Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
4-core vs. 8-core 09 MP
- Thread starter c2g
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
hmmm.. i just rendered a movie in FCP and it used 75% of each core, and 25% of each thread (see attached screen shot) for a total of about 400% CPU (of 800%). that, to me, indicates that it is multithreaded to some extent - and rendering is where a lot of the time is spent too.
kind of a tough one video editing.. a lot of the time HDD speed will be the bottle neck, but once you start playing with hi-def video then the CPU might become the bottleneck too (in some regards). but if pro-res is being used then the HDD would more be the bottleneck. i dont really see RAM as such a large contributor, sure its there but not as prominent.
Attachments
Video/graphics work does seem to be the one area that an Octad can make more sense (especially for 3D work) from what I've seen posted.
But no matter the system used, graphics work does need the system bottlenecks to be addressed if at all possible, and that's where RAID as well as additional RAM come in (it's RAM requirements are modest, and HDD throughputs seem to have the biggest impact from what I can tell).
agreed on that, but we need to drill-down on the actual bottle neck for the particular OP. CPU usage would be pretty important in this case.. ive never really had any first hand experience with RAM usage with FCP applications.
what sort of files/file sizes are we talking here OP?
FCP can only use 2.5GB of RAM... http://support.apple.com/kb/TA27734
Based on my experience with FCP, the best thing you can do is move your working files to an SSD... fine if you're working on a 5 minute project... not so good if you are trying to edit a 1 or 2 hour feature.
Based on my experience with FCP, the best thing you can do is move your working files to an SSD... fine if you're working on a 5 minute project... not so good if you are trying to edit a 1 or 2 hour feature.
thats why i was a bit sceptical about the RAM requirements, im not sure about motion etc wrt RAM.
id opt for more/faster HDD space (esp for video production!). CPU i think is most important.
OK, here's the config they have drawn up for me:
- 2.66 Quad-core
- GeForce GTX 285 (to run 2x24" monitors I already own)
- GT 120 (to run preview monitor)
- 8 GB (4 x 2 GB)
- 4 x 640GB 7200 HDDs (why they want to go with overpriced Mac HDDs, I have no idea)
- No RAID
- 3 yr protection plan
$4K
Like I said, most of the time, I'm just doing web development. Photoshop CS4 will be open every day. We're supposedly going to run Windows (Office 07 plus proprietary apps) on Parallels on it, but no one knows what that entails (again, all PC environment with no internal support). When the last video project came my way, I would (try to) run Premiere, AE, and PShop at the same time, as well as keep Outlook open, etc. - which didn't work too well. The last video I did was about a little over an hour long. All SD. Will we be HD next year? Not sure. All I know is that I'll have this machine for 3 years, and I'm pushing for more video projects.
My problem is that I will be the only Mac in an all PC environment, not to mention the only user who uses video apps. Because of this, I had to do a lot of self-support with my current nightmare of a PC. Now we're headed into uncharted waters with the Mac (I haven't used since OS 8.6). I really, really don't want to run into the same situation with a new Mac. Will I be OK for 3 years with this setup? Are we being pennywise and pound foolish? If so, what one area would you upgrade???
- 2.66 Quad-core
- GeForce GTX 285 (to run 2x24" monitors I already own)
- GT 120 (to run preview monitor)
- 8 GB (4 x 2 GB)
- 4 x 640GB 7200 HDDs (why they want to go with overpriced Mac HDDs, I have no idea)
- No RAID
- 3 yr protection plan
$4K
Like I said, most of the time, I'm just doing web development. Photoshop CS4 will be open every day. We're supposedly going to run Windows (Office 07 plus proprietary apps) on Parallels on it, but no one knows what that entails (again, all PC environment with no internal support). When the last video project came my way, I would (try to) run Premiere, AE, and PShop at the same time, as well as keep Outlook open, etc. - which didn't work too well. The last video I did was about a little over an hour long. All SD. Will we be HD next year? Not sure. All I know is that I'll have this machine for 3 years, and I'm pushing for more video projects.
My problem is that I will be the only Mac in an all PC environment, not to mention the only user who uses video apps. Because of this, I had to do a lot of self-support with my current nightmare of a PC. Now we're headed into uncharted waters with the Mac (I haven't used since OS 8.6). I really, really don't want to run into the same situation with a new Mac. Will I be OK for 3 years with this setup? Are we being pennywise and pound foolish? If so, what one area would you upgrade???
First of all I'd at least wait till this Tuesday to see if the 16th is the date.
With 3 1 TB Cav Black drives The refurbished comp & everything else listed (which are all simple installations) I get less than $3500. For the 2.93 refurb, I still get just under $4k.
If your going to get it before the 16th, & your budget is $4k, I'd go for the 2.93.
Actually the Apple rep mentioned we could buy the GTX285 as an upgrade and would be covered and installed part of the initial build. They're pretty unwavering about getting everything covered under the apple care plan. It just seems to me that we could get a little more in the way of memory and HDs if we went outside of apple. From what I understand, it may take a bit of work to find a bad stick of memory, but a HD - especially one that's not part of a RAID? Am I wrong to think that's a pretty basic level of support the we shouldn't be worried about calling Apple when a drive goes bad?
haha, you should know right away which drive has failed if it does. if it's that much of a concern, name your drives 'bay1' 'bay2' 'bay3' and 'bay4'
and you're right about getting more outside of apple... i've spent $4k on what is a $6600 machine from apple.
even applecare is better to get 3rd party... i paid $79 for the EXACT SAME APPLE COVERAGE, FROM APPLE, by getting it 3rd party on ebay (it's $249 in the store, i think).
