to Resolve. You could probably be fine with 64GB.

Over-investing in hardware is just pure waste of money as it gets obsolete so quickly.

Hi Andrew! Thanks for your reply. Please, let me tell you my needs:
1. I don't deliver in 8K, I deliver up to 4K only;
2. I don't mind long rendering time;
3. Footage I use is cDNG uncompressed up to 6K, and BRAW up to 4K (not RED);
4. I want to be as fast as possible (real-time IF possible) with magic-mask, depth-map, and plugins like neat-video and dehancer-halation.
In my case, what is better:
A. 7950X or TRP 5965WX?
B. X670E or WRX80?
C. 4090 24G or A6000 48G?
Thanks

All what you need in this case is to confirm that 24GB VRAM is enough for 4K projects.
From what I read it should be fine even for projects with NR, but best to have 100% confirmation.

If this is the case then I would personally not waste money on A6000.
7950X or TRP 5965WX - what is the price difference? 7950X has nice, very high base clock speed, so it's good.
I think 7950X should be good enough to match 4090 or 3090.

What are you export formats ?

NeatVideo doesn't need to work in RT. You can turn it on only for final renders.

There is a forum member that tested the 4090 and posted here in the forum his results.

Over-investing in hardware is just pure waste of money as it gets obsolete so quickly.

Hi Andrew! Thanks for your reply. Please, let me tell you my needs:
1. I don't deliver in 8K, I deliver up to 4K only;
2. I don't mind long rendering time;
3. Footage I use is cDNG uncompressed up to 6K, and BRAW up to 4K (not RED);
4. I want to be as fast as possible (real-time IF possible) with magic-mask, depth-map, and plugins like neat-video and dehancer-halation.
In my case, what is better:
A. 7950X or TRP 5965WX?
B. X670E or WRX80?
C. 4090 24G or A6000 48G?
Thanks

I agree with Andrew. Uli is right that your better investment is on VRAM and not RAM. Now, here’s my personal experience. I’ve been editing and grading in DVR Studio for many years. All my projects are either narrative short or feature form. If you look at my hardware specs below, that is still what I used today in delivering 2K DCI and 4K DCI in DCP. I usually ingest Prores, in the past CDNG, and BRAW today. Sometimes, I will get ARRI Log, Canon Raw lite, and Sony SLog/3. My typical feature edit and grading is about 90 minutes long, and the original number of clips are numerous but usually delivered in media anywhere from 12-18Tb sizes. I kid you not, I can comfortably edit and grade these projects in DVR Studio with the machine as spec’d below. So whatever above you are looking, is a far cry more that what I have an can do. As I read all the discussions before my post, it felt like someone just wants the greatest toys and make assumptions that anything less won’t do. Good luck to you all.

Thank you all for your appreciated help.

NeatVideo doesn't need to work in RT. You can turn it on only for final renders.

Well, IMVHE monitoring just one frame in 10 seconds can't return the useful perception of how well the NR settings work at 24fps. I know I can't expect to see NeatVideo working in real-time anyway, but my goal is that my new hardware will handle something like 10-12fps with NeatVideo activated.

It felt like someone just wants the greatest toys and make assumptions that anything less won’t do. Good luck to you all.

Not at all, not me. My point is simple and honest: I have to change hardware, and this implies a LOT of money (for me) in any case! Both X670E vs WRX80, or 4090 vs A6000, or 7950X vs 5965WX - beside that the firsts are relatively cheaper than the seconds - are anyway insanely expensive for me. Of course there is a difference between a 9K € PC vs a 12-13K € PC, and you can say that I'll "save" 3K € minimum, but 9K € are so much money for me, that I think is meaningless spending all that money for a non-ideal system. It would be like getting a thirty-year mortgage for a uncomfortable house in a noisy neighborhood

As I mentioned earlier, my timeline can be 2K (mainly with 2K cDNG footage) and 4K (mainly with 4K BRAW) with some 6K cDNG. I don't care about rendering time. I don't use H24x. Very sporadic use of "fog" in Fusion. My goal is having preview in real-time with magic-mask, depth-map, surface-tracker and neat-video (as much as possible).

