VidManSam

Q: Perfomance differences puzzling me

I work in HD video all the time. At work, I am using a MacPro with these specs:

 

 

  Model Name:    Mac Pro

  Model Identifier:    MacPro4,1

  Processor Name:    Quad-Core Intel Xeon

  Processor Speed:    2.93 GHz

  Number Of Processors:    2

  Total Number Of Cores:    8

  L2 Cache (per core):    256 KB

  L3 Cache (per processor):    8 MB

  Memory:    24 GB

  Processor Interconnect Speed:    6.4 GT/s

  OS 10.6.8

Running a 6Tb RAID (2 Tb drives each for Work, Scratch, and Root).

 

At home, I use a Macbook Pro, October 2011 model, dual core 2.2 gHz i7 processor with 16GB of RAM, editing from a 7200rom Lacie external drive (

the orange rubber cover kind) - OS 10.7.4

 

Using Adobe Premiere Pro CS 5.5 editing 1080p HD video, the perfromance difference is huge between these machines, and it's the laptop that runs rings around the Mac Pro. My IT guy doesn't believe this is possible. But everything from moving clips around the timeline to rendering effects to previewing unrendered effects to exporting the final video through Media Encoder, by laptop smokes this "beast." (Example, I just rendered out a 720p, 5Mb/s, 4 minute long mp4  from Premiere on my work machine and it took about 10 minutes - resulting file about 150 mb. Last night, I rendered out a full res, 1080p, Pro Res (HQ) uncompressed 7 minute long mov file, resulting in a 8.5 GB file in about 12 minutes).

 

Is the i7 just that much more capable than the Mac Pro? Or could the be something off about the desktop?

Mac Pro, Mac OS X (10.6.8)

Posted on Sep 4, 2012 11:57 AM

Close

Q: Perfomance differences puzzling me

  • All replies
  • Helpful answers

  • by Grant Bennet-Alder,

    Grant Bennet-Alder Grant Bennet-Alder Sep 4, 2012 12:09 PM in response to VidManSam
    Level 9 (61,078 points)
    Desktops
    Sep 4, 2012 12:09 PM in response to VidManSam

    You talk about compute-power as if it is the only issue possibly involved. There are many issues.

     

    Please explain more about your RAID setup -- what drives of what sizes, how organized (Stripe, Mirror, RAID-5) and other details.

     

    Is your Mac Pro using 64-bit kernel and extensions? (It was optional in 10.6.8.)

     

    About this Mac > ( More Info ) > Software ... will tell you -- 64-bit kernel and extensions  Yes

  • by VidManSam,

    VidManSam VidManSam Sep 4, 2012 12:18 PM in response to Grant Bennet-Alder
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Sep 4, 2012 12:18 PM in response to Grant Bennet-Alder

    Thanks. Yes, I do realize there is a lot more to it than what I included. Just wanted to give a basic idea in case something just jumped out.

     

    64 - bit kernel extensions not enable.

     

    Here's the Hardware RAID info:

     

    Mac Pro RAID Card:

     

      PCI Slot:    Slot-4

      Hardware Version:    2.00

      Firmware Version:    E-1.3.2.0

      Expansion ROM Version:    0018

      Shutdown Status:    Disorderly shutdown with battery backup

      Write Cache Enabled:    Yes

      Battery Info:

      Firmware Revision:    1.0.2

      First Installed:    4/16/11 7:51 AM

      Last Date Conditioned:    8/28/12 7:00 AM

      State:    Working battery

      Fault:    Normal battery operation

      Status:

      Charging:    Yes

      Conditioning:    No

      Connected:    Yes

      Discharging:    No

      Sufficient Charge:    Yes

     

    Drives:

     

    Bay 1:

     

      Product ID:    WDC WD6400AAKS-41H2B0                  

      Serial Number:         WD-WCASYD912002

      Firmware Revision:    07.04C07

      Type:    SATA

      SMART Status:    Verified

      Capacity:    640.14 GB (640,135,725,056 bytes)

