After Effects Test on i5

Discussion in 'iMac' started by jjo, Nov 23, 2009.

  1. jjo macrumors member

    jjo

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #1
    I'm thinking of upgrading to one of the new iMacs, probably an i5. This would be replacing my Mac Pro, which is a 2x2 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon with 5 GB RAM.

    Anyone know how that Mac Pro would compare to a new i5? I'd like to ask if anyone running a newer iMac with After Effects CS4 would be willing to do a test render for me with a project that takes my Mac Pro 8 hours to render.

    The AE project can be downloaded here:
    http://drop.io/AE_TEST

    The project is a 1920x1080 high-resolution Earth simulation. On my Mac Pro, it starts out estimating 4 hours, but once it hits a few motion blurs that don't start until well into the 15-second timeline, the time runs up to 8 hours.

    If anyone is willing to do a test render for me and let me know the time results, I'd be appreciative.

    Thanks!
     
  2. cmvsm macrumors 6502a

    cmvsm

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    #2
    I don't have after effects, but Barefeats includes the software on their benchmark tests. This should give you some idea:

    http://www.barefeats.com/imi7.html

    The i5 and i7 keep up very well with the Mac Pro Quad Core 2.93Ghz w/8GB of RAM, so they should trample your Mac Pro Dual Core w/5GB of RAM in terms of rendering speed. It should be a nice upgrade.
     
  3. MovieCutter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #3
    Guessing the i5 iMac would slap that tower silly
     
  4. Green2Delta macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    #4
    In for results. I'm currently looking at the i7 to use Premiere and After Effects, and maybe Final Cut Studio if I can ever learn how to use it.
     
  5. jjo thread starter macrumors member

    jjo

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #5
    I'm an proud Adobe [Premiere Pro] user on a Macintosh. I think I'm in the minority.

    I hope someone takes me up on my test offer. It seems there are other media producers like me who would be interested in the results.

    BTW, this is the final result of the above project: http://bit.ly/5bQO0A
     
  6. Virtuoso macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #6
    I'll run it on mine for you if it's any use? I have a 2008 3.2GHz 8 core MacPro with 16GB of RAM and an i7 with 8GB incoming on the 4th.

    What format are you rendering to for the test? Lossless?

    It's not a complex animation, but one reason for the long render times is that the source images are 10,500 x 5,400. If you're only outputting at 1920x1080, that's a huge waste of memory. You could save a lot of render time by using a 1920x1080 version, switching to the higher res versions when you zoom in.

    Also, CC Force motion blur is a bit of a processor hog. Any reason why you picked it instead of just using AE layer motion blur, which is about 8 times faster?
     
  7. jjo thread starter macrumors member

    jjo

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #7
    Thanks. I usually render to PhotoJPEG Quicktime at 90% quality. I really don't need the end result; I'm only interested in your render times.

    The source images are large because I'm zooming in to a region. If they were any smaller, I couldn't zoom in that far before it got fuzzy. I agree there are more efficient ways to achieve this result, but this is the test for me. Since I know my Mac Pro takes about 8 hours to render this, I'd like to see how a newer machine would handle this job. It would determine if it would be worth it for me to spend the cash.

    The CC Force Motion Blur, in my opinion, gives a more exaggerated motion blur, which I why I used it for the zooming motion. Notice I only use it for the 30 frames the zoom takes place.

    If you're willing to test this render on your current Mac Pro and then on your new iMac when it comes, I'm sure people would be interested in your posted results.

    Thanks!
     
  8. Virtuoso macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #8
    Ok - 4h 57m on a 2008 3.2GHz Mac Pro. I'll run it on the i7 when it arrives next week.
     
  9. jjo thread starter macrumors member

    jjo

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #9
    Thanks for the results. Hope your i7 arrives to you in working order, and I look forward to hearing the results!
     
  10. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #10
    You asked about AE not Premiere...and I have to say that AE is top notch regardless of Windows/OSX. But premiere is downright atrocious to use compared to Final Cut in all respects. CS4 is so broken, its not even funny anymore.
     
  11. jjo thread starter macrumors member

    jjo

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #11
    Not to start a pissing match here, but Premiere CS4 is very stable and reliable, and quite professional. The speech-to-text function is amazing, and the integration among other CS4 apps--like the "top notch" AE--is a real time saver.

    But people should use whatever they feel is best for them. For me, the Adobe suite of apps works well, and I use it both personally and professionally.

    But this wasn't the point of this thread.
     
  12. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #12
    Try to take a freeze frame using CS4.

    Report how many steps you took.

    Try to take a freeze frame in FC is a single menu choice.
     
  13. jjo thread starter macrumors member

    jjo

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #13
    Anyone can find anything that's not quite right in any application. Again, this wasn't the point of this thread, so I'll leave it at this...

    There's no one perfect system. Some people like Final Cut, others can't see what all the fuss is about. I know a RED shooter here in Pittsburgh who can't stand Final Cut, and prefers to work in Premiere. Others can't stand Premiere and work with Avid. Others can't stand Avid (and their history with Apple, but that's another topic), and work with Final Cut. Others who have a need to share projects with PC people can't use Final Cut since it's not too PC friendly. I experienced this exact scenario at work where we use Premiere on PCs and someone tried to send us their Final Cut Quicktimes. We had to end up asking for the DVCPROHD tapes since the Final Cut Quicktimes were so unusable on our PCs. There's an article about this very issue with Final Cut in the current issue of HDVideoPro. But I commonly share Premiere projects between Macs and PCs.

    They all have their pluses and minus. Use what works for you. For me, it's Premiere and the Adobe suite of apps. I was just saying earlier that I'm probably in the minority since I use those apps on a Mac. But I like those apps. If you don't, then use something else.

    But again, this wasn't my original topic.
     
  14. Uncle Pinny macrumors regular

    Uncle Pinny

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Location:
    London
    #14
    Just downloaded the project now.

    Will test later tonight once home on my i7. Curious as well as I work in motion graphics and our department is about to upgrade from crapppy dual core pc's to Mac Pro's. Wondering how my i7 will compare.

    Will post results tomorrow morning (GMT time).
     
  15. jjo thread starter macrumors member

    jjo

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #15
    Awesome! Thanks for being helpful. I, and others, look forward to your results!
     
  16. minivan81 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    #16
    Gave this a test render on my i7 w/8gig ram, output Quicktime PhotoJpeg 90%. Finished in 3 hours 15 mins.
     
  17. Uncle Pinny macrumors regular

    Uncle Pinny

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Location:
    London
    #17
    I tested it on my i7 with 12gb ram.

    Took 3h 35m.

    I think this was slowed as my machine was also doing a 300gb time machine backup at the same time!

    p.s. terrible way to set up the comp! No way is should be taking that long to render for what you need doing in the cmposition. :)
     
  18. jjo thread starter macrumors member

    jjo

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
  19. Green2Delta macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    #19
    jjo - keep me in the loop if you ever get one of the new iMacs and run Premiere Pro and After Effects. I'm very interested in your opinions as this is exactly what I would be getting mine to do.
     
  20. jjo thread starter macrumors member

    jjo

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #20
    Will do! I'm just waiting to see what the Black Friday deals are! I think it's time to retire my Mac Pro.
     
  21. deathwinger macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    #21
    Has anyone tried this test on an i5 processor for the Imac as yet? I like what I'm hearing with the I7 but I want to know if its worth the jump or if the i5 is adequate enough...especially since its a base machine and those can be easily replaced if anything goes wrong.
     

Share This Page