PDA

View Full Version : How much faster would a quad core Mac Pro be?



Pumpkin King
03-16-2009, 08:33 AM
I'm looking at buy myself one of these shinny new quad core Mac Pros. I currently have a 1.8 gig iMac G5. So, if I upgraded would it be like a quad core 2.66 X 4 = 10.64 divided by my 1.8 gig = 5.91 times faster? Or does that math not really matter and it would be like a zillion times faster? I really only do still shots but if my machine was faster I might get more into animation as well...

How much faster would a quad core Mac Pro really be?

What do you use and what do you use it for (ie, still shots/animation)?

Otterman
03-16-2009, 08:58 AM
I have access to a bunch of intel macs-some with four cores others with eight. The ones with eight render almost twice as fast. So from my experience id say yes, mult-threading permitting of course !

Im sure there are bench tests some where on this site! Anyone?

Chilton
03-16-2009, 10:03 AM
I prefer http://www.barefeats.com/ myself.

-Chilton

ingo
03-16-2009, 12:33 PM
I'm looking at buy myself one of these shinny new quad core Mac Pros. I currently have a 1.8 gig iMac G5. So, if I upgraded would it be like a quad core 2.66 X 4 = 10.64 divided by my 1.8 gig = 5.91 times faster?.....

Roughly this estimation is correct, i have calculated this even with an old G4 and its okay.

JonW
03-16-2009, 03:13 PM
Ghz for Ghz, a 54xx is about 6% faster than 53xx. We need more info on 55xx (i7 equivalent) but Ghz for Ghz, very roughly a 55xx is about 25% faster (depending on your % of pre processing) than 54xx.

The i7 is much quicker with pre processing than 54xx or 53xx

Pumpkin King
03-16-2009, 06:12 PM
ummmm... is that still english you're speaking JonW??? Waaay over my head dude! lol

Pumpkin King
03-16-2009, 06:19 PM
Does this help http://www.apple.com/ca/macpro/specs.html?

JonW
03-16-2009, 07:24 PM
If a render takes 60 seconds on a X5365 CPU it will be quicker on a newer CPU with the same Ghz.

X5365 - 3.0 ghz = 60 sec
E5450 - 3.0 ghz = 56 sec
X5570 - 2.93ghz = 45 sec (approx. more bench marks need to be done, but can be still quicker than this)

avkills
03-16-2009, 07:29 PM
I'd have to say it will spank your iMac G5 into submission. The 3.2Ghz 8 core monsters we have at work are on the order of almost 10x faster than the dual 2 Ghz G5s.

So with your math --- 3.2 x 8 = 25.6 / 4 = 6.4. Hah hah! In real life it is much better.

I am actually looking at the Quad 2.66 myself to replace my G5 at home.

-mark

Pumpkin King
03-16-2009, 07:35 PM
"spank your iMac G5 into submission." <--- that's the kind of terminology I understand! LOL!!!

avkills, I have to ask, where do you work???

avkills
03-16-2009, 10:30 PM
Hi Jay,

I work for Davis Audio Visual, LLC in Denver. We are using the 2 newest Mac Pros to drive a 60ft x 20ft screen with a resolution of 3840x1080 - the edge blend which is normally around 600 pixels, so 3240x1080 final resolution. Our first big show of the year we had to play back full motion H.264 files on that screen. I was sweating....

That particular show actually was a 60x18 (we lost 2 ft due to ceiling height), so it was 3600x1080 on that one. It was fun.

The machines so far have been really good. I also have them set up to be general show computers, I've got Vista/Office07 and XP/Office 07 as Virtual Machines so we basically have any presenter covered whether they have powerpoint, pdf, Mac, PC, whatever they need.

The 1st beast is our main edit system (and when I say we I mean me... :p ).

It is great fun and also quite stressful at times, but hey, I get paid to play with cool stuff. :D

Mike (Scazzino) said I'd be drooling once I clicked render and he was not joking around.

-mark

accom
03-17-2009, 01:13 AM
I was working on a real-life project, when I got a new 2.8GHz 8-core and tested it with it... It's not really fair, but:
- G5 DC 2.0 GHz / 4 GB Ram / I think I was still on LW 9.2 = rendertime approx. 120min
- MacPro 2.8 8Core / 8 GB Ram / LW 9.6 = rendertime approximately 10 min

Pumpkin King
03-17-2009, 06:30 AM
wow... crazy! What do the big guys use... like Pixar and Dreamworks? Anyone know?

Otterman
03-17-2009, 06:46 AM
wow... crazy! What do the big guys use... like Pixar and Dreamworks? Anyone know?

I cant answer that but i heard a rumor that the setup at pixar enables them to render in realtime. They aint ZX spectrums thats for sure :stumped:

avkills
03-17-2009, 10:35 AM
I cant answer that but i heard a rumor that the setup at pixar enables them to render in realtime. They aint ZX spectrums thats for sure :stumped:

I seriously doubt that. Maybe pre-viz in realtime, I doubt full quality render.

