Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

GTX Titan and Mercury Playback Engine

For the Titan, I have the superclocked signature version, not sure if that qualifies as overclocked - but I'm not gonna play with that. I hadn't planned on going to 5.0, probably mid-4's. Let me know how that works out for you.
 
Zak Brickett said:
For the Titan, I have the superclocked signature version, not sure if that qualifies as overclocked - but I'm not gonna play with that. I hadn't planned on going to 5.0, probably mid-4's. Let me know how that works out for you.
Click to expand...

I am actually waiting, the new Intel Haswell Processors are supposed to be coming out June 3rd.
My brother has a super clocked 670 and he can't OC at all...but I do not know about the Titan.
Also is the the RED footage on the HDD or SSD, The HDD might not have a fast enough read speed to play back smooth. (I don't know the data rate on the Scarlet.)
 
Shoot for R/W speeds above 300MB/s on editing drives. Playback will be choppy with slow drives.

Adam Ekblad said:
I am actually waiting, the new Intel Haswell Processors are supposed to be coming out June 3rd.
My brother has a super clocked 670 and he can't OC at all...but I do not know about the Titan.
Also is the the RED footage on the HDD or SSD, The HDD might not have a fast enough read speed to play back smooth. (I don't know the data rate on the Scarlet.)
Click to expand...
 
Will Keir said:
Shoot for R/W speeds above 300MB/s on editing drives. Playback will be choppy with slow drives.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I am planning to make 2 SSDs in a Raid 0 that will be Around 800Mb/s-1000Mb/s!
 
Was planning the same thing. Still uncertain which drives to use. I heard to stay away from Sandbridge chips, which seems like most of them.

Are you using a PC?


Adam Ekblad said:
Exactly, I am planning to make 2 SSDs in a Raid 0 that will be Around 800Mb/s-1000Mb/s!
Click to expand...
 
I'd heard that SSDs didn't always play well when being put in a Raid arrary. Fairly certain you loose TRIM support, but can't remember the other specifics, worth a Google :)
 
SSD's don't do that well in RAIDs. And don't be fooled by the marketing numbers. You're not going to get over 800MB/s sustained reads from an SSD RAID unless you have at least 3 of them striped together. Two SSD's in a RAID-0 is still a valid configuration. I do have one such setup using 2 x 512GB Samsung 840's. Have not had it long, seems to work. You will most certainly want SSDs that are approved for use in RAIDs!!! Some of them are inconsistent about how and where they place data on writes. What's funny is the read speeds on it according to the BMD and AJA benchmarks are only about 15% faster than my MBP retina 768GB flash drive. Writes are only about 10% faster than the MBP-R. As fast as the SSDs appear on paper, there are still no units out there that can saturate their 6Gbps SATA interface when under load.

You will lose SSD TRIM support if running off a true RAID controller. TRIM is something you will want to turn off for RAIDs anyway and I believe even integrated hosts with RAID support will disable it if you create a RAID on your motherboard. You don't want anything going on that can potentially shift data locations.

Biggest issue with SSDs is the capacity in relation to price. That ratio continues to improve, but when you build RAIDs, your SSD setups will rapidly lose any advantage when compared to much larger RAIDs for less money, built with hard drives. 1TB SSDs are currently 10X the price of their 1TB HDD counterparts. They are typically about 4.5X faster for sustained reads and about 1.6X faster for sustained writes. So you may want to revisit the math on some of that. I'm sure that my opinion will change as the technology evolves. However, at this moment, I would much prefer a nice 6 to 8 drive 3TB HDD RAID over anything constructed out of SSD's. I have not done much of it with the current generation of SSDs, but for a while I was doing a lot of SSD RAID testing... On the bright side, most of the GOOD SSD models from last year could at least operate in RAID arrangements. Previously, it was commonplace for them to burn out and SSDs would start failing only after a few days of use.

Try to avoid those based on the Sandforce chipsets. Newer ones continue to get better and have much higher marketing numbers, but I have better real-world results with chipsets that don't rely so much on internal compression. Especially since most of the stuff I work with is already highly compressed. Samsung and OCZ have been working the best for me of any off the shelf SSDs over the past year.
 
I have two 3TB HDD and a 512GB SSD. I was going to pick up another HDD and use my three HDD in a RAID configuration and use the SSD as a boot drive. I already edit my footage off of an HDD without RAID and it doesn't seem to get choppy. I am just going to stripe them as I store all my footage on a Mac Pro server deal and just pull what I need off it and edit. I only work on about two or three projects at a time, as all these projects are in addition to my full time editing job, so I don't need access to a slew of space with the quickest data rates. Just a moderate sized solution.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
SSD's don't do that well in RAIDs. And don't be fooled by the marketing numbers. You're not going to get over 800MB/s sustained reads from an SSD RAID unless you have at least 3 of them striped together. Two SSD's in a RAID-0 is still a valid configuration. I do have one such setup using 2 x 512GB Samsung 840's. Have not had it long, seems to work. You will most certainly want SSDs that are approved for use in RAIDs!!! Some of them are inconsistent about how and where they place data on writes. What's funny is the read speeds on it according to the BMD and AJA benchmarks are only about 15% faster than my MBP retina 768GB flash drive. Writes are only about 10% faster than the MBP-R. As fast as the SSDs appear on paper, there are still no units out there that can saturate their 6Gbps SATA interface when under load.

