Opinions on fastest systems

I want to see how this turns out! OK....you can buy Intel's up to 3.8Ghz and AMD's up to 2.8Ghz so there is a very big difference between the two. Now....you can buy different makes and models of MB's some with no OCing abilities and some made just for OCing. NOW....when you put it all together and want to build the fastest machine possible and that includes using the best MB,CPU,Memory,PSU,Video cards,Raptor HD's and Water cooling what would be your ideal machine? Now this is if you had the money and wanted to put together the best machine possible. Now lets hear about your ideal systems.

well I dont know abot cadd never used that before but from what I hear about people who do use the operton for cadd it is ideal. I myself bought the Operton because of its cool running nature and from how the people on DFI STREET raven on about it as a champ of overclocking while being able too run very cool temp wise OC ED Currently I have mine clocked too 2.5 ghz and it is rock solid stable idle temps at 31c under full load dual instancess of stress prime 95 torture testing 4 hrs peek is like 46-47 on air I would say that's pretty damn good! Needless to say I am very impressed with it as a dual core compared too the x2 4200! But never the less it all depends on what you do with youre rig and how you use it right now ttheir are not too many programs that really take advantage of it uless you are a dedicated server thats where it shows its true colors and gameing too and a number of other things like photoshop, and video encodeing and stiuff of that nature. I bought it so that I could have one for every day use multi tasking , gameing, large file transfers, etc ,etc butt eventually you wont be able to buy these anymore thats another motivateing factor for me eventually I will put it too use in a server rig ultimately thats the final destination. Oh and for dude that started the thread yes its all true everything that you her is 100% true about these chip's they are in fact awesome in every resect!!!! 2.5 ghz opty 175 Just getting warmed up!!! 10,202 3D MARK 05 104,000 AQUA MARK3

Similar Messages

Opinions: Content Version System?

I'm not sure what forum to ask this in. I use InDesign to produce my company collateral for print and web, and lately, my group has begun to run into version issues with the files - meaning that a printed file will be up-to-date and a PDF file that is posted onto an external and an internal server will be old. I was wondering if there was a content version system out there that would address this type of issue, and what other designers use to track these changes.
Does anyone know if Adobe had a product that could accomplish this? Can Bridge be used for this purpose? Or, is this just a manual process that someone has to "own".
Thanks in advance.

Hi,
Yes! Itu2019s possible to view the original file which was attached in the beginning.
Make sure in customization:
1. In DC10 select document Type, click on define document status
2. check the content version box, save it.
Create DIR attach the document save it. Next make the changes in same doc save it. In DIR (CV02N) click on original tab, in application column expand the tree, here u can find the all changed document & also original file.
Thank you
Regards,
Seema Pilankar

Help with Logic Pro 8, Apogee Symphony System, and Nehalem 8-core Mac Pro

So here's the problem. I went on a shopping spree recently and purchased an 8-core Nehalem 8-core Mac with 14 GB RAM, Apogee's Symphony system (With Rosetta 800 and AD-16X), and I use this gear with Logic Pro 8.
I still get system overload messages. Sometimes with only 1 virtual instrument and 8 audio tracks!
What gives? I'm running the fastest machine on the fastest system with the fastest/cleanest hardware.
I'm running Logic Pro on all of its highest settings (like it should). Of course I could drop the buffer size and unclick a few things here and there. but why? Is my machine powerful enough to handle it or not?
I've deleted the plist a bunch of times and repaired hardisks and everything. any help from a certified LOGIC pro would be excellent and much appreciated! thanks in advance,
jayme

jayme Lewis wrote:
So here's the problem. I went on a shopping spree recently and purchased an 8-core Nehalem 8-core Mac with 14 GB RAM, Apogee's Symphony system (With Rosetta 800 and AD-16X), and I use this gear with Logic Pro 8.
I still get system overload messages. Sometimes with only 1 virtual instrument and 8 audio tracks!
What gives? I'm running the fastest machine on the fastest system with the fastest/cleanest hardware.
I'm running Logic Pro on all of its highest settings (like it should).
?It's highest settings?
Do you mean the sample buffer is at 32 or 1024.
Even though you have Apple's flagship system it's still possible for Logic to bring it to it's knees. High sample rates plus a couple of space designer reverbs can send a single core into an overload condition.
Try these settings under Preferences/Audio.
I/O Buffer Size - 256
Process buffer - medium
Do NOT have the I/O Safety Buffer selected.
More info.
What sample rate and bit depth are you recording at? ie: 48kHz, 24-bit?
When you open Logic's CPU meters are you seeing a single core spiking?
What effects are being used on the audio and single VI track?
pancenter-

The Fastest G5... How?

