Atomic particles performance in HF3 vs HF2 and Nvidia vs AMD

ArekArek Website User Posts: 83
edited November 2014 in HitFilm

Here is a project: SPHERE atomic particles.hfp

I have to say that I'm a noob, so please have a patience for me :).

I rendered it on 3 machines:

laptop - i7 2670qm, 8 GB RAM, Radeon 7690m (but because of poor driver support, system recognise it as radeon 6700m family), win 7 pro x64; HF2U rendered it for around 46 min.

PC with Xeon e5450 (quad core, 3GHZ), 8GB RAM, GTX 470, win 8.1 x64; HF2U rendered it for 2 hours 40 min. - but for the first time because of the drivers it was more than 6 hours! 

HP Z600 workstation - 2x xeon x5650 (12 cores/24threads), 12 GB RAM, GTX 660, win 8.1 x64; HF2U rendered it for 4 hours 25 min. 

HF3Pro rendered project on HP Z600 workstation more than 6 hours! And strange articacts started to appear during real time preview (it's laggy).

HF3 is not able to play a simple videoclip smooth on HP Z600 - without any plugin/effect.



  • AdyAdy Staff Administrator, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 1,418 Staff
    edited November 2014

    Hi Arek,

    Firstly I'd like to point you to Simon's post here, this details how posts should be created here. With this in mind I have cut down your original post as there was information in there not relevant to the issue discussed & it wasn't easy to follow.

    I have a few questions I would like to ask about the information you have posted above:

    1) You have listed 2 other machines & their render times in HF2, but you have not listed their render times in HF3? Why is this? Are these machines experencing problems with HF3 also?

    2) Are you letting the Exports fully complete? Or are you just checking the time when the Export starts?

    3) Which drivers are the machines using?

    4) What other software is running on the machines used? Are their set-ups identical? Are you doing anything else on the machines whilst exporting?

    I am running some tests with the Project you have uploaded here, the project is quite heavy in the fact it is rendering 1.4 million Particles so it may take a while to get some results back to you. But if you can answer my questions I'd appreciate that.


  • ArekArek Website User Posts: 83
    edited November 2014

    Forgive me that mess and thank you for your patience.

    1) I'm not able to run activation on my laptop laptop - i7 2670qm, 8 GB RAM, Radeon 7690m - black window pop out and nothin is happening - so that's why I'm not able to say what is the rendering time; but in real time performance when I switch from Full to quarter preview, turn off motion blur on this laptop, using HF2 for this project, preview performance is a little bit choppy but it is usable. When I'm running this project with HF3, even quarter preview performance is unbearable.

    3rd machine is not available right now, but I can get it - HP Z600 just replaced it.

    2) I finished whole render only on my laptop (i7); Render time was the same as it was showed at the begining of rendering.

    3) Drivers- here is the problem, and I wrote it through support ticket - The newest drivers are (I think) not efficient for HF - why I'm writing something like that? Because only with older driver from 13 september 2012 (306.23), HF2&3 has the best performance - real time performance is even better, the same with rendering times - so far I checked drivers from nvidia: 302.82; 306.23 - the best performance; 327.23; 331.82; 344.11; 344.48.

    4) During exports any other apps are not running. On i7 laptop processor is barely used (10%), but fans on graphic card are literally screaming, GPU is almost fully loaded. On Z600 processors are used also in around 10 %, GPU load is between 30-50 % but with lowered gpu core clock (it's happening automatically) using 344.11 driver (the same is happening with other mentioned drivers but not with 306.23). 

    Using that drivers (306.23) on Z600 with GTX660 I'm getting these rendering times: 

    HF2 - 1 hour 49 min. (that's 1 hour less than on xeon e5450 PC with GTX 470; 1 hour more than on i7 laptop - which it shouldn't be better than HP Z600)

    HF3 - 3 hours 52 min (and instead of decreasing, the time is increasing) - it's 7 minutes after start, and it's still 3 hours 52 min.

    I have to mention that, when I'm using this driver (older) DaVinci Resolve do not recognize my GTX660. 