You will lose SSD TRIM support if running off a true RAID controller. TRIM is something you will want to turn off for RAIDs anyway and I believe even integrated hosts with RAID support will disable it if you create a RAID on your motherboard. You don't want anything going on that can potentially shift data locations.

Biggest issue with SSDs is the capacity in relation to price. That ratio continues to improve, but when you build RAIDs, your SSD setups will rapidly lose any advantage when compared to much larger RAIDs for less money, built with hard drives. 1TB SSDs are currently 10X the price of their 1TB HDD counterparts. They are typically about 4.5X faster for sustained reads and about 1.6X faster for sustained writes. So you may want to revisit the math on some of that. I'm sure that my opinion will change as the technology evolves. However, at this moment, I would much prefer a nice 6 to 8 drive 3TB HDD RAID over anything constructed out of SSD's. I have not done much of it with the current generation of SSDs, but for a while I was doing a lot of SSD RAID testing... On the bright side, most of the GOOD SSD models from last year could at least operate in RAID arrangements. Previously, it was commonplace for them to burn out and SSDs would start failing only after a few days of use.

Try to avoid those based on the Sandforce chipsets. Newer ones continue to get better and have much higher marketing numbers, but I have better real-world results with chipsets that don't rely so much on internal compression. Especially since most of the stuff I work with is already highly compressed. Samsung and OCZ have been working the best for me of any off the shelf SSDs over the past year.
Click to expand...

Wow, when things are always so much better in theory! LOL!

Will Keir said:
Was planning the same thing. Still uncertain which drives to use. I heard to stay away from Sandbridge chips, which seems like most of them.

Are you using a PC?
Click to expand...

I will be, I was awaiting the Haswell Processors to Come out today, nothing terribly exciting.
 
For only a 15% speed boost I might buy a bunch of cheaper HHDs make a 10 disk RAID! Get tons of storage + Nice speed!
 
Adam Ekblad said:
For only a 15% speed boost I might buy a bunch of cheaper HHDs make a 10 disk RAID! Get tons of storage + Nice speed!
Click to expand...

Yep. If you start shopping around for RAIDs, you will quickly notice there are not many SSD based offerings and it's not due to cost... Some of the more popular HDD solutions out there have prices in the stratosphere.
 
as with many of these threads, we have veered away from the titled topic. But useful information is useful information.
 
Vaguely back on topic, we're running one of the new GTX 780s (cut down Titan basically); on 4K files the PC was running smoothly at 1/2 res, and then jumped up to full for both Premiere and Resolve once the 780 was installed; quite impressed by it so far
 
We just built a PC and put a Titan in there (it's the only video card) to edit with CS6.
i just tested to play files in the timeline, and 5K 1/2 res seems to bee smooth.
When rendered it plays full well.
4K never was much of a problem to me, 5K is where you really start to notice your tools (or lack of)

i did a quick and dirty test. We rendered a 6 min timelaps shot, 5K. It took 12 minutes on the PC. I then did the same clip on my old Mac Pro (3.1 2.8ghx eight core) from 2008 with a Quadro 4000 card ( it also has a card to run displays). It took about 28-30 minutes.
that means the Titan and e PC is "only" 2.5 faster. Does this seem about right?
 
Alex Rawet said:
Vaguely back on topic, we're running one of the new GTX 780s (cut down Titan basically); on 4K files the PC was running smoothly at 1/2 res, and then jumped up to full for both Premiere and Resolve once the 780 was installed; quite impressed by it so far
Click to expand...

What's the rest of your system like?
 
Adam Ekblad said:
Bringing it back on topic, did you guys hear about Titan Ultra? Supposed to have 200ish more Cuda cores, more TMUs and a Faster clock speed!
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/153929-nvidias-gtx-titan-le-and-titan-ultra-leaked
The Titan LE would be about a 780 with 5GB of RAM!
Click to expand...

I thought the Titan LE became the GTX 780 in the end (although with 3 instead of 5GB of VRAM)?

Zak Brickett said:
What's the rest of your system like?
Click to expand...

i3930k (stock), P9X79, 32GB Ram, files were running off a Samsung 840 Pro as our Raid enclosure hasn't arrived yet.
 
Why would we need a utility??? Just edit the text file.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top