Puget Systems print logo
Read this article at https://www.pugetsystems.com/guides/938
Article Thumbnail

Premiere Pro CC 2017 NVIDIA Quadro (Pascal) Performance

Written on April 18, 2017 by Matt Bach


While the Quadro P5000 and P6000 have been available for quite some time, NVIDIA has only recently launched the rest of their Pascal-based Quadro cards. Now that the full line is available, we thought it was time to take a look at how they perform in Premiere Pro.

To see how the different Pascal Quadro cards compare to each other, we will be examining the following tasks:

  1. Rendering previews (standard and VR projects)
  2. Exporting to 4K H.264 (standard and VR projects)
  3. Exporting to 4K DNxHR HQ
  4. Exporting to 8K H.265

If you would like to skip over our test setup and individual benchmark results, feel free to jump ahead to the conclusion.

Test Setup

To see how the new Quadro cards perform in Premiere Pro, we will be testing with the following hardware:

Testing Hardware
Motherboard: Asus X99 Deluxe II
CPU: Intel Core i7 6950X 3.0GHz
(3.4-4GHz) 10 Core
RAM: 4x DDR4-2400 32GB ECC Reg.
(128GB Total)
P4000 8GB

MSRP ~$920
P5000 16GB

MSRP ~$2,500
P6000 24GB

MSRP ~$5,500
GP100 16GB

MSRP ~$7,000
Titan Xp 12GB

MSRP ~$1,200
Hard Drive: Samsung 960 Pro 1TB M.2 PCI-E x4 NVMe SSD
OS: Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Software: Premiere Pro 2017.0.2

Our base test platform uses some of the best hardware currently available for Premiere Pro including the Core i7 6950X CPU and 128GB of RAM. For storage, we will be using just a single Samsung 960 Pro 1TB NVMe drive. Be aware that based on our Premiere Pro Storage Optimization testing, we typically recommend having at minimum one separate SSD for your media cache and scratch files as that greatly improves the time it takes to import media, conform audio, and generate peak files. However, since we are not testing those tasks in this article (because they are not GPU accelerated) we opted to stick with a single drive to cut down on the number of hardware variables that might affect our results.

While we will not be testing any particularly low-end video cards, we will be looking at the P4000, P5000, P6000, and GP100. Note that the GP100 is a bit of a specialty card that includes some features like NVLink and HBM2 memory which shouldn't make much of a difference in Premiere Pro. This card is designed more for engineering and simulation, but we had one on hand so we decided to go ahead and throw it into the mix. We will also be including the Titan Xp video card which is a bit of an oddball from NVIDIA because in many ways it doesn't fit into either the Quadro or GeForce line  - they recently even dropped the "GTX" term from the name entirely. However, it is a very popular card for GPU-intensive applications so it should work well as a point of reference.

Most of the media we will be using is available from the Sample R3D Files and were transcoded to the various codecs we wanted to test.


23.976 FPS


23.976 FPS


8192 x 3456
50 FPS

To test exporting and rendering previews we used a moderately complex timeline involving multiple clips, Lumetri Color correction, multicam footage, and some other effects like a logo overlay, Gaussian blur, and cross dissolves. If you want a more in-depth look at what our timelines are like, we recorded a short video explaining our test process:

Our 4K VR testing was performed using the "Sample 1 - Ring road motorbike ride" footage from the Autopano Video Benchmarking page. For this testing, we limited ourselves to only using built-in Premiere Pro effects such as Lumetri Color correction, text overlay, and cross dissolves.

Render Previews

Rendering previews is something that you hope never to have to do since it can interrupt your workflow, but if you do complex editing it is often unavoidable. Because of this, being able to render previews as quickly as possible can be an important part of an efficient Premiere Pro workstation.

NVIDIA Quadro Pascal Premiere Pro 2017 Benchmark Render Previews


Standard Footage

VR Footage


Overall, the results were fairly consistent between our standard and VR footage testing, but there was some variation between the different codecs and resolutions we tested. This means that if you happen to primarily use one of the codecs we tested, we recommend looking at the individual result rather than the average.

With that said, the Quadro cards all performed about how we expected with the top end card (GP100) being about 15% faster than the lowest end card (P4000). This may not seem like a very big difference considering the huge price disparity, but if you look at our testing for GeForce cards the relative performance between the models is strikingly similar. This means that the relatively small differences are not really the fault of the Quadro cards themselves, but rather simply a sign that performance does not increase at the same rate as the price.


Since there are a huge variety of resolutions and codecs you might export to, it simply isn't feasible for us to test every possible combination. However, what we can do is to make sure we touch on the more common combinations as well as the ones we believe will be more widely used in the future. Because of this, we tested exporting to 1080p, 4K, and 8K using H.264, H.265, and DNxHR HQ codecs. Our source footage also uses a range of codecs including H.264, RAW TIFF, ProRes 422HQ, ProRes 4444, DNxHR HQ, and RED.

