![]() I can remember one or two years back, an another thread where an Australien User tried dual GTX 1070 in a Threadripper X399 motherboard. Here is a link to DaVinci Resolve 14 GPU Scaling Analysis (1-4x Titan Xp):Īs You can see are the speed increase for 2nd and 3rd GPU in an average 25-35% performance gain. What its mean is that a few special functions as Noise Reduction will be faster with the right hardware.Īnd it will NOT run at the double speeds. Neither your Intel i7-8700K CPU or your GTX1070Ti's are described or recommended in the Configuration Guide.īut, 'will offer the best experience' don't mean a general speed increase for all the functions in Resolve. I read it as for the CPU and GPU described in the Configuration Guide" of Davinci Resolve 15 can 'High performance GPUs or multiple GPUs offer the best experience'. I am afraid, that I read the above different, than you have read it. Still using my Apple M1 16GB.High performance GPUs or multiple GPUs will offer the best experience 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. ![]() RAM: 128GB - not sure if this is overkill for the 2D effects, but sometimes my compositions can have a couple of hundred nodes. His experience agrees with the Puget benchmarks which show virtually no Fusion difference for 3060, 3080, 3090. Indeed, one user reported on Reddit that he didn't see much difference between 3060TI to 3080 in respect of Fusion performance. GPU: Probably 3070 since, from the Puget benchmarks for Fusion, it doesn't look like going to 3080 makes that much difference between 30. Also, because Intel motherboards in mini ITX offer 128GB, whereas Ryzen AM4 motherboards for mITX top out at 64GB. 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. CPU: 11900K i9 - because Puget Systems said this was the best Fusion performer, even though this CPU was not best in other categories. Studio lighting, hence, basic color correction, and no color grading, other than some masking. In video, it is entirely H.264 8bit 4:2:0. Most of my heavy tasks are 2D Fusion compositions made up of sometimes many dozens of keyframed shapes for explainer animations. I'd be interested in your comments on my proposed build. Then you can use a little less powerfull CPU. 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. Resolve does all its image processing in the GPU on the graphics card. Else will a CPU with higher multi core performance do the decoding/encoding faster.Ĭarsten Sellberg wrote: In Resolve the CPU is used to run the app, disk I/O, fusion, compression and decompression of codecs. 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. ![]() In Resolve the CPU is used to run the app, disk I/O, fusion, compression and decompression of codecs. 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.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |