Puget Systems print logo
Read this article at https://www.pugetsystems.com/guides/806
Article Thumbnail

Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2015 Multi Core Performance (Update1)

Written on June 8, 2016 by Matt Bach


When designing a computer there are literally thousands of different hardware components to choose from and each one will have an impact on the overall performance of your system in some shape or form. Depending on the software you will be using, however, some components will simply be more important than others. In the case of Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2015, one of the most critical hardware components that will help with the performance of your system is the CPU. The question is: how do you know which CPU will give you the best performance?

Before even attempting to answer this question, it is important to understand the two most basic CPU specifications:

  1. The frequency is essentially how many operations a single CPU core can complete in a second (how fast it is).
  2. The number of cores is how many physical cores there are within a CPU (how many operations it can run simultaneously).

This doesn't take into account the differences between CPU architectures, but in an ideal world a CPU that has the same frequency but twice the number of cores would be exactly twice as fast. Unfortunately, making software utilize multiple cores (and do so effectively) is difficult in most situations and almost impossible in others. Add in the fact that higher core count CPUs tend to have lower operating frequencies and it becomes even more difficult to ensure that you are choosing the right CPU for your software.

In this article, we want to find out how well Premiere Pro can utilize multiple cores - also known as multi-threading - to help determine what type of CPU (either one with a high frequency or a high core count) will give you the best possible performance. Since exporting videos and rendering previews are the two major tasks that users tend to wait on when using Premiere Pro, those are what we will be focusing on in this article. If you want to skip over our individual benchmark results and simply view our conclusions, feel free to jump ahead to the conclusion section.

Test Setup

For our test system, we used the following hardware:

Since we want to determine how many CPU cores Premiere Pro can effectively utilize, we used a pair of Xeon E5 2687W V4 CPUs to give us 24 physical CPU cores with which to test. To see if the efficiency changes depending on the amount of GPU power in the system, we also tested with both one and two GTX Titan X video cards. To help with consistency - and since the benchmarks we performed ran for several days - we programmed a custom script using AutoIt to start Premiere Pro, set the CPU affinity (which CPU cores it is allowed to use), load the relevant project, export the timeline with the appropriate settings or generate previews, close Premiere Pro to clear any data from the system RAM, then loop while making more and more cores available.

To analyze the data, we will be presenting our results in terms of how long it took each action to complete with X number of cores compared to how long it took to complete with just a single core. From these results, we will then use Amdahl's Law to estimate the parallel efficiency for the action. 100% is perfect efficiency where a high core count CPU is ideal, but as the efficiency drops lower and lower having a high frequency CPU becomes more and more important. For more information on Amdahl's Law and how it works we recommend reading our Estimating CPU Performance using Amdahl's Law article.

The files we will be testing with came from a variety of sources:

1080P H.264/CineForm
4K H.264/CineForm
Provided by: Jerry Berg
Barnacules Nerdgasm - YouTube
ProRes 4K Grant Petty
Blackmagic Design Forum (available for public download)
4K RED RAW Provided by: Mike Pecci
Director & Photographer
6K RED RAW Neumann Films
RED Dragon Test Shot (available for public download)

In order to make our testing as accurate as possible, we used relatively simply timelines for our testing in this article. In the past, we've loaded on the accelerated effects to show the maximum difference between cards, but we found that this was not representative of real-world performance gains. Our test timelines consisted of:

  • 4-5 clips arranged in series to make a 60 second timeline
  • A basic transition was applied to each clip
  • Lumetri color correction effect applied to each clip
  • Vector-based logo graphic added to the bottom corner of the footage

Exporting to 1080p

While more and more people are starting to shoot in 4K and higher resolutions, 1080p is still by far the most common resolution to export to. Because of this, we thought we would start our testing by looking at how Premiere is able to utilize multiple CPU cores when exporting from a variety of resolutions and codecs to H.264 1080p:

Single GPU Dual GPU

In the graphs above, the lines with dots are the actual speedup we recorded in our testing. The solid lines shows the calculated efficiency we arrived at by using Amdahl's Law on the results. The green line indicates the initial speedup we saw while the orange line is the efficiency after the system hit some sort of bottleneck (whether it was due to the GPU, RAM, cache, or simply an issue from Premiere itself).

