Filmora vs Adobe Premiere Pro - ITProPortal
Filmora vs Adobe Premiere Pro - ITProPortal,
Filmora by Wondershare is a versatile video editing application designed as
a one-size-fits-all solution for videographers of all stripes. It is so
easy to use that it doesn't even require a quick look at the user guide or
any other resource to get started. At the same time, it can handle the most
demanding applications, with over 100 video tracks and 100 audio tracks in
a single project.
Meanwhile, Adobe Premiere Pro, the professional-grade video editor from the
people who created Photoshop and Illustrator, is the go-to solution for
power users who don't mind a learning curve, but it boasts some of the most
powerful features in the industry.
But which is the right one for you? In this Filmora vs Adobe Premiere Pro
feature, we compare two of the *best video editing software* solutions in
the industry to show you which one ranks the highest.
[image: Filmora vs Adobe Premiere Pro]
Adobe Premiere Pro is a professional-grade video editor from the people who
created Photoshop and Illustrator (Image credit: Adobe)Features
Filmora's user interface is available in dark or light gray variants and
comes with four editing modes to switch between—Action Cam, Full Feature,
Instant Cutter, and Easy Mode. The overall getup of the user interface is
intuitive and well designed, but it's not suited for touchscreen devices.
Adobe Premiere Pro uses an advanced interface divided into several panels,
each with its own separate function. The color palette used by the
interface is dark and minimalistic. The overall design is functionally
powerful, but perhaps not as simple as Filmora's.
Adobe Premiere Pro allows you to make the usual adjustments to your video
in brightness, saturation, contrast, and highlights. It also lets you use
its signature tool, the Lumetri Color Panel, to adjust the tint and
coloring of your video clip.
Filmora's Action Cam mode features the bulk of the fixes required in video
editing, with options such as stabilization, noise reduction, and fisheye
correction. There is also an array of special effects and filters to choose
from, which is what we're going to discuss next.
There are a few pre-designed special effects that you can choose from in
Adobe Premiere Pro. Granted, they're not much, but you can get more effects
by buying third-party plugins or even create your own effects using the
tools provided.
In contrast, Filmora by Wondershare offers many more Instagram-like special
effects that you can apply to your video. These picture-in-picture effects
can also be customized and adjusted to suit your visual preferences.
Apart from visual effects, you can also use transitions to change how one
part of the video clip flows into another. Adobe Premiere Pro offers 38
transitions to choose from, whereas Filmora offers 100, but Premiere Pro is
the only video editing tool with an option that lets you design your own
transitions.
Filmora features a good number of text templates that you can use, each
beautifully colored and animated to look professional. You can also use the
Advanced Text Edit option to create your own text templates, which you can
add your own colors and animations to.
With the inclusion of Adobe Typekit in Adobe Premiere Pro, the
possibilities when it comes to adding text to your video are endless. There
are even shadows and strokes that you can apply to your text, apart from
color and animation.
With Adobe Premiere Pro, you can add background music and other audio to
your video clip in real-time as it is playing. There is also a built-in
Audio Mixer to make edits to your audio clips.
Filmora offers 22 pre-designed background songs to add to your video, and
you can always add a different one from your computer if you like. The
built-in Audio Mixer also lets you adjust panning and volume to your liking.
Performance
[image: Filmora vs Adobe Premiere Pro]
It is compulsory to have an external graphics card installed to use Adobe
Premiere Pro (Image credit: Adobe)
Wondershare Filmora 9 requires a 2GHz processor and about 2GB of RAM (8GB
for 4K editing). Adobe Premiere Pro, though, requires an external graphics
card with at least 2GB VRAM (4GB for 4K editing), along with these basic
requirements. Video editing software is best used on a 64-bit operating
system.
Filmora boasts a decent rendering speed even on mid-end desktop models with
built-in graphics processors like Intel HD 5000 or later, but an external
graphics card is certainly helpful. GPU acceleration is disabled by
default, but it can be turned on in the settings.
It is compulsory to have an external graphics card installed in order to
use Adobe Premiere Pro. However, any mid-to-high range graphics card will
do. Performance is very fast on Windows, but Mac users have reported
occasional lags that can get in the way of working.
Generally speaking, Filmora has a lower system requirement and therefore
offers more responsive performance than Adobe Premiere Pro.
Support
[image: Filmora vs Adobe Premiere Pro]
Filmora by Wondershare comes with an extensive knowledge base (Image
credit: Wondershare)
Adobe Premiere Pro comes with the official support available to all
Creative Cloud customers. There are a phone number and an online chatbox
you can use. Its website also features an extensive knowledge base with
answers to frequently asked questions and an online forum frequented by
specialists from the company.
In much the same way, Filmora by Wondershare comes with an extensive
knowledge base complete with an FAQ and a full-fledged beginner's guide.
There is an online chat support system, and you can get in touch with their
team by calling the hotline number.