Now I simply need the right hardware for this scenario and the planned goal. That means the cheaper hardware that CAN handle that goal, no more.

Since 128GB of ram should be sufficient, all that remains is to consider CPU and GPU: so we have 7950X+X670E vs trp5965WX+WRX80; and then 4090 vs A6000.

You guys tell me CPU and GPU, and I'll go for that

I have 128G and I have never seen it get over 80/90%.


3950X
RTX 2080 TI

10-12 fps for NV shouldn't be a problem with any good desktop.
I get 7.6 fps in UHD on my humble laptop and this if the timeline is set to HD (2K should be similar):

Bildschirmfoto 2022-10-20 um 09.52.49.png (109.59 KiB) Viewed 7061 times

(scroll)

Depth Map is 8 fps in HD.

10-12 fps for NV shouldn't be a problem with any good desktop.
I get 7.6 fps in UHD on my humble laptop and this if the timeline is set to HD. Depth Map is 8 fps in HD.

So, if I correctly understand, the size of the footage on the timeline is not that important, instead it's the timeline size that determines VRAM and CPU effort. Is that right? It should mean that, for example, 6K cDNG footage on a 2K timeline implies the same VRAM+CPU effort of 2K cDNG footage on the same 2K timeline?

We opted to go with 256GB of RAM and 8 GPUs on our main Mac Pro system (4 x Radeon Pro Vega II Duos) just because we could. My philosophy was, on the chance we have to run something in the background -- like a Premiere or Avid edit session, plus transcoding files in another program -- we can't afford for anything to slow us down. I think there's probably less than 10% of real-world performance difference between 128GB and 256GB of RAM, and candle tests indicate there's vanishingly-small difference between 4 GPUs and 8 GPUs. But it is a little faster.

Of course, different results happen in Windows than Mac OS, plus the newer M1/M2 processors are different than the Intel CPU we have at the moment. But my goal was having a 2019 system that would hold us for 6-7 years, and so far, I think we're on track for that with no problem. It paid for itself in a few months, so the cost was not as critical as it might be for others.

We just added a Mac Studio Ultra as a secondary system, and I still have the MacBook Pro for miscellaneous background chores. My joke is, "the best way to be really productive with Resolve is to have multiple systems in the room, all running at the same time." And it has helped in several time-sensitive situations.

As I mentioned earlier, my timeline can be 2K (mainly with 2K cDNG footage) and 4K (mainly with 4K BRAW) with some 6K cDNG. I don't care about rendering time. I don't use H24x. Very sporadic use of "fog" in Fusion. My goal is having preview in real-time with magic-mask, depth-map, surface-tracker and neat-video (as much as possible).

Now I simply need the right hardware for this scenario and the planned goal. That means the cheaper hardware that CAN handle that goal, no more.

You don’t need a $9K or $13K PC to be able to do what you said above. A 3-4K PC desktop will be more than suitable. Here is one that’s configured to handle a 4K timeline smoothly.

9D851369-C0FD-41D6-944C-CBFC82CA53E6.jpeg (103.2 KiB) Viewed 7002 times

If you want to go the Mac route, the Mac Studio MAX or ULTRA will set you back about $4-6K and will be able to handle your requirements without any issues.

I’m not sure what your thinking is but feel free to spend whatever. I’m just trying to help you with practical options and save some money.

Yes, timeline resolution matters most for realtime or near realtime playback. You can always work at a reduced timeline resolution, as long as you can check what you need to see (like noise structure or correct focus, for example).
For final render you can up the resolution. At that point, enough VRAM will be needed, of course.

I’m not sure what you’re thinking is but feel free to spend whatever. I just trying to help you with practical options.

And I sincerely appreciate that! Also thanks for the PC profile!

Yes, timeline resolution matters most for realtime or near realtime playback. You can always work at a reduced timeline resolution, as long as you can check what you need to see (like noise structure or correct focus, for example). For final render you can up the resolution.