In addition, since VR has been gaining steam we also wanted to include exporting VR projects to 4K H.264 from a variety of source codecs.

NVIDIA Quadro Pascal Premiere Pro 2017 Benchmark Export

Export to 1080p H.264

Export to 4K H.264 VR

Export to 8K H.265


Export to 4K H.264

Export to 4K DNxHR HQ 8-bit


Exporting is a bit interesting because we actually saw the largest performance gains from the more expensive cards when exporting to 1080p. Instead of the 14% average difference we otherwise saw between the lowest and highest cards, for 1080p the difference was almost 30%. 

If we look at the results as an overall average, we saw about a 4% increase in performance going from the P4000 to the P5000, then a 10% improvement moving up to either the P6000 or GP100.


Our Premiere Pro testing covers nearly 45 benchmarks with various footage resolutions and codecs and while there is certainly a performance difference between the different cards we tested, the difference is smaller than many might expect. There are certainly times when the higher end cards are much faster, but on average we can sum up our testing with the following statement:

In Premiere Pro 2017, we saw on average a 6% difference between the P4000 and P5000, a 10% difference between the P5000 and P6000, and a 2% difference between the P6000 and GP100.

As we mentioned in the test setup section, the GP100 is a bit of a specialty card designed for more for engineering applications than video editing - but we wanted to see how much of a difference the high bandwidth memory on this card makes. Unfortunately, the answer is: not much. For most users, the small performance difference isn't going to be worth the price premium of this card.

Otherwise, the performance gain from the different cards is about what you would expect. The P4000 stands up surprisingly well to the P5000, although the P5000 also has 16GB of VRAM which would make it the better choice for 8K or higher timelines. The P6000 has even more VRAM (24GB) although this is more than Premiere Pro should ever really need so the main advantage to using this card is simply the fact that it is 10% faster than the P5000.

If you looked closely at our charts, you probably noticed that the NVIDIA Titan Xp was as fast or faster than even the most expensive Quadro card even though it is nearly 5x cheaper than the P6000. We do want to point out that raw performance is not the only consideration here; there are a number of other advantages to using a Quadro card that you might want to consider:

  1. Quadro supports 10-bit displays (GeForce does not)
  2. Quadro cards are a bit more reliable long-term
  3. NVIDIA & Adobe tend to provide better software support for Quadro cards.

Whether those advantages are worth the additional cost it is completely up to you. We offer both product lines on our Premiere Pro workstations so whether you value the best performance for your dollar or maximum stability and reliability, we have you covered.

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: Premiere Pro, GPU, Video Card, Quadro, Pascal

"Quadro cards are a bit more reliable long-term"
I assume this claim rests on some empirical data. Would you mind sharing the exact numbers?

Posted on 2017-04-20 21:06:38

I can't give you the raw numbers, but I'm happy to share some percentages. Over the last year, we saw a total failure rate (including both DOA and in the field) of 2.02% with GeForce and 1.36% with Quadro. We feel that in the field failure rate is most important (since that is the number of our customers that have to deal with an issue) and for that it is .99% with GeForce cards and .45% with Quadro cards. So Quadro is not quite twice as reliable overall, but it is more than twice as reliable from the viewpoint of our customers.

Do keep in mind that this covers everything from video corruption to bad display ports to a noisier than normal fan. So it's not just catastrophic failures but everything that doesn't meet our quality standards.

Posted on 2017-04-20 21:44:34
Pal Pacher

Thanks for this interesting comparison. I would be really curious to know how the new Pascal Quadro cards compare with the older architecture ones in PPCC2017 in the performance (e.g K5200 vs P5000)? Would it worth to upgrade? thanks

Posted on 2017-04-22 23:57:40

I really should have included at least a M6000 - I'll keep that in mind for future articles. In general though, for the last several generations the performance improvement has been pretty straightforward. Basically, a new model card should be roughly as fast as the previous generation card that was one model above. So a P5000 is roughly the same as a M6000. Or a P4000 is about the same as a M5000 which is about the same as a K6000. Not a completely perfect comparison of course, but should be accurate enough to get an idea of what kind of performance difference you might see with a GPU upgrade.

Posted on 2017-05-01 17:20:41

this is a good job, there will be nice if we see this charts of quadro cards side by side with gtx cards since is a common use of the gtx cards for video editing and postproduction

Posted on 2017-08-02 21:29:52

Most of the time, the people purchasing Quadro and those purchasing GeForce are very different types of people so we tend to keep the articles largely separate to help minimize "information overload". People who have Quadro need it for the additional reliability, software certification, or because they need a specific feature like 10-bit display support. GeForce, on the other hand, are for those looking for maximum performance for their dollar. There is certainly some overlap, and for those people we at least make sure that all our relative performance charts use the same GPU as the baseline.

