2.93ghz is 10% faster? does that mean rendering time will be 6 seconds faster?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by stevieapollo, Mar 7, 2009.

  1. stevieapollo macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Whittier, CA
    #1
    if there is 60 seconds in a minute and the 2.93ghz processor is 10 % faster then the 2.66ghz does that mean that the 2.93ghz processor will we about 6 seconds faster for every minute when talking about rending video? so if i need to render a clip and is says about 2 minutes remaining will i be saving a total of 12 seconds by upgrading my processor to the 2.93Ghz?

    i dont know if what i am saying is true i really have no idea what im talking about im just trying to figure out if the upgrade will be worth it for me. and i have read that the upgrade is 10% of a performance increase.

    someone please correct me if im completely wrong i just figured 10% of 60 seconds in a minute and i got 6 seconds..:confused: does it not work that way? btw math was never my subject in school.
     
  2. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #2
    Seems so, but its not the case. Since when you encode stuff you have three dependants, the HDD, CPU and RAM. CPU and RAM will work fine, HDD will lag behind, so no matter how fast your CPU may be, your HDD will make sure to slow stuff down.

    If you really want a performance boost, get an SSD, those are pricey, but their performance is formidable. Beats having a 2.93GHz over a 2.66GHz
     
  3. sdp macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    #3

    what if you set renders to go to a raid? better?
     
  4. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #4
    then there might be some boost. I'm not sure how much. I do believe still that an SSD is best choice as a RAID configuration is not worth it $$ wise
     
  5. m85476585 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    #5
    A RAID array of fast disks will beat anything but an Intel SSD, and those are expensive. For example, my 1TB Samsung F1 reads/writes at over 100mb/s. 2 of them in RAID 0 would be over 200mb/s, while an Intel SSD is only 250mb/s read / 170mb/s write (70mb/s write for 80 or 160gb). RAID will also give you a lot more capacity for the money. The 32Gb Intel SSD is $420 from Newegg (of course, that will give you high speed while fitting inside your laptop, but then you only have 32gb of space, which is not nearly enough for video rendering).

    Video rendering is mostly CPU-bound, so the faster processor will probably be 10% faster. If you don't want to get RAID, I would get this internal drive:
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148374&Tpk=7200.4
    because it is the fastest 2.5" 7200rpm drive on the market (but they are out of stock everywhere, so you might have to wait a bit before you can buy one).
     
  6. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #6
    Thanks for that, at the time of the posting of my previous post I was browsing using my iPhone so I couldn't check anything or back up my words, just said things on top of my head.

    So it seems that by 50MB/s the Intel SSD is faster (but pricy for less space), given that you need speed and space, I now endorse the RAID 0 configuration since it gives you the best of 2 worlds.

    However, as a laptop drive the SSD (Intel or not) is still a very good drive.
     
  7. stevieapollo thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Whittier, CA
    #7
    so your saying for the money upgrading to the 2.93 cpu would be cheaper and probably the best move until the ssd come down in price, seeing that you cant upgrade the cpu after the fact. or would you say put that 300 into a ssd investment. i have read horror stories saying that ssd have a high fail rate, and once the drive fails all files are lost and cant be retrieved?
     
  8. xoggyux macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    #8

    Usually not since a 10% faster processor does not mean a 10% faster computer, however rendering is processor intensive overall, therefore it would probably shave you (not 6secs) but 4~5 secs per minute though it might be more :rolleyes:..
     
  9. kastenbrust macrumors 68030

    kastenbrust

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Location:
    North Korea
    #9
    Thats true, normally it means a 15 to 20% faster computer. As benchmarks between the 2.66 and 2.93 17" Unibody have shown on this forum already. Noone can explain why, it just happens.
     

Share This Page