Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

Mac Pro 8 core 2.93 Transcode times in Compressor/Qmaster

Andrae Palmer

Andrae Palmer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
2,480
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
52
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Website
www.facetmedia.com
Nehalem Mac Pro arrived today so the first thing I did was a transcode in Compressor utilizing Qmaster clusters. The transcode was RED footage (4096x2304 Res) to Apple ProRes 422 (1920x1080). The Nehalem did the job in 2 minutes 15 seconds. The 2007 Mac Pro 3GHz in 3 minutes 42 seconds. 2007 Mac Pro 8 core 3GHz has 16GB RAM and RAID 5 array with 4x750GB drives. This is an amazing trouncing. The Nehalem only has 6GB and no RAID.

The 2007 Mac Pro 8 core 3GHz was setup with at first 4 instances and then 8 instances. Time for 4 instances was 03:55 and time for 8 instances was 03:42. The Nehalem was set for 16 instances.

Screen capture: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3645/3361114864_009f031f5e_o.png

Can't wait to do the same test with 16GB of RAM in the Nehalem & RAID 5.

*** Note: I've been getting a few PM's on my method for clustering RED footage. In this test I was only using RED QT proxies in Compressor and then sending to Qmaster. I wasn't using the REDline script method. I too am having issues with the REDline/Qmaster method. This method is too damn difficult... someone needs to make it easy and sell the script/software.
 
facetmedia said:
Nehalem Mac Pro arrived today so the first thing I did was a transcode in Compressor utilizing Qmaster clusters. The transcode was RED footage (4096x2304 Res) to Apple ProRes 422 (1920x1080). The Nehalem did the job in 2 minutes 15 seconds. The 2007 Mac Pro 3GHz in 3 minutes 42 seconds. 2007 Mac Pro 8 core 3GHz has 16GB RAM and RAID 5 array with 4x750GB drives. This is an amazing trouncing. The Nehalem only has 6GB and no RAID.

The 2007 Mac Pro 8 core 3GHz was setup with at first 4 instances and then 8 instances. Time for 4 instances was 03:55 and time for 8 instances was 03:42. The Nehalem was set for 16 instances.

Screen capture: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3645/3361114864_009f031f5e_o.png

Can't wait to do the same test with 16GB of RAM in the Nehalem & RAID 5.
Click to expand...

great post. good to know/hear!
 
Thanks for posting - great to have some clear info here, instead of all the usual fanboi nonsense...

If you have a chance to do any further tests, such as Redcine transfers, or when you have the RAM, it would be great to see more results!

Now, if only those 2.93 chip prices would go down....

Thanks again!
 
Nice! Thanks for the post. Please do the same when you get the RAM and RAID. If you can, please check to see if the RAID gives you any bump in performance. There is an other thread where an other user didn't get any added performance from the RAID.

How about testing the 2k QT proxies in FCP for playback? Don't want to sound greedy, but that would also be very interesting!
 
I think you'd see the biggest speed increase by reading to and writing from an Intel SSD drive. Price is now below $400 for the 80GB.

Also, I read somewhere that greater speed can be achieved by splitting up the script into 8 scripts with like frames 1-100, 101-200, and so on and then opening 8 terminal windows and executing all scripts at same time in 8 terminal windows. I guess the reason for this is that Mac OSX and/or QMaster try to preserve processing power for other applications and so this method overrides that by tricking OSX into thinking 8 separate applications are running different things.

If you have any way to test the above in combination with Intel SSD source drive, I'd love to see the final speed results.

-shooter
 
please correct me if i am wrong - but i dont see how harddrive speed should affect anything - were talking less than 25fps... a normal ata harddrive can easily keep up. its processing power and prob ram too that affects transcode times.

best,
 
OK I will do some more speed testing today guys. Currently I'm installing CS4. OWC is reporting another 15 days before they ship 4GB memory stick modules so we'll have to wait a while before I can get the system up to 16GB. I was using the Apple RAID in the 2007 Mac Pro. I'm now looking at getting a Maxx Digital EVO2 HD.

I noticed in RedCine that I was only getting 9fps at 1/2 res high. I'm thinking the lack of a RAID drive explains that slow performance. On the 2007 Mac Pro 8 core/RAID 5 I was regularly getting 16fps at 1/2 res high. Perhaps its memory or RAID.

