Blackmagic Forum

I use Adobe and recently purchased DaVinci. Adobe doesn't take full use of my hardware (AMD 2990wx 32-core processor, GeForce 1080ti, 64GB 2667 ram, nvme m.2 SSD drives) because it still skips while scrubbing timeline and some effects take forever to apply. I've heard Adobe doesn't take full advantage of these new multi-core processors.

Will DaVinci like my computer system? Or is DaVinci built to favor Intel or processors with 8 cores or less?

twentyfourimages wrote:I use Adobe and recently purchased DaVinci. Adobe doesn't take full use of my hardware (AMD 2990wx 32-core processor, GeForce 1080ti, 64GB 2667 ram, nvme m.2 SSD drives) because it still skips while scrubbing timeline and some effects take forever to apply. I've heard Adobe doesn't take full advantage of these new multi-core processors.

Will DaVinci like my computer system? Or is DaVinci built to favor Intel or processors with 8 cores or less?

Still not clear at the moment

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=70646

and





Long story short, nobody has a clear answer (BlackmagicDesign, Microsoft and AMD).

Hi.

In Resolve the CPU is used to run the app, disk I/O 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.

When I think back on the reviews I read on the AMD 2990wx 32-core processor, do I remember that it is good to run many different programs at once, not to run only one single program. My personal feeling was, that there is a problem in Windows, as some few Linux programs scaled much better. But only time can tell.

Regards Carsten.

In general It's true Adobe favors fewer cores with higher clock speeds, and Resolve seems to do better at utilizing more cores.

However, when toy get int to the high core/thread count zone the answer always becomes it depends.

Some tasks simply can't be palatalized indefinitely.

Is there any newer info on this?

I have a 12 core mac with 128GB RAM. Resolve is very sluggish rendering whilst at the same time all other activity is slowed down (as if it's hogging resources) - but in Activity monitor it's only using 8% or so of the CPU and the memory use is also at less than 20% .

If I was able to tell it use more cores that at least would troubleshoot this situation.

Does anyone know if that is possible, either in the free or paid versions?

richardford wrote:Is there any newer info on this?

I have a 12 core mac with 128GB RAM. Resolve is very sluggish rendering whilst at the same time all other activity is slowed down (as if it's hogging resources) - but in Activity monitor it's only using 8% or so of the CPU and the memory use is also at less than 20% .

If I was able to tell it use more cores that at least would troubleshoot this situation.

Does anyone know if that is possible, either in the free or paid versions?

Look at your GPU load.
The paid version is so cheap, just buy it when you want to do some real work with it.

So for Resolve daily editing... using Color or Fusion or Fairlight... probably no noticeable difference between a i9 9900K and a Ryzen 9 3950x?

Hi.

I am sorry, but I can't see what a two old post about the previous generation AMD 2990wx CPU or a two month old post about a 12 core mac have to do with, either the Intel i9 9900K or the Ryzen 9 3950x?
Suggest you create your own thread. Then we will be very happy to answer you.

Regards Carsten.

Dear BMD personnel

Is someone from BMD able to give us definitive guidance as to whether we should choose CPU's with higher single core performance, or higher multi core performance - and what variables influence that in terms of the nature of our video editing/Fusion/color editing etc.

It's like a car manufacturer telling its users which grade of fuel is best, what tyre pressure, what type of tyres to use, what lubricating oil etc. What I'm saying is, the manufacturer is in the best position to give this advice. It wouldn't make sense to make this a mystery. I imagine it is in BMD's best interests for its users to be optimizing their performance.

If you have a choice between higher freq lower core count and lower freq higher core count and freq x numCores and other specifics are equal for both, first option is faster in all softwares due to benefits in single-threaded ops which are unavoidably there, whatever the processing method is. There are cpus where a few cores can run at higher speeds than the rest though, to aid the single-threaded speedup, so it might not be as clear cut, but general principle applies.

rsf123 wrote: Is someone from BMD able to give us definitive guidance as to whether we should choose CPU's with higher single core performance, or higher multi core performance - and what variables influence that in terms of the nature of our video editing/Fusion/color editing etc.

Hi.

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

In the paid STUDIO Version of Resolve, can certain combination of Codec, Resolutions, Bit width and Chroma subsampling be hardware decoded/encoded on either a AMD/nVidea Graphics card or in a Intel non Xeon CPU.
Then you can use a little less powerfull CPU.

So if you only are using the Studio version of Resolve, and only certain combination of Codec, Resolutions, Bit width and Chroma subsampling will Resolve NOT use the CPU for decoding/encoding of codecs. Else will a CPU with higher multi core performance do the decoding/encoding faster.

Regards Carsten.

Hendrik Proosa wrote:If you have a choice between higher freq lower core count and lower freq higher core count and freq x numCores and other specifics are equal for both, first option is faster in all softwares due to benefits in single-threaded ops which are unavoidably there, whatever the processing method is. There are cpus where a few cores can run at higher speeds than the rest though, to aid the single-threaded speedup, so it might not be as clear cut, but general principle applies.

Carsten Sellberg wrote: In Resolve the CPU is used to run the app, disk I/O, fusion, compression and decompression of codecs. Resolve does all its image processing in the GPU on the graphics card. More CUDA/OpenCL Cores are better. In the paid STUDIO Version of Resolve, can certain combination of Codec, Resolutions, Bit width and Chroma subsampling be hardware decoded/encoded on either a AMD/nVidea Graphics card or in a Intel non Xeon CPU. Then you can use a little less powerfull CPU.

So if you only are using the Studio version of Resolve, and only certain combination of Codec, Resolutions, Bit width and Chroma subsampling will Resolve NOT use the CPU for decoding/encoding of codecs. Else will a CPU with higher multi core performance do the decoding/encoding faster.

Regards Carsten.

Thanks. I'd be interested in your comments on my proposed build.

I have the Studio version of Resolve.

Most of my heavy tasks are 2D Fusion compositions made up of sometimes many dozens of keyframed shapes for explainer animations. In video, it is entirely H.264 8bit 4:2:0. Studio lighting, hence, basic color correction, and no color grading, other than some masking.

Hence:

- CPU: 11900K i9 - because Puget Systems said this was the best Fusion performer, even though this CPU was not best in other categories.

- CPU: Intel, above - instead of Ryzen 5900X, because the Intel has Quick Sync for H.264 8 bit 4:2:0 encoding decoding, whereas the 5900X does not have h.264 coding. Also, because Intel motherboards in mini ITX offer 128GB, whereas Ryzen AM4 motherboards for mITX top out at 64GB. (I'd like to use mini mITX).

- GPU: Probably 3070 since, from the Puget benchmarks for Fusion, it doesn't look like going to 3080 makes that much difference between 3070 and 3080. Indeed, one user reported on Reddit that he didn't see much difference between 3060TI to 3080 in respect of Fusion performance. His experience agrees with the Puget benchmarks which show virtually no Fusion difference for 3060, 3080, 3090.

- RAM: 128GB - not sure if this is overkill for the 2D effects, but sometimes my compositions can have a couple of hundred nodes.

I'd be interested in your comments on my proposed build - although it is rather academic at this stage, since I can't find a 3070 or 3080 at a reasonable price. Still using my Apple M1 16GB.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/DaVinci-Resolve-Studio-11th-Gen-Intel-Core-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5000-Series-2104/

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/DaVinci-Resolve-Studio---NVIDIA-GeForce-RTX-3070-3080-3090-Performance-1950/

The 3070 should handle 4.2.0 264.

The gain with the IGPU is 4.2.2 material. The only thing you'd gain is decoding with the IGPU while encoding with the GPU.

The i9 11900K is unlikely to give you a big enough boost over the 11700k to justify the price hike.

If you're using ITX I'm going to guess a small case. I'd be careful overloading such a small case with too much heat.

Not a critical comment, but since I see Resolve as video editor with grading for the purpose of making video look like "how the camera captured should have the video" I'm at a loss to understand the need for nodes beyond a few and I don't understand why anyone needs Fusion. Of course, I'm at a loss to see why FX, especially what my students call "cheezy" transitions are used. Cuts, fade to black, fades from blacks are the language of great films. To me so many creators are trapped in the visual language of the `90's. Why isn't great straightforward video enough to tell a story?

SteveMullen wrote:Not a critical comment, but since I see Resolve as video editor with grading for the purpose of making video look like "how the camera captured should have the video" I'm at a loss to understand the need for nodes beyond a few and I don't understand why anyone needs Fusion. Of course, I'm at a loss to see why FX, especially what my students call "cheezy" transitions are used. Cuts, fade to black, fades from blacks are the language of great films. To me so many creators are trapped in the visual language of the `90's. Why isn't great straightforward video enough to tell a story?

Steve, in one sense you are right. When the emphasis is on what the camera captures, then there would be no need for so much effects.

But, in this instance, the videos are using animation diagrams to explain complex academic concepts, and the video-content is a talking head interview explaining the diagrams. The scenario is an entirely different context.

Nick2021 wrote:The 3070 should handle 4.2.0 264.

The gain with the IGPU is 4.2.2 material. The only thing you'd gain is decoding with the IGPU while encoding with the GPU.

The i9 11900K is unlikely to give you a big enough boost over the 11700k to justify the price hike.

If you're using ITX I'm going to guess a small case. I'd be careful overloading such a small case with too much heat.

So instead of the 11900K, what are you suggesting instead? 5900X, 5950x?

I don't think Resolve is able to use even eight cores. Someone will hopefully correct me if I'm wrong.

You don't need high core counts.

What I was suggesting is the 11700k is likely going to give you the vast majority of the performance of the 11900k.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/artic ... olveStudio

Overall, we would rank the Core i5 11600K as a better option over AMD if you are on a tight budget due to its higher Fusion performance, while the Core i7 11700K is roughly equal to the similarly priced options from AMD from a value standpoint. The Core i9 11900K, however, you likely won't want to consider since, depending on the workload, it performs either the same as the Core i7 11700K, or is beaten by AMD's offerings.

Resolve uses all threads when on CPU driven tasks like rendering

Nick2021 wrote:I don't think Resolve is able to use even eight cores. Someone will hopefully correct me if I'm wrong.

Hi.

It will depend on your codec. Here is first a link to a Blackmagic RAW Speed Test:

https://techgage.com/article/amd-ryzen- ... -review/4/

And then the 'Red Digital Cinema gets 64-core Performance with the AMD Ryzen™ Threadripper™ 3990X' 3:19 min long Youtube:



Quote: "We will take every single core you give us thank you very much"

And other Codecs will use less Cores.

Regards Carsten.

Carsten Sellberg wrote:Quote: "We will take every single core you give us thank you very much"

And other Codecs will use less Cores.

Highly depends on codec. If something is multithreaded, capping the thread limit artificially below available cores is kind of stupid in general, but can have its reasons.

Resolve is not a monolithic ”thing” that does ”processing”. It has gazillion external libraries it uses and has little control over, so threading model and actual usage depends a lot on what is engaged for some specific process, for example decoding some format x and encoding to some format y at the same time.