What is surprising is simply how consistent the results were between the different codecs and resolutions. The amount of time it took in seconds to export each was vastly different, but the speedup per core was very similar. From our data, it appears that there is little to no benefit to having more than four or five cores with a single high-end GPU when exporting to 1080p. In fact, we even saw a drop in performance when we added a second physical CPU when using the RED 4K footage.

Adding a second GPU helped a bit and made it so that it was beneficial to have roughly six CPU cores instead of just four or five. With dual GPUs, however, we saw three instances where having two physical CPUs was worse than just having one (H.264 4K, CineForm 4K, and RED 4K).

What this basically means is that if you are exporting to 1080p, you ideally want the highest frequency six core CPU if possible. A higher core count shouldn't hurt anything (unless you have two physical CPUs), but it makes no sense to get a CPU with a higher core count if it means making any sort of a sacrifice in terms of operating frequency.

Exporting to 4K

Although 4K isn't as widespread as 1080p quite yet, more and more Premiere Pro users are either exporting to 4K or are considering exporting to 4K in the near future. Exporting to higher resolutions is more taxing on the system, so it will be interesting to see if the multi core efficiency is any better when exporting to 4K versus exporting to 1080p:

Single GPU Dual GPU

Compared to exporting to 1080p, exporting to 4K in Premiere Pro appears to be much more effective at utilizing higher CPU core counts. Where we didn't see a benefit to having more than six cores before, in some situations we are seeing advantages to having even dual CPUs.

In general, it appears that with a single high-end GPU, having around ten to twelve CPU cores is going to be ideal. With two video cards, it gets a little better to the point where having fourteen or even sixteen CPU cores may be beneficial. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that the average point where the efficiency drops to a lower value is only at about nine or ten CPU cores. This means that while more cores can be beneficial, even a small drop in operating frequency could potentially make a CPU with more cores slower than a CPU with fewer cores but a higher operating frequency.

Rendering Previews

While export times are extremely important, the time it takes to generate previews is also a key consideration. In fact, while it is not a perfect correlation, the faster a machine is able to generate previews, the more likely it will be able to perform live playback of a timeline without the need for previews in the first place.

Single GPU Dual GPU

For this test, we left the preview resolution at full as that is ideally what you would want your system to be capable of.

Overall, the results are strikingly similar to what we saw when exporting to 1080p although they are much more inconsistent between the different footage codes. The main difference is that with only a single high-end GPU Premiere was able to effectively use a few more cores - anywhere from five to seven or even eight cores. Interestingly, while two GPUs allowed for a bit better scaling, it was not as large of an improvement as what we saw when exporting.


From our initial multi-core testing in Premiere Pro, we've known that Premiere is only moderately effective at utilizing multiple CPU cores. This round of testing (with more realistic timelines and a wider range of source codes and resolutions), however, indicates that it is actually even a little bit worse than we thought. 

To summarize our results, lets first look at the individual efficiencies when exporting to H.264 1080p:

Exporting to H.264 1080p Single GPU
Parallel Efficiency
Dual GPU
Parallel Efficiency
H.264 1080p 87% (0% after 5 cores) 95% (50% after 5 cores)
CineForm 1080p 92% (50% after 3 cores) 95% (0% after 6 cores)
H.264 4K 90% (25% after 4 cores) 94% (50% after 6 cores)
CineForm 4K 90% (35% after 4 cores) 95% (35% after 6 cores)
ProRes 4K 90% (0% after 4 cores) 90% (0% after 4 cores)
RED 4K 92% (25% after 5 cores) 93% (0% after 5 cores)
RED 6K 95% (25% after 3 cores) 93% (40% after 5 cores)

With a single GTX Titan X video card, we saw an initial efficiency of about 91% on average. After about four or five cores, however, this dropped to pretty much nothing. Dual video cards was better with an initial average efficiency of about 93%, but this also dropped off to almost nothing after about 6 cores. What this means is that if you are exporting to H.264 1080p, you would ideally want a CPU with about four or six CPU cores. Eight cores can be beneficial in some instances, but if you have to sacrifice more than .1-.2GHz for those extra cores it will likely actually result in lower performance.

