This discussion is locked
stuckfootage
Level 4 (3,040 points)

Q: Shake on 2011 MBP

I just did a quick test of Shake 4.1 on a 2011 15" 2.0GHz MBP,
using the defocus filter. Seemed to render 3 times faster than
my 2.4GHz C2D iMac.

maxthread = 8, which seems really cool, except that
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS1101

Any other experiences out there?

MacBook Pro 2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, 500GB HD, Mac OS X (10.6.3), FCP 6.0.6, Shake 4.1.1, Max 5.1.5, Live 8.1.5

Posted on Mar 3, 2011 1:25 PM

Close
stuckfootage

Q: Shake on 2011 MBP

  • All replies
  • Helpful answers

  • by Patrick Sheffield,Helpful

    Patrick Sheffield Patrick Sheffield Mar 3, 2011 9:26 PM in response to stuckfootage
    Level 7 (29,175 points)
    Mar 3, 2011 9:26 PM in response to stuckfootage
    I do not...

    Patrick

  • by stuckfootage,

    stuckfootage stuckfootage Mar 15, 2011 6:14 PM in response to stuckfootage
    Level 4 (3,040 points)
    Mar 15, 2011 6:14 PM in response to stuckfootage
    My 2011 quad-core 2.2GHz 15" MBP arrived! Against all advice, I just used Migration Assistant
    (I'll do a real install later) and I have these test results. Basically I just pasted this script:

    shake -checker 1600 1600 2 -turbulate 1 1 10 10 10 10 -nocache -cpu 8 -fo /shaketemp.tga -v

    into a Terminal window, changing the number after -cpu to change the number of threads used.
    So here is the number of seconds required to render one frame of this script:

    1 thread 10.99
    2 threads 5.75
    3 threads 4.27
    4 threads 3.97
    5 threads 3.43
    6 threads 3.05
    7 threads 2.74
    8 threads 2.53

    This pattern of diminishing returns as the thread count goes up is typical
    of multicore processors I've seen running this test. I also did some tests with
    a bunch of nodes rendering to ProRes 422. No problem.

  • by shanshui,

    shanshui shanshui Mar 30, 2011 10:28 AM in response to stuckfootage
    Level 1 (5 points)
    Mar 30, 2011 10:28 AM in response to stuckfootage
    Are you running SHAKE for arch i386 or x86_64?

    I have a SDK package for another app. the .dylib in the SDK are built for arch=x86_64.

    So, I am thinking about to change the arch of my system from i386 to x86_64. otherwise, even if I can built the plugins/apps, I cannot run them.

    I need to make sure the aged SHAKE 4.1 can work for arch=x86_64. all other apps in my system, MAYA2011, Photoshop cs5, AFE cs5, ..., have no problem to run for x86_64.

    Thanks in advance!

    ZZ

  • by stuckfootage,

    stuckfootage stuckfootage Mar 30, 2011 11:57 AM in response to shanshui
    Level 4 (3,040 points)
    Mar 30, 2011 11:57 AM in response to shanshui
    I was running the tests in 32-bit mode.
    Just now I booted my iMac Core 2 Duo in 64-bit,
    and Shake launches and runs fine.

    I don't know how to run Shake in 64-bit mode, do you?
    It would be nice to be able to use more memory.

  • by shanshui,Helpful

    shanshui shanshui Mar 30, 2011 10:47 PM in response to stuckfootage
    Level 1 (5 points)
    Mar 30, 2011 10:47 PM in response to stuckfootage
    if you type 'arch' in a terminal, do you get i386 or x86_64?

    I boot the 64-bit kernel and extensions. but, typing 'arch', I still got i386. SHAKE has no problem to run in arch=i386, 32b/64b universal env. however, I am not sure it would still work for arch=x86_64.

    when I build SHAKE plugins, the SHAKE SDK manual tells us to configure the architectue to (ppc i386), no x86_64 mentioned.

    Thanks!

  • by stuckfootage,

    stuckfootage stuckfootage Mar 31, 2011 11:17 AM in response to shanshui
    Level 4 (3,040 points)
    Mar 31, 2011 11:17 AM in response to shanshui
    On my 2011 MBP, when I boot in 64-bit, System Profiler reports:
    64-bit Kernel and Extensions: Yes
    but when I run arch, it returns i386

    I have no problem launching Shake when I try to force it to run 64-bit:
    arch -x86_64 shake
    but Activity Monitor indicates that it is actually running 32-bit.

    May I conclude that upgrading to 8GB will not affect Shake's performance?

