Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CPU 100% Premiere CS4

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 16, 2011 9:31:38 AM

I am running the following:

=============

OS: Windows 7

Processor: Pheonom II X6 1090T 3.2GHz

RAM: 4 Gigs DDR2 Ram

Video: GTX 560Ti Video card (1.2G)

Primary HD: 1T - Western Digital 1TB 7200rpm SATA-300 3GB/s 16MB Cache

Secondary HD: 1.5TB - Seagate Barracuda 7200 RPM, 32MB Cache, 3Gbs SATA
Motherboard

==============

I am getting 100% cpu usage most of the time that I am rendering a preview. Sometimes it crashes and sometimes not. I have posted a youtube video of part of the rendering time with a CPU monitor so you can see what I mean. Check

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdCR0SJVhgg

Took me a second to get the iphone angle right.. be patient. First few seconds suck.

I am just wondering what I can do to make this system any better. I mean I know i can throw more money at it, but I am looking for wise choices. I know i can go 64 bit, but I dont want to have to reinstall everything. Anyone who can help, that would be super.

Thanks
Dax

More about : cpu 100 premiere cs4

a b à CPUs
May 16, 2011 12:17:05 PM

Well firstly, I'd run a 64bit version of Premiere and add more RAM. Previews do tend to take a long time so you could try rendering your workspace before. Also try doing the same thing with a smaller crappy 320p video with perhaps 2 effects and see if the same thing happens, if it's ok, then we can know if it's a hardware limitation or not.

100% CPU usage isn't irregular in Premiere Pro. It's quite common, but you do have a very good CPU, so something could be wrong.

What disk do you use for scratch?
m
0
l
May 16, 2011 12:37:36 PM

okay.. can you clarify what you mean rendering your workspace before? I render it when I first place it, then I do it as I go when I need to check appearances of text timed to voice cues. But if there is a title or something that needs to stay up the entire video that I dont add right at first, then of course i need to rerender the whole thing.

I wish I could run 64, but cost and re-installation make that not an option. I have just too much stuff loaded to have to reinstall it all.

I use the secondary for the scratch. It is where the files are located as well.

Thanks for the quick reply.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
May 16, 2011 12:43:18 PM

Well, I'll admit my specialisation is Photoshop/Illustrator.

A reinstallation would probably be the best option, old installs can bring about weird problems. Also I'd clean up some of the crap on your computer with CCleaner at least.

It would be stupid to add more RAM at this point without getting 64bit.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 16, 2011 12:45:05 PM

I meant render as in Sequence > Render Effects.

I hope that helps, I hope it does, but like I said, my main strength is fixing computers and Photoshop/Illustrator. :) 
m
0
l
May 16, 2011 12:45:32 PM

right.. my thought is overclocking the cpu to 4.2 - saw good results on youtube. Also i heard something about raid drive stuff to help speed the process up, but I am no hardware guy for sure so I have to say I have no clue about that.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 16, 2011 12:52:16 PM

Hard Drive speed is very important, I would look into at after addressing the RAM and 64 bit issue. Those give the biggest differences. You might also want to look into CS5 with the GPU-acclerated Mercury Engine.
m
0
l
a c 124 à CPUs
May 16, 2011 1:13:25 PM

daxcastro said:
okay.. can you clarify what you mean rendering your workspace before? I render it when I first place it, then I do it as I go when I need to check appearances of text timed to voice cues. But if there is a title or something that needs to stay up the entire video that I dont add right at first, then of course i need to rerender the whole thing.

I wish I could run 64, but cost and re-installation make that not an option. I have just too much stuff loaded to have to reinstall it all.

I use the secondary for the scratch. It is where the files are located as well.

Thanks for the quick reply.


If you are working all of this off the same HDD that is really holding you back. You have choices:

Put your original files on the WD HDD and output to the Seagate HDD; or better yet, purchase a Spinpoint F3 HD103SJ 1TB for your files and output to the Seagate HDD.