Exporting to H.264 4K Single GPU
Parallel Efficiency
Dual GPU
Parallel Efficiency
H.264 4K 98% (75% after 8 cores) 98% (78% after 8 cores)
CineForm 4K 96% (65% after 8 cores) 97% (65% after 8 cores)
ProRes 4K 92% (0% after 9 cores) 92% (0% after 9 cores)
RED 4K 97% (70% after 12 cores) 97% (50% after 12 cores)
RED 6K 98% (40% after 9 cores) 98.5% (70% after 11 cores)

When we upped the export resolution to 4K, we saw much better efficiency numbers. Not only was the initial efficiency higher (about 96.5% on average), Premiere Pro was also able to effectively use a much higher number of CPU cores. Where at 1080p anything more than six or maybe eight cores wouldn't be beneficial, in this case the initial multi core efficiency numbers lasted until around twelve cores. In other words, when exporting to 4K a ten core CPU should be great and in some instances a CPU (or multiple CPUs) with even more cores may give you a performance increase.

Render Full Res. 
Single GPU
Parallel Efficiency
Dual GPU
Parallel Efficiency
H.264 1080p 87% (0% after 5 cores) 95% (50% after 4 cores)
CineForm 1080p 82% (0% after 4 cores) 92% (0% after 4 cores)
H.264 4K 96% (50% after 4 cores) 94% (50% after 6 cores)
CineForm 4K 90% (35% after 3 cores) 88% (35% after 6 cores)
ProRes 4K 60% (0% after 4 cores) 70% (0% after 4 cores)
RED 4K 92% (60% after 6 cores) 92% (65% after 6 cores)
RED 6K 95% (45% after 7 cores) 95% (25% after 9 cores)

Unlike exporting, our results for rendering full resolution previews was really inconsistent. Some source footage (like RED 6K) was pretty good and should see a nice performance increase with even up to ten CPU cores. Others (such as ProRes 4K) was really bad - to the point that you almost want to ignore the number of cores and focus entirely on getting the highest possible CPU frequency you can. Overall, however, we would say that with the exception of RED 6K, you should ideally want a CPU with around 6-8 cores.

Unless you are very familiar with CPU scaling and Amdahl's Law, a lot of these numbers are probably not all that useful.  If you want to see how well different Core i7 and dual Xeon CPUs actually perform in After Effects, we recommend reading our Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2015.3 CPU Comparison article. In that article, we found that the three best CPU options for Premiere Pro today are the Intel Core i7 6850K, 6900K, or 6950X. However, we would advice against a dual Xeon option as in most cases these expensive configurations are slower than the Intel Core i7 6950X.

Premiere Pro Workstations

Puget Systems offers a range of poweful and reliable systems that are tailor-made for your unique workflow.

Configure a System!

Labs Consultation Service

Our Labs team is available to provide in-depth hardware recommendations based on your workflow.

Find Out More!
Tags: Adobe, Premiere Pro, Multi-threading
Peter White

What's not clear to me from this is what happens when Premiere is running with effects on the timeline - especially non GPU-accelerated effects. For example, Neat Video (noise reduction) is compute intensive. So are many third party effects like Tiffen DFX, Boris Continuum, etc.

These benchmarks could imply that a 6-8 core system is good enough for Premiere, but is that necessarily the case when your timeline is bogged down by such effects? It would be interesting to see a set of benchmarks measuring various effects, in addition to those here that seem to discriminate only on input and output formats.

Posted on 2016-10-26 02:42:00

That's one of the hardest things about benchmarking software like Premiere Pro - no matter what we test, there it always something else we could include! Especially if we started to get into plug-ins, it really becomes a never-ending chase to benchmark everything possible. The main reason we tend to focus on relatively simple timelines with just color correction and a graphic overlay is because that is what our customers tell us they tend to do the most in Premiere Pro. However, I think you have a good point that we might want to look into thing like noise reduction as well.

The main limitation to our testing is really simply a matter of time. We have actually expanded our testing since this article to include a few more codecs as well as importing files (and any audio conforming or generating of peak files that goes alongside that), exporting to DNxHD/DNxHR, and seeing how many video streams can be played back live - all of which means that it now takes about a day and a half for our automated utilities to complete a single benchmark run. Not too bad if we simply want to compare a couple of CPUs or video cards, but doing something like this multi-core testing would take somewhere around a month or two to complete.

We'll definitely keep your feedback in mind (comments like this really help us shape what we test), but we are at the point right now that we have to be careful what we add to our testing. Adding things to test isn't terrible difficult, but if we get to the point where our testing takes so long that it finishes right when new hardware or software comes out then the results are dated as soon as we publish them.