Hello All,
Ok… I am buying a Quad G5 in the next few weeks and I want the best performing system money can buy. From what I have gathered so far, the best thing to do is to put all the system files and application files on a 10,000RPM drive (makes?) and use a separate drive for other files.
I will be using the system in a uncompressed HD video studio so I need the fastest system I can get.
Any help will be great!
Peace
illtrax

Ok… I am buying a Quad G5 in the next few weeks and I want the best performing system money can buy. From what I have gathered so far, the best thing to do is to put all the system files and application files on a 10,000RPM drive (makes?) and use a separate drive for other files.
Right, but be aware that Apple hasn't implemented the latest SATA specs in the PowerMac's and the drive makers have.
The 10,000 RPM 8MB cache Western Digital Raptor 74GB can be installed in all PowerMac's, but the bigger and just as fast 150GB 16MB cache Raptor(X) needs a PCI SATA card in order to function properly.
This also goes for a lot of new drives appearing, so don't go trusting your data to one drive right away because it might not work long if SATA specs are not correct.
Keeping the boot drive free of large user files keeps it slim, compact and allows faster access, because Mac OS X is always swapping or reading something from the boot drive. The faster the boot drive I/O speed is the faster Mac OS X "feel" will perform, to a certain point of course. So keeping large user files on another internal drive really makes a difference, as that drive can work independently of the boot drive.
I will be using the system in a uncompressed HD video studio so I need the fastest system I can get.
Well SATA is the fastest interface on the PowerMac. But sometimes for large amounts of video your going to have to look at something like a external RAID setup for large storage and speed.
You'll need to learn everything about RAID, what Apple's X-RAID offers etc. so you can get maximum transfer speeds, large data retention and redundancy.
Apple's X-RAID offers a fast Fiber-channel PCI card for fast data transfers, but with a lot of video, for speed and redundancy your going to need a lot of drives with a RAID 5 setup.
You can also roll your own RAID, get a 8 port PCI SATA card and external SATA drives in any size and speed that you want.
You might want to check out MacGurus, Barefeats.com, Accelerate Your Mac and HDforIndies.com for more information.
Remember this, always Disk Utility Erase w/Zero option (format HFS+) all new drives to map off any bad sectors. You can't do it once the drive is filled with your data.

Opinions about MHP solutions (head-ends, middlewares) ...

I am not satisfied with MHP solutions I use at the moment.
Thus, I would like to know other opinions about MHP systems they use (bad or good).
May be somebody can reasonably suggest some STBs with MHP middlewares and reliable and stable working head-end systems. I am not able to try out a number of MHP systems available on the market due to financial reason.

Thanks, I think that might be the key here for me....
When I created the .swf in Flash CS4 I imported the .flv files as "load with external playback component", which seems to reference the oringal .flv files. Moving them or renaming them locally on my computer would render the .swf non-functional for movie playback locally...so YES I certainly do need .flv files for my .swf to reference as the movies are not re-encoded into the published .swf I do see an option to do this however so it is food for thought on if this embedded method may be better in my situation.
The thing remaing for me to fix now seems to be how to properly reference the .flv files on the remote server when they and the properly configured .swf file are all uploaded. I see how I can change the .flv source in the properties window within Flash but I will have to do a bit of testing to make sure that it follows a logical and working path when uploaded to my server.
Hope that all makes sense...if anyone has any input on how best to finish this up or suggest on if I am on the right path I'd love to hear from them!
Thanks for the help, btw.
James

A realistic assessment of your experiences of hardware needed for the type of editing I do please.