In the business world, they want a single point of contact in the event of a problem, and they pay for it.
Unfortunately, it does have the side effect of gaining less system for the money, as others have indicated. I'd try to work on them about this. Worth a shot, as HDD failures mean you have to buy them anyway, and RAM failures are rare comparatively speaking (hint: memory from a reputable supplier typically has a lifetime warranty).
Something interesting from the latest testing at BareFeats. This may be of interest to you.
For reasons that remain a mystery for the moment, the newest version of Final Cut Studio (7) is significanty slower than previous version (6) -- at least where Compressor and Motion are concerned. Hopefully, this will be addressed by Apple's software engineers in a future point release.
http://www.barefeats.com/fcp7.html
For reasons that remain a mystery for the moment, the newest version of Final Cut Studio (7) is significanty slower than previous version (6) -- at least where Compressor and Motion are concerned. Hopefully, this will be addressed by Apple's software engineers in a future point release.
http://www.barefeats.com/fcp7.html
I would read all the horror stories on Macrumors before I bought Applecare on Ebay.
Hint for Google search term: site:macrumors.com applecare ebay
First hit is a 26 page thread of woe.
How can anyone think that 70% off isn't a scam? Especially from Fleabay?
Also, this guy's purchasing department is placing the order. Do you seriously expect them to buy everything from Apple and then go out to Ebay for the warranty?
Seriously?
hmmmm. that was my plans. get apple care off of ebay. i still might, ill just be super careful
It sounds like the software though, not the system. Other applications (benchmarks as well, such as Cinebench) follow the information I posted previously.
there would be reasoning behind the performance loss. some sort of format update? apple NEVER brings out a product that performs less then the previous model.... (i think).
They screwed up, and an update is needed. The "audio bug" comes to mind, and that took quite a bit of time (present from day one, even if it took some time to be noticed/observed).
It's leaving me with the distinct impression Apple's in too much of a hurry to get the Pro products out the door (i.e. not enough people or just flat out greed; either has the same effect = premature crap).
you reckon? they need to hire some more professional staff. then. must be getting bloated
the audio bug had nothing to do with the FCP suite, but i see your point - quality (or quality control/effort) is going down!
Bloated/sloppy, and not tested thoroughly. But sent out anyway.you reckon? they need to hire some more professional staff. then. must be getting bloated
the audio bug had nothing to do with the FCP suite, but i see your point - quality (or quality control/effort) is going down!
As per mention of the audio bug, it was just an example of rushed testing (incomplete) then ship what can only be labeled as a premature product. Not that it has any functional relationship to FCP in any shape or form.
the old FCP2 wasnt that old, im surprised that they did bring it out! im not that impressed by its features, there really isnt that much new.Bloated/sloppy, and not tested thoroughly. But sent out anyway.
yup i see what you did thereAs per mention of the audio bug, it was just an example of rushed testing (incomplete) then ship what can only be labeled as a premature product. Not that it has any functional relationship to FCP in any shape or form.
thats why most of apples 1st gen products are crap! (eg quad core imacs), ipods, iphone etc.This has become far too common with consumer electronics from my experience and observations, as well as software. And the problems are persisting even after the 1st generation (subsequent revisions - both hardware and software; not just updates for software).yup i see what you did there
oh yea for sure. no objection there. i experienced that with my time capsule! i have a replacement now, but the problem still persists!
it exists with software too. all you have to do is look at how many cores the software can handle! its terrible.
I, too, believe it is very likely software related. I wonder if anyone brought up this discussion on Apple Discussion Forums yet.
Bloated/sloppy, and not tested thoroughly. But sent out anyway.
As per mention of the audio bug, it was just an example of rushed testing (incomplete) then ship what can only be labeled as a premature product. Not that it has any functional relationship to FCP in any shape or form.
I'm not making excuses, but in all fairness, the audio bug is not something that was even really discovered in the wild for about 6 months and the severity was limited in impact. There was also a simple work-around... DDT in the world of QA (Don't do that). I know this wasn't palatable to many, but it had to be triaged against the myriad of other issues that are all demanding resources on any given day.
In general, it's just not economical to test every possible use case. In addition, there's often insufficient business case to justify a fix for some defects (eg. suitable work-arounds exist or the negative consequences are insignificant compared to the cost of fixing). All software (and therefore most hardware) ships with bugs, it's just a question of the number, severity, and the use cases which trigger them that determines the perceived quality. Most QA departments establish benchmarks which must be met (eg. no sev 1 defects, less than X sev 2 defects, etc.). There's likely hundreds of known bugs in OSX 10.6.2 and likely just as many unknown bugs, but the majority are of insignificant severity or take unusual circumstances to invoke.
Given Apple's fairly liberal warranty (and the costs associated with it) and discerning user base (aka picky), I'd say they are probably very sensitive to the risks of poor QA and probably take more measures than most to minimize their after sales support and warranty costs and therefore invest more than average in QA.