From: "Steve Oakley" Received: from mout.perfora.net ([74.208.4.194] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP id 5548047 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 05:45:25 +0200 Received: from [10.1.1.101] (75-135-165-0.dhcp.stpt.wi.charter.com [75.135.165.0]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mreueus002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MA7R9-1X71Y21kAD-00BIC0; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 05:45:25 +0200 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9DDCDFDC-4070-459F-9082-7BDE51EE58BA" Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1971.5\)) Subject: Re: [AE] What's the state of Ae on new MacPros? Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 22:45:22 -0500 References: To: After Effects Mail List In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1971.5) X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:5V29hXc7FvxfWby1BqpnwbXVSxzl15y4p4qYhg9CchH yumGykO9CQkuESHnoDpfSZKoifrhQKHO6EPwWvDTMa6GNit3jF QmOoitBCN9ngpBGd3YPjm1JQccisNeVZ0TSSGUtgwVNRgFLpsx c1mJf4E6ZbEI+Bz14fauhHGUYMRmZ16JfJ+QqWA36uw/Qnr8H8 T/u1Z5fgICzbHDJ72LRQbGblfP1RBZBzq6myVm73jOv2eQEzCd IXWO8gF12s8mvw61LW2QU7PLjIqSpyRNKorsX+YIU0CncfpCa2 CwX0n0iRLekOhcKs7kRRjlqxiAbNJ47VkubKxMqGtbdlzyCFu8 QYkB+hhmLLYs3ejT5Ol4KntPzlsOu4iW1hXydevWH8PX9Uweq5 +7Lddjqcz8XaNPWfn40lgzvPOnKyW/GpX0= X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; --Apple-Mail=_9DDCDFDC-4070-459F-9082-7BDE51EE58BA Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I had dual Q4000=E2=80=99s actually=E2=80=A6 they are gone. The Q 4800 I = had ( puny 192 cores ) in some ways was faster with resolve. K5000 is a = vastly better card. rendered some AE raytrace with it last nite :) works = great with resolve and SG. a PC ROM nVidia card will work fine on your mac, you just don=E2=80=99t = have any display until the desktop finally loads up. so if you can live = with out the boot screen a PC card will do. there are mac rom flashed = cards on ebay too.=20 GTX cards are fine for most people=E2=80=99s uses. Quadro cards are = designed to run 100% 24/7. They are bullet proof, but come with the = price. I never worry about it working under heavy loads of 12hr edit = days or long AE ray trace renders. for less demanding things a GTX will = do you fine. just go with the most Vram you can get. lets also be real. processing a couple layers of 1080p30 in PP CC = isn=E2=80=99t taxing those cores unless you have a pile of filters per = layer. GPU monitoring reveals there is generally a decent amount of = headroom, which is good. One of the differences isn=E2=80=99t getting = data onto the card, but getting it off and into your Vout card. I think = in this respect quadros probably do better.=20 you also need to balance your PS output abilities too. you can run dual = GPU=E2=80=99s on some macs, but require external PS for the 2nd card. = This matters if you want to run resolve full out with a lot of nodes. = for most uses though you won=E2=80=99t need to go this far. S > On Aug 13, 2014, at 10:37 PM, Teddy Gage = wrote: >=20 > =46rom what I have learned in years of testing: >=20 > Quadro line has optimized, heavily supported drivers for 3D viewport = performance. Quadros are generally optimized for precise, accurate work = and high-poly count scenes in Maya, Max, C4D, autoCAD and industrial = modeling like Rhino etc. There are benchmarks that prove this. If you do = a lot of 3D high-end prototype work they are great. >=20 > The GTX series are optimized for OpenGL and Direct3D performance - in = a word, gaming. However they have nearly equivalent CUDA performance as = quadro series (depending on series). And most often, better.=20 >=20 > However, after the GTX 580 was released, Nvidia realized the GTX cards = were cannibalizing the "pro" market and hobbled CUDA performance on 6xx = and 7xx series cards vs. the equivalent Quadro cards. Although the 780 = has performance rivaling the 580. For example even a GTX 480 will do = much better on CUDA benchmarks than a Quadro 4000. Although typically = the quadros have more VRAM, run quieter and are more stable. >=20 > Currently the GTX 580 3GB edition is still the sweet spot of = price::performance ratio for CUDA processing. A GTX Titan or Titan Black = will outperform the card but at double the cost. (although haven't = checked the market - 580s are harder to come by now). =20 >=20 > However, the GTX series are more or less the exact same hardware as = the equivalent Quadro series, except the QA is not nearly as rigorous - = more errors are allowed, and frequently they disable certain additional = pipelines and channels as a result. Floating point performance isn't as = accurate, unless enabling double precision.