    How it is possible that stronger machine (according to specs and according to performance with other apps) is slower (during rendering in HF) than i7 laptop with radeon 7690m?  I had the same problem with PC Xeon e5450 + GTX470. I tried also GT630 with those PC's - the same results.

  • ArekArek Website User Posts: 83
    edited November 2014

    So, I was able finally to activate HF3 on my i7 laptop.

    Here is the rendering time of this project: 1 hour 12 minutes (26 min. more than on HF2U). And 3 times less than on HP Z600 with GTX 660.

    A comparision between radeon 7690m and GTX 660:

    This radeon card is a crap and it performs better than GTX in HF...

  • AdyAdy Staff Administrator, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 1,418 Staff
    edited November 2014

    No need to apologise it's good to get things down but it's also good to remember that someone has to follow what you've written & look into it. :)

    Ok we will focus on the 2 machines that you have access to for now.

    1) Ok, if you are able to solve your activation problem (I know Rikki is working with you on that one) I'd be interested to see how your i7 AMD machine handles the Project in HF3.

    2) So only on the AMD Laptop did you let the Exports complete? So the times you have reported in this thread are based from the first estimated completion result?

    3) Naturally we have no control over the Nvidia drivers, but I will be running some tests with the driver you suggest & comparing performance. At this moment in time we have no other users stating things have gotten slower when using the latest drivers, but I'm happy to test some things out & report back what I find. But the exports must complete, the time estimated is updated per frame so just recording the first estimated time is not an accurate export time.

    4) CPU & GPU usage will rarely go to 100%, I believe this has been explained to you already by Misty within the support ticket you raised  so I won't go into that again.

  • ArekArek Website User Posts: 83

    Thanks Ady :)

    1) HF3 it's working now on my i7 laptop. Here is the rendering time of this project: 1 hour 12 minutes (26 min. more than on HF2U). And 3 times less than on HP Z600 with GTX 660. Real time performance is a bit worse than on HF2.

    2) Yes. I will start rendering today on Z600, I will post rendering times ASAP.

    3) Thank you for that. I don't know how many users can compare workflow in HF using Radeons and GTX. It is strange that it's happening on 2 different PC, so I guess it's not a coincidence.

    4) Yes I understand that :).

  • ArekArek Website User Posts: 83
    edited November 2014

    It would be nice if HF users which are using Nvidia cards (GTX etc.) will write something about performance of their graphic cards (try to use GPU-Z)- what is the GPU load, GPU Core Clock etc. 

    Please, try to download this project and write here the rendering times (at least estimated remaining times) and specs of your PC. Your help would be much appreciated. Maybe it's not only me who has problems with those cards and HF.

    As I wrote, in this project my crappy Radeon 7690m is using its whole potential during real time performance and rendering, but  GTX 470 and GTX660 weren't able to be so fast as radeon (which is a way worse card) - I posted some comparision above.

    Thank you.

  • IamJoshuaDaviesIamJoshuaDavies Staff Administrator Posts: 355 Staff
    edited November 2014

    Hey @Arek please note that the estimated times don't actually help as they are not really reflective of the final performance in a changing project.

    They only estimate based on the progress of the render so far, if it becomes more taxing later then thre estimate will go up, if the render is only 10% complete then its highly likely to be different to when the project is 50% complete. The only true comparison between versions and computers is the final render time which has rendered all the frames and completed the project. I hope this helps.

    P.S. I'm giving this a render now on my iMac and will post how it performs on the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M 4096 MB.

  • ArekArek Website User Posts: 83

    So far, when I rendered this project on laptop, rendering time wast exactly the same. But I understand that what you wrote, that's why I started to render this project on my PC.

    So, if not render times, owners of nvidia cards at least could write what is the real time performance during playing this project. On my i7 laptop, when I stwich preview to quarter without motion blur, playback is alittle bit choppy, but it is usable. But it's not usable on PC with GTX cards - it is always 1-2 sec brake between frames, and on newer drivers, break is even longer.