So while it isn't quite as nice as a single chart comparing both, you can bring up the Export or Preview chart in this article and stick it next to the charts in our latest GeForce article https://www.pugetsystems.co... and compare them side-by-side.

Posted on 2017-08-04 16:24:23

thanks for this great comparison, I would like though to see these same cards compared in Solidworks application, we all know that quadros perform best in solidworks but this new titan xp seems a great deal if it will perform equally to the quadro p4000 in solidworks since I'm thinking of buying both the gtx 1080ti and quadro p4000 , the p4000 mainly for solidworks and the 1080ti for gaming and other normal tasks. so I don't know if the titan xp can beat the p4000 in solidworks !

Posted on 2017-10-15 03:31:46
ImiÄ™ Nazwisko

Hi. Great article. What about P2000 it's between 1080 and 1070 in terms of price. Im looking for new GPU and I'm considering Quadro mostly because of 10bit support. My monitor will be ASUS PA329Q which also support 10bit. Right now I'm working on some Belinea display (~10y old) and 4 core i5 plus gtx950 on my laptop which is not enough for gh5 footage. I also have gtx970 on my pc but CPU (looking for 1700x or 8700K) is old 2 core intel.

Posted on 2017-12-14 09:26:53

We don't have any Premiere Pro testing with cards that low because the vast majority of our customers want something with more VRAM and power, but we do run Cinegy Cinescore (https://www.cinegy.com/inde... as a part of the benchmarking process for all our systems. Looking up the GPU score results for that, I found the following scores:

P2000 - 2260
GTX 1070 - 2600
GTX 1060 - 2550
GTX 1050 Ti - 2320

Obviously not perfect since Cinescore is not Premiere Pro, but at least it is test video encoding rather than something like gaming. It also matches my gut feeling that the P2000 is going to perform closer to a GTX 1050/1050 Ti than anything else.

Posted on 2017-12-14 19:20:35
ImiÄ™ Nazwisko

Hmm, it looks like the only thing from purchasing P2000 would be 10bit, since I already own the GTX 970 which is a bit better (in gaming) than GTX 1050 Ti and would probably be better than P2000 in Cinegy as well. Not sure if paying for new GPU just to get 10bit is worth at my stage...
Both cards- GTX 970 and P2000 should be enough to edit in 10bit 4k without making proxys right? (with 8700K and 32GB RAM) I would only lose minutes in render time?

Posted on 2017-12-15 08:30:43
Jody Glover

I recently installed a Quadro P6000 on my workstation to work with After Effects and Premiere Pro. I'm not seeing much GPU usage in Task Manager. I'm running Windows 10 and the dedicated GPU memory seems to peak at 1.7/24GB. Shared GPU memory is the same. The graphics card utilization never goes past 30%. Is this normal behavior? I would expect different.

Posted on 2018-01-30 09:42:06

30% is actually pretty good for GPU load in Premiere Pro and After Effects and about what I would expect in those applications.. Anytime the CPU and GPU are being used in an application at the same time, you tend to see much lower load percentages than if something is heavily skewed towards either the CPU or the GPU. Even if you load up on GPU-accelerated effects, the CPU is still being used quite heavily which essentially holds your GPU back a bit. That doesn't mean that a more powerful GPU isn't worth it, only that it might not be reaching it's full potential due to the mixed CPU/GPU workload.

One (vastly simplified) way to think of it is if exactly half the calculations are being done on the CPU and the other half on the GPU, you would likely see 100% load on both the CPU and GPU. If you use a GPU that is twice as fast, then those calculations can theoretically be done in half the time resulting in overall better performance. However, since the CPU is still working at the same pace that means that the GPU is idle half the time so it would show just 50% load even though it is getting things done much faster. Super simplified and full of holes, but hopefully that at least helps to show how load percentages are not often an indicator of actual performance.

Posted on 2018-01-30 18:32:43

Have you done any testing of Premiere with *both* a Quadro AND a GeForce card (thinking 1080ti primary + P2000 secondary) and if that would benefit performance? Or just a waste?

Posted on 2018-04-29 18:57:47
Billy Both

I am curious about Quadro P5000 using 2 of them in SLI working with Adobe Premiere Pro, After Effects, Photoshop in Windows 10 Pro. I want to know if this works, and the pros/cons of this. Anyone help on this? should I run these cards non-SLI, or what about Nvidia Maximus? Trying to get more computing done at an efficient price. I haven't bought these cards yet, but trying to get educated. Puget Systems I have found to be most reliable and consistent. Thanks for any and all help!

