Return-Path: Received: from gateway14.websitewelcome.com ([69.93.243.15] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP id 4747378 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 23:36:02 +0200 Received: by gateway14.websitewelcome.com (Postfix, from userid 5007) id B1A5D82B4DDC7; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:38:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from alpina.websitewelcome.com (alpina.websitewelcome.com [74.54.176.2]) by gateway14.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E97182B4DD92 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:38:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [199.21.106.94] (port=55918 helo=[192.168.0.7]) by alpina.websitewelcome.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SfHkc-0008ER-6f for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:38:46 -0500 From: Chris Meyer Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3E5DE3B8-C00D-43D7-B95D-4FE6C3CCE921" Subject: Re: [AE] [OT] The Mac Pro is dead Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:38:45 -0600 In-Reply-To: To: "After Effects Mail List" References: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - alpina.websitewelcome.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - media-motion.tv X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - crishdesign.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: ([192.168.0.7]) [199.21.106.94]:55918 X-Source-Auth: chris@crishdesign.com X-Email-Count: 1 X-Source-Cap: Y3Jpc2h3ZWI7Y3Jpc2h3ZWI7YWxwaW5hLndlYnNpdGV3ZWxjb21lLmNvbQ== --Apple-Mail=_3E5DE3B8-C00D-43D7-B95D-4FE6C3CCE921 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 That was my assumption as well, until Dave Bittner pointed me to some = tests which showed a near-negligable performance dropoff of putting an = NVIDIA card in a Thunderbolt-connected PCI chassis compared to having it = on board. If AE is using the card as a render farm, and the time spent = computing dwarfs the time spent transferring the frames=85well, you know = the rest. This obviously changes with the more frame transfers you intend to do, = such as multistream realtime playback (i.e. Premiere Pro). That said, = David Helmly posted a video where he showed putting a RED Rocket in an = external chassis was still a worthwhile boost to a MacBook for those = doing RED work in Premiere. willing to have my assumptions rocked - Chris On Jun 14, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Tim Sassoon wrote: > At NAB the NVidia rep told me that their #1 user request by far was = for a TB-attached CUDA engine/GPU. He said that the _current_ TB = implementation wasn't fast enough to make that as good a solution as = user would hope for. >=20 >=20 > Tim Sassoon > Sassoon Film Design > 2525 Main Street > Suite 206 > Santa Monica, CA 90405 > W 310.664.9115 > M 310.266.8630 >=20 >=20 > On Jun 14, 2012, at 1:20 PM, Tony Romain wrote: >=20 >> That's kind of what I've been thinking too=85 just ditch everything = in the computer except for a souped up graphics card and processor. = Everything else is external and thunderbolt connected >>=20 >>=20 >> -- >> tony romain | principal/creative director >>=20 >> trance >> motion graphic animation and design >> 323 651 1114 >> www.trancedesigns.com >>=20 >> From: Tim Sassoon >> Reply-To: AE list >> Date: Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:58 PM >> To: AE list >> Subject: Re: [AE] [OT] The Mac Pro is dead >>=20 >> Okay, decade, schmeckade. And I know in all seriousness that you = don't have a million bucks :-) >>=20 >> But computing power generally has an inverse proportion to size. In = order to become more powerful, they must shrink. Then there's Quantum = Computing, where suddenly the current chip paradigm looks like tubes and = punch cards compared. >>=20 >> Most of the space in a current tower are disk and peripheral bays, = PCI slots, and power supply. Disks will be SSD, and peripherals can be = outboard, Thunderbolt can supplant internal PCI, and then you only need = a fraction of the power supply. What do you have then? A Mac Mini with = better CPU's, pretty much. And I suspect that in the long run, that's = Apple's point. That instead of buying one Monster Truck of a computer, = you'd be better served by buying a fleet of FIT's. >>=20 >>=20 >> Tim Sassoon >> SFD >> Santa Monica, CA >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On Jun 14, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Stephen van Vuuren wrote: >>=20 >>> > The "pro" computer ten years from now will be the same size as = today's iPhone. >>>=20 >>> I will bet a million dollars, in all seriousness, in front of all = the witnesses here, that this is not the case. Physics says no as does = Moore=92s law and what we will be doing with said computers in ten = years. >>>=20 >>> I will agree the iPhone of ten years from now will outperform todays = tower. But I am sure enough to bet a million dollars that pro=92s will = need far more power than that. The iPhone today much slower than the pro = CPU in 2002. And the pro CPUs 10 years ago can=92t run any recent = version of CS6 (which requires Core 2 Duo minimum). >>> =20 >>> Unless you are hoping some massive revolution in = chip/CPU/drive/RAM/storage, I think my best is pretty safe. >>> =20 >>> Plus, my towers have been getting bigger over the last 10 years, not = smaller=85 >>> =20 >>> stephen van vuuren >>> 336.202.4777 >>> =20 >>> http://www.sv2dcp.com/ >>> http://www.sv2studios.com/ >>> http://www.outsideinthemovie.com/ >>> =20 >>> A film is =96 or should be =96 more like music than like fiction. It = should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what=92s = behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later. >>> =96Stanley Kubrick >>=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_3E5DE3B8-C00D-43D7-B95D-4FE6C3CCE921 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 That = was my assumption as well, until Dave Bittner pointed me to some tests = which showed a near-negligable performance dropoff of putting an NVIDIA = card in a Thunderbolt-connected PCI chassis compared to having it on = board. If AE is using the card as a render farm, and the time spent = computing dwarfs the time spent transferring the frames=85well, you know = the rest.

