It´s pretty crazy...

goMac said:

I demand Apple eliminate the render time entirely or else it doesn't mean anything significant!

/unreasonableExpectation

Click to expand...

right.. unreasonable for apple to do it.. they can only provide so much.
it's not an unreasonable goal for software developers though.

flat five said:

right.. unreasonable for apple to do it.. they can only provide so much.
it's not an unreasonable goal for software developers though.

Click to expand...

And how do you propose software developers bend the law of time and space to make render times disappear?

A %30 boost in render speeds isn't nothing. That's pretty significant. That's me being 30% more productive, earning 30% more money.

If you got a 30% raise, would that not be significant?

Based on Geekbench, it appears that the new 8-core is the "sweet spot". It's faster than the 6-core in single core performance as well. Granted these are testing pre-release models, but still, the fact that it held its own is actually surprising. The L3 cache must be making a difference.

For those who read the 6 core is faster than the 12 core, they need to read a bit more carefully when they are comparing specs. 2012 vs 2013 there, not comparing 2013 to 2013.

Single Core:


Multi Core

goMac said:

And how do you propose software developers bend the law of time and space to make render times disappear?

A %30 boost in render speeds isn't nothing. That's pretty significant. That's me being 30% more productive, earning 30% more money.

If you got a 30% raise, would that not be significant?

Click to expand...

Yup. We have encoding tasks that take ~40 hours on a 4-core system, and parallelize pretty much perfectly. We're also frequently racing the clock to get outputs in the mail before the last FedEx pickup, etc. Good luck trying to talk me out of a 12-core.

goMac said:

And how do you propose software developers bend the law of time and space to make render times disappear?

A %30 boost in render speeds isn't nothing. That's pretty significant. That's me being 30% more productive, earning 30% more money.

If you got a 30% raise, would that not be significant?

Click to expand...

i don't know how..
what i do know is that one day, i downloaded a new version and clicked the 'gpu acceleration' button and had a 60% speed increase without buying anything..

then the same software dev tells me "hey, the d300s should be good for the current version but we're cooking up something new in which the d700s could be highly beneficial"

another app (thea presto) is doing 10-20x faster renders with it's latest gpgpu implementation in certain situations..

so somehow, to me at least, .33x faster renders sounds real weak.. you see?

This also compares the 8core to the 6core side by side. The 8core bests the 6core at every single comparison, except for 1.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/86294?baseline=179463

I think a lot of buyers will be looking not just at single core speed, or just multi-core, but will instead be looking for the best mix of the two for their particular work.

For me, I lean towards the higher single-core speed because of my use of Photoshop, but I do some 3D work (though a small percentage of my projects), and for that I need a decent multi-core speed as well. For my work flow, the 6-core might be the most effective as it represents a good mix of high single clock speed and moderately good multi-core speed.

At least that's what I'm seeing in the (admittedly) limited reviews coming out right now.

sigmadog said:

I think a lot of buyers will be looking not just at single core speed, or just multi-core, but will instead be looking for the best mix of the two for their particular work.

Click to expand...

You're right, people need to think about what their balance is. If a user's workflow is strong single core, they should consider a 4 or 6 core Mac Pro. Those have a higher clock so they'll do better in single core tasks.

flat five said:

this is remarkable to you?

Image

versus

Image
??


dunno.. they both look the same to me and have an equal lameness.


.

Click to expand...

You realize this is a bad argument right? Copying files is not really comparable to a render, not in CPU cost nor in absolute time.

Re-read my post. It's not like you'll do one render and never do one again in your life. You'll do the same tasks over and over; over time, 33% savings is tremendous. Reducing a 3 hour render to 2 hours done a hundred times becomes a hundred hours saved. Extrapolate over the life of the machine. Yes, it's remarkable.

ybz90 said:

It's not like you'll do one render and never do one again in your life. You'll do the same tasks over and over; over time, 33% savings is tremendous. Reducing a 3 hour render to 2 hours done a hundred times becomes a hundred hours saved. Extrapolate over the life of the machine. Yes, it's remarkable.

Click to expand...

I render so much, I would love to shave 33% off my time doing so.

ybz90 said:

You realize this is a bad argument right? Copying files is not really comparable to a render, not in CPU cost nor in absolute time.

Click to expand...

it's not so bad.. i had those images already vs. making new ones which shows render times instead of copy time-- i'll choose the weaker argument in this scenario.

Re-read my post. It's not like you'll do one render and never do one again in your life. You'll do the same tasks over and over; over time, 33% savings is tremendous. Reducing a 3 hour render to 2 hours done a hundred times becomes a hundred hours saved. Extrapolate over the life of the machine. Yes, it's remarkable.

Click to expand...

here's the thing.. you're talking to me as if you're teaching me something or telling me something i don't already know.. like do you really think i don't understand what you're saying?
..the problem, at least as far as discussion fluidity goes, is that i don't think you're listening to what i'm saying.

One thread to spread misinformation wasn't enough? You had to create another one?

ApplesAOranges said:

…that the hell of a lot more expensive (+ $3000) 12-core computer is actually slower computer than for example the faster 6-core.

No wonder everyone is buying the 6-core, when it´s faster and you save 3000$!!!

I wonder what Apple was thinking?

Click to expand...

Your name and statement go together very well Your statement Apples & Oranges - you bet.

Lou