Pricing
[image: Filmora vs Adobe Premiere Pro]
Acquiring a copy of Premiere Pro requires a subscription to Adobe Creative
Cloud (Image credit: Adobe)
Acquiring a copy of Premiere Pro requires a subscription to Adobe Creative
Cloud. This can cost around $20.99 per month to $52.99 per month based on
the number of apps included. Wondershare Filmora 9 costs much less at just
$39.99 a year for Windows. You can also purchase the software outright for
a one-time fee of $59.99.
Verdict
[image: Filmora vs Adobe Premier Pro]
Premiere Pro is the first choice, but Filmora by Wondershare makes for a
pretty good contender for a lower price (Image credit: Wondershare)
When compared simply on the basis of features and functionality, Adobe
Premiere Pro comes out as the clear winner. However, Wondershare Filmora
offers a significantly high, if not equally high, number of features for a
much lower price tag.
If you are a professional movie maker working at a studio, Premiere Pro may
be your first choice for video editing. However, Filmora makes for a very
good contender for amateur and even professional users with its impressive
design and a solid list of features.
,
Adobe flips on GPU-accelerated encoding for Premiere Pro, and wow it's fast
- PCWorld,
Content creators, start your engines. Today, Adobe officially rolled out
hardware encoding support for Nvidia and AMD GPUs in Premiere Pro, After
Effects, and Adobe Media Encoder, letting you lean on the power of your
graphics card to speed up H.264 and HEVC video exporting.
And when we say speed up, we mean *speed up*, as you can see in Adobe and
Nvidia's comparison graphs below. Nvidia says the newfound support for the
NVENC hardware encoder in GeForce and Quadro GPUs can allow video editors
to export videos up to five times faster than CPU rendering alone.
[ Further reading: Best graphics cards for PC gaming ][image: adobe pp comp]
Adobe
Adobe's GPU encoding performance claims.
[image: adobe pp comp nvidia] Nvidia
Nvidia's GPU encoding claims.
Your mileage will vary depending on the workload, however. In a quick H.264
export test performed by Adam Patrick Murray, PCWorld's lead video
director, on a system with an Intel Core i7-6900K and a GeForce RTX 2080
Super, activating GPU encoding ramped up GPU utilization—as you'd
expect—and cut the render time in *half*.
Yes please.
Mentioned in this article
Flipping the GPU encoding switch changes some of your available quality
options, however. Adam reports that you can't use GPU encoding with
two-pass VBR (variable bitrate), only one-pass VBR or CBR (constant
bitrate). There could theoretically be an image quality hit if you're
accustomed to using two-pass VBR, though we've yet to test the new feature
extensively.
[image: adam premiere pro normal encode] Adam Patrick Murray/IDG
Our video director exporting a video using traditional CPU encoding. Note
the highlighted estimated time to completion.
[image: adam premiere pro gpu encode] Adam Patrick Murray/IDG
Our video director exporting a video using Adobe's new GPU accelerated
encoding. The estimated time to completion cuts in half.
Boutique system builder Puget Systems benchmarked Premiere Pro's new NVENC
encoding support while it was in beta, however, and found "this feature
resulted in between a 2-4x improvement in export times depending on the
source codec with a minimal (if any) decrease in video quality."
Previously, hardware encoding was limited to Intel CPUs that supported the
Quick Sync feature, or limited support for some CUDA workloads on Nvidia
GPUs. If you're hoping to hop onboard the GPU encoding bandwagon, Adobe
recommends using a graphics card with at least 4GB of onboard memory for
1080p videos, 6GB of VRAM for 4K videos, or 8GB or more of VRAM for
higher-resolution tasks. Our guide to the best graphics cards focuses on PC
gaming, but it can help you find the right GPU to fit your needs regardless
of your budget.
"Also included in today's release is support for Apple's ProRes RAW in both
Premiere Pro and After Effects," Nvidia says. "For the first time, video
editors and motion graphics artists can import and edit ProRes RAW files in
Windows with no need to transcode. This is accelerated by CUDA, available
exclusively on Nvidia GPUs."
That's a big win for Nvidia's creation-focused RTX Studio laptops. Speaking
of which, Dell also redesigned its Precision workstation lineup, with the
Dell Precision 5750 joining the Precision 7000 series in the RTX Studio
program. It comes with swanky Quadro RTX 3000 graphics and the free
three-month subscription to Adobe's Creative Cloud common to all Studio
notebooks.
Keen to try out all the new features? Just open up Premiere Pro, one of
many programs worth paying for. We're already seeing it available on our
systems.
Note: When you purchase something after clicking links in our articles, we
may earn a small commission. Read our affiliate link policy for more
details.
,
Adobe Premiere Pro May 2020 AMD vs NVIDIA GPU Encoding Performance -
Techgage,
Adobe released updates to a number of its audio and video applications last
week, including Premiere Pro, Media Encoder, After Effects, and Audition.
While these updates bring a healthy number of individual improvements
across the lot, it was the mention of faster GPU encoding in Premiere Pro
and Media Encoder 14.2 that caught our eye first.
With the move to support AMD's and NVIDIA's native GPU encoders, export
times can be improved across-the-board, sometimes dramatically. After doing
a quick test on one GPU, we saw promising enough results and decided to
toss a few more into the workstation and see how scaling changes across the
board, from low- to high-end.