This obviously changes with the more frame = transfers you intend to do, such as multistream realtime playback (i.e. = Premiere Pro). That said, David Helmly posted a video where he showed = putting a RED Rocket in an external chassis was still a worthwhile boost = to a MacBook for those doing RED work in = Premiere.

willing to have my assumptions rocked = -
Chris




On Jun 14, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Tim Sassoon wrote:

At NAB the NVidia rep told me = that their #1 user request by far was for a TB-attached CUDA engine/GPU. = He said that the _current_ TB implementation wasn't fast enough to make = that as good a solution as user would hope = for.


Tim = Sassoon
Sassoon Film Design
2525 Main Street
Suite 206
Santa = Monica, CA 90405
W 310.664.9115
M 310.266.8630

On Jun 14, 2012, at 1:20 PM, Tony Romain wrote:

That's kind of = what I've been thinking too=85 just ditch everything in the computer = except for a souped up graphics card and processor.  Everything = else is external and thunderbolt = connected


--
tony = romain | = principal/creative director

trance
motion graphic animation = and design
323 651 = 1114

From: Tim Sassoon <tsassoon@aol.com>
Reply-To: AE list <AE-List@media-motion.tv>Date: Thursday, June 14, 2012 = 12:58 PM
To: AE list <AE-List@media-motion.tv>Subject: Re: [AE] [OT] The Mac = Pro is dead

Okay, decade, schmeckade. And I = know in all seriousness that you don't have a million bucks = :-)

But computing power generally has an inverse = proportion to size. In order to become more powerful, they must shrink. = Then there's Quantum Computing, where suddenly the current chip paradigm = looks like tubes and punch cards compared.

Most = of the space in a current tower are disk and peripheral bays, PCI slots, = and power supply. Disks will be SSD, and peripherals can be outboard, = Thunderbolt can supplant internal PCI, and then you only need a fraction = of the power supply. What do you have then? A Mac Mini with better = CPU's, pretty much. And I suspect that in the long run, that's Apple's = point. That instead of buying one Monster Truck of a computer, you'd be = better served by buying a fleet of = FIT's.


Tim Sassoon
SFD
Santa Monica, CA



On Jun 14, 2012, = at 11:39 AM, Stephen van Vuuren wrote:

> The "pro" computer ten = years from now will be the same size as today's iPhone.

I will bet a million dollars, in all seriousness, in = front  of all the witnesses here, that this is not the case. = Physics says no as does Moore=92s law and what we will be doing with = said computers in ten years.

I will agree the iPhone of ten = years from now will outperform todays tower. But I am sure enough to bet = a million dollars that pro=92s will need far more power than that. The = iPhone today much slower than the pro CPU in 2002. And the pro CPUs 10 = years ago can=92t run any recent version of CS6 (which requires Core 2 = Duo minimum).
 
Unless you are hoping some massive revolution in = chip/CPU/drive/RAM/storage, I think my best is pretty = safe.
 
Plus, my towers have been getting bigger over the last 10 = years, not smaller=85
 


<= /div>
=


= --Apple-Mail=_3E5DE3B8-C00D-43D7-B95D-4FE6C3CCE921--