Posted on 2016-10-26 19:47:49
Peter White

Thanks Matt. It seems to me a pretty clear conclusion can be drawn from the testing so far of rendering with various codecs and resolutions. All the curves have a similar shape, bending flat at 4, 6, 8 or 10 procs depending on the class of scenario. Given the graphs above, I can see how someone might tune their purchase decision up or down a few procs based on the formats they use.

But at the same time, it seems that without testing 3rd party plug-ins, those that are cpu-intensive, and/or timelines with multiple stacked effects and layers, entire codes paths or architectural features of Premiere and its inherent extensibility could be neglected or left underappreciated.

Heck, it's conceivable that some amount or combination of effects could exploit 22 procs linearly. I personally have no way to know whether the Premiere architecture could allow such a thing without at least one benchmark implying the possibility.

So although I understand there is an infinite number of things that could be tested, that's not my point. I would be happy see just a few benchmarks that have been discovered to overcome the pattern demonstrated repeatedly above, if not only to learn that Premiere is not always such a bottleneck as the graphs illustrate.

I mentioned Neat Video because it in particular has a GPU/CPU utilization tuning tool that implies some flexibility and savvy on the part of the developers. And of course there are other effects, both factory and 3rd party that, due to the algorithms involved, use CPU extensively. Twixtor comes to mind. Likewise, effects that create spatial effects like haze, fog, highlight glow, flares, etc. are often CPU-bound. These are all great effects when used tastefully. But man, they are tough to endure on a light machine. Question for me is, are they any better on a pumped machine? That's what I came here to find out!

Thanks so much again.

Posted on 2016-10-28 00:49:32

So I just went from 3770K to a 6800K reason is hoping on much faster render times in 4K. And now i see you guys recommend 64GB. How much difference would it be with my 32GB 3200MHz Vs 64GB?

Posted on 2016-11-02 12:49:46
Berth Ljunggren

Interesting read, i have just built a workstation with dual E5-2640 v4 10 core xeons, 128gig ram and a PNY P5000 gfx card, but it should be
doing good for games, PPro, AE, Lightwave 3D, Zbrush, development, and vm machines, going from my i7ee(990x) with maxed memory(24 gig)
that cpu has 6 cores but at higher clock than the 2640(2.4ghz turbo 3.4) might have gone a bit overboard but the machine should last me for a long time.

Posted on 2016-11-05 00:57:23

My question is how taxing on the CPU is it when playing a timeline of multi camera 4K XAVC files? Editing isn't just about rendering, it's also about smooth timeline playback.

As an example, when editing two multi cam 4K XAVC Sony files (30) minutes in length each with one layer of color grading applied my 5960x will stutter and reach 100% CPU load or hover in the 90%+ range. This is happening when playing back the multicam sequence in the timeline.

In that scenario would dual xeons diminish the load during timeline playback? Or would the second Xeon be unutilized in premiere? I haven't seen this answered anywhere I've looked. Does a dual Xeon setup offer smoother timeline playback and skipping through the timeline?

Posted on 2016-12-01 14:42:15

That is an interesting question, and one I'm not 100% sure about. If there is anything that should scale across more cores, it would be multi-stream playback. It just depends on if the bottleneck is occurring when decoding the source video streams or when displaying them combined in the timeline. If it is the former, then I would hope that having more cores - even to the point of dual CPUs - would help, but if it is the latter I would bet that it wouldn't help much.

I have quite a bit going on right now so I unfortunately can't test it right away, but I will add that to our to-do list the next time we do a round of Premiere Pro CPU testing.

Posted on 2016-12-01 19:21:38

Ever consider testing between the different processors? For instance choosing a processor with more cores, but running slower, to see if there is some sort of scaling based on core speed and GPU limits? I'm curious if the faster the per-core speed of the processor, the less core scaling you get because of GPU limitation? It may be worthwhile to consider that it would make sense in the long run to have a dual cpu system with the fastest clocks possible (2 x 2679 v4) which will continue to scale over the years as GPUs become faster and faster? Of course, who knows what happens in future PP updates and if Adobe will just concentrate on GPU alone, regardless of CPU. I'm interested in 2 x 2689 V4 (10 core - 3.7ghz max all-core) - which is essentially two slightly overclocked 6950Xs.

