Dec 18th, 2010, 10:29 AM
You betcha - real world.
Long time client floated in this am with an ailing 2.8 8 core XX)- long an industry standard.
We did an AE ( Adobe After Effects ) render - all 16 cores going wide open and what took 10.14 min on his 2.8 8 core took 2.33 minute on a 2.26 Nehalem....AND he gets the 100% write off from the gov.
Not often we get to see a real life situation comparing two machines - we had just moved his drives over and AE stores the render time.
4870 video card, 24 gigs of RAM , 8 core Nehalem ( 16 processing threads) = - pretty damn fine performance
Apple IS delivering on the performance front....enough ram is critical tho and the apps will only get better.
400% gain and 100% write off......think it about it people.....2 weeks left.
Dec 18th, 2010, 10:56 AM
Thanks for posting this MacDoc... Do you have any real world tests for less intensive applications like say for Photoshop and filter rendering times?
Dec 18th, 2010, 11:03 AM
Photoshop we feel the quads with 12 gigs and high clock are the winners...
2.66, 2.8 , 2.93 and 3.33 are superb for PS.
Drive speed tho is a factor.
Client had a 2.26 8 core ( 16 processing threads as above ) with 8 gigs and a standard drive array.
Moved him to 24gigs and a pair of Velociraptors....
The increased speed is very apparent now that I am in my home stall. Thank you for your wisdom & alacrity.
so - these big guns will not perform with out getting all the factors in place.
He does large file retouching.
After seeing the results for the two clients we think we are going to try and get clients to assess on their own work where possible.
Dec 18th, 2010, 11:08 AM
^^^ Ok Doc, good to know, thanks...
Dec 18th, 2010, 04:53 PM
Ram is super important for this. Having just done the same thing I can say that 24G of ram or more is essential if you are doing AE renders especially. With less than 24G there were massive bottlenecks performance wise, but once I upgraded it was much better.
Dec 18th, 2010, 04:56 PM
How much ram did his previous 8 core have Macdoc? I saw a performance increase but not that significant and not until I had 24G of ram. My drives aren't quite as fast but more than fast enough (RAID1 sat a drives, about 180MB/Sec write speed).
Dec 18th, 2010, 07:34 PM
He had 16 in the 8 core and just a pair of standard drives in an array
I was pretty shocked at 4 times on the same drives
The other difference was a 3870 versus a 4870.
Clear enough RAM and that triple channel bandwidth really helps AE feed the processors.
Nov 23rd, 2011, 01:29 PM
Lot of people are giving up waiting and one high end client snagged a 12 core on a deal and borrowed our fav 3.33 6 core ( 12 processing threads ) with 24 gigs of RAM
His comments on the 3.33 over the 2.8 8 core 3,1 he had.....
been doing my research today and this is what ive discovered
this is just straight up speed test got off the web no rendering involved crazy the 6 core is actually faster than both the 12 cores
as far as what ive noticed so far
the immediate functions in fcp like navigation, booting and scrubbing along the timeline in red areas act way better rendering is way faster and exporting a rendered file from a sequence takes just a bit more than half the time
my 8 core with 16bgig of ram exported at real time if its was 3.30 long it would take about that long on fully rendered sequence the same file takes around 2 minutes now
working on fonzis video in affter effects which is all 444 high def with lots of video layers and effects plug ins caused my old computer and all the newer (but not this new) computers at 1188 to hang and really take time to just preview a frame it was actually getting intolerable
i booted the same after effects project file on this computer and it really impressed me no hanging or long waiting for frames to preview or spinning ball it was great and i think its the fast 3.3 processors and 4 gigs of ram per that make the immediate processing much better
in the chart the 2.66 12 needed twice the ram and even with 4x more it only went up 1 point feels like a bit of a wall no?
for me its more important to be able to get to the point of rendering than actually having it rendered faster and its not like doubling up processors will cut my renders in half anyway from what ive read its more like 25% less time by doubling it
from looking at that chart the 12 core 2.66 might actually perform slower w/24 gig of ram @ 2 gig per processor than the 6 core 3.33 w/24gig of ram @ 4 gig per processor
to make the 12 core behave like the 6 core where i really need it which is not necessarily in rendering but in the basic functioning of after effects and fcp would cost a fortune
basically a 12 core 2.93 w/48gigs of ram is what i would need and thats the mac store online qoute below scarrry ( $9k )
so i guess you were right about this box is it ok if i keep it? haha
he discovered why we like it so much ;)
yeah it's why we picked the 3.33 ( and others have as well ) as the top all around performer
that said I have a 2.93 12 core coming available tomorrow - will find out pricing
RAM is cheap so that's not a real concern
did you do compressor and after effects ??- both of those will use full max processing
from the article but this was based on the 2.93 ( Bare Feats )
In the case of After Effects, the 12-core is almost twice as fast as the 6-core. However, with the Compressor and Motion, the advantage is only slight. That's why when someone asks me, "Should I get the 12-core or 8-core or 6-core? The short answer: "It depends... on what you are running." Or I'll say, "What do you have more of, time or money?"
This should also give some insight into what even the very top end iMac compares to a MacPro in the upper end.
A 3.33 priced at $3k would be a big time winner. C'mon Apple...