=20 >=20 > Overall, unless you are aiming to do multi-million poly scenes in = realtime 3D previz, you are almost always better off with a high-end GTX = card. I have two GTX titans running SLI for the same price (or less!) = than a K5000, with about 2x to 3x the raw performance in AE. Currently = the Titan (or Titan black) is the best performing CUDA card available, = and has surprisingly low power draw and a full 6GB VRAM per card.=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Jim Curtis = wrote: > I've been reading some articles today whose authors call the GTX = series a gaming card, and that the Quadro is the series for = professionals. And they're about a thousand dollars more expensive. = Downside for GTX is said to be they run louder and hotter. >=20 > Any thoughts on that? >=20 > I don't mind paying more to get the best for my needs. Being on Mac, = my choices are more limited. I don't want to run a hack. Dependability = and support is critical. >=20 > Why did you go with a GTX and not a Quadro? =20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Aug 13, 2014, at 9:42 PM, rendernyc = wrote: >=20 >> The quadro 4000 is a very weak CUDA card... its misleading due to = naming and marketing. >>=20 >> i sold mine a while back and bought a GTX570 2.5GB card and see a = performance increase of 2-3X >>=20 >> i would check out a card like a 770 or 780 perhaps... something like = that and the CUDA performance will receive a huge boost >>=20 >>=20 >> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Jim Curtis = wrote: >> Hey Steve, >>=20 >> Didn't you used to have a Quadro 4000 in your MacPro3,1?. =20 >>=20 >> That's what I have now, and I'm wondering if it'd be worth it to = upgrade. Other than the CUDA card, our systems are pretty similar, and = I >>=20 >> I get a variety of source footage=E2=80=A6 a lot of MP4 variants, and = lately 2K ProRes4444 from an Alexa. My system can't play that = unprocessed in real-time at Full quality. That's curious, because I can = play 4 streams of 1080 ProRes 422 easily. CUDA seems to make a big = difference in playback of the PR4444. WIth it off, my CPU meters max = out; with it on, they go down around 50%. =20 >>=20 >> Being able to play at least one stream scaled to 1080 with some = accelerated color effects at full res without dropping frames would be = nice. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On Aug 13, 2014, at 1:50 PM, Steve Oakley = wrote: >>=20 >>> my 2008 mac tower, K5000, SSD system drive, 3X3TB raid eats thru = 1080 editing all day long with good responsiveness. I=E2=80=99m talking = 8-10 layers in PP with 1-2 video layers where one is often some h.264 = format, 1 ProRes, maybe one ProRes 4444 + alpha, static graphics, = lumetri from speed grade. where this system probably suffers is decoding = the h.264 formats where 2-3 layers will get boggish a bit.=20 >>>=20 >>> OTH I am finishing a shot in 4K GH4 edited in 1080 on my imac i7 and = its gone well. since its a 2.93gh / much faster ram bus machine it = decodes h.264 a lot more smoothly than the 2008 machine. >>>=20 >>> so a used 5.1 tower should be a consideration if you want the PCIe = slots, and a loaded 27=E2=80=9D iMac with nV GPU could be a really nice = compact machine. I=E2=80=99m somewhat waiting for an update iMac with = 6core i7. >>>=20 >>> S >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> On Aug 13, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Tony Romain = wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> This is exactly what I've been hearing as well. Unless the = software is written from the ground up to take advantage of the updated = hardware specs/architecture on the new mac pros, the speed boost is = negligible.. Especially for the price. >>>>=20 >>>> Would def just spend your money upgrading video cards, ram, = DEFINITELY replace your system drive with an SSD as well as get an = additional SSD for use as a AE disk cache=E2=80=A6 they are super cheap = these days >>>>=20 >>>> Can't stress enough how awesome the switch to an SSD system drive = was=E2=80=A6 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> --=20 >> danny princz >>=20 >> vimeo.com/rendernyc >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > _____________________________ > VFX & Motion Graphic Artist > teddygage dot com --Apple-Mail=_9DDCDFDC-4070-459F-9082-7BDE51EE58BA Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
I = had dual Q4000=E2=80=99s actually=E2=80=A6 they are gone. The Q 4800 I = had ( puny 192 cores ) in some ways was faster with resolve.  K5000 = is a vastly better card. rendered some AE raytrace with it last nite :) = works great with resolve and SG.