Posted on 2018-07-25 23:36:35

SLI isn't going to be necessary for Premiere Pro, but technically Premiere should be able to utilize two cards at the same time. AE technically should as well, although I wouldn't count on getting much out of a second GPU. Photoshop likely won't see any benefit.

It's been a while since we did a full article's worth of testing looking at dual GPU performance in Adobe applications, but from what I've seen it really isn't worth it. You might get a little more performance with two GPUs, but in almost every case you will be better off taking that money and putting it towards a better CPU, more RAM, faster storage, etc.

Posted on 2018-07-25 23:44:42
Billy Both

Thank you so much for your time on this. I am working on 10 bit video editing, 4K and below for now. Sometimes getting 8K Red stock footage and then bring down to 4K or below, but also wanting to be prepared for the future. What would you recommend for a Graphics card in my situation? There is a tiny bit of confusion between GeForce and Quadro. I believe the Quadro is the only solution for 10 bit, but is that rendering and/or viewing? internet in my research has not been clear on this. I've already described some of my needs previously. I have followed your articles for the past 2 years and have been incredible with your results. Thanks for your help and time!

Posted on 2018-07-26 16:37:08

GeForce can do any decoding/encoding of 10-bit video no problem, but Quadro is necessary if you actually want to see the full 10-bit color on your display. You can also use a Decklink monitor card ( https://www.pugetsystems.co... ) outputting to a dedicated 10-bit display for full-screen previewing. Most of the time, a Decklink+GeForce is what we recommend since you can get way better performance for your dollar but if you only have a single monitor that isn't an option.

What GPU to use isn't really a stand-alone question. Typically, for 4K you should start with a mid-range card like a GTX 1070, then switch your budget towards a more powerful CPU or more RAM. I probably wouldn't do a higher GPU unless you work with a lot of RED footage or use a bunch of GPU-accelerated effects until you get your CPU to around a 7900X or so. At that point, then it becomes a balancing game between the GPU and GPU.

Posted on 2018-07-26 16:58:50
Billy Both

I know the GeForce card I have on my regular computer says it can output 10 and 12 bit to my Projector. Am I being misled by Nvidia in this ability?

Posted on 2018-07-26 17:50:11

Color depth is actually a pretty complicated topic. The short of it is that GeForce cards are able to output 10-bit (or even 12-bit) but only when using OpenGL or DirectX. And even when they say they can output to 10-bit, often times they aren't actually doing so - you need to actually examine a 10-bit image or color gradient to determine whether it actually is or if the software/driver is lying to you.

Most professional applications that I know of (Premiere Pro, Photoshop, Lightroom, DaVinci Resolve, etc.) use OpenCL to actually display the application on your screen (even if they use Metal/CUDA/whatever to do the actual data calculations) so they will not be able to output 10-bit color from a GeForce card.

Posted on 2018-07-26 18:02:52
Rafael Wunderlin

You must use, for the Quadro P the Adobe ISV Crtiticate Driver, fom Nvidia.

Posted on 2018-07-26 06:06:39

Is there any idea as to how the rtx quadro 5000 will compare to the 2080 max-q in laptops with regards to professional applications like premiere, AE and cinema4d?

Posted on 2019-06-07 15:05:53

It is virtually impossible to answer questions like that without actual testing, and since we no longer sell laptops we won't be able to test that. It gets particularly tricky because while NVIDIA often uses the same (or similar) model numbers for desktop and mobile GPUs, they often differ from each other. With the RTX 5000, the specs I have seen for both mobile and desktop variants show the same number of cores... but the desktop model has a 265W TDP, which seems out of the question for a laptop... so I suspect it must run at lower clock speeds (or at least lower turbo speeds). But then the RTX 2080 max-q (mobile variant) also likely has such limitations. Still, for the applications you listed there is no real need to go with a Quadro - so unless you need it for other programs that were not mentioned, I would be inclined to save money and get a GeForce.

Posted on 2019-06-07 16:16:55

Thanks William, so do you believe that it's more of a marketing thing that Nvidia is pushing these studio laptops?

Posted on 2019-06-08 06:00:51

There is definitely a marketing aspect to it, but if you need the portability / mobility of a laptop then it it likely that systems marketed under this branding will be a good option. It is just tricky because some components will have similar names on both desktop and mobile - but not necessarily the same specs or performance. Laptops have to run off a battery and/or small power adapter, and are limited on heat output because of tiny heatsinks and fans - so they will never be able to pack as much raw processing power as larger desktop systems. But then again, no one wants to lug around a tower chassis (and monitor, keyboard, and mouse) from place to place either :)

There are compromises on both sides - extremely large laptops, some of which have to be plugged in to get their full performance potential, and compact, easily transportable desktops as well. It really comes down to finding the balance you need between performance and portability.

Posted on 2019-06-10 15:47:59