    I will try something else. I'm going to shrink that project to 5 sec. It would be easier to render.

  • IamJoshuaDaviesIamJoshuaDavies Staff Administrator Posts: 355 Staff
    edited November 2014

    Great, well we're happy to keep working on this, find the exact problems and do our best to resolve them.

    HitFilm 3 Pro does have more going on with rendering, specifically the cache for more interactivity on any specific frame (much better for grading and masking work) but we obviously want to optimise performance in as many areas as possible.

    It is also true that some effects will render quite a bit faster on Radeon than GeForce and in other cases very much the opposite. This comes down to the features and design of the card and the drivers. Again this is something we would aim to optimise over time with feedback like this.

  • IamJoshuaDaviesIamJoshuaDavies Staff Administrator Posts: 355 Staff
    edited November 2014

    Update: HF3 completed the render in 53m 58s on this iMac NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M 4096 MB. Not a bad performance.

    It is worth noting that Macs and PCs with the exact same GPU will always give massively different performance results due to drivers being so completely different and optimised in different areas.

  • ArekArek Website User Posts: 83

     Yes. Thank you for doing this :). But don't you think it should be better? i7 laptop did it in 46 min (whole render - 30 sec timeline) - it has older drivers (because of poor hp support), a lot worse graphic card, and this processor is old (feb 2011).

    At night I will post render times for 5 sec version of this project (from i7 and Z600).

    Here is the 5 sec project: SPHERE atomic particles 5 SEC.hfp

  • IamJoshuaDaviesIamJoshuaDavies Staff Administrator Posts: 355 Staff

    Yes, I do think it should be better.

    I'll get my findings listed on the bug tracker right now so the devs can start looking in to it tomorrow. Thanks for all your help on this.

  • ArekArek Website User Posts: 83

    No. I thank YOU! :)

  • rgbiirgbii Website User Posts: 965 Just Starting Out

    I haven't let the renders run to completion (need to be doing other stuff right now :), but I did want to mention an observation.

    On HF2U, once it calculated the remaining time, it shows about 20 minutes.  GPU load was roughly 95% for the few minutes I let it run.

    On HF2P, it showed about 38 minutes, and the GPU load was about 52%.

    For both I only let it run a few minutes, but the GPU load % stayed about the same for each. Not sure why HF3P isn't using the GPU more heavily.

    Both ran using my NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670m.

  • ArekArek Website User Posts: 83
    edited November 2014

    Thank you rgbii. What version of drivers did you use? Do you own Mac, or was it ordinary laptop? And did you render 5 SEC version of this project?


  • ArekArek Website User Posts: 83

    So here are the timings for 5 SEC version of this project:

    i7 laptop

    HF2U - 6 min 25 sec

    HF3 -  12 min 24 sec

    Z600 (with GTX 660)

    driver ver. 344.11

    HF2U - 43 min 37 sec

    HF3 - 1 hour 6 min


    driver ver. 306.23

    HF2U - 16 min 12 sec

    HF3 - 36 min 29 sec

  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator Website User Posts: 4,454 Enthusiast

    Very interesting results, Arek, thanks for doing that. We'll be investigating this further tomorrow when everybody is back in the office.

  • davide445davide445 Website User Posts: 306 Just Starting Out
    edited November 2014

    Downloaded your project to try benchmarking on my laptop, but opened appear without particles.

    Here a link with a screenshot Sphere.JPG?dl=0

    Need I to do something?

  • DanilothDaniloth Website User Posts: 52
    edited November 2014

    @Arek @SimonKJones

    For what it's worth, here is my experience with that file:

    On my Intel 4770, 16GB RAM with ATI Radeon 7970 3GB card the 30 second version of the render took;

    HF3 Pro : 11m38s

    HF2 Ult :   09m47s

    I will have to test with my desktop with GTX260, and my i7 Laptop with 5650 (?) graphics.

    I had been seeing high particle count renders seeming to take a bit longer in HF3.