Introduction:
I apologise for the length of this post but from experience of reading here, I'm working on the principle of the more I explain about myself now, the less anyone willing to help me will have to ask later.
I have lurked around this forum on and off for a few years, read the various threads in the FAQ section, particularly PPBM5 and What PC to build thread and other related topics around what system to build. I have found them very useful and in particular have enjoyed reading about Harm Millaard's experiences First Ideas for a new system. For about about 12 months I've been delaying upgrading my PC but in Mr Millard's latest updates on his PPBM6 site he talks about new systems and provides a link to Intel's time line which suggests they are in no rush to replace the i739xx series CPU chip - which has I believe amongst other things 2 cores disabled. Normally bitter experience has taught me not to rush out and buy the latest technology but let others "test" it first and then benefit from reduced prices as that model is replaced. However, it now seems like last years technology is going to remain as this years technology and probably the first 2 quarters at least of next year and, if anything, the price of the i739xx series is at best staying at it's existing launch price or even rising. So it's time to take the plunge for me and upgrade.
My current hardware for editing:
I started with Premier 6.5 after I bought it as part of a bundle with a Matrox RTX 10 card - one of the most temperamental pieces of hardware I've had the misfortune to work with. I later upgraded to Premiere Pro 1.5 and edited with that using a Pentium 4 2.6 (overclocked to 3.2), 3 hard drives (no raid) and 4G of memory. The video footage used was avi recorded using a Canon MVX 30i and Panasonic NVGS27 and now I've added the Casio Exilim EX -FC100 (mpeg format) and a Panasonic HDC S90 (AVCHD).
My PC coped with the editing I did with avi footage but couldn't handle AVCHD format and this convinced me to upgrade to Premiere Pro CS5.5. At the same time I switched to editing on a Dell XPS M1530 (Centrino duo chip) - I upped the memory to 4GB, put Windows 7 64 bit home edition on and replaced the existing hard drive with a faster one. In addition I use a SATA Quickport duo attached to my laptop via an eSATA card. However, either the Quickport, eSATA card or XPS is extremely temperamental - I never see two external hard drives, 50% of the time see 1 external drive or none at all - when that happens I edit around it doing things I can with just the one internal drive - but this problem is not my question.
The type of editing i do:
I know people usually say around here not to try editing on laptops and believe me, I understand why, but using this setup I have been able to edit lots of videos - see here for examples of the type of editing I currently do:
http://www.youtube.com/user/PathfinderPro
The equipment test videos place the biggest strain on the hardware when editing. And, to do this editing I have to convert my AVCHD footage in to it's YouTube format before editing and even after I've done that it can be tediously slow to edit and playback even with premiere set to play at 1/4 normal quality. To convert the AVCHD footage to the YouTube format I edit in has to be done over many nights.
Now I am not a professional, I typically edit with up to 4 tracks of video with additional tracks for titles and my target audience is YouTube - which is why I can get away without editing in my prefered option of native AVCHD video format. However, I'm tired of all the waiting, stuttering, and many many days and hours of converting videos into a format I can use so I'm looking to upgrade. My problem is though I'm uncertain what path to take. The PPBM results are dominated by overclocked chips, and whilst the motherboard make and model is listed, the hard disks used, graphic card makes and models and memory modules are not. This is not a criticism of the PPMB tables (big thank you to Bill Gehrke & Harm Millaard for taking the time and effort to pull this much information together) but for me, I am not interested in being in the top 1000 in the world, nor overclocking like mad, and having had horror experiences of using matrox products and compatibility and stability issues with other hardware I'm more interested in compatability and practicality than speed when deciding what to build. I've also read the threads about marvel controllers, dual and quad channel memory support, the pro's and cons of SSD or standard drives, raid setups, the heat problems with overclocking the newer ivy bridge chips and general build advice etc so I'm not coming here without having done some reading first.
The type of system I'm thinking of:
So far based on what I've read here, I've come to the conclusion - but I'm open to suggestion:
- Chip - regrettably due to the cost and unlikely successor anytime soon - a 39xx (with appropriate cooler) because I want to edit in native AVCHD which seems to require the warrior type chip as opposed to the "economical" build regardless of what my target audience is and this suggests
- X79 motherboard (which must have an old PCI slot such as the Asus Sabertooth and which has room for the cooler I'm considering). As I will be carrying over my old terretec DMX 6 fire 24/96 soundcard - all my videos have their audio mastered in Audition using this card - best piece of advice I read was the audience will watch a bad video with good sound editing but not the other way round)
- 4 hard drives plus additional hard drive for operating system using onboard raid controllers (not sure whether the operating system drive will be WD caviar black or SSD and can't justify cost of external raid controller for either my type of use or number of hard drives being used)
- Video card - I can now buy a GTX 580 for less than the 670 - so not sure on the card especially based on Harm Millards observations that memory bandwith seems to be as important as CUDA cores
- Case - I have an Akasa 62 case with room for 5 hard drives - I won't be exceeding that, and if I overclock it will only be by a little so is it really necessary to replace it for a Tower Case - although I would prefer a case with a front connection for esata so I may have to change the case regardless
- Maximum memory 32G - so is it necessary to upgrade to windows 7 professional?
- Power source - I'll work out when I've decided on my components.
Help please:
For me it's video source/dictated software chosen and hardware/audience(youtube) dictates format edited in. As I don't intend to change my camcorders format (AVCHD or mpeg) in the next couple of years and I'm not interested in having the "fastest" system around what I'm really interested in learning is:
what system setups people use now for doing similar editing to me
what make/models of the component parts in your system work well together
and if you do have a bottle neck in terms of hardware, where is it and what hardware would you change to (not a dream model change, just a practical and realistic one)
I have deliberately not given a budget for the changes I'm intending because budget should not be the deciding factor in determining what I "need" to upgrade to for the "type of editing I do" - especially bearing in mind I've got by so far (admitedly at a tortoise pace) with by todays standards a standard spec laptop. Basically I don't want a Rolls Royce to go shopping at Wallmart but I'm tired of walking there and carrying everything back by hand!
Thank you very much for any help / experiences people can share.

