Huge GPU tests difference between Linux and Windows Lightworks 14 on the same machine Posted by MarLondon - 28 Jun :00

Transcription

1 Huge GPU tests difference between Linux and Windows Lightworks 14 on the same machine Posted by MarLondon - 28 Jun :00 I use Lightworks on Ubuntu LTS, updated proprietary Nvidia drivers etc. I tried, just for test, to install Lightworks 14 free on Windows 7. And lauching the GPU tests I noticed a big performance difference. I don't know if is a problem of my system or could be a lack of performance of Lightworks 14 for Linux. So can someone of you try to do the same test please? Try to do the same GPU test on Windows for 4/5 times to have an average behavior. And compare it on Linux if you have both systems installed. M y results down here. GPU Tests Windows 7 Ubuntu Host to GPU transfer fps fps GPU to Host transfer fps fps Shader performance fps fps Playback Performance fps fps Render Performance 172.8fps 48.66fps I have an old intel i5 with 8GB Ram with a Nvidia GTX 1060 Ubuntu works on SSD and Windows on normal Hard Disk so the disk couldn't be the cause of the difference. Posted by geomcd Jul 2017 when I attempt to unrar the file, I get "An error occured while extracting files." "Parsing filters is unsupported." Posted by hugly - 11 Jul :30 1 / 8

2 Thanks for your feedback. The problem might be related to that I used WinRar 5.01 to compress which creates a format not compatible to earlier versions. Please try the ZIP version: Posted by Jpaulbiss - 11 Jul :05 hugly wrote: Thanks for your feedback. The problem might be related to that I used WinRar 5.01 to compress which creates a format not compatible to earlier versions. Please try the ZIP version: The first 20 seconds of the clip at 23.98fps,720p take 67 seconds The last 5 second, I got bored at 4min 30 sec. Posted by hugly - 11 Jul :04 Jpaulbiss wrote: The first 20 seconds of the clip at 23.98fps,720p take 67 seconds 2 / 8

3 The last 5 second, I got bored at 4min 30 sec. That is not good. WHich of the sequneces did you use 3-track, 6-track, or 9-track. The end of the sequence contains 6 additional dissolve which explains decoding time difference, but not the amount. Posted by Jpaulbiss - 11 Jul :22 hugly wrote: Jpaulbiss wrote: The first 20 seconds of the clip at 23.98fps,720p take 67 seconds The last 5 second, I got bored at 4min 30 sec. That is not good. WHich of the sequneces did you use 3-track, 6-track, or 9-track. The end of the sequence contains 6 additional dissolve which explains decoding time difference, but not the amount. the 9 Posted by hugly - 11 Jul :28 3 / 8

4 The 9 is the killer (here it crashes Windows on export from time to time). I can't explain why it doesn't behave linearily compared with 3 and 6. 3-tracks and 6-track might be more suitable for a comparision between old and new system on export and while playing forth and back in preview. Posted by Jpaulbiss - 11 Jul :52 hugly wrote: The 9 is the killer (here it crashes Windows on export from time to time). I can't explain why it doesn't behave linearily compared with 3 and 6. 3-tracks and 6-track might be more suitable for a comparision between old and new system on export and while playing forth and back in preview. I removed all 9 dissolves an replaced it with one dissolve. The export at 1080p, 23.98fps requires 83 seconds. Whether that is fast or not have nothing to compare the time to. I have a theory; but I am not much more than a stumbling amateur. so it maybe way in the ozone. With one track the dissolve is processed once. with 2 dissolves each dissolve is processed and then dissolve together, 3 operations. dissolves 1,2,3 are processed separate then 1&2 2&3, then the results from those 2 or 8 processes. with 1,2,3,4, we have then possibly 1&2 3&4 that adds more processing. Which could possibly be exp(2)tracks. If the processing works this way 9 dissolves would produce exp(2)9=512 processes. I looked at the memory usage for that 3GB K4000 when it got close to the dissolves the Graphics Clock was max at 810Mhz, transfer rate of 5600Mhz and Used Dedicated Memory 98%. That card was kickin' ass. Only a theory my dear Watson. 4 / 8