    I did compare the output of the two programs, and in this project at least there are definite output differences.  The HF2 version doesn't have the yellow and red areas in the render, i.e. at 11s06ms


  • ArekArek Website User Posts: 83

    SimonKJones - you're welcome.

    Davide445 - I'm not able to see the screenshot. Please, try maybe to download 30 sec version (on the top of this topic/discussion) and shrink the timeline to 5 sec. But generally, it should work.

    Daniloth - Your timings is something I wanted to expect from Z600 (not exactly the same, but something similar). I'm curious what will be the performance of your PC with GTX 260 (can you also try it with these two driver versions - I mean 306.23 and 344.11 (or any newer)? ).

    I got my 2nd PC with E5450, 8 GB RAM, GTX 470 - I'm going to install HF3 on it and check render timings on new and old driver from nvidia.

    Thank you guys for your help!

  • IamJoshuaDaviesIamJoshuaDavies Staff Administrator Posts: 355 Staff
    edited November 2014

    The devs are already looking in to this but the filter has been significantly refactored to make using 3D models possible as the image below. This will have had an impact on performance but they will see what they can do for sure. :)

    Atomic & Wireframe

  • __simon____simon__ Website User Posts: 114
    edited November 2014

    Here's my results for the 5 second clip

    Intel i7-2600K (3.4GHz, HT disabled)

    GeForce GTX 660 (Driver 344.75)

    24 GB RAM

    Windows 8.1

    HF2U: 28:49, CPU ~25%, GPU ~90%

    HF3P: 47:28, CPU started ~50% somewhere dropped to 25%, GPU ~69% whole time.

    The results look different.

    Guess I'll have to figure out how to embed images, in the mean time



    Also, maybe more importantly, do the images look different using the same version of HitFilm but different hardware or different versions of the driver i.e. v306.23 vs the latest?

  • ArekArek Website User Posts: 83

     _Simon_ your results also should be better than from my i7 laptop, because your hardware is better.

    I didn't notice any difference between look from 306.23 vs the latest. The only real difference is rendering time and real time performance - the best one is when using old 306.23 driver - but still in comparision to performance from my i7 laptop - performance is poor (and this is what shouldn't happen) - I posted a link above where you can see what is the difference between radeon 7690m and GTX660.

  • davide445davide445 Website User Posts: 306 Just Starting Out

    Still not able to see anything in the project, here a link to screenshot on google drive

  • AbidalASarrajAbidalASarraj Website User Posts: 63

    Atomic is very very very laggy with my mac pro with Dual AMD FirePro D500 3072 MB, Not sure Why?

  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator Website User Posts: 4,454 Enthusiast

    It's worth noting that there may be render differences if you try the same project on different hardware, simply because the GPU may process images differently. I doubt major studio productions use a wide variety of hardware for that precise reason - they need to ensure parity across the board.

  • ArekArek Website User Posts: 83

    I just noticed that there is a huge difference between radeons and gtx when it comes to using it with HF. In this particular project radeons are few times faster, and gtx are not using its whole potential.

  • ArekArek Website User Posts: 83

    It would be a good experiment to try different projects, and see what is the difference in speed between radeons and gtx.

  • ArekArek Website User Posts: 83
    edited November 2014

    I'm running project "recreating a star":

    and in this particular project GTX660 finally shows that is faster than radeon 7690m; GPU load from time to time reaches 99 %.

    i7 laptop:

    HF2U - 17 min 36 sec

    HF3 - 17 min 47 sec


    344.11 driver

    HF2U - 3 min 26 sec

    HF3 - 3 min 46 sec (slightly slower than HF2)

    306.23 driver

    HF2U - 3 min 29 sec (slower than using 344.11 driver)

    HF3 - 3 min 35 sec (slightly faster than using 344.11 driver; finally HF3 is faster, but on older driver)

    SimonKJones - it looks like GTX family doesn't like (don't like?) particles, which worries me, because it is one of the strongest features of HF. I still don't understand why 2 years old driver is dealing better with particles in HF than newer one.


This discussion has been closed.