Thank you both for your prompt and helpful replies.
Mr Millaard, regarding your excellent article Planning and Building an NLE system, I have read it a couple of times now and it was your article which finally convinced me the time was now to upgrade but within it you said for good reason "Initial choice of CPU: i7-39xx with the intention to overclock to 4.6 - 4.8 GHz", hence my uncertainty about the CPU to use. I have seen a video you posted here - I think it was based on your cats (which I incidently enjoyed) so working on the editing done there (but not remembering if you mentioned what video format you used) and others who have mentioned many pro's for the i7-39xx I was leaning towards that - but I'm financially relieved at least - if the i3770 will do, although now with the possible recommendation by JEShort01 (sorry not sure of the forum etiquette for use of names) of the 2600K overclocked I'm a little bit back in the position of which is more suitable especially with the update to the i3770 being nearer than i7-39xx. This still makes me lean towards the i7-39xx.
Regarding the editing, the match play you can see on the channel is indeed 1 camera basic edits - multiple titles used to provide the score board. However, the coaching videos use mulitple cameras - 3 to 4 sometimes (another reason for upgrading to CS5.5 for the multi cam editing support) and the equipment testing video can use 3 or 4 tracks layered on top of each other other with each track having opacity settings and multiple motion effects and titles with occasional keying video effects added. For example this video at approx 2 mins 50 and 5 mins 10 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1E5T7xo57c&list=PL577F7AB5E31FC5E9&index=13&feature=plpp_v ideo
Monitor wise I use dual monitor setup. My laptop screen and I link out to an LG M2394 D for widescreen and I sometimes use an old Neovo F-419 for 3 / 4 editing. I won't be using more monitors than 2. If the 580 drops a bit more I'll probably go for that - although I'll have to make sure it's size isn't an issue for the motherboard combo setup. Interestingly there is a thread shown on the forum home page which discusses the 570 vs the 660ti and the opinion was go with the 660ti which surprised me a bit.
Windows 7 professional it is then - I should have known that too - apologises for asking a question already asked.
"Accepted, your correct criticism of the lacking hardware info on the PPBM5 website. That is the overriding reason that for the new site http://ppbm7.com/ we want to use Piriform Speccy .xml results to gather more, more accurate and more detailed hardware info."
No criticism intended Mr Millaard - more an observation and I really look forward to that evolution with PPBM7. I'm assuming the .xml results will use pre populated drop down lists people can select their hardware from - that way you can control and ensure consistent entries - downside being the work required by you to populate the lists in the first place and maintain them.
Thanks again for your help but I'm still unsure a bit about the CPU and video card though.

What is best use of 1400 gb SGA (2 rac nodes 768gb each)

currently using 11.2.0.3.0 on unix sun sever with 2 RAC nodes each 8 UltraSPARC-T1 cpus (came out in 2005) four threads each so oracle sees 32 CPUS very slow(1.2 gb). Database is 4TB in size on regular SAN (10k speed).
8gb SGA.
New boss wants to update system to the max to get best performance possible Money is a concern of course but budget is pretty high, Our use case is 12-16 users at same time, running reports some small others very large (return single row or 10000s or rows). reports take 5 sec to 5 minutes, Our job is get the fastest system possible, We have total of 8 licenses available so we can have 16 cores. We are also getting a 6tb all flash SSD array for database. we can get any CPU we want but we cant use parallel query server due to all kinds of issues we have experienced (too many slaves, RAC interconnect saturation etc, whack-a-mole). sparc has too many threads and without PS oracle runs query in single thread.
we have speced out the following system for each RAC node
HP ProLiant DL380p Gen8 8 SFF server
2 Intel Xeon E5-2637v2 3.5GHz/4-core cpus
768 gb ram
2 HP 300GB 6G SAS 15K drives for database software
this will give us total of 4 Xeon E5-2637v2 cpus 16 cores total (,5 factor for 8 licenses) and 1536 ram (leaving ~1400 for sga). this will guarantee an available core for each user. we intend to create very very large keep pool around 300 gb for each node that will hold all our dimension tables. this we hope will reduce reads from the SSD to just data from fact tables.,
Are we doing a massive overkill here? the budget for this was way less than what our boss expected. will that big an sga be wasted will say a 256gb be fine. or will oracle take advantage of it and be able to keep most blocks in there.
will an sga that big cause oracle problems due to overhead of handling that much ram?

Current System:
===========
a. Version : 11.2.0.3
b. Unix Sun
c. CPU - 8 cpus with 4 threads => 32 logical cpus or cores
d. database 4TB
e. SAN - 10k speed disk drives
f. 8gb SGA
g. 1.2 gb ??
h. Users --> 12-16 concurrent and run reports varying size
i. reports elasped time 5 sec to 5 mins
j. cpu license -->8
Target System
===========
a. Version: 11.2.0.3
b. HP ProLiant DL380p Gen8 8 SFF server
c. RAM --> 768 GB
d. 2 HP 300GB 6G SAS 15K drives for database software
e. large keep pool -->90 gb to hold all dimension tables.
f. SSD to just data from fact tables
g. SGA -->256gb
Reassessment of the performance issues of current system appears to be required.Good performance tuning expert is required to look into tuning issues of current application by analyzing awr performance metrics . If 8GB SGA is not enough,then reason behind so is that queries running in the system are not having good access path to select lesser data to avoid flushing out of recent buffers from different tables involved in the query. Until those issues are identified , wherever you go, performance issue wont be going away as table size increase in future , problem will reappear.Even if the queries are running with more FULL Scan , then re-platforming to Exadata might be right decision as Exadata has smart scan , cell offloading feature which works faster and might be right direction for best performance and best investment for future.Compression (compress for OLTP) could be one of the other feature to exploit to improve further efficiency while reading the lesser block in lesser read time.
Investment in infrastructure will solve a few issue in short term but long term issue will again arise.
Investment in identifying the performance issues of current system would be best investment in current scenario.

