FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Craig Seeman
FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats
on Jan 22, 2014 at 9:03:51 pm

Final Cut Pro X 10.1 Shootout: 2013 Mac Pro vs 2010 Mac Pro
http://barefeats.com/tube05.html

Odd how well the 6 core D500 system performs better than the 12 core D700 although he speculates that's due to the higher clock speed on the 6 core.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats
on Jan 22, 2014 at 10:47:29 pm

So the takeaway is save your money and get a 2010 6 core with dual 7970s. Back to the future.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Michael Garber
Re: FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats
on Jan 22, 2014 at 11:03:17 pm

I'd be really interested in seeing the results with a 6 core with a D700 vs D500. One also might deduce from this that the 4-core could be faster on some of these tasks since the clock speed on that is the highest.

Michael Garber
5th Wall - a post production company
Blog: GARBERSHOP
My Moviola Webinar on Cutting News in FCP X


Return to posts index


Rick Lang
Re: FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats
on Jan 22, 2014 at 11:22:09 pm

[Michael Garber] "One also might deduce from this that the 4-core could be faster on some of these tasks since the clock speed on that is the highest."

Barefeats:
"One oddity: The 2013 Mac Pro 3.5GHz 6-core with dual D500s rendered the FCPX effects and Motion RAM preview faster than the 2013 Mac Pro 2.7GHz 12-core with dual D700s. Though these are graphics intensive functions, the CPU is a 'partner' in the 'crime.' Because of that, it may have to do with core clock speed since FCPX uses only 8 cores to render the two effects. Motion uses only 3 cores to render the RAM Prevew. In other words, the 12-core Mac Pro has no advantage over the 6-core (12 with hyper threading) — at least in this instance."

If FCP X only uses 8 threads for effects, you may be right. I’m still thinking the 6-core with D700 will be a sweet spot.

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats
on Jan 23, 2014 at 12:12:28 am

i'm so


confused


Return to posts index

Michael Garber
Re: FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats
on Jan 23, 2014 at 12:51:41 am

To make matters even more confusing, I finally got a chance to mess around with 10.1 on a Mac Pro (quad core with D300). Initial reaction with FCPX and rendering is... um... wow.

Waveforms pop up almost immediately after playback. FF and RW in the timeline are spot on. Footage is on the internal drive. And yep, I'm at an Apple Store. So, footage is proxy. Still, comparing my iMac and rMPBr with proxy footage, this feels snappy.

It's got the responsiveness I've been waiting for. Moving clips in the timeline is quick and... responsive (did I mention it's responsive?). Now if I just remember where I left that spare 5 to 6 grand? :)

Michael Garber
5th Wall - a post production company
Blog: GARBERSHOP
My Moviola Webinar on Cutting News in FCP X


Return to posts index


Rick Lang
Re: FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats
on Jan 23, 2014 at 1:09:14 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "confused"

The performance is made up of several things working in concert including the speed of the CPU, the power of the GPUs, and all those other bits like real memory and bandwidth and the internal flash storage. Once you have your machine in some combination such as 4-core with dual D300 or 6-core with dual D500 or 12-core with dual D700, the other components are going to make a relatively fixed contribution to your overall performance. The big variable regardless of which CPU or which GPU you have is the way the software works with your components. Some software will ignore the GPU or use it in a limited manner while other software will make greater use of the GPU and less of the CPU. In the first instance a 4-core machine running at 3.7 GHz might outperform a 12-core running at 2.7 GHz as long as the software was limited to using 8 or fewer threads as appears to have happened with the FCP X functions that were tested.

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats
on Jan 23, 2014 at 2:09:08 am

Thanks, Rick. In get all of that on an existential level, but for a machine that Apple touted as fcpx was tuned for, you'd think more GPU = better. And Motion.

I do understand that more slower processors might not = better than fewer faster processors.

I was sold on 8 core, thought I'd get a 12 core, but maybe a 6 will do it. That would save $6,000.

That is not nothing.

But then I think as time marches on and more developers (including Apple) have some real flight time in the tube and start to really tune for more cores and GPUs, perhaps the 12 core would be the better investment.


Return to posts index

Rick Lang
Re: FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats
on Jan 23, 2014 at 2:17:30 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I was sold on 8 core, thought I'd get a 12 core, but maybe a 6 will do it. That would save $6,000.

That is not nothing.

