Quad core vs dual core for motion

Hello all,
I'm just about to invest in a new Mac Pro, With the following specs
x1900 512 mb graphics card
3x 750 gbHDD (raid 2 at 3GBs and 256K bit) 1 independent
4 x 2gb memory
But I'm confused as it is wether spending the extra 600 pounds on going from a 3ghz DC to a quad core. I want to soup up my projects with motion graphics, in particular using 3D. How much more performance will the extra processing power give me. If anyone can give me a real time answer that'd be great.
I.E. how much more time will i spend waiting for it to render etc.
Thanks very much for all help, I really want to get this right before buying.
Cheers
Fred

"...Motion uses the graphics card to do all its drawing, so while having a faster processor is always going to help, you will see much more improvement by getting the biggest baddest graphics card out there..."
But doesn't this only apply to the building - playing - interacting - tweaking aspect of using Motion in real-time? So while you're actually creating inside Motion, it's mostly GPU.
When you're finished inside Motion, I feel like you're going to implement the creation in one of two ways: Send it to FCP, where it's going to want to render - which falls back onto the CPU(s). Or you're going to export a self-contained movie from motion. Again, CPU, right? Or is there something I'm misunderstanding about how Motion functions under-the-hood?
If I'm wrong, then the Processors won't likely have a huge effect. But anytime it's time to actually render, I'd think you're bouncing back to CPU's again - not just GPU. In which case the Quad Core is going to help out.
Just thowing out some theories....

Similar Messages

  • Dual core vs Quad core for a Filmmaker?

    Hi, I'm a 14 year-old filmmaker who really wants their next computer to be a mac mini. I am obviously on a tight budget being 14, so I was thinking just buying the standard dual-core processor. But for a filmmaker like myself, is it worth the extra $200 for my heavy-duty video-editing applications? I would use a mixture of Apple Motion 5, and the video-effects program Hitfilm Ultimate. I know quad is faster, but is it worth it for me?
    Thanks.

    "Hyperthreading" is the key. Hyper-threading enables each execution unit (or core, if you will) to process two threads (tasks) simultaneously.  It can do this because not every instruction takes only a single instruction cycle.  Sometimes instructions have to wait for a read from memory, which can take many clock cycles.  Sometimes multiple instructions can be performed at once -- for example, a floating point addition and an integer multiplication, as long as both instructions already have their operands in registers and store the results in different registers.  Hyper-threading enables each processor to handle multiple tasks by allowing one task to work while the other is waiting for a result, or allowing both instructions to be completed at the same time because they use non-conflicting resources.
    So, two "hyperthreaded" cores work as fast as four without hyperthreading, or the difference in speed is so negligible, you wouldn't notice it.  Since the Mac Mini Core i7 is also hyperthreaded, it works as well as dual quad cores, so if you need inudstry standard speed, then the Core i7 would be your best choice.
    As I said though, I can take 1080p video from my Canon Vixia, and edit it with OnLocation or Premiere Pro, and render it with barely a drain on my processor cores (2 or 4). So far, the biggest vid file I've done was about 250Mb, which was about a ten minute shoot. If you're going to work with 2Gb and up, then I'd definitely go with the Core i7 and max the RAM out to 16Gb.

  • Dual-core or Quad-core for Premiere, After Effects, and Photoshop CS4?

    We are planning to purchase around 25 computers for a computer lab for working with CS4 Production Premium at the high school level.  Mainly Premiere Pro, After Effects, and Photoshop.  Our budget is, unfortunately, a mere $550-$625 per machine (just the tower though, we have monitors).  I've already established that a 64-bit operating system makes a significant difference in the performance, even though Photoshop is the only 64-bit application, and I'm now hung up on whether or not it's worth the cost of a quad-core processor over a dual-core.
    I'm discovering the different hardware needs for each application, so I'm trying to find an economic balance that will give me the best performance per buck.  It seems that Premiere benefits significantly from more cores (we're editing 1440x1080 AVCHD), and this article over at Tom's Hardware has convinced me that I don't want to compromise with a hyperthreaded dual-core for After Effects.
    I'm also struggling with what part the graphics card plays in the mix.  Which applications lean on the graphics card, and will it make much difference as long as I meet the requirements (OpenGL 2.0, Shader Model 3.0, Direct3D 10, and 256 Mb Ram)?
    I understand I will need to settle for less-than-awesome with my budget, but I'm already making sacrifices to get the number to $625.  I would like to make sure that those sacrifices will be worth it for a quad-core system.