Looking towards buying a Mac Mini

My G4 Cube has died it's last death. The HD is gone. I had backed up a couple of days before, so I'm not in hysterics, but I am bummed ( I did lose some stuff, but nothing that I hadn't printed out and saved). I'd owned the Cube since April 2001. It had been through two hard drives, one new video card, several crashes that were "fixed" via DiscWarrior, but this time the Tek Serve folks said, "it won't boot at all except form our bench drive." Meaning, my HD is no more. I could replace it for about $200.
But what's the point? At 500 MHz, it's too slow to run all the neat things I want it to run - including Classic Applications. I also had purchased an impressive (to me) collection of peripherals, like a DVD drive (my cube only had the CD RW), etc.
Thusly, my relationship with the Cube was bad generally. Analogous to the old car that kept on breaking down no matter what you tried. It was serviced under warranty, but now it's been classified as "vintage" so there's little support out there - why should I even bother with something similar...?
But: the Mac Mini is appealing because it's compact and will allow me to use all the neat peripherals I have, it's fast, etc., etc., etc.
Questions:
1. I am an engineer and have the desire to run some applications that would normally only run on windows, I would thus plan on using Parallels. From other discussions, Parallels works great!
2. [Edited by Host, please do not speculate on future Apple products.]
3. Overall, you Mac Mini owner, is the Mac Mini generally good? Are you happy with it? Is it robust? That is, do you expect it to start up regularly and use it 8+ hours a day for all sorts of things? Is it a good investment? I'd like to think that once purchased (with the Apple care and such) that I'd get five solid years' worth of production out of it.

[Post Edited by Hosts]
In addition, because of my generally BAD experience
with the G4 Cube, I don't want to get hosed by
purchasing a slower machine a month before a faster
one comes out. As a loyal Apple customer for quite a
while, I think I deserve to be a bit skeptical.
Whether you like it or not, attempting to discuss Apple's future plans or products that as yet don't exist IS a violation of the terms of use of the site here, because as you'll know as a long-time Apple user, Apple doesn't discuss it's plans or policies with anyone. As such, they created this site as a user-to-user forum for the specific purpose of discussion of technical matters relating to existing products. A brody may not have expressed it in an elegant manner, but your question could do nothing but solicit responses from those who can't contribute anything but speculative responses, and since those would be highly likely to get the thread removed completely, would not be in your own interests to see posted.
You are at liberty to avail yourself of any of the other sites which discuss Apple products and seek information about future plans there, though in truth you'll still get nothing more than guesswork - which seems to me a rather poor foundation on which to make a purchasing decision.
There is nothing, however, to prevent you seeking help with potential upgrades - as has actually been detailed here before, including information about possible processor swap-outs for minis which you'll find if you search for it.
That said, with a history of Apple systems use, you have earned the right to be a bit skeptical! All the more reason I'd think to ensure that regardless of what might or might not be the next product off the production line, the system you buy actually meets your needs, since if it does, the fact that it will be replaced at some point (as all systems are of course) will not matter because it will continue to meet that need.
The question therefore seems to me to be whether the current mini can run the software you need at sufficient speed to allow you to work, or whether you'd be better with a PC. Since it appears from your comments that you're going to require Parallels (or BootCamp) and Windows, the only advantage of buying a mini is if you would like to continue use of MacOS in addition to your Windows-based work or not. Only you can answer that, but it does reflect on the one real advantage of buying a mini - that doing so will give you the option to run both, while buying a PC will give you only Windows.
If, and only if, you would like the option to run both operating systems, the mini is an excellent system to choose. Not perfect and not lightning fast, but with 2Gb RAM it would outperform your now-deceased Cube by a significant factor. In context, it would give you roughly equal performance to a G5 dual processor system, and in processor-intensive work, actually be able to outperform it.
The limitations of the mini are that it contains a laptop 5400rpm drive and doesn't permit internal expansion (other than maxing out the RAM). However, it can be expended with additional storage and peripherals by adding them externally, so the core system does not really limit your options in the way that many people at first assume.
Since overall reliability seems to have been pretty good, there is not reason NOT to buy a mini unless the system isn't capable of supporting other needs, or if you have no wish to continue to run MacOS. I would certainly urge you not to base your choice on what may or may not be next - you will always be disappointed that way because even if you wait and get the latest/greatest thing when it comes out, it's not going to stay latest/greatest for long! My G5 was once the fastest system available, but while it's been overtaken by just about every mac in the product range, it still delivers the same power and runs the same software as it always did, and gives truly excellent service. In the world of Macs, as you'll know from your Cube, software does advance quite dramatically over time, but rarely to the point that it creases to be backwards compatible with earlier systems, so the imperative to keep hardware 'up to date' isn't entirely the same as in the Windows environment.

