From: "Teddy Gage" Received: from mail-yh0-f50.google.com ([209.85.213.50] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5548375 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 16:29:23 +0200 Received: by mail-yh0-f50.google.com with SMTP id v1so1066045yhn.37 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 07:29:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=ztBTtZ/jgYQx+Wbba+EcaOUdIgkj7CQl2sBYROtf5p8=; b=VD9njVHJev6x2B1KrPhbskVcH+slMuf95Kx/nzgfQePqkXBm/YT4PRmul/ZmCWOUnK H1HbS/lv49NivrQeizRNRoXq1tfSAGFyBzSWxIZKuhSrjtoIrH5vcblMFq9Wit3CUL9o 57A6Jv+TlO01Z1wExogHDUpVS2m60F2FYSGVH3P/kmgvmEEbzZWCjc0ZY7sHfcRrA835 6iEn3N0BEHhaVcZ1WrQaFYgPzufZ+0VRfO12uptmtXVw7euapY2IRtvtM7iqFK2sJhWW X5XXb+c8JCRC1Irf8NIPstSjMv+bl18kAVEXMIXfRDuBGV03BODFPEjsW/UqAr97GM1G +l2A== X-Received: by 10.236.136.168 with SMTP id w28mr17729340yhi.132.1408026563057; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 07:29:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.170.52.20 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 07:28:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:28:42 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] What's the state of Ae on new MacPros? To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303ddb982022ab050097bbde --20cf303ddb982022ab050097bbde Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >One of the differences isn=E2=80=99t getting data onto the card, but getti= ng it off and into your Vout card. I think in this respect quadros probably do better. Yes, and of course they don't make GTX cards with SDI outputs. Even the Titan only has one 10bit displayport output. Although it can drive four monitors simultaneously On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Steve Oakley wrote: > 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 h= ave any > display until the desktop finally loads up. so if you can live with out t= he > boot screen a PC card will do. there are mac rom flashed cards on ebay to= o. > > GTX cards are fine for most people=E2=80=99s uses. Quadro cards are desig= ned 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, bu= t 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. Thi= s 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: > > From 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 a= nd > 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 a= nd > 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 checke= d > 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 realtim= e > 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 K500= 0, > 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 > 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 sa= id >> 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 an= d >> support is critical. >> >> Why did you go with a GTX and not a Quadro? >> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 13, 2014, at 9:42 PM, rendernyc 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 tha= t >> and the CUDA performance will receive a huge boost >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Jim Curtis >> 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 l= ately 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 stream= s of >>> 1080 ProRes 422 easily. CUDA seems to make a big difference in playbac= k of >>> the PR4444. WIth it off, my CPU meters max out; with it on, they go do= wn >>> 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 >>> 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 grad= e. >>> 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 it= s >>> 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 >>> 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 > > > --=20 _____________________________ VFX & Motion Graphic Artist teddygage dot com --20cf303ddb982022ab050097bbde Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>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 quadro= s probably do better.=C2=A0

Yes, and of course they don't make GTX cards with SDI ou= tputs. Even the Titan only has one 10bit displayport output. Although it ca= n drive four monitors simultaneously


On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Steve Oakl= ey <AE-List@media-motion.tv> wrote:
I had dual Q4000=E2=80=99s actuall= y=E2=80=A6 they are gone. The Q 4800 I had ( puny 192 cores ) in some ways = was faster with resolve. =C2=A0K5000 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 ju= st 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.=C2=A0

GTX cards are fine for most people=E2=80=99s uses. Quad= ro cards are designed to run 100% 24/7. They are bullet proof, but come wit= h 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 1080p3= 0 in PP CC isn=E2=80=99t taxing those cores unless you have a pile of filte= rs 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.=C2=A0

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 th= e 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-moti= on.tv> wrote:

From 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, accurat= e 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 performa= nce - in a word, gaming. However they have nearly equivalent CUDA performan= ce as quadro series (depending on series). And most often, better.=C2=A0

However, after the GTX 580 was released, Nvidia realize= d the GTX cards were cannibalizing the "pro" market and hobbled C= UDA 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 ty= pically the quadros have more VRAM, run quieter and are more stable.

Currently the GTX 580 3GB edition is still the sweet sp= ot of price::performance ratio for CUDA processing. A GTX Titan or Titan Bl= ack will outperform the card but at double the cost. (although haven't = checked the market - 580s are harder to come by now). =C2=A0

However, the GTX series are more or less the exact same= hardware as the equivalent Quadro series, except the QA is not nearly as r= igorous - more errors are allowed, and frequently they disable certain addi= tional pipelines and channels as a result. Floating point performance isn&#= 39;t as accurate, unless enabling double precision.=C2=A0

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 les= s!) 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.=C2=A0





On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:05 P= M, Jim Curtis <AE-List@media-motion.tv> wrote:
I've= been reading some articles today whose authors call the GTX series a gamin= g card, and that the Quadro is the series for professionals. =C2=A0And they= 're about a thousand dollars more expensive. =C2=A0Downside for GTX is = said to be they run louder and hotter.

Any thoughts on that?

I don't m= ind paying more to get the best for my needs. =C2=A0Being on Mac, my choice= s are more limited. =C2=A0I don't want to run a hack. =C2=A0Dependabili= ty and support is critical.

Why did you go with a GTX and not a Quadro? =C2=A0
=




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

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

<= div>i sold mine a while back and bought a GTX570 2.5GB card and see a perfo= rmance increase of 2-3X

i would check out a card like a 770 or 780 perhaps... s= omething 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&g= t; wrote:
Hey Stev= e,

Didn't you used to have a Quadro 4000 in your MacPro3,1?. =C2= =A0

That's what I have now, and I'm wondering if it'= d be worth it to upgrade. =C2=A0Other than the CUDA card, our systems are p= retty similar, and I

I get a variety of source footage=E2=80=A6 a lo= t of MP4 variants, and lately 2K ProRes4444 from an Alexa. =C2=A0My system = can't play that unprocessed in real-time at Full quality. =C2=A0That= 9;s curious, because I can play 4 streams of 1080 ProRes 422 easily. =C2=A0= CUDA seems to make a big difference in playback of the PR4444. =C2=A0WIth i= t off, my CPU meters max out; with it on, they go down around 50%. =C2=A0

Being able to play at least one stream scaled to 1080 w= ith some accelerated color effects at full res without dropping frames woul= d be nice.




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

my 2008 m= ac tower, K5000, SSD system drive, 3X3TB raid eats thru 1080 editing all da= y 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 wil= l get boggish a bit.=C2=A0

OTH I am finishing a shot in 4K GH4 edited in 1080 on my ima= c 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 PC= Ie 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. = =C2=A0Unless the software is written from the ground up to take advantage o= f the updated hardware specs/architecture on the new mac pros, the speed bo= ost is negligible.. Especially for the price.

Would def just spend your money upgrading video cards, = ram, =C2=A0DEFINITELY replace your system drive with an SSD as well as get = an additional SSD for use as a AE disk cache=E2=80=A6 =C2=A0they are super = cheap these days

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






--
danny pr= incz

vimeo.= com/rendernyc




--
_= ____________________________
V= FX & Motion Graphic Artist
teddygage dot com




--
_= ____________________________
V= FX & Motion Graphic Artist
teddygage dot com
--20cf303ddb982022ab050097bbde--