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 :)

Thanks Apple...

All I'm saying is that if somebody was on here having put together a piece of hardware very similar to the Red One and then successfully put Red's firmware on it, Red would be pissed that somebody did that. I tend to think they would extend the same courtesy to a company that has partnered with them in putting together a good workflow for their camera.

I can't imagine Apple being to thrilled with Jim and Co. if they saw people on the official Red forum posting how to get around actually paying Apple for their hardware which whether you choose to believe it or not, does cost Apple money. Just the fact that they have to have a legal team to prevent this type of thing costs them tons of cash.
 
orlando said:
Deanan,
For 2GB/s they use :
10 drives on Areca (pciex8),
8 drives on Adaptec (pciex8),
6 drives on Skulltraill mobo.

They have found almost what everybody else has found that limit for sata/sas controllers are from 850 - 1000 MB/s.

With two 12port Arecas and 24 sata drives You could get around 1700 MB/s.

Regards
Click to expand...

You're right, somehow i missed pausing on the right screen on youtube.

I am currently getting 1600MB/s off a single pci-e x8.

I've also gotten it to go up to 2700MB/s :)
 
Nope, what would in cost Apple money in that case would be that thet overpriced their hardware, pushing people to buy other hardware... you still have to buy Apple's software for hackintosh. I believe what he was saying was that it isn't stealing unless you rip their OS. Not the same thing.

I didn't know the trial was still going on, which means you are good to go till it gets settled.

Well, now that all of that is clarified lets not make the mods come in and shut us down.
 
wow
"cut transcode times in half (roughly)."
?
I am keen to see real world experiments, no sure how the change in architecture translates to that much improvement - considering that the processor speeds did not change that much.

But RED One and the new Mac Pro, together, oooo something I can only dream of.

Phill
[twitter: http://twitter.com/phillipgibb ]
[blog: http://synapticlight.com/ ]
 
hackintosh?

hackintosh?

Whats the point? sounds like a DIY "elusive film look" adaptor. How much is your time really worth?

It may be a little cheaper to build your own computer and try and match your graphics cards and pirated OSX etc, in the long run get the real thing and you will spend more time shooting and less time in the computer market. I find it hard to imagine being able to afford a RED and not being able to afford a 5k MAC.

Lets get back on track and talk results from the i7 Real Mac!
 
Synapticlight said:
wow
"cut transcode times in half (roughly)."
?
I am keen to see real world experiments, no sure how the change in architecture translates to that much improvement - considering that the processor speeds did not change that much.

But RED One and the new Mac Pro, together, oooo something I can only dream of.

Phill
[twitter: http://twitter.com/phillipgibb ]
[blog: http://synapticlight.com/ ]
Click to expand...

Experiment here:
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27694

Where have you been the last few years? Processor clock speeds aren't where it's at anymore. The Nehalem is increasing speed by a new bus architecture which allows 2 threads to run simultaneously on each core. Therefore a physical 8 core system becomes a 16 core system to the operating system.
 
Has anyone done a test comparing the 2.8 GHz Mac Pro 8 core of 2008 to the 2.26 GHz Nehalem 8 core of 2009? I ask because for a lot of people (Like myself) the 2.26 GHz Mac Pro is the only affordable one at the moment. Would love to have the 2.93 GHz Mac Pro, but at close to $6k it is just way too expensive for my budget. Really, a great comparison would be the 3.0 GHz model of last year to the 2.26 model of this year since they are both selling for around the same price.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
You aren't stealing. You're breaking a EULA by installing it on unsupported hardware. You're breaking a contract. Big difference. Stealing is when you take something that isn't yours. I'm getting really sick and tired of words getting redefined at people's leisure to mean whatever is most convenient.

It's less stealing than your parking meter expring being stealing from the city.

The trial still hasn't even decided if it's even breaking a contract! It's pretty tough to say authoratively that this or that is illegal when the trial is still pending.

By the way
Click to expand...

You and I would be extremely good friends. And I'm not just saying that.
 
teamgoo said:
Whats the point? sounds like a DIY "elusive film look" adaptor. How much is your time really worth?

It may be a little cheaper to build your own computer and try and match your graphics cards and pirated OSX etc, in the long run get the real thing and you will spend more time shooting and less time in the computer market. I find it hard to imagine being able to afford a RED and not being able to afford a 5k MAC.

Lets get back on track and talk results from the i7 Real Mac!
Click to expand...

No offense, but you should do some research on the subject. And who said ANYTHING about pirating OSX? We're talking about running OSX on less expensive, more robust hardware. Apple, rightly, has taken issue with endusers being capable of that feat, but the "legality" of the practice is contentious. They're seeking to make it "illegal," but REALLY...I guess anything can potentially be "illegal" if you have enough capital to throw at making it that way. Everyone put your blinders on and drink the kool-aid, and btw the emperor does have clothes on, and fascism fell with Nazi Germany. But I digress.

And being able to scrape together 9K for a S35 Scarlet, with a few peripherals, is still a far cry from the 15-17K it would cost to include a high-end Mac that can process all the data on the back-end.

Although, this is a very relevant matter to the conversation at hand...faster, and more economical computational power...I understand the concern. End of discussion.
 
Does anybody know how long the Xeon Nehalem processors are exclusive to Apple?
 