a PC ROM = nVidia card will work fine on your mac, you just don=E2=80=99t have any = display until the desktop finally loads up. so if you can live with out = the boot screen a PC card will do. there are mac rom flashed cards on = ebay too. 

GTX cards are fine for most = people=E2=80=99s uses. Quadro cards are designed to run 100% 24/7. They = are bullet proof, but come with the price. I never worry about it = working under heavy loads of 12hr edit days or long AE ray trace = renders. for less demanding things a GTX will do you fine. just go with = the most Vram you can get.

lets also be real. = processing a couple layers of 1080p30 in PP CC isn=E2=80=99t taxing = those cores unless you have a pile of filters per layer. GPU monitoring = reveals there is generally a decent amount of headroom, which is good. = One of the differences isn=E2=80=99t getting data onto the card, but = getting it off and into your Vout card. I think in this respect quadros = probably do better. 

you also need to = balance your PS output abilities too. you can run dual GPU=E2=80=99s on = some macs, but require external PS for the 2nd card. This matters if you = want to run resolve full out with a lot of nodes. for most uses though = you won=E2=80=99t need to go this = far.

S

On Aug 13, 2014, at 10:37 PM, Teddy Gage <AE-List@media-motion.tv> = wrote:

=46rom what I have learned in years of = testing:

Quadro line has optimized, heavily supported = drivers for 3D viewport performance. Quadros are generally optimized for = precise, accurate work and high-poly count scenes in Maya, Max, C4D, = autoCAD and industrial modeling like Rhino etc. There are benchmarks = that prove this. If you do a lot of 3D high-end prototype work they are = great.

The GTX series are optimized for OpenGL and Direct3D = performance - in a word, gaming. However they have nearly equivalent = CUDA performance as quadro series (depending on series). And most often, = better. 

However, after the GTX 580 was released, Nvidia = realized the GTX cards were cannibalizing the "pro" market and hobbled = CUDA performance on 6xx and 7xx series cards vs. the equivalent Quadro = cards. Although the 780 has performance rivaling the 580. For example = even a GTX 480 will do much better on CUDA benchmarks than a Quadro = 4000. Although typically the quadros have more VRAM, run quieter and are = more stable.

Currently the GTX 580 3GB edition is still the sweet = spot of price::performance ratio for CUDA processing. A GTX Titan or = Titan Black will outperform the card but at double the cost. (although = haven't checked the market - 580s are harder to come by now). =  

However, the GTX series are more or less the exact = same hardware as the equivalent Quadro series, except the QA is not = nearly as rigorous - more errors are allowed, and frequently they = disable certain additional pipelines and channels as a result. Floating = point performance isn't as accurate, unless enabling double = precision. 

