| ||||||||||
| > Why is everyone so hung up in multi-threading? Because every modern post app is multi-threading. Multi-threaded rendering is at the core of all modern app design, even crap apps on your phone. > Is it the fastest way to render? No! Not a great argument since render speeds depend on hardware and software not "ways" > missed that the fastest way to render most things is to use the GPU. Fast GPU renders faster than slow CPU. A slow CPU renders faster than a slow GPU. I think you are trying to argue it's more efficient but drivers, type of render (i.e. large bitmaps vs vectors) make this a very complex question. >>The After Effects team has been hard at work laying the foundation for a move to GPU rendering the last few cycles. There has been no statement from Adobe that it will move to GPU as the primary and sole rendering engine. >> When everything is done on the GPU, frames can be kept in the GPU buffer, and AE will get a lot faster. Do you have any evidence to back this up? My GPU accelerated plugs that allow performance tuning like Neat Video NEVER run fastest on the GPU alone. It's always a combination of cores and GPU that run fastest even on my 8/16 core/thread boxes with 128GB RAM and Quadro P6000 cards. Neat has been doing GPU acceleration for much longer than AE and then still use CPU heavily for fastest performance. Why? Because Neat is completely multi-threaded down to be able to use CPU and GPU multiple threads at the same time. That's why everyone is hung up on this. -----Original Message----- From: After Effects Mail List <AE-List@media-motion.tv> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 7:04 PM To: After Effects Mail List <AE-List@media-motion.tv> Subject: Re: [AE] Uservoice feedback website - Top post - Full Program. Mutli-Threaded Support Why is everyone so hung up in multi-threading? Is multi-threading faster than single-threading? Yes. Is it the fastest way to render? No! If you have paid any amount of attention the last decade, you cannot have missed that the fastest way to render most things is to use the GPU. The After Effects team has been hard at work laying the foundation for a move to GPU rendering the last few cycles. This is exactly the opposite of what some of you are accusing them of. They are doing hard and important stuff that is NOT helping the marketing team at all. Work that we all will benefit from in future updates. In earlier versions, we got GPU accelerated Gaussian Blur, Lumetri Color, Sharpen, and Cartoon effects, and GPU accelerated Composition, Layer, and Footage panels. Plus GPU accelerated Brightness and Contrast, Find Edges, Glow, Hue/Saturation, Invert, and Tint. The latest update gave us GPU-accelerated Mocha Plug-In plus nine more GPU accelerated effects, including Color Balance (HLS), Curves, Fill, Exposure, Noise, Tritone, and Set Matte. Wave Warp and Median are now multi-threaded, BTW. The move to GPU acceleration is going to make rendering increasingly efficient. When ALL effects are calculated on the GPU, that's when we'll see the real benefits of this. Moving frames between the GPU and CPU and back is not very effective. When everything is done on the GPU, frames can be kept in the GPU buffer, and AE will get a lot faster. I hope the AE team continues on this path - moving more and more processing to the GPU. I would certainly not want them to waste time making some effects multithreaded, instead of making them GPU accelerated. /jarle +---End of message---+ To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv> |