  • by shanshui,

    shanshui shanshui Apr 2, 2011 2:13 AM in response to stuckfootage
    Level 1 (5 points)
    Apr 2, 2011 2:13 AM in response to stuckfootage
    I am not sure if 8GB will or will not affect Shake's "performance", I have never really pay attention on this. At least SHAKE works on my i7, 8GB mem, 1TB hd, ATI 4850 system.

  • by stuckfootage,

    stuckfootage stuckfootage Apr 4, 2011 12:03 PM in response to shanshui
    Level 4 (3,040 points)
    Apr 4, 2011 12:03 PM in response to shanshui
    shanshui wrote:
    I am not sure if 8GB will or will not affect Shake's "performance"


    Well, you can measure it using this script:
    shake -checker 1600 1600 2 -turbulate 1 1 10 10 10 10 -nocache -cpu 8 -fo /shaketemp.tga -v

    Change the -cpu 8 and run it for 1, 2, 3, ..., 8 cores,
    then post the results here. (See how I did it in a previous post on this thread?)
    With 4 GB, the performance increase per gigabyte of RAM starts to level off.
    You can measure whether 8GB RAM makes a difference.

  • by shanshui,

    shanshui shanshui Apr 7, 2011 8:26 AM in response to stuckfootage
    Level 1 (5 points)
    Apr 7, 2011 8:26 AM in response to stuckfootage
    CPU= 8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1:

    info: frame 1 rendered in 2.8s
    info: frame 1 rendered in 3.13s
    info: frame 1 rendered in 3.55s
    info: frame 1 rendered in 3.81s
    info: frame 1 rendered in 3.91s
    info: frame 1 rendered in 5.42s
    info: frame 1 rendered in 6.44s
    info: frame 1 rendered in 12.12s



    *Hardware Overview:*

    Model Name: iMac
    Model Identifier: iMac11,1
    Processor Name: Intel Core i7
    Processor Speed: 2.8 GHz
    Number Of Processors: 1
    Total Number Of Cores: 4
    L2 Cache (per core): 256 KB
    L3 Cache: 8 MB
    Memory: 8 GB
    Processor Interconnect Speed: 4.8 GT/s
    Boot ROM Version: IM111.0034.B02
    SMC Version (system): 1.54f36

  • by stuckfootage,

    stuckfootage stuckfootage Apr 11, 2011 10:59 PM in response to stuckfootage
    Level 4 (3,040 points)
    Apr 11, 2011 10:59 PM in response to stuckfootage
    I increased my RAM from 4GB to 8GB in my 2011 quad-core 2.2GHz 15" MBP.
    As might be expected with a 32-bit application, there was only a tiny increase in speed:

    1 thread 10.43
    2 threads 5.68
    3 threads 4.26
    4 threads 3.26
    5 threads 3.27
    6 threads 3.00
    7 threads 2.68
    8 threads 2.42

  • by rayfromnorway,

    rayfromnorway rayfromnorway Jul 29, 2011 8:48 AM in response to stuckfootage
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jul 29, 2011 8:48 AM in response to stuckfootage

    Hi, seems like you've migrated your Shake to a new MBP. I just bought a 2011 17" model, and want to de-/reinstall my Shake 4.1 from my "old" early 2008. I've searched through tons of information, to no avail. How on earth is it possible to deinstall the app on my old and reinstall it on my new MBP. Seems like I have only two install possibilities, so I don't want to lose one, if possible. Anyone out there who can help?

    MacBook Pro 2.2GHz Quad i7, 8GB RAM, 500GB 7200 rpm HD, Mac OS X (10.6.7), Media 100 Suite 1.5.1, FCP 7.0.3, Shake 4.1.1

  • by stuckfootage,

    stuckfootage stuckfootage Jul 29, 2011 12:21 PM in response to rayfromnorway
    Level 4 (3,040 points)
    Jul 29, 2011 12:21 PM in response to rayfromnorway

    Deinstalling is mostly a question of removing the Shake folder from the /Applications folder

    and removing the nreal folder from your home directory.

     

    To remove the authorization, delete this file:

    /Library/Application Support/ProApps/Shake System ID

     

    If you install Shake on your new MBP *without* deinstalling from the old,

    you will not be able to run both copies at the same time while they are connected on a local network.

     

    Enjoy the fun speed increase!

     

    Les

  • by rayfromnorway,

    rayfromnorway rayfromnorway Jul 29, 2011 12:30 PM in response to stuckfootage
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jul 29, 2011 12:30 PM in response to stuckfootage

    Thanks a lot, Les. I'll try it out.

    Raymond