5 Posted by hugly - 11 Jul :34 I don't know Mr. Holmes. I removed all inline dissolves at the end of 9-track version. Here it takes 18 seconds to export the whole sequence to 720p 23.98fps. With project settings at 1080p(sf) fps (shouldn't matter on export). Posted by Barus - 12 Jul :09 I did the 9 track test on my laptop (i7 6500U; 2.5GHz; 2 cores / 4 threads; integrated graphics Intel 520) and it took ~130 seconds to export in 720p. I guess on export the GPU isn't used at all... On the other hand: benchmark results are pretty consistent on this thing. Posted by hugly - 12 Jul :17 The GPU on export is should be used to render all effects and the sequence uses insanly many of those. Did you use the the 9-Track sequence with or without the nine terminating dissolves? EDIT: What makes you think that GPU isn't used? 5 / 8

6 Posted by Barus - 13 Jul :39 I did use the 9-dissolves one. I was curios, why a dual Xeon machine with K4000 is worse, then a laptop CPU (with comparable clock speeds, but only 1/8 of the cores/threads) with integrated graphics (also the K4000 should be way faster than a HD520 ) I also did an export on my PC: the 1080Ti showed only a 6-8% additional usage on export. Posted by hugly - 13 Jul :43 I was curios, why a dual Xeon machine with K4000 is worse, then a laptop CPU (with comparable clock speeds, but only 1/8 of the cores/threads) with integrated graphics (also the K4000 should be way faster than a HD520)How true that is! I also did an export on my PC: the 1080Ti showed only a 6-8% additional usage on export.this could mean that memory transfer between CPU and GPU is the bottleneck TI might be simply too fast for this task. Nevertheless, I believe that a test sequence is the best way to compare real life performance of different systems instead of using obscure GPU tests only. Posted by hugly - 14 Jul :43 Based on the feedback of Barus and Jpaulbiss (thank you guys) I made an improved, more balanced 6 / 8

7 version of the sequence with increased load on the GPU. I removed all Inline-Dissolves, added a second source-clip as overlay, one DVE to dynamically zoom-in on it, one Masked Blend to mix and Sharpen to each track. On my system (i7 2600K 16 GB Ram - ASUS GTX 1050 TI OC 4 GB RAM) this sequence shows the behavior described below. In preview the sequence is playable fluently here (even full screen) with "Video.Output format" "1080p 23.98", playhead looks "jumpy", GPU usage reaches almost 95 percent (GPU-Z 2.20), CPU usage looks relaxed ( Posted by MarLondon - 21 Jul :27 Good Work hugly! I tried your last sequence on two computer. Exporting always 720p youtube preset. Intel i GHz 4 Cores 12Gb ram with Nvidia GTX 560 Ti 2GB: 40 seconds on Windows 7 to encode! Not perfectly smooth playing the sequence on Lightworks a little of framedrops! The same machine, Intel i GHz 4 Cores 12Gb ram with Nvidia GTX 560 Ti 2GB: 2 minutes 14 seconds on Kubuntu The playing on lightworks is not smooth at all, maybe 1 or 2 frames for seconds. (On Win 7 was a little bit less than smooth) AMD Ryzen x Overclocked to 3.7 GHz 8 Cores 16 Thread 16 GB Ram with Nvidia GTX 1060 OC 3Gb : 1 minute and 34 seconds on Kubuntu Kernel lowlatency. I don't have Windows installed on the Ryzen 7 machine for now! All the test on SSD. 7 / 8

8 Lightworks 14 is faster on the old i with GTX 560 Ti and Windows 7 than on the new Ryzen 7 machine with GTX 1060 on Linux (Kubuntu 16.04)!!! The strange is that when I encode using the Ryzen 7 computer on Kubuntu the CPU works at 11/12% and the GTX 1060 works at only 24%. Seems that Lightworks for Linux (Kubuntu 16.04) uses only a minimal part of the machine potential! Playing the sequence under Lightworks is not perfectly smooth with all the FPS, there is some framedrops. The sequence on Ryzen 7 computer is only a little bit smoother than on i5 with GTX 560 Ti under Windows 7, and the GTX 1060 works only between 28% and 35% and the Ryzen 7 CPU between 10% and 16%. About the lastest Nvidia Drivers on all the systems! Seems that something works right in the Lightworks GPU test algorithm. Posted by Jpaulbiss - 21 Jul :25 I tried 4 test with the V2 the times were all about the same the quickest 2:35 and longest 2:50 Same with memory used 12-13%, GPU usage (ram) 39-51%, PCIe Bandwidth 5-8% The interesting thing were the export formats: Youtube 25.6MB, Bluray 93.9 MB, Mov DVCpro MB and MOV UYVY 2.5 GB 8 / 8