Overall, unless you are aiming to do multi-million = poly scenes in realtime 3D previz, you are almost always better off with = a high-end GTX card. I have two GTX titans running SLI for the same = price (or less!) than a K5000, with about 2x to 3x the raw performance = in AE. Currently the Titan (or Titan black) is the best performing CUDA = card available, and has surprisingly low power draw and a full 6GB VRAM = per card. 





On Wed, Aug 13, = 2014 at 11:05 PM, Jim Curtis <AE-List@media-motion.tv> wrote:
I've been reading some articles today = whose authors call the GTX series a gaming card, and that the Quadro is = the series for professionals.  And they're about a thousand dollars = more expensive.  Downside for GTX is said to be they run louder and = hotter.

Any thoughts on that?

I don't = mind paying more to get the best for my needs.  Being on Mac, my = choices are more limited.  I don't want to run a hack. =  Dependability and support is critical.

Why did you go with a GTX and not a Quadro? =  





=
On Aug 13, 2014, at 9:42 PM, rendernyc <AE-List@media-motion.tv> wrote:

The quadro 4000 is a very = weak CUDA card... its misleading due to naming and = marketing.

i sold mine a while back and bought a = GTX570 2.5GB card and see a performance increase of 2-3X

i would check out a card like a 770 or 780 = perhaps... something like that and the CUDA performance will receive a = huge boost


On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Jim Curtis <AE-List@media-motion.tv> wrote:
Hey Steve,

Didn't you used to have = a Quadro 4000 in your MacPro3,1?.  

That's what I have now, and I'm wondering if it'd be = worth it to upgrade.  Other than the CUDA card, our systems are = pretty similar, and I

I get a variety of source footage=E2=80=A6 = a lot of MP4 variants, and lately 2K ProRes4444 from an Alexa.  My = system can't play that unprocessed in real-time at Full quality. =  That's curious, because I can play 4 streams of 1080 ProRes 422 = easily.  CUDA seems to make a big difference in playback of the = PR4444.  WIth it off, my CPU meters max out; with it on, they go = down around 50%.  

Being able to play at least one stream scaled to = 1080 with some accelerated color effects at full res without dropping = frames would be nice.




On = Aug 13, 2014, at 1:50 PM, Steve Oakley <AE-List@media-motion.tv> wrote:

my = 2008 mac tower, K5000, SSD system drive, 3X3TB raid eats thru 1080 = editing all day long with good responsiveness. I=E2=80=99m talking 8-10 = layers in PP with 1-2 video layers where one is often some h.264 format, = 1 ProRes, maybe one ProRes 4444 + alpha, static graphics, lumetri from = speed grade. where this system probably suffers is decoding the h.264 = formats where 2-3 layers will get boggish a bit. 

OTH I am finishing a shot in 4K GH4 edited in 1080 on my = imac i7 and its gone well. since its a 2.93gh / much faster ram bus = machine it decodes h.264 a lot more smoothly than the 2008 = machine.

so a used 5.1 tower should be a consideration if you want the = PCIe slots, and a loaded 27=E2=80=9D iMac with nV GPU could be a really = nice compact machine. I=E2=80=99m somewhat waiting for an update iMac = with 6core i7.

S


On Aug 13, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Tony Romain <AE-List@media-motion.tv> wrote:

This is exactly what I've been hearing as well.  Unless the = software is written from the ground up to take advantage of the updated = hardware specs/architecture on the new mac pros, the speed boost is = negligible.. Especially for the price.

Would def just spend your money upgrading video = cards, ram,  DEFINITELY replace your system drive with an SSD as = well as get an additional SSD for use as a AE disk cache=E2=80=A6 =  they are super cheap these days

Can't stress enough how awesome the switch to an SSD = system drive = was=E2=80=A6


=




--
danny = princz

vimeo.com/rendernyc
=




--
_____________________________
VFX & Motion Graphic Artist
teddygage dot com

= --Apple-Mail=_9DDCDFDC-4070-459F-9082-7BDE51EE58BA--