      JBOD:    Yes

      RAID Sets:    JBODSet1

      Status:

      Assigned:    Yes

      Failed:    No

      Foreign:    No

      Missing:    No

      Reliable:    Yes

      Roaming:    No

      Spare:    No

     

    Bay 2:

     

      Product ID:    Hitachi HDS722020ALA330                

      Serial Number:          JK11H1B9J5YXSR

      Firmware Revision:    JKAOA3MA

      Type:    SATA

      SMART Status:    Verified

      Capacity:    2 TB (2,000,398,933,504 bytes)

      RAID Sets:    RS1

      Status:

      Assigned:    Yes

      Failed:    No

      Foreign:    No

      Missing:    No

      Reliable:    Yes

      Roaming:    No

      Spare:    No

     

    Bay 3:

     

      Product ID:    Hitachi HDS722020ALA330                

      Serial Number:          JK11H1B9J5Z7AR

      Firmware Revision:    JKAOA3MA

      Type:    SATA

      SMART Status:    Verified

      Capacity:    2 TB (2,000,398,933,504 bytes)

      RAID Sets:    RS1

      Status:

      Assigned:    Yes

      Failed:    No

      Foreign:    No

      Missing:    No

      Reliable:    Yes

      Roaming:    No

      Spare:    No

     

    Bay 4:

     

      Product ID:    Hitachi HDS722020ALA330                

      Serial Number:          JK11H1B9J2TP4R

      Firmware Revision:    JKAOA3MA

      Type:    SATA

      SMART Status:    Verified

      Capacity:    2 TB (2,000,398,933,504 bytes)

      RAID Sets:    RS1

      Status:

      Assigned:    Yes

      Failed:    No

      Foreign:    No

      Missing:    No

      Reliable:    Yes

      Roaming:    No

      Spare:    No

     

    RAID Sets:

     

    RS1:

     

      RAID Level:    0

      Capacity:    6 TB (6,000,860,987,392 bytes)

      Available Capacity:    Zero KB

      Drives:    Bay 2, Bay 3, Bay 4

      Volumes:    R1V1

      Status:    Viable (Good)

     

    Volumes:

     

    R1V1:

     

      BSD Name:    disk1

      Capacity:    6 TB (6,000,860,987,392 bytes)

      Read Command Size:    2 MB

      Read Ahead Margin:    16 MB

      RAID Set:    RS1

      Status:

      Degraded:    No

      Inited:    Yes

      In Transition:    No

      Viable:    Yes

  • by Grant Bennet-Alder,

    Grant Bennet-Alder Grant Bennet-Alder Sep 4, 2012 12:24 PM in response to VidManSam
    Level 9 (61,078 points)
    Desktops
    Sep 4, 2012 12:24 PM in response to VidManSam

    The first thing you need to do for better performance and to take full advantage of that great horde of RAM memory is to get your Mac into 64-bit mode. With 32-bit kernel and extensions only, you cannot use more than 4GB of RAM with any single Application. That alone may make the biggest difference.

     

    OS X: Starting up with the 32-bit or 64-bit kernel

  • by Grant Bennet-Alder,

    Grant Bennet-Alder Grant Bennet-Alder Sep 4, 2012 12:27 PM in response to VidManSam
    Level 9 (61,078 points)
    Desktops
    Sep 4, 2012 12:27 PM in response to VidManSam

    Are you using the drive in the first bay as a Boot Drive (with System, Library, Applications, and the hidden unix files only), and User files moved off to another Volume?

  • by VidManSam,

    VidManSam VidManSam Sep 4, 2012 12:27 PM in response to Grant Bennet-Alder
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Sep 4, 2012 12:27 PM in response to Grant Bennet-Alder

    Yes ... that is my understanding, anyway.