Once I get the RAID/16GB I will post some playback frame rates in FCP, RedCine, Color, etc. I will also look into intel SSD performance as shooter was stating.
 
Sidney said:
please correct me if i am wrong - but i dont see how harddrive speed should affect anything - were talking less than 25fps... a normal ata harddrive can easily keep up. its processing power and prob ram too that affects transcode times.

best,
Click to expand...

Latency

-shooter
 
shooter said:
Latency

-shooter
Click to expand...

Would be interesting to see how much SSD's would factor into different types of encoding and media processing. I just don't think SSD's are priced appropriately enough for low-budget producers to maximize their usefulness, especially with hefty 4k files. Then again, Samsung seems to be suggesting that SSD prices could fall dramatically by late 2010.

Also, thanks a lot for the hard numbers Andrae!

Eric
 
Do us a favor, take a 4k 2:1 file at RC36 24p and do a half res normal or half res high processing of it in redrushes or clipfinder and tell us the FPS. My 2.26 8 core will do around 12.2 FPS, for the price the 2.93 should do about 22 fps to be worth it for just RED processing.
 
I too am looking into a Maxx 8-bay, and I think the question for the future is, will we be able to rig up a second RAID card inside the tower and set it up up so that we can squeeze most of the performance we'd get out of 8 SSDs... once they get decent enough size AND price wise.

There has to be space... possibly enough for more than 8 drives... just get it in there nice and solid, cut a hole for an additional fan, install some filters for dust and run the cables... presto! add some neon to the underside if you please. :)

OR... cannibalize your card out of it, and buy a new enclosure designed for SSDs, smaller, more bays... it all depends. But one way or an other you should be able to take advantage of that card you payed for if you really need SSD speed for 4k and above.
 
HDD speed is not the issue unless you're trying to color DPX files in color or playback DPX files realtime, R3D files aren't that large, that's one reason why we love them, I'll be shocked if an Intel SSD or any SSD helps R3D processing, I see no speed difference in processing at 12 fps on a new 8 core 2.26 mac pro between a 600+MB raid and the internal 1 640 GB drive that came with the Mac Pro. R3D processing is completely CPU driven for anything that uses REDline (REDAlert, RED Rushes, and Clipfinder) not even more RAM will make a significant difference, it's that plain and simple
 
Slow disc storage CAN limit r3d transcode performance if you are decoding/debayering at 1/2 res (or 1/4 res) on a fast system and writing large files or frames such as uncompressed QT or DPX.

A single drive as the target location for the newly created files can and will slow down the transcode process while the system waits for the new files to be written.

However, for playback and review of r3d files, hard drive performance is mostly a non-issue.

Adam
BOXXLabs
 
JanneJansson said:
Does the new mac have 16 core?
Click to expand...

8 physical / 8 virtual... due to: "Hyper-Threading, which allows two threads to run simultaneously on each core. So an 8-core Mac Pro presents 16 virtual cores that are recognized by Mac OS X. Performance is enhanced because Hyper-Threading enables the processor to take better advantage of the execution resources available in each core."
 
With ATI Radeon HD 4870 getting 8fps playback in Color of 2048 x 1152 (4096x2304) footage. On 2007 Mac Pro 8 core 3GHz with ATI X1900 XT getting 9fps. Obviously some optimizing has to be done in Color & RedCine for the 4870.
 
facetmedia said:
Nehalem Mac Pro arrived today so the first thing I did was a transcode in Compressor utilizing Qmaster cluster 5.
Click to expand...

Hello Andrae,

I've just got the same Mac Pro, but I am having problems exporting 4K out of AE CS4. Do you have AE CS4 and if so, have you been able to export some 4K footage. I really wonder if it is just a AE problem or something that has to be with the new Nahalem system.

Thanks.
 
muffinny said:
Hello Andrae,

I've just got the same Mac Pro, but I am having problems exporting 4K out of AE CS4. Do you have AE CS4 and if so, have you been able to export some 4K footage. I really wonder if it is just a AE problem or something that has to be with the new Nahalem system.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I will test it out and give you some feedback today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top