After Effects Multi-Core Benchmarks

I have been doing some testing trying to figure out how fast after effects renders and how to
help it render faster. So far i have been very dissapointed with the results. no matter how
much money we spend buying the fastest systems we can i cant seem to get much of a speed
increase. we have 8 computers with 8 cores each now. but i cant seem to get after effects to
use the extra cores even when i have 20Gb ram and enable multi frames with 2GB per frame. i see
it load all the extra copies in task manager but when i render each time 1 core has "some"
usage and the other 7 are always around 10-15% usage.
so i wanted to try a simple benchmark that everyone could try and post their results.
so i made a ntsc dv composition default at 30 seconds and just render it. NOTHING, just blank
frames of nothing. how fast can afx output data like this? i tried tests with multiple frames
enabled and disabled and output to tiff files (no compression) or the microsoft DV 48khz
preset, both with the default BEST setting.
Now i understand that after effects and premiere have 2 completely different rendering methods
but still it is worth pointing out that premiere will output 30 seconds of blank video or
actual real dv video footage to a DV AVI file in about 3-4 seconds. so why is it the same
machine takes 10 times longer to render from after effects?
I know in premiere i can simple drop in a dv avi file and export to mpeg2 and i can watch all 8
cores almost max out as it renders about 6X faster then realtime.
How can i do something in after effects to see my 8 cores max out?
Please give any tips or tricks to speed up after effects. We must use vista64 as we have a 30TB fibrechannel array.
Dell Laptop M6300 - Core 2 Extreme x9000 @2.8ghz (2 cores)
Adobe CS4 Windows XP 64 bit - 8GB ram
Multiple OFF     Tiff=1:24
                       DV=1:24
Multiple ON      Tiff=1:32
                       DV=1:30
Dell Precision 690 - Dual Quad Core Xeon E5320 @1.86ghz (8 cores)
Adobe CS4 - Windows Vista 64 bit - 4GB ram - Matrox Axio LE
Multiple OFF     Tiff= :47
                       DV= :43
Multiple ON      Tiff= :56
                       DV= :52
Dell Precision T7400 - Dual Quad Core Xeon X5482 @3.2ghz (8 cores)
Adobe CS3 - Windows XP 32 bit - 4GB ram - Matrox Axio LE
Multiple OFF     Tiff= :30
                        DV= :30
Multiple ON      Tiff= :31
                       DV= :30
Dell Precision T7400 - Dual Quad Core Xeon X5482 @3.2ghz (8 cores)
Adobe CS4 - Windows Vista 64 bit - 20GB ram - Matrox Axio LE
Multiple OFF     Tiff= :30
                       DV= :31
Multiple ON      Tiff= :35
                      DV= :35

Well we can toss around reasons for AE not using a processors full potental on a comp, but all I know is that all of the truly multithreaded and multi-processor enable applications I use are much better at using resources to their fullest than AE, or for that mater, most of the programs in the MC.
When I run those programs my system is pushed to the limit- which is why I bought a quad core system in the first place. Mental ray, Fusion, 3D Coat, Zbrush...the list is long of programs that have no problem using all my cores for 90%-100% of opperations.
In the end it just adds up to the fact that Adobe owns a large corner of the market- and since there is no competition, sees no reason NOT to be 5-10 years behind the curve when it comes to resource managment in their software.
Making maters worse is how a lot of the user base is oblivious to the technological changes in processors over the last five years. These people don't know that all but one of their cores sit idle most of the time, and they buy the corp. speak put out by Adobe about "...how complex every thing is- so you don't understand...". Sorry- I may not be a programer or a processor engineer for Intel or AMD, but I know when a program is using resources or not and I know quite a few of the things Adobe has said are "...just too complicated to do..." are really covers for lack luster R and D. Either your programers need to get up to speed, or Adobe needs to actually do the right thing and set more money aside for development. I'm betting it's the later.
Softimage 7.x is fully multithreaded and 64bit (yes all the way through not just with mr). This is a complicated program- and the development team is probably 1/10th the size of that working on PS. So why after all of these years are we still waiting for even a half baked attempt at such things on the Adobe front?
The way AE handles RAM compared to programs like Fusion and the like is pathetic.
Don't get me wrong- I love the program for motion graphics and simple comp work, but again, the resource management with AE feels like I'm back in OS8.
-Gideon

Need advice on running timer based cron jobs

Hi,
We made a cool desktop product on Flex that runs on the Air environment. After having released it a while ago, we think about taking its performance to the next level by being able to mimic cron job like functionality based on timers.
However, one of the setbacks for us while we tried to do something similar earlier was the Flash platform's single threaded architecture. So if we are running something resource consuming in the background, chances are that the UI might get stuck if a part of it is being rendered. That will make things looks ugly and we are trying to find ways to make it work.
Can anyone recommend anything that would help?
Thanks!
Vivek

> 1. What is the best fastest system AE can take advantage of? If we get 6 or 8 or 12 core Mac Pros (instead of the quad core) with more RAM, would AE be able to access that speed, and if so up to how many GB can it use, only up to 2GB per core or can it use more?
Yes, After Effects will take advantage of multiple fast CPUs and all of the RAM that you can install.
You also want to have a decent-sized SSD connected over a fast bus for the disk cache. The new Mac Pro does very well in that regard.
2. Should we replace the graphics card with an Nvidia CUDA? Is the ray-tracing engine something we’ll need with Cinema 4D work?
The After Effects ray-traced 3D renderer has nothing whatsoever to do with Cinema 4D.
Do not make any buying decisions based on the After Effects ray-traced 3D renderer unless you already know for certain that you have a need for it. Since you're asking, it seems that the answer is that you don't.
See this page for information about hardware for Premiere Pro and After Effects: http://adobe.ly/pRYOuk

Why does my Safari screen keep zooming in?