Other than the RAMs discussion that's as far as you can really go (without some RAID action). The issue you are facing may well be the Seagate HDD -- it ain't a high flyer from a performance standpoint (assuming it's the ST31500341AS). Doing all your work off the Seagate only compounds any performance issues, and it's best use is probably as long-term storage. The HD103SJ drives are much, much quicker.






m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 16, 2011 1:29:34 PM

Should we recommend him some SSDs?
m
0
l
a c 124 à CPUs
May 16, 2011 1:52:20 PM

amdfangirl said:
Should we recommend him some SSDs?


Apparently his OS drive is loaded up with apps and moving all of this to an SSD may create its own issues/hardship.

I think you generally nailed it with the 32-bit/RAMs deal -- made even more snarky with DDR2. He might get a boost with reduced timings (if possible).

Compared to DDR3 1600 at lowered latency/timings in a 64-bit environment the OP is struggling --- DDR2 won't hold him back too much in gaming but in Premiere it is certainly a hit because of the intensity of the memory/disk I/O.


edit .... I fergit.

The OP might gain a smidge from the -/3gb switch for the 32-bit OS (though I'm not sure if you can do it in W7 32-bit)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 16, 2011 2:47:16 PM

Well I meant that as a disk to keep his files on and another as a cache.
m
0
l
May 16, 2011 7:07:20 PM

The funny thing is, that when you look at the video, and i watch my resource meter, I can very clearly see that the RAM really never gets utilized above about 60%, but the CPU is just about maxed the whole time. So it seemd to me (in my little mind) that my ram, although not optimal is not being overly taxed.

RE: HD

Boy.. I thought i was doing a good thing by keeping the working files and the output on the same drive. The OS and the Programs are on the primary and the resources and output are all on the secondary. I have 6 sata ports so if RAID is gonna help, I am up for it, i would just need some more direction on how what what to get.

So... at this point I am gonna move all my assets to the main HD and only have the output and scratchdisk on the secondary. Sound good? or am I supposed to have 4 (not thinking that sounds right)? 1 HD for OS/Programs, 1 for Scratchdisk, 1 for assets and 1 for output.

I really appreciate all the help. I know the options are limited, but I just threw $650 at this system and until I get a few more gigs, I cant really justify starting over.

Thanks
Dax
m
0
l
a c 124 à CPUs
May 16, 2011 8:43:27 PM

daxcastro said:
The funny thing is, that when you look at the video, and i watch my resource meter, I can very clearly see that the RAM really never gets utilized above about 60%, but the CPU is just about maxed the whole time. So it seemd to me (in my little mind) that my ram, although not optimal is not being overly taxed.

RE: HD

Boy.. I thought i was doing a good thing by keeping the working files and the output on the same drive. The OS and the Programs are on the primary and the resources and output are all on the secondary. I have 6 sata ports so if RAID is gonna help, I am up for it, i would just need some more direction on how what what to get.

So... at this point I am gonna move all my assets to the main HD and only have the output and scratchdisk on the secondary. Sound good? or am I supposed to have 4 (not thinking that sounds right)? 1 HD for OS/Programs, 1 for Scratchdisk, 1 for assets and 1 for output.

I really appreciate all the help. I know the options are limited, but I just threw $650 at this system and until I get a few more gigs, I cant really justify starting over.

Thanks
Dax



You're getting close :lol: 

I've pretty much moved away from Premiere (Pro2) so I'm not 100% up to speed with CS4 Premiere (but I doubt it changed a great deal).

You can further breakdown your *assets* HDD (I call it the 'capture' HDD) so that you have an audio capture HDD and a video capture HDD. I never went that far -- but I did 'RAID' two HDDs for capture. Same deal for your output HDD - the output stream can be split to separate audio/video HDDs.

But I think you now have the concept.

