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 :)

New DaVinci Resolve for Mac Configuration Guide Available

jake blackstone said:
Depending on your Mac configuration and model, with both cards installed you should have real time, no render needed performance at 1/4 res. With just FX4800 you will not get real time performance. If you get same performance with and without 120 card, then something is wrong. Are you saying, that you're getting real time performance with just FX4800 present?
Click to expand...

I have a 8 core 2009 mac 16 gig ram and slots are filled as per BMD manual. Best I can get at Quarter res is 18 fps with or without the 120 installed.

Paul
 
Paul Harding said:
I have a 8 core 2009 mac 16 gig ram and slots are filled as per BMD manual. Best I can get at Quarter res is 18 fps with or without the 120 installed.

Paul
Click to expand...

I have the same configuration Mac with 120, with 6Gb of RAM and I get real time performance at 1/4 res R3D with at least 5-6 nodes . Obviously, if all you're getting is 18FPS, there is something wrong. BTW, BM recommends RAM to be multiples of 6GB, ie. 6,12, 18 or 24GB.
 
Kujtim Ereqi said:
I have an early MAC 2008 so Resolve should finally work fine with it. Does anybody has an experience working with R3D files in such a system. Is it real time?

My system has 6GB, but the recommended is 8GB for early 2008. Does that mean that Resolve will not work with 6GB.

Is there anything I should be aware about early 2008 Mac working with Resolve, beside the common requirements for all Mac systems?
Click to expand...

I believe, starting with Resolve version 7.0.2, Mac 2008 allows real time performance, but only at 8 bit display. At 10 bit you will not get real time performance, with maximum 17-18 FPS playback. Not sure where you got 8GB requirement. The 6GB is minimum requirement and with that Resolve runs just fine.
 
jake blackstone said:
I have the same configuration Mac with 120, with 6Gb of RAM and I get real time performance at 1/4 res R3D with at least 5-6 nodes . Obviously, if all you're getting is 18FPS, there is something wrong. BTW, BM recommends RAM to be multiples of 6GB, ie. 6,12, 18 or 24GB.
Click to expand...

Jake I might have been runing 10 bit will test to make sure tomorrow
Thanks for the info.
Paul
 
jake blackstone said:
I have the same configuration Mac with 120, with 6Gb of RAM and I get real time performance at 1/4 res R3D with at least 5-6 nodes . Obviously, if all you're getting is 18FPS, there is something wrong. BTW, BM recommends RAM to be multiples of 6GB, ie. 6,12, 18 or 24GB.
Click to expand...

Huh???

And yeah, Peter said this:
Peter Chamberlain said:
Its actually the Nehalem architecture in the 2009 MacPro that prefers the system ram in lots of 3. For those trying 2008 MacPro, 8GB is likely to be better.
Peter
Click to expand...

Which does not make sense. There is no lots of 3 anything with the Nehalem Mac Pro. It's still a dual-channel architecture with 4 sockets per channel. The only exception to that is if you buy a single processor (quad core) Mac Pro, but at that point you're just eliminating the secondary memory channel, effectively cutting your memory capacity and bandwidth in half.

In the Mac Pro, the best performance comes from fully populating both memory boards, saturating both channels. Or populating them equally. So, if you want 6GB, the best performance comes from using 6x1GB modules, leaving the 4th socket on each memory board empty. 12GB via 6x2GB DIMMs. 18GB is only possible with a mismatch, which throws the memory boards out of full sync mode. 24GB possible as 6x4GB... But fully populated RAM boards means 8, 16 or 32GB capacities, operating at maximum performance in this system. So I guess I'd like to understand why Peter has said this...
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Which does not make sense. There is no lots of 3 anything with the Nehalem Mac Pro. It's still a dual-channel architecture with 4 sockets per channel. The only exception to that is if you buy a single processor (quad core) Mac Pro, but at that point you're just eliminating the secondary memory channel, effectively cutting your memory capacity and bandwidth in half.
.
Click to expand...

