'08 8-core vs '09 4-core mac

[meleseDESIGN]

Both perform allmost the same.
Overclocked i7 even better.

Look here at cbscores.com for the Xeon E5462 and i7.

;)

[olson]

If you plan to do a lot of rendering with Maya then the 8 cores will likely be faster. For just about everything else the newer quad core will be just as fast since the other tasks like After Effects are single threaded for the most part (except for their broken threaded rendering that uses tons of memory). However the bang for the buck of the single processor Mac is not very good. Cheers!

[imashination]

For rendering, the older 2.8GHz 8 core will be about 20% faster than a newer 2.8GHz 4 core machine. But franky if youre going to pick a single cpu then I would go with an imac instead.

Mac pro:
4 core 2.66ghz
3 gigs ram
600 gig harddrive
geforce 120
$2500

imac
4 core 2.8ghz
8 gigs of ram
1000 gig harddrive
radeon 4850
27" 2560x1400 screen
$2400

IMHO the imac makes far more sense. More harddrive space, far more ram, faster cpu, much better gfx card, oh, and it includes a gigantic 27" high res screen. If you plan on filling a machine with 32gigs of ram and half a dozen harddrives then you dont have much choice, but the imac will still offer you 16 gigs of ram and 2TB of drive space which is likely plenty for anything you might want to throw at it.

[cgbeige]

honestly, just wait a week for the new Mac Pro. The 6-core Xeon 5600 (12 threads) will be the best option of all and hopefully they will make a cheaper single-core option than the current base machine. It should hopefully come with a better video card as well.

But if you want a comparison between the 2009 and 2008 Mac Pros, I wrote one here:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/04/266ghz-8-core-mac-pro-review.ars/8

Based on my testing, the 8-core 2008 would definitely be faster than a four-core 2009, even with hyperthreading. That's only if all cores are saturated (something like mental ray renders) but for something like After Effects, which sucks at using all cores, a newer machine, despite having fewer cores will likely be better. But if it was Nuke, the opposite would be true

[soupman99]

I read that they don't plan on releasing the new 6-core machines until June

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/03/18/apple-preparing-to-launch-27-inch-led-cinema-display-mac-pro-update-by-june/

[cgbeige]

I read that they don't plan on releasing the new 6-core machines until June

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/03/18/apple-preparing-to-launch-27-inch-led-cinema-display-mac-pro-update-by-june/

hmm - well if that's true but the OP can wait until May at least, he can at least exchange it for a new one once they are released. Apple has a policy of letting people swap for newer machines within one month of purchasing the same (older) hardware. I've done it twice (bad timing on my part - for a Mac Pro 2008 to 2009 and a Mac mini). I just had to pay the difference in price for the Mac Pro but the mini was the same - they even cover the shipping.

[meleseDESIGN]

...but for something like After Effects, which sucks at using all cores...

That is definitively not true, AE uses all Cores properly:

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=6417465&postcount=33

[olson]

That is definitively not true, AE uses all Cores properly:

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=6417465&postcount=33

Except the iMac being discussed has 2GB of memory per core, not 4GB or more. That makes using the "multi processing" in After Effects a complete pain in the ass and unreliable.

[meleseDESIGN]

Except the iMac being discussed has 2GB of memory per core, not 4GB or more. That makes using the "multi processing" in After Effects a complete pain in the ass and unreliable.

That´s NOT true, AE user know about it and should have set their RAM properly, upgrading more RAM is cheaper as buying NUKE. Even with 2GB for each core AE uses all cores properly. See the picture, rendering was done with 2GB each core.

;)

[cgbeige]

that's a really stupid way to use multiple processors - and only works for outputting final renders since it's rendering separate frames simultaneously, not dividing single frames up for the CPU. Plus it eats memory, like mentioned. So, yes, AE can use multiple processors, but it's not going to help you comp in 32-bit until you hit batch render.

[meleseDESIGN]

that's a really stupid way to use multiple processors - and only works for outputting final renders since it's rendering separate frames simultaneously, not dividing single frames up for the CPU. Plus it eats memory, like mentioned. So, yes, AE can use multiple processors, but it's not going to help you comp in 32-bit until you hit batch render.

That´s the way AE works.
Fact is that you can do near everything with AE, it has a wide range of plugin support, doesn´t cost the world and it´s proofed by various studios NOT to be that stupid in their pipeline. You can't argue it away.

Sure, NUKE works different, it´s NODE based, either it´s the ultimate-solution for everyone.

Anyway, I don´t think we need a discussion like this in this thread.

;)

[sentry66]

I agree that AE is horrible at using multiple processors. If you have it turned on and start rendering out a final comp and try to do something else like run maya, maya will run slow since you'll be out of memory. Then once that happens, the AE renderer stalls and stops rendering, but doesn't let go of the memory. I consider that a major bug

It's only useful if you have a giant render and you're leaving for awhile. Otherwise I leave it off

[meleseDESIGN]

No, it´s not AE what works horrible.
It´s your rig what isn´t set properly to use it with AE, further it´s cause of false settings in AE what makes it horrible.

On my rig AE woks perfectly!

Asus Z8NA-D6
Xeon X5570
48GB RAM (triple channel, 1333MHz)
GeForce GTX 285 (2048MB version)
Standard 2GB HDDs with 7200rpm

;)

[cgbeige]

If every program spawned a 2GB process for every thread, you'd need a terabyte of RAM to get through a day's work (2 terabyte if you plan on getting a 24-thread dual Xeon 56xx). That's just bad design. I've used things like this as workarounds (a python script to use all processors to make Realflow meshes) but it's a hack solution to good threading. Anyway, CS5 should be out soon so hopefully they will have addressed this somehow.