Your OS/Apps HDD is the 'manager' - reading from the capture drive (functions as your 'scratch') and writing to the output drive. This substantially reduces R/W 'trashing' on a single HDD. As the little woman noted, an SSD might work well in this instance (for your OS/Apps)

Here is the Passmark score for the HD103SJ 1TB and the Seagate ST31500341AS. The Samsung HD322GJ 320GB flies even higher.

Here is your WD 1TB (WD1001FALS?) HDD for comparison. Looks like you may be leaving quite a bit of HDD performance on the table.

As far as your RAMs usage I don't really have an answer for you, except I suspect you are primarily dealing with the 'virtual memory' of your page file (which would certainly slow you down even further).
m
0
l
May 16, 2011 10:28:21 PM

okay.. so...

1. So basically I am looking at a reinstall no matter what then right? I have so many little apps for desktop pub/web editing etc. I hate to have to reinstall them all.

2. You are saying that I should get something like a OCZ Vertex 2 2.5″ 60GB SATA II SSD for only my OS and my Adobe Master Suite?

3. Then use my Baracuda as the final destination for my videos and use the WD for archiving since it is slow?

Thanks. I think I am getting closer to a solution (minus the headache of reinstalling)

Dax
m
0
l
a c 124 à CPUs
May 17, 2011 2:33:44 PM

daxcastro said:
okay.. so...

1. So basically I am looking at a reinstall no matter what then right? I have so many little apps for desktop pub/web editing etc. I hate to have to reinstall them all.

2. You are saying that I should get something like a OCZ Vertex 2 2.5″ 60GB SATA II SSD for only my OS and my Adobe Master Suite?

3. Then use my Baracuda as the final destination for my videos and use the WD for archiving since it is slow?

Thanks. I think I am getting closer to a solution (minus the headache of reinstalling)

Dax



You are suffering from "Death By A Half-Dozen (or more) Cuts" :ouch:  Individually, they are PsITA -- collectively, they make your life miserable.

Don't sweat the re-install until you are ready to move to 64-bit. Don't worry about the SSD, either. It's a nice upgrade and will help, but in improving your overall performance does not top the list of priorities (and some mechanical drives will darn near approach the performance levels of smaller SSDs, anyway).

Let's start on the 'cheap' -- first work on the *user-mode address space* See Enabling 3GB switch on Windows Vista or Windows 7

You don't need the quotation marks - press <enter> and below the command line it should say something like "operation completed successfully"

At 'stock' the Windows kernel reserves 2GB of space for itself. This frees up address space for Premiere and restricts the Windows kernel to 1GB of address space.

You're pretty much up to speed on the HDD concept so that is up to you. R/W off the same drive is slowing you down so investing in fast I/O is pretty much up to your budget. As noted, because of its lack of speed your Seagate HDD is probably best suited as storage as opposed to performance input/output read/writes. A RAID set-up will really help with read/writes here but I imagine it will take some juggling of your SATA ports to RAID both your capture and output drives.

Finally ... if you are just itching to replace your boot drive with an SSD you do not have to do a complete reinstall. You may use Acronis True Image for a mirror-image to the new drive.




m
0
l
May 17, 2011 4:51:39 PM

wow.. great. Thanks for the options. Makes it clear for me. I do have 6 sata ports so I could do the raid thing. I will likely have a friend help me there since I am a software junky not a hardware guru.

So.. Here are my next steps

1. Unlock 3Gb switch
2. Buy 4 new Samsung HD322GJ 320GB HDs
3. Set them up as 2 RAID 0 arrays
4. Keep OS/App on its original HD
5. Keep Assets on the other HD
6. Keep working file on one RAID
7. Write output to second RAID
8. Buy a Noctua NH-U12P
9. Overclock my CPU to 4.2
10. Breathe.

m
0
l
May 17, 2011 5:05:27 PM

Switch to 64 bit....OS and Rendering tool
Add RAM to 8 G or more

With more Memory the CPU will have to process the work on RAM and reduce moving the task bet SWAP and RAM.

