.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

High Definition Video for Independent Filmmakers
A How To Guide for Digital Filmmakers
Welcome all! This is my blog to share my latest research,
thoughts, etc. on utilizing HD for independent filmmaking.

YES, I am available for consulting
Contact me at mike@hdforindies.com

All content copyright 2004-2007 Mike Curtis.

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

New Mac Pro performance rundown 

Apple - Mac Pro - Performance - has a series of interactive graphs to compare between the new 8 core 3.2 GHz boxes and either a Quad G5, a quad core 2.66 (last gen) Mac Pro, or the previous 3.0 GHz 8 core Mac Pro (which I've got).

Of particular interest are the FCP tests (right up front). The numbers below indicate how much faster the NEW 8 core 3.2 GHz is over the mentioned machine. I wouldn't be surprised if the new Mac Pro had a SAS RAID, either.

Quickie rundown, comparing the new 8 core 3.2 GHz to:

HDV rendering
faster than Quad G5: 1.8x
faster than Quad Mac Pro: 1.4x
faster than Previous 8 core Mac Pro: 1.2x

ProRes Rendering
faster than Quad G5: not shown
faster than Quad Mac Pro: 1.4x
faster than Previous 8 core Mac Pro: 1.2x

HDV encoding
faster than Quad G5: not shown
faster than Quad Mac Pro: 1.9x
faster than Previous 8 core Mac Pro: 1.1x

ProRes encoding
faster than Quad G5: not shown
faster than Quad Mac Pro: 1.3x
faster than Previous 8 core Mac Pro: 1.1x

After Effects CS3 Nightflight benchmark
faster than Quad G5: 2.8x
faster than Quad Mac Pro: 1.9x
faster than Previous 8 core Mac Pro: 1.1x

They have a bunch of other tests including audio, Maya, etc. I'd be curious to see Motion and especially Color benchmarks, to see if performance improved there, as the PCIe bus was a limiting factor (among others) to achieve 1080 resolution realtime performance.

But as compared to the prior 8 core Mac, which cost less, the performance gain is very modest - 10, sometimes 20% for video applications according to Apple's on tests.

RAID cards:
SAS RAID 5, 3x300GB: 250 MB/sec reads, 197 MB/sec writes (sequential)
SATA RAID 5, 3x1TB SATA: 165 MB/sec reads, 127 MB/sec writes

Simultaneous FCP streams:
10 bit 1080i60:
SAS: 1 stream
SATA - can't do it

ProRes 422 HQ (which is 10 bit) 1080i60: 5 streams for either SAS or SATA

ProRes HQ 720p24:
SAS: 14 streams
SATA: 11 streams

Keep in mind that SAS setup costs $1800 more and holds less than 1/3 as much content....but it is faster.

Labels: , ,

Posted by: Mike Curtis / 1/08/2008 11:28:00 AM
Comments:
Just a couple of quick thoughts. 8 GB of RAM from Apple is a $1500.00 upgrade. Other World Computing shows 8 GB at $529 while Crucial has it at $559.98. That is a HUGE price difference. Is there any reason at all (that makes sense) to be getting this from Apple? Is there a reliability issue here? I think that it will be very interesting to see what the performance difference will be between the ATI 2600 and the NVidia 8800 in Color. I've got the 8800 GT for my PC and it's a great card, but it does run very hot and is quite loud with stock cooling. This might not be an issue on the card for the Mac Pro.
# posted by Blogger Brian : Tue Jan 08, 03:19:00 PM CST
 
I think the RAM has been upped in this version of the Mac Pro. I don't think it's strictly the same as the RAM for previous Mac Pro models.
# posted by Blogger initials.bb : Wed Jan 09, 04:50:00 AM CST
 
Yeah, I wondered about RAM. 32GB from OWC? Something like $2,600. From Apple? $9,200. Yikes!
# posted by Blogger Allan White : Wed Jan 09, 06:50:00 PM CST
 
Post a Comment


Links to this post:

Create a Link

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Listed on BlogShares