You sure about this, Jeff? I'm pretty sure that from the 2009 Mac Pro onwards there's tripple channel memory, and this seems to be confirmed on bearfeats (http://www.barefeats.com/nehal02.html). I remember that there was quite a confusion about why apple made 8 slots rather then f.ex 12.

With regards to the Mac Pro 2008 the reason you won't get better perfomance with 10bit monitoring is that there's not enough internal bandwidth to move data quickly enough from the GPU to the monitor output. 8 bit monitoring should give you real time perfomance.

I've got the 2009 Mac Pro 8x2.66 Ghz with 12GB memory, GTX285 and GT120. I've not done much RED grading yet, but all the ProRes444 and ProRes422 HQ work I've done is giving me excellent, real-time performance. However, I do find that a restart before each new job is a good rule-of-thumb.
 
Helge Løken said:
You sure about this, Jeff? I'm pretty sure that from the 2009 Mac Pro onwards there's tripple channel memory, and this seems to be confirmed on bearfeats (http://www.barefeats.com/nehal02.html). I remember that there was quite a confusion about why apple made 8 slots rather then f.ex 12.
Click to expand...

Nehalem Xeon and Core i7 both support dual and triple channel operation, that's true.

In a single-processor Mac Pro, you [obviously] get single channel operation with one DIMM installed. Dual channel operation when you install two or four DIMMs. Triple channel when you install 3 DIMMs. So yes, in a single processor '09 and '10 Mac Pro, you will get the best RAM performance with 3 DIMMs -- 3, 6 or 12 GB.

In a dual-processor Mac Pro, it interleaves in dual channel between the two memory interfaces. Or defaults to single-channel if there is a mismatch in the number or capacity of DIMMs. Technically, the only possible way that triple-channel can be supported with two active memory controllers is to have three slots on each board populated. The memory controller in the Nehalem in combination with the 5520 chipset is indeed capable of this, but I have been told that the way the memory planes are implemented on the Mac Pro, that it is not allowed. I may have been told incorrectly, but my own testing biases me toward this.

There's tons of speculation on the net and people claiming this and that. I've done my own benchmarks and see no difference in my '09 Mac Pros by pulling the last slot-4 DIMMs from each memory board, which should enable triple-channel. I bought into the whole triple channel theory a year ago and put 6x4GB modules in an '09 Mac Pro. Is it any faster than the tower next to it with 16GB (8x2GB)? No, unfortunately it's not faster in any benchmarks I've tried. Nor in real world practice in rendering or general use. So.... Do what makes you happy I guess. Just be sure to set up for dual channel. If you want to try the triple-channel thing, then go for it. RAM prices work out similarly either way. IMO, 24GB in a new 2010 Mac Pro would be a good amount to have if you're running any software that can utilize all the cores such as 3D rendering apps, etc.. 12GB is a little on the light side in a system with 8cores or more. So I don't see any practical purpose to attempting the triple-channel setup unless you're using 4GB or 8GB DIMMs.
 
Is it possible to use one of the nVidia Telsa cards with Resolve? Say a GT120 for monitors & Tesla C2050 for resolve? Would it be any faster? Seems that using a GPU with monitor outs doesn't make sense when you can't connect a monitor to it.

Dusty
 
Dustin Cross said:
Is it possible to use one of the nVidia Telsa cards with Resolve? Say a GT120 for monitors & Tesla C2050 for resolve? Would it be any faster? Seems that using a GPU with monitor outs doesn't make sense when you can't connect a monitor to it.

Dusty
Click to expand...

I don't think there is a Tesla card for OS X systems

That said... I think that a Tesla might be readily supported if one was available.

The net effect though is that it costs very little to add monitor ports compared to building the card.... as you can see from $20 video cards with dual dual DVI outputs and an HDMI.