  • by Ricks ricks@macgurus.com,

    Ricks ricks@macgurus.com Ricks ricks@macgurus.com Sep 4, 2012 12:29 PM in response to VidManSam
    Level 6 (11,515 points)
    Sep 4, 2012 12:29 PM in response to VidManSam

    Like Grant stated - 64 bit is essential to get the memory into the game.

     

    Also, why a hardware RAID card? You are not using the hardware when running a RAID0. In fact, that RAID0 is slower as a hardware RAID than as a plain old software RAID with the drive attached directly to the SATA bus. Only reason to put the RAID card processing between the computer and the drives is if you are running a parity RAID.


    Rick

  • by The hatter,

    The hatter The hatter Sep 4, 2012 12:50 PM in response to VidManSam
    Level 9 (60,935 points)
    Sep 4, 2012 12:50 PM in response to VidManSam

    Nehalem covers the socket and Xeon is just one member of the family.

     

    CS5.5 isn't the best example for efficient use of 8-core / dual processor.

     

    www.macperformanceguide.com has a lot to say, some advice and tips and testing - and 24GB is the sweet spot if you are doing a lot of work.

     

    So too is it still very important how fast and what/where your scratch drive is.

     

    The ideal would be a single socket 3.6GHz with 4 or 6-cores and 4x8GB probably. A super-fast scratch array using SSDs on 6G bus for 1TB or so volume.

     

    The Sandy Bridge processors are nice, they do a great job. I'd have thought you'd go for a quad-core i7. The trouble with iMac is heat, poor fans and cooling.

     

    When / if Thunderbolt comes to iMac then that adds another storage interface to help them support arrays and faster disk drives,, but nothinig a good solid 8x SAS/SATA controller can't match. Right now 2-3 SSDs would easily saturate the SATA bus. A controller would help if it was 6G but Apple's is not and is closer to half of SATA2 standard needed to support 4-6 hard drives.

     

    MacPro5,1 firmware adds support for DDR3 1333 memory and Westmere processor. Some people with the single socket find it easy to upgrade the 4,1 to 5.1 and throw in 3.3 GHz processor. Costs too darn much though on dual processor to do.

     

    CS6 should be in your sites. Pair that with a CUDA supporting GTX 570 for those areas where it helps running 10.7.4 or 10.8.1.

     

    One of your disk drives is an older WDAAKS 640GB, consider SSD or 10K VR or even 1-2TB WD Black instead. Oddly the SSD is only 240MB/sec while 10K VR are now 180MB/s and Black series are in the 125MB/s range. I think the AAKS is at least 3 yrs old, maybe older.

  • by Ricks ricks@macgurus.com,

    Ricks ricks@macgurus.com Ricks ricks@macgurus.com Sep 4, 2012 12:59 PM in response to The hatter
    Level 6 (11,515 points)
    Sep 4, 2012 12:59 PM in response to The hatter

    The hatter wrote:

     

    One of your disk drives is an older WDAAKS 640GB, consider SSD or 10K VR or even 1-2TB WD Black instead. Oddly the SSD is only 240MB/sec while 10K VR are now 180MB/s and Black series are in the 125MB/s range. I think the AAKS is at least 3 yrs old, maybe older.

    I didn't much consider that for a boot/applications drive - but in 32 bit and running scratch on the boot drive - yeah, faster boot drive would help.

     

    Seagate 7200.14s are 180 MB/sec. Best 7200 I have ever seen. Been extraordinary reliable as well. Seagate did a good job with the 1TB platters. Frankly, I can't figure how they get 180+ out of a single platter drive.

  • by The hatter,

    The hatter The hatter Sep 4, 2012 1:31 PM in response to Ricks ricks@macgurus.com
    Level 9 (60,935 points)
    Sep 4, 2012 1:31 PM in response to Ricks ricks@macgurus.com

    I have read about Hitachi 4TB drive on MPG site and those high I/O numbers.

     

    I was surprised to learn recently that CS5.5 and 6 still use scratch no matter how much memory you have - people had begun to think and say it didn't matter much.