Ralph Wong said:
Has anyone done a test comparing the 2.8 GHz Mac Pro 8 core of 2008 to the 2.26 GHz Nehalem 8 core of 2009? I ask because for a lot of people (Like myself) the 2.26 GHz Mac Pro is the only affordable one at the moment. Would love to have the 2.93 GHz Mac Pro, but at close to $6k it is just way too expensive for my budget. Really, a great comparison would be the 3.0 GHz model of last year to the 2.26 model of this year since they are both selling for around the same price.
Click to expand...

You should read prior posts in this thread, a few users made some very insightful comments comparing the cost-to-benefit ratio between the two machines. Sounds like the gist of it all is: If you're pressed for capital (maybe even if you're not), buy two 2.26 GHz machines over one 2.93. There does seem to be some speed increases between them, but for the additional cost it could be nominal, whereas a second 2.26 might offset the difference.
 
facetmedia said:
Experiment here:
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27694

Where have you been the last few years? Processor clock speeds aren't where it's at anymore. The Nehalem is increasing speed by a new bus architecture which allows 2 threads to run simultaneously on each core. Therefore a physical 8 core system becomes a 16 core system to the operating system.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately for the RED world, this trend of more cores at the same clock speed is not helpful for r3d processing performance.

Clock speed and memory bandwidth are king. The numbers of cores (over 4) is almost irrelevant.

As far as we can deduce, the reason we are all seeing increased processing performance for REDCODE clips using Core i7 and Xeon 5500 based computers is almost entirely based on the vastly improved internal memory performance that comes with the new Intel Nehalem CPU microarchitecture.

The ONLY other way to maximize decode/demosaic processing (both for realtime playback and for transcoding) is to increase the clock speed of the cores.

This is why "enhanced performance" platforms such as redBOXX II still outperform the new dual MAC Pros @ 2.93Ghz by a wide margin. -We're simply able to provide much faster CPU clock speeds...


*I'm not trying to post "flaimbait" here - just giving the facts as we've come to understand them after having studied DEEPLY the effects to various hardware platforms on REDCODE processing performance.


Adam
BOXXlabs
 
BOXXLabs said:
Unfortunately for the RED world, this trend of more cores at the same clock speed is not helpful for r3d processing performance.

Clock speed and memory bandwidth are king. The numbers of cores (over 4) is almost irrelevant.

As far as we can deduce, the reason we are all seeing increased processing performance for REDCODE clips using Core i7 and Xeon 5500 based computers is almost entirely based on the vastly improved internal memory performance that comes with the new Intel Nehalem CPU microarchitecture.

The ONLY other way to maximize decode/demosaic processing (both for realtime playback and for transcoding) is to increase the clock speed of the cores.

This is why "enhanced performance" platforms such as redBOXX II still outperform the new dual MAC Pros @ 2.93Ghz by a wide margin. -We're simply able to provide much faster CPU clock speeds...


*I'm not trying to post "flaimbait" here - just giving the facts as we've come to understand them after having studied DEEPLY the effects to various hardware platforms on REDCODE processing performance.


Adam
BOXXlabs
Click to expand...

Thanks Adam.
 
BOXXLabs said:
Unfortunately for the RED world, this trend of more cores at the same clock speed is not helpful for r3d processing performance.

Clock speed and memory bandwidth are king. The numbers of cores (over 4) is almost irrelevant.

As far as we can deduce, the reason we are all seeing increased processing performance for REDCODE clips using Core i7 and Xeon 5500 based computers is almost entirely based on the vastly improved internal memory performance that comes with the new Intel Nehalem CPU microarchitecture.

The ONLY other way to maximize decode/demosaic processing (both for realtime playback and for transcoding) is to increase the clock speed of the cores.

This is why "enhanced performance" platforms such as redBOXX II still outperform the new dual MAC Pros @ 2.93Ghz by a wide margin. -We're simply able to provide much faster CPU clock speeds...


*I'm not trying to post "flaimbait" here - just giving the facts as we've come to understand them after having studied DEEPLY the effects to various hardware platforms on REDCODE processing performance.


Adam
BOXXlabs
Click to expand...

Does your statement apply to Qmaster/REDrushes transcoding? I can understand your statement for real time playback debayering but not for transcoding. Also what "enhanced performance" options are in the redBOXX II that allows it to beat the new memory architecture in the dual 2.93 Mac Pro's?
 
BOXXLabs said:
This is why "enhanced performance" platforms such as redBOXX II still outperform the new dual MAC Pros @ 2.93Ghz by a wide margin. -We're simply able to provide much faster CPU clock speeds...
Click to expand...

Adam,

Bit of apples and oranges here, right? (no pun intended...)

What common software is being run on both platforms to establish the differences? Just REDCINE?

Tor
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
You aren't stealing. You're breaking a EULA by installing it on unsupported hardware. You're breaking a contract. Big difference. Stealing is when you take something that isn't yours. I'm getting really sick and tired of words getting redefined at people's leisure to mean whatever is most convenient.

It's less stealing than your parking meter expring being stealing from the city.

The trial still hasn't even decided if it's even breaking a contract! It's pretty tough to say authoratively that this or that is illegal when the trial is still pending.

By the way
Click to expand...


I think integrity in this market is one of the few ways to stand out among the competitors. I for one will never have to explain why my Mac Render station is a cobbled together potentially illegal PC. Feel free to have yours that way.

-Josh
 
Can someone please explain the exclusive arrangement Apple has with Intel for the new i7's... is it the CPU's or the 8 core board? A link to any information would be very much appreciated.
 
Thanks Richard. What's the model # of the multiCPU's Apple has the exclusive right to and in what other ways do they differentiate from the i7's that are currently available to vendors? I've been googling for more specifics but coming up with nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top