But then I think as time marches on and more developers (including Apple) have some real flight time in the tube and start to really tune for more cores and GPUs, perhaps the 12 core would be the better investment."


Clearly the more heavy lifting you do, the more attractive the 12-core becomes. But it may not be needed for many people working with HD or 2K video. Still waiting for Peter Chamberlain of BMD to publish their Configuration Guide update for the new Mac Pro. He has said for up to 2K an 8-core would be a safe bet but a 6-core may suffice. I’m trembling in anticipation of what he says about 4K because I can’t afford 12-core and I expect he’s going to recommend that; I just hope he says what performance will be like with 4K on the 8-core and 6-core. And of course what will he recommend for storage: minimum 8-bay RAID?

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats
on Jan 23, 2014 at 2:46:33 am

[Rick Lang] "Clearly the more heavy lifting you do, the more attractive the 12-core becomes."

I guess? I thought the D700s would be better, though. Barefeats has shown so many holes in modern computing over the last few years, in a bonkers kind of way.

[Rick Lang] "Still waiting for Peter Chamberlain of BMD to publish their Configuration Guide update for the new Mac Pro."

Hmm. That would be a good read. I'd like to see that as well. We haven't purchased anything as we are still waiting, and we can't get anything anyway, so why not use that to an advantage?

[Rick Lang] "I’m trembling in anticipation of what he says about 4K because I can’t afford 12-core and I expect he’s going to recommend that;"

Well, that's because your give your daughters all the good toys! ;)

[Rick Lang] "I just hope he says what performance will be like with 4K on the 8-core and 6-core. And of course what will he recommend for storage: minimum 8-bay RAID?"

It really depends on what format of 4k you will be shooting, editing, and delivering. Hard drives, even single hard drives, are very fast these days. 4 hard drives together are really fast. 8, of course, are even faster, and after that you will start to hit a bandwidth ceiling and then you will need to turn to capacity and number of users (concurrent streams). You can edit compressed ProRes 4k with less than an 8 bay Raid, but you may need more capacity than 4 drives can offer over time.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Rick Lang
Re: FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats
on Jan 23, 2014 at 4:35:48 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Well, that's because your give your daughters all the good toys! ;)

... You can edit compressed ProRes 4k with less than an 8 bay Raid, but you may need more capacity than 4 drives can offer over time."


It’s worse than that. One is asking for help renovating a log cabin. You can’t buy love, but love can buy you! I think I need to change my identity and sneak back to LA.

I've got the Blackmagic Production Camera bug (4K raw and 4K ProRes 4:2:2 HQ); be careful, it's contagious. I was hoping to get by with something like the Promise Pegasus2 R6 with 12 or 18 GB for some raw and ProRes. But the Areca 8-bay 8050 in TB2 may be calling me. I'm not planning on a feature film but it's not hard to burn through a lot of space shooting raw. The RAID may wait until next year as I have other USB3 external storage to use this year as I learn what I shall need next year (when I plan to be making narrative shorts).

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats
on Jan 23, 2014 at 10:21:01 pm

This gets even more confusing. I was chatting with Philip Hodgetts, who had a loaner MacPro 12-core D700. And he swears that he saw all 12 cores being used in activity monitor (for whatever he was doing at the time). And since this is all supposed to be handled by Grand Central Dispatch, shouldn't the maximum number of cores be being put to use whenever possible?

8 cores (or as you suggest down below) in FCPX is not optimal, but 3 in Motion (granted for OpenGL previews) is nutty.

Is it how the plugins were built (in an earlier Motion perhaps), the type of calculations they're doing?

I think there's going to be a VERY complicated flow chart somewhere down the line for what types of operations (playback, analysis, rendering, exporting, encoding, etc., etc...) lean on what parts of the hardware (CPU, GPU, RAM, SSD speed).



Return to posts index


Rick Lang
Re: FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats
on Jan 23, 2014 at 11:19:08 pm

[Marcus Moore] "8 cores (or as you suggest down below) in FCPX is not optimal, but 3 in Motion (granted for OpenGL previews) is nutty."

Dpn’t know what else was running when Philip saw 12 cores or 12 threads active. Grand Central Dispatch is rather complicated (to me) but it makes decisions about how to distribute work based on a number of items including the nature of the code to be executed and how it can be effectively distributed assuming the resources are available. Certainly when running the benchmark, it is unexpected that Motion would only use three threads, but as you say, we have a lot to learn. I was surprised FCP X only used 8 threads on a 12-core machine, but we’ll see how it works when more people are sharing their experience. On my quad core i7 iMac, I’ve noticed some functions use all eight threads and some use four threads, some two, some one.