Posted on 2016-12-14 15:53:26

Do you mean like this article, or something different?


Posted on 2016-12-14 18:03:23

Actually, yes! That is pretty much what I was referring to.

It is very interesting to see that 2 2690s actually perform slower than a single one....clearly there is more than just a GPU bottleneck on a dual cpu setup. A little disappointing to see that PP was not designed around a Workstation setup....

Ever done any testing on Final Cut Pro using Mac OS X VMware installation? I've read that FCP is built to use dual cpu systems

Posted on 2016-12-14 18:33:20

In past versions, at least based on other articles I have read over the years, more CPU cores did help in Premiere (and After Effects too). But as Adobe has transitioned toward using GPU acceleration - which can be much, much faster for heavily threaded workloads - it seems that the CPU needs have changed.

As for Final Cut, no: we haven't tested that at all. Running OS X on *anything* other than an actual Apple / Mac computer is against their licensing terms, so we avoid that like the plague. Their draconian licensing terms and locked-down hardware / software is why I am avidly anti-Apple myself :)

Posted on 2016-12-14 18:46:15

Same here, not to mention outrageously expensive for what you get too! :)

Too bad Adobe has not done a great job of figuring it out as far as I can tell. Doesn't work well with dual cpu workstations and gets an apparent bottleneck from the GPU (as two GPUs allows for greater CPU core scaling). It may also be a limitation of the codecs as well, but there is clearly a substantial amount of processing power and efficiency left on the table based on your testing.

I wonder if there would be any difference by testing based on number of threads? Logic would say the more threads the faster, but who knows - maybe a dual cpu 2690 no hyperthreading would stack up better against the 6950 with hyperthreading. Probably not....

Posted on 2016-12-14 19:20:03

Any chance of running some of these tests while exporting multiple videos simultaneously? I have a dual Xeon X5680 setup and an X79 E5-2670 8 core. The 8 core was in general a little faster on a single video export or batch of Lightroom photos. But when exporting from LR, PR, AME and AE simultaneously, the dual CPU system pulled ahead. Im often running multiple programs at once, so would also be curious to see the 6700k benched in a multi-export test. My hardware is older, so would be curious to see it on new tech.


Posted on 2016-12-28 19:04:14

That is definitely an interesting idea, and one I've thought about doing a few times. The problem I keep running into is that it is really hard to determine exactly what to test in each application and even which applications to test. Maybe I'm just overthinking it and I should just pick something in After Effects, Premiere, and Media Encoder (maybe LR too, but it seems like there isn't a huge overlap between LR and AE/PR users). Even then, there is the complication of how to handle Premiere finishing before AE, or the project used to test being especially good or bad with higher core counts. Or even if we should get into whether we can get higher performance by manually setting CPU affinity so different programs only get a set amount of cores.

If you have any suggestions or ideas on how to go about the testing, I'd really like to hear them since that would help my find a good starting point. The good news is we are in the process of adding another person to our Labs department (where we run all these tests) so hopefully I will be able to concentrate a bit more on this type of combined testing sometime in the future.

Posted on 2016-12-30 22:42:20

My tests were less than scientific, but the system with more cores became more beneficial when multitasking. Often a client will need different formats of the same video, or you may be transcoding in the background in Adobe Media Encoder, while working on something else. I find that high clock quad-core systems are more snappy in general, but get bogged down pretty quickly when multitasking.

Dual 6-core X5680's x58 8-core E5-2670 x79
GTX1080 GTX980ti
Lightroom 200pic Export 11min 48sec 7min 20sec
Premiere 4k VBR 2 H264 Export 1hr 4min 5sec 52min 41sec
Premiere HD Vimeo Preset Export 7min 40sec 8min 1 sec
2x Tests at once: Pr & AME 10min 30sec 13min 30sec
4x Tests at once: Lr, Pr, AME, Ae 14min 48sec 18min 12sec

Posted on 2017-01-13 23:41:19

Will having Dual Xeon System be beneficial. Adobe themselves are claiming that Premier Pro will perform lot better with Dual Xeon system when compared to single CPU, I asked them if 36 or 44core PC will perform better than 16 or 18core ones and they said it definitely will perform lot-better. But here Puget systems is saying that there is no big performance gain with Dual Xeon system. I am unable to decide if I build a Xeon build or single i7 build for my friend. He wants to use it only for editing and rendering 4K content. I myself am not into video editing and working with software like Adobe Premier Pro so I have no idea how it works. I am dependent on information on internet, but Adobe version of requirements is completely opposite to what Puget systems is showing. But as it is Puget is well known and trusted brand. Unable to decide. This above description being from June 8th,2016 I wanted to know if Adobe has done something to make Premier Pro utilize and perform well with more cores. Or did Adobe give me wrong information regarding the requierments.