[image: Adobe Premiere Pro 14.2]
Other notable features in the May 2020 Premiere Pro and Media Encoder
update include support for Apple's ProRes RAW format, better support for
Bezier curves with the pen tool, Auto Reframe powered by Adobe Sensei AI
technologies, support for audio files in Creative Cloud libraries, and a
great quality-of-life improvement: automatic switching to newly plugged-in
audio devices.
You can get a fuller look at the updates on Adobe's official blog. For this
article, we're going to focus entirely on GPU encoding performance, pitting
a collection of 21 GPUs from AMD and NVIDIA against each other in the new
14.2 release, as well as 14.0.4 (which was used in our recent review of
AMD's Radeon Pro W5500).
There's certainly no "one" way to measure Premiere Pro or Media Encoder
performance. Even if we were to single out one piece of the workflow, like
encoding, one or two results is going to tell only part of the overall
story. Our attention here will be to focus on AVC and HEVC encoding from
AVC, RED, and ProRes sources. We're planning to explore additional
performance angles in the future, including, of course, playback
performance.
We'll explore other important details as we go along, as the need arises.
For now, here's a quick look at our workstation PC specs and tested
graphics cards:
Techgage Workstation Test System
Processor Intel Core i9-10980XE (18-core; 3.4GHz)
Motherboard ASUS ROG STRIX X299-E GAMING
Memory G.SKILL FlareX (F4-3200C14-8GFX)
4x8GB; DDR4-3200 14-14-14
Graphics AMD Radeon VII (16GB, Adrenaline 20.4.1)
AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (8GB, Adrenaline 20.4.1)
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT (6GB, Adrenaline 20.4.1)
AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (8GB, Adrenaline 20.4.1)
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 (8GB, Adrenaline 20.4.1)
AMD Radeon RX 590 (8GB, Adrenaline 20.4.1)
AMD Radeon Pro W5700 (8GB, Enterprise 20.Q1.1)
AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (8GB, Enterprise 20.Q1.1)
AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 (16GB, Enterprise 20.Q1.1)
AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (8GB, Enterprise 20.Q1.1)
AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (8GB, Enterprise 20.Q1.1)
NVIDIA TITAN RTX (24GB, Studio 442.92)
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (11GB, Studio 442.92)
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER (8GB, Studio 442.92)
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER (8GB, Studio 442.92)
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER (8GB, Studio 442.92)
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (8GB, Studio 442.92)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (8GB, Studio 442.92)
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 (24GB, Quadro 442.92)
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 (8GB, Quadro 442.92)
NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (5GB, Quadro 442.92)
Audio Onboard
Storage AMD: Samsung 480GB SATA SSD
NVIDIA: Samsung 480GB SATA SSD
Power Supply Corsair 80 Plus Gold AX1200
Chassis Corsair Carbide 600C Inverted Full-Tower
Cooling NZXT Kraken X62 AIO Liquid Cooler
Et cetera Windows 10 Pro build 18363 (1909)
Software vs. Hardware Encoding
When we started exploring performance in Premiere Pro and Media Encoder
14.2, we felt compelled to do a special test using four different encoding
configurations, but using the same hardware. In the Media tab of
Preferences in either PP or ME, there's an option which reads, *Enable
hardware accelerated encoding and decoding*, and if enabled, the GPU will
be used for both tasks.
The big question: should you enable it? The answer is likely to be "yes"
any way you look at it:
Intel Core i9-10980XE + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060S
Software +
CPU Encode Software +
GPU Encode CUDA +
CPU Encode CUDA +
GPU Encode
1080p Project 297s 318s 100s 83s
4K Project 341s 307s 155s 88s
AVC > AVC 112s 101s 28s 22s
AVC > HEVC 234s 217s 36s 37s
RED > AVC 142s 144s 31s 31s
RED > HEVC 155s 150s 32s 40s
ProRes > AVC 71s 70s 18s 18s
ProRes > HEVC 81s 74s 20s 17s
Notes
Off the top, it's an interesting set of results we see between the 1080p
and 4K projects when using CPU encoding – their strengths effectively
flip-flop (even after retests). Ultimately, that doesn't really matter,
because it's clear that you'll probably see your best performance with the
GPU handling the bulk of the decode and encode. If you believe CPU to be
the superior encode, then you'll want to disable hardware encode in the
preferences, but keep Mercury Playback Engine locked to its GPU
Acceleration option. Using software encoding also provides more granularity
in the options you can use, since options like two-pass encoding can not be
used with GPU encoders.
1080p and 4K YouTube Project Encodes
[image: Adobe Premiere Pro 14.2 Performance - 1080p YouTube AVC Encode]
[image: Adobe Premiere Pro 14.2 Performance - 4K YouTube AVC Encode]
The projects used for testing here are behind two videos that have been
posted to our YouTube channel. The 1080p/60 AVC source came from a
Panasonic camcorder, while the 4K/60 is largely sourced from mobile phone
footage. Both are fairly standard projects, without heavy use of effects,
but we're exploring expanding our testing to better reflect that use.