I like After Effects for what it is: easy to use and has a lot of support. But it's the poster child for bad CPU usage. I had to comp these magazine spreads in AE because I was using Magic Bullet (which may have a Nuke OFX version coming) and a ton of layered 32-bit EXR files at 300 dpi was annoyingly slow compared to Nuke, which does everything in floating point. Even on a Xeon 55xx dual quad with 24GB of RAM, RAID array for working, etc.

[sentry66]

No, it´s not AE what works horrible.
It´s your rig what isn´t set properly to use it with AE, further it´s cause of false settings in AE what makes it horrible.

On my rig AE woks perfectly!

Asus Z8NA-D6
Xeon X5570
48GB RAM (triple channel, 1333MHz)
GeForce GTX 285 (2048MB version)
Standard 2GB HDDs with 7200rpm

;)


pfff, says the guy with 48 gigs of ram...

[meleseDESIGN]

If every program spawned a 2GB process for every thread, you'd need a terabyte of RAM to get through a day's work (2 terabyte if you plan on getting a 24-thread dual Xeon 56xx).

That´s not how things work in real!
I understand your points and I agree partially with them. The memory arrangement in AE is quiet a anomaly, that´s the wild news. The real news: there is a solution for it, put more RAM in the rig! It´s quiet a wild decission to instal only 6GB in a rig which supports 16/24 Threads.

Beside, AE uses only physical Cores for its instances, it can´t run a hole instance with a HT (aka SMT) core. Remember, SMT is not the same as physical Core!

With an 12 Core + 12 SMT dual Xeon 56xx system AE would load only 12 instances (if it´s set to all 12 cores). But you don´t have to set AE to use all physical cores, just set it to 10 cores and work coincident with Maya on the other 2 Cores. In the AE settings (Core/RAM management) you wont even see 24 Cores like in the taskmanager, you can manage only physical cores with AE. It might sounds contradictory, but don´t get confused by that, AE uses SMTs although on rendering.

;)

[cgbeige]

I don't think you're hearing me. It's an unreasonable and bad solution since it only works for sequences of images at final render time. If you do a RAM preview, it doesn't use all cores. If you have HD footage in 32-bit colour, it will be slow as hell to render while you work because it isn't breaking your comp work up over the right amount of threads.

[meleseDESIGN]

So what now?

Preview and Final Rendering are two different tasks.
First you have criticised AE would suck at using all cores. Then I verified by showing a Screenshot that you are wrong - I did it in the other thread allready. Now you have new critic on AE cos it wouldn´t use all cores for RAM Preview. I also told you in the other thread RAM Preview is a single threaded task in AE. That's the way things are right now.

I know what you mean, but i don´t know what intention is behind your words.
Should he buy now a 4 Core iMac or wait for the 6-core Xeon 5600 (12 threads)?
I am just confused because you said AE sucks with more cores, but simultaneously you recommend him to go with more cores. Isn´t it somehow conflicting?

http://1.1.1.4/bmi/forums.cgsociety.org/images/smilies/hmm.gif

[cgbeige]

well, presumably he's doing 3D rendering as well so I recommended more cores for that. And we can only hope that brutally slow AE filters like lens blurs will not be single-threaded forever so I can't recommend he avoid multi-core to appease a badly designed program. Hopefully when more AE customers realize that they have 1 of 24 threads being used, they'll start to ask for better coding.

[imashination]

*Plays the Benny Hill theme tune*

Youre all correct. Yes AE can use all cores, but its utterly crap at doing so. Most of what it does whilst working is single threaded and most of its multiple cpu support comes in the form of running the same app once for every core on the machine. Its an utterly horrible cheap hack thats grossly inefficient in terms of render speed and memory usage.

Whenever you have the choice, Pick fewer faster cores over many slower older cores.

[meleseDESIGN]

Hopefully when more AE customers realize that they have 1 of 24 threads being used, they'll start to ask for better coding.

I´m personally not that much familiar with Maya, but as far as I know most of what it does whilst working is single threaded too. AE has a bunch plugins/filters which uses the GPU as well since CS4, don´t know about NUKE, but I guess it wont. Correct me if i´m wrong!


:deal:

[olson]

I´m personally not that much familiar with Maya, but as far as I know most of what it does whilst working is single threaded too. AE has a bunch plugins/filters which uses the GPU as well since CS4, don´t know about NUKE, but I guess it wont. Correct me if i´m wrong!

Only two things in Maya that use more than one core are rendering (with mental ray or Maya Software) and simulating with Maya Fluids. :banghead:

[cgbeige]

Only two things in Maya that use more than one core are rendering (with mental ray or Maya Software) and simulating with Maya Fluids. :banghead:

That's not true. I have a menu CPU meter and watch it use all my cores a lot. Off the top of my head, here are some things I know are well multithreaded:

- a lot of polygons operations
- all voxel simulation stuff
- ncloth uses 2 cores at least

but comparing a 3D physical simulation, which is notoriously difficult to multithread, to an image filter, which is relatively easy to multithread is not fair. You can't just cut a physical simulation into buckets.

AE has a bunch plugins/filters which uses the GPU as well since CS4, don´t know about NUKE, but I guess it wont. Correct me if i´m wrong!

I can't comment on AE CS5 since I'm under NDA. But any third-party plug-ins like Sapphire that use the GPU also do in Nuke.

[DutchDimension]

I'm pretty sure they multi-threaded the HyperGraph a few versions ago.
I also suspect that there are quite a few snippets of code that are also capable of splitting off into multiple threads, but you tend not to notice this as their tasks might be too shortlived to make noticable humps in your task manager like rendering does.


Only two things in Maya that use more than one core are rendering (with mental ray or Maya Software) and simulating with Maya Fluids. :banghead:

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.