Posted on 2017-03-30 16:58:09

Definitely still avoid a dual Xeon setup. Keep in mind that Adobe is a software developer so a lot of the times their hardware knowledge and information is a bit out of date. With all the work Adobe has done with GPU acceleration, I think many of their employees haven't quite caught up to how that affects CPU performance (since the things that are really well threaded tend to be ideal for GPU acceleration). Two or three years ago, we were recommending and selling dual Xeon systems but today it just doesn't make sense. https://www.pugetsystems.co... is an article from about 6 months ago includes the 6-10 Core i7 CPUs alongside a couple of high-end dual Xeon options. We didn't go up to 36 and 44 cores because the scaling in Premiere Pro is pretty middle of the road right now so there is really no chance that getting that many cores (which sacrifices clock speed) will perform well.

We haven't written an article covering dual Xeon for Premiere Pro 2017, but I have done some spot testing and I can tell you that even with the newer and more up to date testing we are doing right now, the overall results doesn't change much. I think rendering previews is a bit better on dual Xeon in PP 2017 (or it may just be that our testing today is a bit different), but it still isn't able to match the Core i7 6950X. Stick with whichever Core i7 69XX series fits your budget and you should be golden.

Posted on 2017-03-30 18:03:44

Had a second chat with Adobe officials this time with their Technical staff. That was a long one but for some reason they were still saying that more cores will definitely improve the performance even with GPU acceleration in action. The funny part is that twice they gave me link reference of Puget systems. Then I informed them that the tests done by Puget systems show that more number of cores is providing no performance gain. Even after that they were still implying that more number of cores will definitely improve the performance. They said that the utilization and performance of CPU scaling in Premier Pro depends on length of the content. For example if one have to render 4hr long 4K video that 44cores will outperform 10core CPU in render time. Definitely things shouldn't be dependent on length of the content because the performance of hardware doesn't change. But still don't know if it is possible I doubt it.

Posted on 2017-03-30 20:31:35

That's pretty funny that they linked to our articles even though the results directly contradict their claims. I also agree with you that the length of your timeline shouldn't really be a factor. Maybe if they are confusing dual Xeon with having more RAM or something like that I could see where they are coming from, but since you can get 512GB of RAM on a single Core i7 69XX CPU that doesn't make much sense either.

I think at this point you are simply at the point of "who do I believe". On the one hand there is us with actual benchmark data showing that dual Xeon is not an optimal choice. On the other hand is the Adobe contact you are talking who it sounds like has no actual performance data to back up their claims and if anything has referenced data that shows the opposite of what they are saying. I know who I would believe, although I suppose I am a bit biased.

Posted on 2017-03-31 03:18:25

Probably I should go with your idea. But just wanna confirm one last time. Did you guys test out the Premier Pro 2017 with dual Xeon Setup or if not do you have any plans on it. Are there any chances of getting different results from the above results. Thanks for your time Matt Bach.

Posted on 2017-03-31 04:48:29

I have done that testing in PP 2017, just not to the extent that there was enough to write an article on. Again, it was pretty darn close to the CPU Comparison article for PP 2015.3 I linked a few comments back. I do want to do a full "should you use dual Xeon for Premiere Pro" article sometime soon-ish since it is a fairly common question that gets asked, but right now we are focusing a lot of our work on Mac vs PC testing. I'm also not sure when Premiere Pro 2018 will come out - if that is soon I would prefer just to wait a month or two so i don't have to duplicate my testing. Hopefully we hear something at NAB next month that will give us an indication of whether we should hold or not.

Posted on 2017-03-31 05:03:11

For that matter I can hold down the project for 3-4months(max). I thinking waiting would be my best option at present. Probably I can get better idea by then.

Posted on 2017-03-31 05:24:55