Sorry for my silly doubt, but how do you up the resolution? I mean, if I change timeline's res I could mess powerwindows and tracking, right? Or if I change delivery's res it could scale the 2K timeline to 4K, but in this way an original 4K clip downsized to 2K timeline would have lost its original res, am I wrong? (I'm a newbie, be patient

DR is resolution independent. You can change the timeline resolution at any time.
But upscaling on output would be crap, you need to change the timeline to the higher resolution before rendering. Assuming that your sources support as much, of course. Many users with limited computing power work that way.

Before making such an investment, why not cover some of the free training by BM if you have any decent computer around?

In Resolve timeline resolution is most important and you don't loose quality by flipping it back and forth.
You need to be able to decode source in real-time as well.
In your case BRAW can be decoded at fractional resolutions so this will never be an issue.
CDNG should be fine with machines which you mentioned as well.

You can work in HD timeline and then switch to UHD before render. Then you check titles, noise etc as this needs to be rather configured/checked at 1:1 pixels ( you rather need 1:1 monitoring as well).
There may be some elements which may not convert properly but you can always correct them if needed at final resolution. You can check if Resolve converts tracking etc fine when you change resolution. Most things should work, but best to check.
HD timeline resolution and UHD makes HUGE difference. If you have project which is problematic you can always switch to HD for the time you grade/edit etc. It’s standard approach.
13K euro? I would not spent such a money on PC unless I had few well paid projects waiting.
Half of it should be enough.

Open some of your finished projects, change resolution to HD and check what gone bad and what not. Check playback- maybe you don’t need new machine at all Today a lot of work can be even done with laptop (and then you move for finish to more powerful machine).

A6000 are for top end studios which charge small fortune for projects. It’s about volume and project value because even if they make 20% profit this is still a lot if project is worth a 1MLN. You can’t compete with them on many levels, but you can be smart ( you have way more freedom compared to them) as they also have ( different) limitations and quite often struggle with profits. They don’t that easily waste money on overpowered hardware. It has to work, please client, but it will never be overdone for no reason.

What matters is quality of your work not how fancy was the machine which it was done with.

You don't work/deliver ProRes otherwise I would say buy MacStudio. Pure GPU power is not at 3090 level but overall machine is very capable and those ProRes accelerators are amazing. I do simple corrections on mainly ProRes masters (or create SDR from HDR) in Resolve and in my case even 30K PC would not match standard Studio machine. I think in your case PC may be better choice although with Macs you can easily sell them after 3 years and get new one.

I do have the following configuration:

AMD Ryzen 9 5900X + Noctua NH-U12A
Gigabyte B550 Vision D-P
Corsair Vengeance LPX 128GB (4x32GB) DDR4 3600MHz C18
PNY NVIDIA RTX A6000 48GByte
Seasonic PRIME TX-1000 80PLUS Titanium 1000 Watt
WD_BLACK SN850 2TB NVMe; PCIe Gen4
Crucial P5 CT2000P5SSD8 2 TB
LSI 9750 RAID-5 with 8x 16TB Toshiba MG08ACA16TE

I have never been able to push the RAM to its limits in Resolve, neither with 4k nor 8k timelines.
Also never filled the GPU memory, except when using the AI Stable Diffusion with 1024 x 1024px

I think you should go with the faster 4090, especially NeatVideo bogs down any GPU in higher resolutions and with higher temporal settings. Also Neat benefits from fast system RAM data rates.

Are those 40xx available and easy to buy ?

They are in stores here in Portugal but at 2000 euro or more. Including 23% IVA tax.

Just checked- about 2K euro in Poland as well, but not so easy with stock. Those in stock are 2.5K euro.

Well, thank you all guys for your kind advices. I appreciate a lot.

You don't work/deliver ProRes otherwise I would say buy MacStudio.

Well, actually I have tons of prores files to be edited because I worked on an hackintosh up to now, but no one of them is a master file. All my current prores files are proxies of an old personal project to be completed in a couple of years, where all the master files are cDNG. Since I'm going to switch on a Windows PC, I think I can continue to edit the prores proxies without re-encoding them in dnxhd.