So, a mac version of a Quadro 4000 will give you roughly the same performance for Resolve, and because of market forces will be cheaper than a Tesla 2050.

I'm kind of excited about the Quadro 4000, because I can run two cards, and have one on the system for Motion etc.

Now if it would only hurry up and actually arrive for the Mac.
 
Gabriele Turchi said:
i don't get why the 5000 for mac will not be released ...
or it will ?

thanks

g
Click to expand...

Nvidia has said that the 4000 will be released for the Mac... but they have said nothing about their other Quadro products.

Nvidia hasn't mentioned anything regarding their other product lines like Tesla or QuadroPlex.

Usually not mentioning a product means it won't be available... and I would make my plans on that assumption.

Just to be clear... if you are building a Resolve system today, you should buy a combination of the GTX 285 for Resolve and a GT120 for the UI.

The Quadro 4000 is expected "any minute" and should outperform both the current model Quadro 4800 and GTX 285... but it is not available now, so don't count on it in the near term.
 
thanks alexander ,
i have the 285+ 120 already ...and i am looking forward to the 4000...
but i am not expecting a quantic jump in performance as the 6000 would be ...

but i hope that actually the bigger memory and the newer architecture will make the 4000 a faster tool for resolve

g
 
MXO2LE instead of DeckLink HD

MXO2LE instead of DeckLink HD

Maybe it's a silly question, but I was wondering if a MXO2LE could take the place of a DeckLink HD to feed screens?
I actually ask to a representative at BM booth IBC this year with no luck, he even didn't know what was an MXO2LE.
Cheers.
 
Brice Ansel said:
Maybe it's a silly question, but I was wondering if a MXO2LE could take the place of a DeckLink HD to feed screens?
I actually ask to a representative at BM booth IBC this year with no luck, he even didn't know what was an MXO2LE.
Cheers.
Click to expand...

Reading the configuration manual... I don't think the MXO and MXO2 devices can work with Resolve.

I'd definitely plan on a Decklink card.
 
Here is a spec sheet I found, it's called MXO2LE VS Deck link HD
A funny one thought.

1. Matrox MXO2 LE works with Mac Pros and
MacBook Pros – DeckLink HD Extreme works only
with towers.

2. Matrox MXO2 LE fits in a single PCIe slot –
DeckLink HD Extreme occupies one slot plus an
additional bracket for the HDMI option.

3. Matrox MXO2 LE is a professional breakout box – DeckLink HD Extreme does not have a breakout box option.

4. Matrox MXO2 LE provides 10-bit HDMI monitoring with a unique color calibration tool that turns your HDMI
screen into a professional-grade video monitor – DeckLink HD Extreme does not offer a calibration utility.

5. Matrox MXO2 LE provides 10-bit realtime hardware upscaling, downscaling, and cross conversion on input
and output – DeckLink HD Extreme depends on your CPU for some scaling operations.

6. Matrox MXO2 LE provides analog component, Y/C, and composite output simultaneously via
separate, dedicated connectors – DeckLink HD Extreme has only three connectors used for a component output
or Y/C and composite output.

7. Matrox MXO2 LE supports eight channels of HDMI embedded audio – DeckLink HD Extreme supports only
two channels.

8. A version of Matrox MXO2 LE is available with Matrox MAX technology for faster than realtime H.264
encoding for Blu-ray, the web, and mobile devices – DeckLink HD Extreme does not offer this important benefit.
October 22, 2009 – Matrox Electronic Systems Ltd. reserves the right to make changes in specifications at any time and without notice. The information provided by this document
is believed to be accurate and reliable but is subject to change based on subsequent software releases. No responsibility is assumed by Matrox Electronic Systems Ltd. for
its use;

So as a conclusion I guess we can write a new Number :sneaky2:

9.Decklink HD will give you the possibility of running Davinci Resolve
MXO2LE does not offer this important benefit.

Sheers
Brice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top