First off, I LOVE OSX Lion. It's the fastest system upgrade I've ever seen on a Mac. With that said, I have this problem. I'm using a Magic Mouse. Just since my Lion upgrade, while I'm in Safari, browsin', every so often it just zooms in close on the page. Doesn't matter the site. It does it on a google search or a Mac discussions page. Something I am inadvertently doing or some glitch with the system (with mouse?). I say mouse because it usually happens as I move the mouse over to click on something on the page. I thought it might be a combination of twitching fingers on mouse top, and maybe the movement of mouse together. I don't know, but when it happens I can't undo it. So I have to get out of the page. If I just try to reload page, or put the same thing in the search engine again, it doesn't matter, it still is zoomed. It's ridiculous.
Anybody know how I can either stop it or zoom back? I'm puzzled.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Leonard

Leonard --
This happened to me, and I started paying really close attention to what I was doing . . .. I found that, being used to a wired Apple mouse, I got into the habit of tapping on the top of the mouse while waiting for the page to change. This sets off Zoom on the Magic Mouse.
So see if that's what's happening with you. I have to really watch it. I've gotten much better at not subconsciously tapping on the top, but it still happens every once in a great while. Otherwise, I love the Magic Mouse.
EDIT: If this is what's happening with you, you can undo it by tapping again on the top of the mouse. It's like a toggle.

Placing After Effects CC files into Premiere Pro CC

Hey all,
I noticed after upgrading to CC products and Mac OS 10.9 that all After Effects files, very simple text animation, placed into Premiere Pro come in "RED" to render. I could swear they were "YELLOW" or less to render before. Has anyone else experienced this? Then when I render them, at times, it takes forever to render. With my system below I should have no problem with this. Let me know if i'm wrong.
In PP cc my "Optimized Rendering for" is set to: Performance. I'm not sure I have noticed a difference when it has been set to "Memory."
Also, my start up drive is a PCIe SSD (500gb Mercury Accelsior from OWC) - has anyone else done this? I'm not positive it's the best thing to do - wondering other's opinions.
My System:
Mac Pro 5,1 - 2 x 2.93 GHx 6-core - OSX 10.9 - 64GB Ram - Nvidia K5000 video card
Hard Drives: Startup is PCIe SSD OWC Mercury Accelsior 500gb + (2) Apple 500gb SSD's + (2) Apple 2tb Sata's

Hello Jim
Thanks for the reply!
When I import my after effects composition into premiere, it is perfectly visible and the audio is correct.
But now it is suddenly impossible to select > export > OMF
Do you know why this is?
Thanks!

Need advice on Mac-based work setup

Hi, hoping for some advice on the best Mac-based system to purchase for our 6 design workstations. We are jumping from CS5 to CC. We do GFX for multiple tv stations, motion GFX, compositing, 3D, editing, print design. SPEED is important and we only buy new computers every 4 years or so. Typical workflow has the following open simultaneously: AE, PR or FCP, PS, ID, AI, Firefox, Outlook, and maybe also Word or Text Edit or Quicktime. We do short but complex stuff, 60 seconds tops.
We’ve got one test system set up so far. These are the specs of our test system; putting all projects and assets on the thunderbolt RAID:
Mac Pro 10.9.2      3.7 Ghz Quad-Core    Intel Xeon E5      12 Gig DDR3
30 Inch Apple Cinema Display Display 2560 X 1600    AMD FirePro 2048 MB Graphics
HDMI to DVI converter for 2008 Apple Studio Display
Drive: Areca 5026 RAID-ed RAID 5    each slot has a 1TB    Toshiba 7200 RPM 32MB cache SATA 6.0GB/s drive, connected by thunderbolt 2.0
Blackmagic card: UltraStudio 3D thunderbolt device running the 9.6.7 Black magic drivers, connected thunderbolt 2.0
Panasonic HD pro tv monitor
PROBLEM: with this setup we’re disappointed in both rendering and render to RAM speed, and RAM preview at full res is dropping frames on some projects. Turning on multiprocessing does not make it any faster, and won’t render at all in certain codecs (like DV50). I have 12GB of RAM, and reserved 3GB for other applications. With multiprocessing on I have 8 CPUs, leaving 2 for other applications, reserving 2GB per CPU.
Designers render locally on their own Macs while multi-tasking on print projects, run web browsers, outlook etc.
QUESTIONS:
1. What is the best fastest system AE can take advantage of? If we get 6 or 8 or 12 core Mac Pros (instead of the quad core) with more RAM, would AE be able to access that speed, and if so up to how many GB can it use, only up to 2GB per core or can it use more?
2. Should we replace the graphics card with an Nvidia CUDA? Is the ray-tracing engine something we’ll need with Cinema 4D work?
Thank you!