When you have 100% CPU is that for all CORES? Have you check what task has the highest CPU usage?

You may want to download update or patch to optimize the software to your Multi-Core CPU.


Setup Raid for your drives...
m
0
l
a c 124 à CPUs
May 18, 2011 4:59:15 PM

daxcastro said:
wow.. great. Thanks for the options. Makes it clear for me. I do have 6 sata ports so I could do the raid thing. I will likely have a friend help me there since I am a software junky not a hardware guru.

So.. Here are my next steps

1. Unlock 3Gb switch
2. Buy 4 new Samsung HD322GJ 320GB HDs
3. Set them up as 2 RAID 0 arrays
4. Keep OS/App on its original HD
5. Keep Assets on the other HD
6. Keep working file on one RAID
7. Write output to second RAID
8. Buy a Noctua NH-U12P
9. Overclock my CPU to 4.2
10. Breathe.



I think you've got it [:jaydeejohn:5]

Just a note or two, and FYI.

Those HDDs in RAID will be super-fast. So fast, I suspect, that you will fly past the theoretical bandwidth of SATAII 3.0Gb/s (this is where SATAIII 6.0Gb/s is the perfect fix). I get some OMGosh! R/Ws from my F3 1TBs without RAID and the 320s look substantially faster.

There are some further tweaks that might be quite beneficial to you (I don't have the experience with 'em but maybe some other folks can chime in).

The Big Deal about 64-bit is your memory. Because of the 32-bit address space your computer creates 'virtual memory' (this is your 'page' or 'swap' file that has been mentioned). This is simply a file on your hard drive, and when your OS and programs are flying along in memory-intensive applications your hard drive performance gets pounded. The page file 'swaps' virtual memory from your hard drive to actual memory space. Remember that the great advantage of 64-bit is all that extra memory space -- without all that swappin' going on between your hard drive and actual memory that occurs in 32-bit. There are some solutions to this.

One is called Ready-Boost which ain't yet worth the effort (not quite ready for prime time but might get interesting in some cases with USB3 and fast NAND thumb-drives); the other is a RAM-Disk, which may well be your primo solution.

Putting a big chunk of your page file on a RAM-Disk may well (hope you are sitting down) improve your 'swapping' rate by 100x. The reasons you don't hear about RAM-Disks these days are simple -- 64-bit OSs, cheap RAMs and SSDs. RAM-Disks simply grew old before their 'time'

So ... for around the cost of two of those HDDs you might want to consider SuperSpeed RamDisk Plus (I believe you need the *+* version to manage the page file) and 4GB of additional RAMs.

I'm not sure if it requires a single 4GB stick, or if it will work with 2x2GB sticks. I only point this out because with a single stick you will lose dual-channel (not really a biggie -- dual-channel RAMs give you maybe a 5% boost over single channel).

Here's their bullet ...

Quote:
RamDisk Plus 11 has a most unique feature. Our patent pending technology can access memory beyond the limitation imposed by a Windows 32-bit operating system! In other words, RamDisk Plus 11 can use "unmanaged" Windows' memory e.g. above 4GB. It can also use the stubbornly inaccessable memory between 3.2GB and 4GB.


Other than being unable to spell *inaccessible* correctly, I'd say, "Yippie!" :bounce: 
m
0
l
May 18, 2011 5:56:28 PM

So what if I went with a - ASUS M4A88TD-V EVO/USB3 ATX AMD Motherboard http://tinyurl.com/6bcalvb with 4GB DDR3 Ram.

Because right now my MB only has 2 slots. Might be worth it eh? Looks like this board has RAID support as well so no controller card would be need.

Dax
m
0
l
a c 124 à CPUs
May 18, 2011 8:58:25 PM

daxcastro said:
So what if I went with a - ASUS M4A88TD-V EVO/USB3 ATX AMD Motherboard http://tinyurl.com/6bcalvb with 4GB DDR3 Ram.