The more you look at these results, the more there is to learn. It's
immediately clear that the 14.2 update benefited the vast majority of cards
in this collection, although there were a couple of exceptions. If you see
a result that seems a little strange, you can rest assured that it's one we
retested, because we can't stomach being unsure about our test results.
At the low-end, the older Radeon Pro WX 7100 and WX 4100 actually performed
worse in the latest version, in both tests. Meanwhile, the rest of the
Radeons enjoyed some benefit, but overall, NVIDIA's flexing its muscles
harder than AMD here.
AVC 4K/60 Encodes
[image: Adobe Premiere Pro 14.2 Performance - 4K60 AVC to AVC Encode]
[image: Adobe Premiere Pro 14.2 Performance - 4K60 AVC to HEVC Encode]
With our AVC encode source (60 seconds 120Mbps), we seem to be hitting a
performance bottleneck with AVC, but HEVC encoding improves scaling a wee
bit across the board. The overall numbers are modest considering the length
of the clip isn't too impressive, but at the same time, it's nice to see
most cards have done much better than real-time at both resolutions.
While NVIDIA's GPUs in particular all seem to agree on performance at the
top-end, all of those cards saw obvious gains from the simple move to the
latest version of Premiere Pro. 6 seconds off of a 28 seconds encode might
not seem like much, but that translates to an encode that finishes more
than 20% quicker – and all just from a software upgrade. That will matter
when your encode takes tens of minutes, or hours.
On the AMD side, it's only a few models that managed to see an improvement,
with most of them showing a slight degradation in performance instead.
RED 8K/24 Encodes
[image: Adobe Premiere Pro 14.2 Performance - 8K24 RED to AVC Encode]
[image: Adobe Premiere Pro 14.2 Performance - 8K24 RED to HEVC Encode]
As we saw with the AVC source test above, the AVC encode from RED (8:1 22
seconds 1,367Mbps) source scaling doesn't look much more impressive across
the stack. Overall though, 14.2 didn't really make much of a difference to
any GPU other than the WX 7100 (which is funny, since it regressed
performance in an earlier test).
HEVC thankfully changes things up a fair bit, with plenty of AMD and NVIDA
GPUs alike enjoying immediate gains from the version bump. Well, all of
those except the GeForce RTX 2060 and Quadro RTX 4000. Those were two
results we were quick to sanity check, only to see the scaling remain.
ProRes 422 8K/24 Encodes
[image: Adobe Premiere Pro 14.2 Performance - 8K24 ProRes 422 to AVC Encode]
[image: Adobe Premiere Pro 14.2 Performance - 8K24 ProRes 422 to HEVC
Encode]
To wrap up our results, the AVC encoder from ProRes source (22 seconds
2,788Mbps) shows no real improvement between the last and current version,
but yet again, the HEVC result shows some notable improvement. We mentioned
earlier that one or two codec performance results will only paint a partial
picture of overall performance scaling, and the final graph here highlights
why.
In this ProRes to HEVC test, both the Quadro P2200 and GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
saw tremendous gains between versions, and we feel compelled to assure you
once again that retesting was conducted, and all of those numbers held
firm. We're not entirely sure why those GPUs in particular saw such massive
boosts, especially since they both use different encoder chips. Either way,
it's nice to see. The same applies to that lowbie WX 4100 sitting at the
bottom – even if saw decent gains.
Final Thoughts (For Now)
To take best advantage of the GPU encoding improvements in Premiere Pro and
Media Encoder 14.2, it's best to have an officially supported graphics
card. Adobe's system requirements page lists a huge number of them,
although there are a whack missing that we'd expect to be there.
On the NVIDIA side of the fence, Adobe shows official support for nearly
every GeForce as far back as the Pascal generation (eg: GTX 980), with
Quadro and TITAN going back one generation further, with Kepler-based
products (eg: Quadro K6000). Oddly, absolutely no AMD Radeon gaming GPUs
have made this list here; all of that support is tied to AMD's workstation
series, including modern Radeon Pros and aging FirePros. That doesn't mean
that gaming Radeons are not going to work fine, though.
[image: Adobe Media Encoder 14.2]
It's also worth noting that these updates have also hit the macOS version
of these solutions, and again, it's all AMD FirePro and Radeon support on
that side, thanks hugely to the fact that Apple booted CUDA support a few
years ago, much to the chagrin of many of its loyal fanbase.
If you're a Premiere Pro or Media Encoder user, it's almost certainly a
good idea to update and enjoy some performance gains. Of course, we'd be
remiss to ignore some of the regressions we've seen with certain models,
and if you happen to be using a lower-end GPU, you may yourself want to do
some A-B testing to see which ends up working out best for you.
As mentioned before, we plan to expand our Premiere Pro testing over time,
and also plan to eventually move all of our tests to NVMe storage in lieu
of SATA, and then possibly expand to make them a bit beefier, in hopes of
seeing more interesting scaling. Until then, suggestions and other thoughts
are welcomed as always.
*Support our efforts!* With ad revenue at an all-time low for written
websites, we're relying more than ever on reader support to help us
continue putting so much effort into this type of content. You can support
us by becoming a Patron, or by using our Amazon shopping affiliate links
listed through our articles. Thanks for your support!