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB


Return to posts index

Rick Lang
Re: FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats
on Jan 26, 2014 at 1:08:57 am

[Rick Lang] ”I was surprised FCP X only used 8 threads on a 12-core machine [according to Barefeats], but we’ll see how it works when more people are sharing their experience. "

Just read the Electronista full review of the new Mac Pro (January 21, 2014) and the reviewer also mentions they verified all cores were busy when running some functions on FCP X. So really, it seems like Barefeats is seeing something others have not. All these sources seem to be reliable normally so wonder who is right.

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats
on Jan 23, 2014 at 1:51:12 am

That's been my plan all along - 6 core with D700's - nice to hear it's a good plan...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index


Bob Woodhead
Re: FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats
on Jan 23, 2014 at 11:13:21 am

Ordered my 6 core/D700 a couple days ago. Got the keyboard & mouse today. Tube.... March. sad. panda.

"Constituo, ergo sum"

Bob Woodhead / Atlanta
CMX-Quantel-Avid-FCP-Premiere-3D-AFX-Crayola
"What a long strange trip it's been...."


Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats
on Jan 23, 2014 at 1:39:10 pm

We ordered 6 core and D700s just after Christmas. Shipping still says February. I might start following the postman around.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats
on Jan 23, 2014 at 4:35:01 pm

After seeing the Barefeats tests I'm very tempted to feel safe getting 6 Core and D500.
My gut feeling is that technology is moving so fast that in about 3 years or less I'll be replacing it anyway.

Obviously what's best for me isn't necessarily good for anyone else but for my work I don't see pushing the system extremely hard at the moment and in a couple years as 4K and HEVC take hold I suspect current system might feel a bit constrained.

The 6 Core D500 systems are available at B&H, in stock. Apparently no wait.

I'd love to see something that gives me a compelling case for the D700 so I'm hoping to see more tests. A Colorist might find a compelling reason though.

Interesting Barefeats did post a short Resolve test and FWIW it seems a MacPro with Dual G680 has the edge. They only had a D300 MacPro though and it was OK but it wouldn't be a compelling reason to get a new Tube Tower just for grading. The 700 would have to be compelling and they well be testing an 8 Core D700 model.
http://barefeats.com/tube06.html



Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats
on Jan 23, 2014 at 7:19:52 pm

Of course, the config missing here is the one I ordered, the 8-core D700. Based on Barefeats analysis, that configuration would be better suited than the 12-core for FCPX (which according to them uses up to 8 cores) AND has a higher clock speed to boot.

But in Motion, which they say only uses 3 cores in their tests, the 4-core machine would be the best GPU to have...

It is very confusing, and I think the only way to really figure out what going on here is when barefeats could do a set of test across the matrix of all major configuration options. i.e. all 4 processors, each paired with each GPU.



Return to posts index

Rick Lang
Re: FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats
on Jan 23, 2014 at 9:00:45 pm

[Marcus Moore] "Of course, the config missing here is the one I ordered, the 8-core D700. Based on Barefeats analysis, that configuration would be better suited than the 12-core for FCPX (which according to them uses up to 8 cores) AND has a higher clock speed to boot."

Marcus, when they said 8 cores, I think they meant threads.

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats
on Jan 23, 2014 at 10:13:26 pm

Based on my 30 seconds of research, each intel processor has 2 threads for each core. So a 4 core processor has 8 threads (or 8 simulated cores). And the 12core processor would have 24 threads/simulated cores.

Is that right?

So if you're assumption is correct, a 4-core processor would use all 8 threads in FCPX rendering? But even the 6-core processor is not being fully utilized (with 2 threads being left unused).



Return to posts index

Rick Lang
Re: FCPX & Motion on 2013 and 2010 MacPros - Barefeats
on Jan 23, 2014 at 10:52:11 pm

[Marcus Moore] "Based on my 30 seconds of research, each intel processor has 2 threads for each core. So a 4 core processor has 8 threads (or 8 simulated cores). And the 12core processor would have 24 threads/simulated cores.
"


Correct. If the only thing using any significant CPU was Motion, for example, it appears Activity Monitor would show the first, third, fifth threads busy if it truly only uses three cores (presumably the GPU is also being used but I don’t know what monitors indicate what parts of the GPU are usedI.

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]