> 1. What is the best fastest system AE can take advantage of? If we get 6 or 8 or 12 core Mac Pros (instead of the quad core) with more RAM, would AE be able to access that speed, and if so up to how many GB can it use, only up to 2GB per core or can it use more?
Yes, After Effects will take advantage of multiple fast CPUs and all of the RAM that you can install.
You also want to have a decent-sized SSD connected over a fast bus for the disk cache. The new Mac Pro does very well in that regard.
2. Should we replace the graphics card with an Nvidia CUDA? Is the ray-tracing engine something we’ll need with Cinema 4D work?
The After Effects ray-traced 3D renderer has nothing whatsoever to do with Cinema 4D.
Do not make any buying decisions based on the After Effects ray-traced 3D renderer unless you already know for certain that you have a need for it. Since you're asking, it seems that the answer is that you don't.
See this page for information about hardware for Premiere Pro and After Effects: http://adobe.ly/pRYOuk

Preparing Video Display

My wife has been working on a project with aout 200 still images and 10 minutes of clips. The stills are TIFs and the sequence settings are NTSC.
The process of opening it always takes several (4-6) minutes, during which the "preparing display" message appears on the screen. I have also recently experienced this in a FCP project when I had a lot of large still image files in the sequence (also NTSC).
What is it about still images that causes FCE and FCP so much indigestion? And are there remedies?

It's a large number of images and FCE/FCP have to open them all when you open your project. Each image takes a certain amount of RAM; since there are so many, it's more than the amount of RAM in your Mac and as a consequence your Mac has to page them back out to virtual memory, which is on your system HD. So, just to open your FCE/FCP project, your Mac has to perform 2 disk operations + 2 memory operations for nearly every image. That's what's taking all that time.
The only cures are more RAM memory and the fastest system HD you can afford. Your profile does not indicate how much RAM or what hard drive is in your Mac. Most iMacs came with 7200rpm SATA hard drives, which is about as good as you'll get unless you spend extra $$ on a 10K rpm hard drive, which I would not recommend for an iMac due to heat considerations.
In your case, if you have the option, add more RAM memory and keep as much space free on your system HD as possible. Depending on your iMac you may be able to add 1 or 2 RAM DIMMS; if there are 2 DIMM slots, add 2 DIMMS of the same size (eg, 2 1-GB DIMMs or 2-2GB DIMMS) depending on what your Mac can take. And if your system HD is approaching 80% full it's time to get some stuff off that hard drive.

Need suggestions on upgrading my Mac G4 500 dual drive purchased in 2000

I was looking to purchase a new G5 however due to the price being so high and funds being low I want to upgrade my G4 so it can run the lates version of Final Cut Pro. I have been told i need to increase my RAM to the highest which is four 528 MB dimm RAM. I was told upgrade my processor. I don't know which one since there are so many out there. Keeping in mind the price can any one suggest one that is reasonable. I was also told to change my video card. Again any suggestions. If i upgrade my video card would i need to upgrade the ac adaptor?
I also want to run the latest version of the Operating system i think its Leopard.
I do about 10 weddings a year to I dont really need the Fastest system. I just need to upgrade my system to run solid.
Any suggestions is appreciated. I live in New York City. If any one knows of a place in NYC where I can have this done i would appreciate knowing where they are.
Finally if I do all these upgrades will I be getting a good system or just invest in an Imac?
Thanks

I have upgraded my G4 Gigabit Ethernet to point of exhaustion. I can't put anything else in it, and by the end, it has costed more than a new computer. The difference is this - with a new computer, you have to plop down all of the money right away, but you get something that is going to last you a while. Upgrading a used computer is good because you can upgrade is gradually and it doesn't effect your pocket book so much because you make small investments at different times. The only problem with upgrading is that the more you add to the system, the more problems you could potentially cause, plus things start to fail when they get older.
If I had to do it all over again, I think I would pick the newer machine. There are just too many limitations to the old G4's, things like the 2x AGP slot, no PCI-X, only 2 GB of RAM, bus speed is only 100 or 133 mhz, clock speed is limited, etc. - all things you can't upgrade. ESPECIALLY if you want run an app like final cut pro. I bought my machine for running Pro Tools (professional audio recording app), and I still can feel the lack of power my machine has even after all of the upgrading.
The most important advice I think I could give you is this - do some research, see what everyone else who has experience would do, shop around, weigh the pros and cons to each possible machine to buy, and make lists of all of what you need and total up the costs depending on what machine you get. I would guess that buying a newer machine vs an older machine plus all of the upgrading needed would be pretty close. If you're patient, you should be able to get the newer machine without it hurting your pocketbook so badly.

Opinions on fastest systems

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for