,
Filmora by Wondershare is a versatile video editing application designed as
a one-size-fits-all solution for videographers of all stripes. It is so
easy to use that it doesn't even require a quick look at the user guide or
any other resource to get started. At the same time, it can handle the most
demanding applications, with over 100 video tracks and 100 audio tracks in
a single project.
Meanwhile, Adobe Premiere Pro, the professional-grade video editor from the
people who created Photoshop and Illustrator, is the go-to solution for
power users who don't mind a learning curve, but it boasts some of the most
powerful features in the industry.
But which is the right one for you? In this Filmora vs Adobe Premiere Pro
feature, we compare two of the *best video editing software* solutions in
the industry to show you which one ranks the highest.
[image: Filmora vs Adobe Premiere Pro]
Adobe Premiere Pro is a professional-grade video editor from the people who
created Photoshop and Illustrator (Image credit: Adobe)Features
Filmora's user interface is available in dark or light gray variants and
comes with four editing modes to switch between—Action Cam, Full Feature,
Instant Cutter, and Easy Mode. The overall getup of the user interface is
intuitive and well designed, but it's not suited for touchscreen devices.
Adobe Premiere Pro uses an advanced interface divided into several panels,
each with its own separate function. The color palette used by the
interface is dark and minimalistic. The overall design is functionally
powerful, but perhaps not as simple as Filmora's.
Adobe Premiere Pro allows you to make the usual adjustments to your video
in brightness, saturation, contrast, and highlights. It also lets you use
its signature tool, the Lumetri Color Panel, to adjust the tint and
coloring of your video clip.
Filmora's Action Cam mode features the bulk of the fixes required in video
editing, with options such as stabilization, noise reduction, and fisheye
correction. There is also an array of special effects and filters to choose
from, which is what we're going to discuss next.
There are a few pre-designed special effects that you can choose from in
Adobe Premiere Pro. Granted, they're not much, but you can get more effects
by buying third-party plugins or even create your own effects using the
tools provided.
In contrast, Filmora by Wondershare offers many more Instagram-like special
effects that you can apply to your video. These picture-in-picture effects
can also be customized and adjusted to suit your visual preferences.
Apart from visual effects, you can also use transitions to change how one
part of the video clip flows into another. Adobe Premiere Pro offers 38
transitions to choose from, whereas Filmora offers 100, but Premiere Pro is
the only video editing tool with an option that lets you design your own
transitions.
Filmora features a good number of text templates that you can use, each
beautifully colored and animated to look professional. You can also use the
Advanced Text Edit option to create your own text templates, which you can
add your own colors and animations to.
With the inclusion of Adobe Typekit in Adobe Premiere Pro, the
possibilities when it comes to adding text to your video are endless. There
are even shadows and strokes that you can apply to your text, apart from
color and animation.
With Adobe Premiere Pro, you can add background music and other audio to
your video clip in real-time as it is playing. There is also a built-in
Audio Mixer to make edits to your audio clips.
Filmora offers 22 pre-designed background songs to add to your video, and
you can always add a different one from your computer if you like. The
built-in Audio Mixer also lets you adjust panning and volume to your liking.
Performance
[image: Filmora vs Adobe Premiere Pro]
It is compulsory to have an external graphics card installed to use Adobe
Premiere Pro (Image credit: Adobe)
Wondershare Filmora 9 requires a 2GHz processor and about 2GB of RAM (8GB
for 4K editing). Adobe Premiere Pro, though, requires an external graphics
card with at least 2GB VRAM (4GB for 4K editing), along with these basic
requirements. Video editing software is best used on a 64-bit operating
system.
Filmora boasts a decent rendering speed even on mid-end desktop models with
built-in graphics processors like Intel HD 5000 or later, but an external
graphics card is certainly helpful. GPU acceleration is disabled by
default, but it can be turned on in the settings.
It is compulsory to have an external graphics card installed in order to
use Adobe Premiere Pro. However, any mid-to-high range graphics card will
do. Performance is very fast on Windows, but Mac users have reported
occasional lags that can get in the way of working.
Generally speaking, Filmora has a lower system requirement and therefore
offers more responsive performance than Adobe Premiere Pro.
Support
[image: Filmora vs Adobe Premiere Pro]
Filmora by Wondershare comes with an extensive knowledge base (Image
credit: Wondershare)
Adobe Premiere Pro comes with the official support available to all
Creative Cloud customers. There are a phone number and an online chatbox
you can use. Its website also features an extensive knowledge base with
answers to frequently asked questions and an online forum frequented by
specialists from the company.
In much the same way, Filmora by Wondershare comes with an extensive
knowledge base complete with an FAQ and a full-fledged beginner's guide.
There is an online chat support system, and you can get in touch with their
team by calling the hotline number.
Pricing
[image: Filmora vs Adobe Premiere Pro]
Acquiring a copy of Premiere Pro requires a subscription to Adobe Creative
Cloud (Image credit: Adobe)
Acquiring a copy of Premiere Pro requires a subscription to Adobe Creative
Cloud. This can cost around $20.99 per month to $52.99 per month based on
the number of apps included. Wondershare Filmora 9 costs much less at just
$39.99 a year for Windows. You can also purchase the software outright for
a one-time fee of $59.99.