I have never been able to push the RAM to its limits in Resolve, neither with 4k nor 8k timelines.

I wonder: is it possible that this happens because of the limited ram management of the 5900X? i.e. Is it possible that a threadripperPRO could manage ram better so that Davinci can use more ram?

Also never filled the GPU memory.

It's easy to believe, you have 48GB VRAM!

128GB is fine, the bigger question is PCIe lanes.

Opt for the Workstation with more PCIe lanes if that is important to you, otherwise the consumer/gamer PC with 128GB of RAM will do you fine.We have a 7950X with 128GB RAM and 3090 and have never hit the limit with RAM and Resolve, and we have a 128GB Threadripper setup that hasn't hit the limit either. We regularly use 64GB MacBook Pro M1 Max and haven't had a problem with RAM and Resolve.

We do a lot of film work, as in film scans at greateer than 4K that require a lot of cleanup and grading, and 128GB is not the limitation with Resolve, the GPU RAM has been more of an issue, so if you are getting one or more 24GB GPUs, then 128GB of RAM will be fine for quite some time.

If you have unlimited budget, get the Threadripper/Xeon with all the lanes and 256GB, otherwise, look at the 9 Series AMD or new Intel Chips on consumer boards, but really, the 128GB limitation is likely to be less of a problem than the limitations of the smaller number of PCIe lanes available.

ProRes is no problem on any capable PC, even without the dedicated hardware. It's not such a heavy codec.
You just can't generate it on the PC (from DR).

ProRes is no problem on any capable PC, even without the dedicated hardware. It's not such a heavy codec.
You just can't generate it on the PC (from DR).

You can - by using the free Voukoder encoder plugin for Resolve.

Well, thank you all guys for your kind advices. I appreciate a lot.

You don't work/deliver ProRes otherwise I would say buy MacStudio.

Well, actually I have tons of prores files to be edited because I worked on an hackintosh up to now, but no one of them is a master file. All my current prores files are proxies of an old personal project to be completed in a couple of years, where all the master files are cDNG. Since I'm going to switch on a Windows PC, I think I can continue to edit the prores proxies without re-encoding them in dnxhd.

I have never been able to push the RAM to its limits in Resolve, neither with 4k nor 8k timelines.

I wonder: is it possible that this happens because of the limited ram management of the 5900X? i.e. Is it possible that a threadripperPRO could manage ram better so that Davinci can use more ram?

Also never filled the GPU memory.

It's easy to believe, you have 48GB VRAM!

Not sure why you are stressed so much about RAM. It should be about least of your worry. 128GB is plenty and even if you were to hit its limit Resolve won’t stop working. If you hit VRAM then it’s the end.

ProRes as a source is fine (even 4K). You just won’t be able to export it on PC, which is big issue for me as 90% my exports are ProRes.
What those Mac accelerators give you is 5min export for 1H timeline ( if processing task is not intensive).

NeatVideo benchmarked the 4090 now:
https://blog.neatvideo.com/post/rtx4090

Resolve is not a heavy system memory hog. We have graded 4K shows with 32GB and it worked.

NeatVideo benchmarked the 4090 now:
https://blog.neatvideo.com/post/rtx4090

Impressive... I'm seriously impressed. But those photos of the melted connectors are impressive too...

Resolve is not a heavy system memory hog. We have graded 4K shows with 32GB and it worked.

Agreed, most of my projects are UHD and 32GB is more than enough for the light grading and effects I use.

However, I do tend to use stand-alone Fusion (via VFX-connect) for my compositing and VFX rather than the Fusion page because this seems to make much better use of system RAM.

I would not however, even think about using a GPU with less than 12GB of VRAM -- which is why I chose the RTX3060 over the RTX3060Ti. Once you start doing stuff like temporal noise reduction VRAM consumption can be quite heavy.. I'm regularly hitting 10GB on quite a few UHD projects.

I'm regularly hitting 10GB on quite a few UHD projects.

Silly question: which app do you use for this kind of measurement?