-mark

accom
03-17-2009, 02:59 PM
I cant answer that but i heard a rumor that the setup at pixar enables them to render in realtime. They aint ZX spectrums thats for sure :stumped:

http://www.pixar.com/howwedoit/index.html#

On "frame" 13 there's something about rendering.
This was obviously written some time after the "Monsters Inc.", but still... The scenes in their movies are far too complex (at least most of them) to be rendered in real-time, considering AA and GI, plus the fact that it's rendered in a relatively hi-res (HDTV, cinemas).

Well, if HW has evolved enough to prove me wrong, I'd REALLY like to see it.

cscardinal
03-19-2009, 07:03 AM
I cant answer that but i heard a rumor that the setup at pixar enables them to render in realtime. They aint ZX spectrums thats for sure :stumped:

Decidedly untrue. They use giant Linux clusters that render 4k frames in a reasonable amount of time. All the studios use Linux, and most use their own software.

Otterman
03-19-2009, 07:36 AM
Well i did say it was a rumor and didnt state it as fact. I doubted it when i heard it. But heck....how fab would it be, can you imagen it!

Its the future i tell you.... one day well be laughing at the thought of a 24hour render!

Pumpkin King
03-19-2009, 07:49 AM
Ya... LOL That pixar page says most frames take 6 hours, and some up to 90 hrs! I've heard pixar uses some inhouse app called marrionette to do all their animation. Man I'd love to tour that place!!! (but apparently u can't)

BeeVee
03-19-2009, 03:24 PM
Actually, the times taken for frames haven't changed much at Pixar over the years. That's to say that a frame from Toy Story would have taken roughly the same time as an image from Cars did. That's because every time machines get faster, something comes along to slow them down some more... ;)

B

Pumpkin King
03-20-2009, 06:41 AM
See... now that's what I was thinking... I get my shiny new Mac Pro and then I'll be doing more complex things... It might take just as long but my graphics will look that much better!

avkills
03-20-2009, 10:25 AM
Well it is true; once you get faster machines -- you tend to start checking off those things that take longer to render, using more polys, higher anti-aliasing settings, bigger texture maps, etc etc.

-mark

yaschan
03-30-2009, 04:45 PM
I am interested about the new 8 core Mac Pro. I'm sure it's faster, but can Lightwave 9.6 really take advantage of the 8 cores? How would that compare to the updated 4 core model?
I think the cost difference between 4 and 8 core models is very big..

Pumpkin King
03-30-2009, 06:28 PM
OK... Well I just ordered my 2.66 quad core Mac Pro with 6 gigs o' ram on Saturday. So, when it comes in I'll do some testing (c:

avkills
03-31-2009, 07:56 PM
I am interested about the new 8 core Mac Pro. I'm sure it's faster, but can Lightwave 9.6 really take advantage of the 8 cores? How would that compare to the updated 4 core model?
I think the cost difference between 4 and 8 core models is very big..

Lightwave will use all 8 cores in the new Mac Pros and probably even let you set the thread count to 16 due to the HyperThreading make it even faster; at least during rendering.

-mark

SpawnSP
04-01-2009, 02:01 AM
Hi all!

I have one of those new 8 core Mac Pros (two Quad-Core Xeons). I can tell you that LW switches automatically to 16 threads, no need to set them manually. Rendering speed is quite impressive for me, but I was working with a Core2Duo iMac before this.

aidenvfx
04-16-2009, 11:19 AM
It comes down to what you need and can afford. I really wanted to get the 8 core, but the $900 price difference I just can't do in my budget so I am going to go for the Quad 2.66.

toby
04-16-2009, 06:52 PM
Hi all!

I have one of those new 8 core Mac Pros (two Quad-Core Xeons). I can tell you that LW switches automatically to 16 threads, no need to set them manually. Rendering speed is quite impressive for me, but I was working with a Core2Duo iMac before this.
Have you compared an 8-thread render to 16? Inquiring minds want to know -

SpawnSP
04-18-2009, 04:18 AM
Here it goes the test comparing 16-treaded render vs a 8-threaded one. The scene and the frame rendered is the same in both renders.

Using activity monitor, I've noticed that with 8-threaded render, hyperthreading is still working, with core usage jumping from one core to another.

Bye! :)

avkills
04-24-2009, 10:43 AM
Here it goes the test comparing 16-treaded render vs a 8-threaded one. The scene and the frame rendered is the same in both renders.

Using activity monitor, I've noticed that with 8-threaded render, hyperthreading is still working, with core usage jumping from one core to another.

Bye! :)

Hyperthreading is done within each core individually. The 16 thread render looks to be about a 1/3 faster from your image.

-mark