Verdict
[image: Filmora vs Adobe Premier Pro]
Premiere Pro is the first choice, but Filmora by Wondershare makes for a
pretty good contender for a lower price (Image credit: Wondershare)
When compared simply on the basis of features and functionality, Adobe
Premiere Pro comes out as the clear winner. However, Wondershare Filmora
offers a significantly high, if not equally high, number of features for a
much lower price tag.
If you are a professional movie maker working at a studio, Premiere Pro may
be your first choice for video editing. However, Filmora makes for a very
good contender for amateur and even professional users with its impressive
design and a solid list of features.
,
Adobe flips on GPU-accelerated encoding for Premiere Pro, and wow it's fast
- PCWorld,
Content creators, start your engines. Today, Adobe officially rolled out
hardware encoding support for Nvidia and AMD GPUs in Premiere Pro, After
Effects, and Adobe Media Encoder, letting you lean on the power of your
graphics card to speed up H.264 and HEVC video exporting.
And when we say speed up, we mean *speed up*, as you can see in Adobe and
Nvidia's comparison graphs below. Nvidia says the newfound support for the
NVENC hardware encoder in GeForce and Quadro GPUs can allow video editors
to export videos up to five times faster than CPU rendering alone.
[ Further reading: Best graphics cards for PC gaming ][image: adobe pp comp]
Adobe
Adobe's GPU encoding performance claims.
[image: adobe pp comp nvidia] Nvidia
Nvidia's GPU encoding claims.
Your mileage will vary depending on the workload, however. In a quick H.264
export test performed by Adam Patrick Murray, PCWorld's lead video
director, on a system with an Intel Core i7-6900K and a GeForce RTX 2080
Super, activating GPU encoding ramped up GPU utilization—as you'd
expect—and cut the render time in *half*.
Yes please.
Mentioned in this article
Flipping the GPU encoding switch changes some of your available quality
options, however. Adam reports that you can't use GPU encoding with
two-pass VBR (variable bitrate), only one-pass VBR or CBR (constant
bitrate). There could theoretically be an image quality hit if you're
accustomed to using two-pass VBR, though we've yet to test the new feature
extensively.
[image: adam premiere pro normal encode] Adam Patrick Murray/IDG
Our video director exporting a video using traditional CPU encoding. Note
the highlighted estimated time to completion.
[image: adam premiere pro gpu encode] Adam Patrick Murray/IDG
Our video director exporting a video using Adobe's new GPU accelerated
encoding. The estimated time to completion cuts in half.
Boutique system builder Puget Systems benchmarked Premiere Pro's new NVENC
encoding support while it was in beta, however, and found "this feature
resulted in between a 2-4x improvement in export times depending on the
source codec with a minimal (if any) decrease in video quality."
Previously, hardware encoding was limited to Intel CPUs that supported the
Quick Sync feature, or limited support for some CUDA workloads on Nvidia
GPUs. If you're hoping to hop onboard the GPU encoding bandwagon, Adobe
recommends using a graphics card with at least 4GB of onboard memory for
1080p videos, 6GB of VRAM for 4K videos, or 8GB or more of VRAM for
higher-resolution tasks. Our guide to the best graphics cards focuses on PC
gaming, but it can help you find the right GPU to fit your needs regardless
of your budget.
"Also included in today's release is support for Apple's ProRes RAW in both
Premiere Pro and After Effects," Nvidia says. "For the first time, video
editors and motion graphics artists can import and edit ProRes RAW files in
Windows with no need to transcode. This is accelerated by CUDA, available
exclusively on Nvidia GPUs."
That's a big win for Nvidia's creation-focused RTX Studio laptops. Speaking
of which, Dell also redesigned its Precision workstation lineup, with the
Dell Precision 5750 joining the Precision 7000 series in the RTX Studio
program. It comes with swanky Quadro RTX 3000 graphics and the free
three-month subscription to Adobe's Creative Cloud common to all Studio
notebooks.
Keen to try out all the new features? Just open up Premiere Pro, one of
many programs worth paying for. We're already seeing it available on our
systems.
Note: When you purchase something after clicking links in our articles, we
may earn a small commission. Read our affiliate link policy for more
details.
,
Adobe Premiere Pro May 2020 AMD vs NVIDIA GPU Encoding Performance -
Techgage,
Adobe released updates to a number of its audio and video applications last
week, including Premiere Pro, Media Encoder, After Effects, and Audition.
While these updates bring a healthy number of individual improvements
across the lot, it was the mention of faster GPU encoding in Premiere Pro
and Media Encoder 14.2 that caught our eye first.
With the move to support AMD's and NVIDIA's native GPU encoders, export
times can be improved across-the-board, sometimes dramatically. After doing
a quick test on one GPU, we saw promising enough results and decided to
toss a few more into the workstation and see how scaling changes across the
board, from low- to high-end.