Because right now my MB only has 2 slots. Might be worth it eh? Looks like this board has RAID support as well so no controller card would be need.

Dax


Are you having fun yet? ;) 

I wouldn't make the switch until you are ready. Keep chugging along making small incremental (and inexpensive!) changes -- most that you can move forward to your new box (like the 320GB RAID(s?)).

You are a perfect example of why I left Adobe products. I got tired of dealing with their licensing/upgrade crap. I use Vegas on three different boxes (not at the same time!). I've got a fast dual-core rig (32-bit Vista) with all my graphics/video software loaded up. I do my design work and video editing on it, then save my project files over my G-LAN to my six-core W7 64-bit encoding box. I shut down Vegas on the dual-core, and then fire it up on the hex-core, load up the project files and get crankin' on the encoding. It frees up the dual-core to do other (than Vegas) stuff.

The motion graphics in Vegas is certainly not up to par with AE, but it's good enough. Good compositing and a bunch of import/export options. Vegas has an AVC edit lag that's annoying but I do little if any AVC, anyway. It's probably fixed in v10 so I'll upgrade when necessary. I've got an older copy of AE that I could probably use but Adobe is pretty much junk to me, so I don't even bother.

I wouldn't go half-arsely into DDR3. Take a few months to save up some cash and then put together the rig that you need. W7 64-bit, right? And 8GB of RAMs (2x4GB) right off the bat. Maybe an SSD (but I betcha one of those 320GB drives would work great!) You'll want AM3+ compatibility so you can move to Bulldozer Zambezi when you are ready. Your current hex-core will make the move so you don't have to pay up-front for a new processor (unless you want to buy a fast dual-core - like me - and run the DDR2 box will all your *other than* Adobe products).

There will be (and currently are) AM3(+) motherboards with 8xSATA 6Gb/s and USB3 that are great bargains. If bulldozer is as good as folks hope, the woods will be full of them.

And before I fergit, when you format your new drives be sure to put at least one partition on them. This makes disk management a lot more simple. You don't even have to assign a drive letter if you don't want to worry about it. It will just be there as a 'blind' partition for when you need it.

Certain portions of a mechanical hard drive are much faster than other portions of the drive. You, I assume, would want to work off of the fastest portion of the mechanical hard drive - LOL. The slower portions you can use for storage, backups, OS/Apps drive images, etc.





m
0
l
May 18, 2011 9:13:08 PM

Well thanks.. lots to look at for sure. So.. one final question. If the HDs I get for my RAID are only 3gb/s then wouldnt it be better to get hds that are 6gb/s for the future when I upgrade the rest?

Thanks to everyone who chimed in. Especially WC.
m
0
l
May 18, 2011 9:17:11 PM

okay so I look at the pricing for the Samsung HD322GJ 320GB and at my local Frys they are only $45 ea? Sound right? Am I missing something.. seems really cheap.
m
0
l
a c 124 à CPUs
May 18, 2011 9:43:34 PM

daxcastro said:
Well thanks.. lots to look at for sure. So.. one final question. If the HDs I get for my RAID are only 3gb/s then wouldnt it be better to get hds that are 6gb/s for the future when I upgrade the rest?

Thanks to everyone who chimed in. Especially WC.


I hope I'm not being unkind :lol:  but HDDs these days that are marketed as *6Gb/s* are Bull Sheet. From the reviews I've seen on performance they must be 're-branded' 3Gb/s HDDs because they ain't performing faster.



daxcastro said:
okay so I look at the pricing for the Samsung HD322GJ 320GB and at my local Frys they are only $45 ea? Sound right? Am I missing something.. seems really cheap.


Go for it!

To the best of my knowledge that's the single fastest mechanical HDD on the market

(running off to check that link I gave you to make sure I'm not lying)

:) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 19, 2011 5:47:37 AM

SATA 6Gb/s drives are a new revision, just the extra bandwidth is never needed.
m
0
l
!