1Hr Render time for 10 seconds

aftereffects

#1

Hey! Welcome at my first thread, hope to see you more often, but currently I am nudging my first Videohive template, and it heppened with my PC to render this ten seconds content for more than one hour. It is really not a Lord Of The Rings like content, there are some letter anims in it, and there are 3d shapes+lights at the most machine requiring part of my project.
Can you please tell me, if is it normal to have that render time? Twelve CPUs-s are that I have in my PC, and plenty rams. I do not mind to render it so long, but maybe it would undermine the popularity of my Clip?

Any forum thread suggestions are welcome too!

Thanks a lot!


#2

Yes, it is normal to have such a render time.
You do not have 12 CPUs :smiley: (This made me laugh, thanks). You have 1 CPU with 12 cores. The render time is entirely dependent on your PC configuration and Adobe’s programs are single-threaded, which means that the quality of the cores is hell of a lot more important than the quantity. On my laptop I’ve rendered a 33 seconds animation for 35-40 hours so don’t be afraid of 1 hour :D. If you are going to do this professionally you need a serious setup. Personally, I built myself a desktop computer and that 33 seconds animation now renders 10 times faster (3-4 hours).


#3

Then, that worth it, lughing is good!
By the way its 12 cores would be 24 cores logically, brought by two cpus, the system monitors shows that they are all (I mean the cores that are dedicated to AE) looks pretty busy. I thought that newer AE versions tend to utilize multi cores… and it looks it does…
Thanks!


#4

Turn off shadows, depth of field and motion blur. That should help.


#5

Hi, thx. I will give it a try.
I think I have got something with the shadows, but the moblur and depth of field probably no use for this project…
Okay, see you soon!


#6

Wrong. It is the opposite way. Newer AE versions (CC 2015 - CC 2018) use 1 core. AE uses 1 core to create the animation while the other cores are being used to boost the productivity of the specific core which AE uses to render. Adobe themselves showed benchmarks where they compare different CPUs. Long story short is that their experiment showed CPUs with higher frequency and less cores perform better than CPUs with more cores but with less frequency. You can spend some time and do a research if you do not believe me. I’m not trying to convince you in any way but you should know this stuff if you plan on making money from this.


#7

Oh, I would not like to protest against it as I was reading you I remembered that I read that the CC2014 would be the sorcerers stone of tough render. I might been mixed up observing the CPU-s activity during the ram preview, and I meant that newer versions would utilizing multi threaded CPUs during the editing process, is that correct?
And you are right I realized that its not the same using resources for RAM preview and final render.


#8

CC 2014 is multi-threaded. Also, the CS versions are. Many people stick to CC 2014 or CS 6 because their renders are faster.
Personally, when I render or do a preview the pressure of the system is the same but different projects use the computer in different ways. For most of my projects I see in my task manager that one core is being pressured a lot more than the others but I’ve also seen all my cores getting maxed out equally on some projects. I use CC 2018. Bottom line how your cores are being used is it all depends on the kind of project you have opened.