[image: Adobe Premiere Pro 14.2]
Other notable features in the May 2020 Premiere Pro and Media Encoder
update include support for Apple's ProRes RAW format, better support for
Bezier curves with the pen tool, Auto Reframe powered by Adobe Sensei AI
technologies, support for audio files in Creative Cloud libraries, and a
great quality-of-life improvement: automatic switching to newly plugged-in
audio devices.
You can get a fuller look at the updates on Adobe's official blog. For this
article, we're going to focus entirely on GPU encoding performance, pitting
a collection of 21 GPUs from AMD and NVIDIA against each other in the new
14.2 release, as well as 14.0.4 (which was used in our recent review of
AMD's Radeon Pro W5500).
There's certainly no "one" way to measure Premiere Pro or Media Encoder
performance. Even if we were to single out one piece of the workflow, like
encoding, one or two results is going to tell only part of the overall
story. Our attention here will be to focus on AVC and HEVC encoding from
AVC, RED, and ProRes sources. We're planning to explore additional
performance angles in the future, including, of course, playback
performance.
We'll explore other important details as we go along, as the need arises.
For now, here's a quick look at our workstation PC specs and tested
graphics cards:
Techgage Workstation Test System
Processor Intel Core i9-10980XE (18-core; 3.4GHz)
Motherboard ASUS ROG STRIX X299-E GAMING
Memory G.SKILL FlareX (F4-3200C14-8GFX)
4x8GB; DDR4-3200 14-14-14
Graphics AMD Radeon VII (16GB, Adrenaline 20.4.1)
AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (8GB, Adrenaline 20.4.1)
AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT (6GB, Adrenaline 20.4.1)
AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (8GB, Adrenaline 20.4.1)
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 (8GB, Adrenaline 20.4.1)
AMD Radeon RX 590 (8GB, Adrenaline 20.4.1)
AMD Radeon Pro W5700 (8GB, Enterprise 20.Q1.1)
AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (8GB, Enterprise 20.Q1.1)
AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 (16GB, Enterprise 20.Q1.1)
AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (8GB, Enterprise 20.Q1.1)
AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (8GB, Enterprise 20.Q1.1)
NVIDIA TITAN RTX (24GB, Studio 442.92)
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (11GB, Studio 442.92)
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER (8GB, Studio 442.92)
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER (8GB, Studio 442.92)
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER (8GB, Studio 442.92)
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (8GB, Studio 442.92)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (8GB, Studio 442.92)
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 (24GB, Quadro 442.92)
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 (8GB, Quadro 442.92)
NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (5GB, Quadro 442.92)
Audio Onboard
Storage AMD: Samsung 480GB SATA SSD
NVIDIA: Samsung 480GB SATA SSD
Power Supply Corsair 80 Plus Gold AX1200
Chassis Corsair Carbide 600C Inverted Full-Tower
Cooling NZXT Kraken X62 AIO Liquid Cooler
Et cetera Windows 10 Pro build 18363 (1909)
Software vs. Hardware Encoding
When we started exploring performance in Premiere Pro and Media Encoder
14.2, we felt compelled to do a special test using four different encoding
configurations, but using the same hardware. In the Media tab of
Preferences in either PP or ME, there's an option which reads, *Enable
hardware accelerated encoding and decoding*, and if enabled, the GPU will
be used for both tasks.
The big question: should you enable it? The answer is likely to be "yes"
any way you look at it:
Intel Core i9-10980XE + NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060S
Software +
CPU Encode Software +
GPU Encode CUDA +
CPU Encode CUDA +
GPU Encode
1080p Project 297s 318s 100s 83s
4K Project 341s 307s 155s 88s
AVC > AVC 112s 101s 28s 22s
AVC > HEVC 234s 217s 36s 37s
RED > AVC 142s 144s 31s 31s
RED > HEVC 155s 150s 32s 40s
ProRes > AVC 71s 70s 18s 18s
ProRes > HEVC 81s 74s 20s 17s
Notes
Off the top, it's an interesting set of results we see between the 1080p
and 4K projects when using CPU encoding – their strengths effectively
flip-flop (even after retests). Ultimately, that doesn't really matter,
because it's clear that you'll probably see your best performance with the
GPU handling the bulk of the decode and encode. If you believe CPU to be
the superior encode, then you'll want to disable hardware encode in the
preferences, but keep Mercury Playback Engine locked to its GPU
Acceleration option. Using software encoding also provides more granularity
in the options you can use, since options like two-pass encoding can not be
used with GPU encoders.
1080p and 4K YouTube Project Encodes
[image: Adobe Premiere Pro 14.2 Performance - 1080p YouTube AVC Encode]
[image: Adobe Premiere Pro 14.2 Performance - 4K YouTube AVC Encode]
The projects used for testing here are behind two videos that have been
posted to our YouTube channel. The 1080p/60 AVC source came from a
Panasonic camcorder, while the 4K/60 is largely sourced from mobile phone
footage. Both are fairly standard projects, without heavy use of effects,
but we're exploring expanding our testing to better reflect that use.
The more you look at these results, the more there is to learn. It's
immediately clear that the 14.2 update benefited the vast majority of cards
in this collection, although there were a couple of exceptions. If you see
a result that seems a little strange, you can rest assured that it's one we
retested, because we can't stomach being unsure about our test results.
At the low-end, the older Radeon Pro WX 7100 and WX 4100 actually performed
worse in the latest version, in both tests. Meanwhile, the rest of the
Radeons enjoyed some benefit, but overall, NVIDIA's flexing its muscles
harder than AMD here.
AVC 4K/60 Encodes
[image: Adobe Premiere Pro 14.2 Performance - 4K60 AVC to AVC Encode]
[image: Adobe Premiere Pro 14.2 Performance - 4K60 AVC to HEVC Encode]
With our AVC encode source (60 seconds 120Mbps), we seem to be hitting a
performance bottleneck with AVC, but HEVC encoding improves scaling a wee
bit across the board. The overall numbers are modest considering the length
of the clip isn't too impressive, but at the same time, it's nice to see
most cards have done much better than real-time at both resolutions.
While NVIDIA's GPUs in particular all seem to agree on performance at the
top-end, all of those cards saw obvious gains from the simple move to the
latest version of Premiere Pro. 6 seconds off of a 28 seconds encode might
not seem like much, but that translates to an encode that finishes more
than 20% quicker – and all just from a software upgrade. That will matter
when your encode takes tens of minutes, or hours.
On the AMD side, it's only a few models that managed to see an improvement,
with most of them showing a slight degradation in performance instead.
RED 8K/24 Encodes
[image: Adobe Premiere Pro 14.2 Performance - 8K24 RED to AVC Encode]
[image: Adobe Premiere Pro 14.2 Performance - 8K24 RED to HEVC Encode]
As we saw with the AVC source test above, the AVC encode from RED (8:1 22
seconds 1,367Mbps) source scaling doesn't look much more impressive across
the stack. Overall though, 14.2 didn't really make much of a difference to
any GPU other than the WX 7100 (which is funny, since it regressed
performance in an earlier test).
HEVC thankfully changes things up a fair bit, with plenty of AMD and NVIDA
GPUs alike enjoying immediate gains from the version bump. Well, all of
those except the GeForce RTX 2060 and Quadro RTX 4000. Those were two
results we were quick to sanity check, only to see the scaling remain.
ProRes 422 8K/24 Encodes
[image: Adobe Premiere Pro 14.2 Performance - 8K24 ProRes 422 to AVC Encode]
[image: Adobe Premiere Pro 14.2 Performance - 8K24 ProRes 422 to HEVC
Encode]
To wrap up our results, the AVC encoder from ProRes source (22 seconds
2,788Mbps) shows no real improvement between the last and current version,
but yet again, the HEVC result shows some notable improvement. We mentioned
earlier that one or two codec performance results will only paint a partial
picture of overall performance scaling, and the final graph here highlights
why.
In this ProRes to HEVC test, both the Quadro P2200 and GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
saw tremendous gains between versions, and we feel compelled to assure you
once again that retesting was conducted, and all of those numbers held
firm. We're not entirely sure why those GPUs in particular saw such massive
boosts, especially since they both use different encoder chips. Either way,
it's nice to see. The same applies to that lowbie WX 4100 sitting at the
bottom – even if saw decent gains.
Final Thoughts (For Now)
To take best advantage of the GPU encoding improvements in Premiere Pro and
Media Encoder 14.2, it's best to have an officially supported graphics
card. Adobe's system requirements page lists a huge number of them,
although there are a whack missing that we'd expect to be there.
On the NVIDIA side of the fence, Adobe shows official support for nearly
every GeForce as far back as the Pascal generation (eg: GTX 980), with
Quadro and TITAN going back one generation further, with Kepler-based
products (eg: Quadro K6000). Oddly, absolutely no AMD Radeon gaming GPUs
have made this list here; all of that support is tied to AMD's workstation
series, including modern Radeon Pros and aging FirePros. That doesn't mean
that gaming Radeons are not going to work fine, though.
[image: Adobe Media Encoder 14.2]
It's also worth noting that these updates have also hit the macOS version
of these solutions, and again, it's all AMD FirePro and Radeon support on
that side, thanks hugely to the fact that Apple booted CUDA support a few
years ago, much to the chagrin of many of its loyal fanbase.
If you're a Premiere Pro or Media Encoder user, it's almost certainly a
good idea to update and enjoy some performance gains. Of course, we'd be
remiss to ignore some of the regressions we've seen with certain models,
and if you happen to be using a lower-end GPU, you may yourself want to do
some A-B testing to see which ends up working out best for you.
As mentioned before, we plan to expand our Premiere Pro testing over time,
and also plan to eventually move all of our tests to NVMe storage in lieu
of SATA, and then possibly expand to make them a bit beefier, in hopes of
seeing more interesting scaling. Until then, suggestions and other thoughts
are welcomed as always.
*Support our efforts!* With ad revenue at an all-time low for written
websites, we're relying more than ever on reader support to help us
continue putting so much effort into this type of content. You can support
us by becoming a Patron, or by using our Amazon shopping affiliate links
listed through our articles. Thanks for your support!
,
Comments
Post a Comment