    I think I may have answered my own question by looking at these charts over at Tom's Hardware:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/Adobe-Premiere-Pro-CS4 ,1404.html
    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/Adobe-Photoshop-CS-4,1 387.html
    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/Video-Editing-Adobe-After-Effec ts-CS5,2427.html
    I  think that the jump to the quad core in Premiere Pro is worth it, even if I  don't see as large of an improvement in Photoshop or After Effects.  I am still interested in the role of the graphics card in the mix if anyone can shed some light on that.  Will an integrated graphics card (like an Intel GMA x4500 or Radeon HD4200) suffice or will I need an actual graphics card to realize the benefits?
    Thanks

  • Dual core vs Quad Core for mild video and photo editing

    I've owned PC's since ever and I'm now contemplating on coming over to the Mac world, my question is would a fully upgraded 13" MBPr Suffice for mild photo and video editing or should I try to shell out the extra cash for a lower end 15" with Quad-Core?
    13" specs
    2.8GHz Dual-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz
    16GB 1600MHz DDR3L SDRAM
    512GB PCIe-based Flash Storage
    2199$
    15" specs
    2.3GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.5GHz
    16GB 1600MHz DDR3L SDRAM
    512GB PCIe-based Flash Storage
    2599$

    Sorry, yes it will suffice? if so how many years would I expect this computer to last me? (Sorry I'm really new to apple)

  • Intel Quad Core for Premiere - is this a smart choice ?

    Hi everyone,
    I'm wondering if Intel's new Quad Core processor ( 2.4 Ghz ) will give a good boost to system performance over an older Intel 3.2 Ghz Ht chip.
    I have seen test results where a 1.6 ghz dual core Intel processor has lost in speed tests vs regular 3.2 ghz chips ( not dual core )
    So I'm puzzled,, will a Quad Core chip have any advantage when running Premiere ?
    I'm hoping there is a clear cut answer here, and I look forward to any responses.
    Thank you,
    Dave.

    Guys...
    Before you all go out and throw a party...
    My understanding is that with regards to CS3:
    1. 32bit XP normally supports up to 2gigs of ram. 4gigs if you modify a line in the bootstrap file. But 4gigs is divided into 3gigs for apps and 1gig for system stuff.
    2. 64bit XP is not supported.
    3. 64bit Vista is not supported yet.
    Here's the specs from Adobe:
    - Intel® Pentium® 4 (1.4GHz processor for DV; 3.4GHz processor for HDV), Intel Centrino®, Intel Xeon® (dual 2.8GHz processors for HD), or Intel Core Duo (or compatible) processor; SSE2-enabled processor required for AMD systems
    - Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional or Home Edition with Service Pack 2 or Windows Vista Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, or Enterprise (certified for 32-bit editions)
    - 1GB of RAM for DV; 2GB of RAM for HDV and HD; more RAM recommended when running multiple components
    Here's the memory specs for xp from Microsoft:
    Operating systems based on Microsoft Windows NT technologies have always provided applications with a flat 32-bit virtual address space that describes 4 gigabytes (GB) of virtual memory. The address space is usually split so that 2 GB of address space is directly accessible to the application and the other 2 GB is only accessible to the Windows executive software.
    The 32-bit versions of the Windows 2000 Advanced Server and Windows NT Server 4.0, Enterprise Edition, operating systems were the first versions of Windows to provide applications with a 3-GB flat virtual address space, with the kernel and executive components using only 1 GB. In response to customer requests, Microsoft has expanded the availability of this support to the 32-bit version of Windows XP Professional and all 32-bit versions of Windows Server 2003.
    Windows 2000 Memory Support. With Windows 2000 Professional and Server, the maximum amount of memory that can be supported is 4 GB (identical to Windows NT 4.0, as described later in this section). However, Windows 2000 Advanced Server supports 8 GB of physical RAM and Windows 2000 Datacenter Server supports 32 GB of physical RAM using the PAE feature of the IA-32 processor family, beginning with Intel Pentium Pro and later.
    Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 Memory Support. The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 is also 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition supports 32 GB of physical RAM and Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of physical RAM using the PAE feature.
    The virtual address space of processes and applications is still limited to 2 GB unless the /3GB switch is used in the Boot.ini file. When the physical RAM in the system exceeds 16 GB and the /3GB switch is used, the operating system will ignore the additional RAM until the /3GB switch is removed. This is because of the increased size of the kernel required to support more Page Table Entries. The assumption is made that the administrator would rather not lose the /3GB functionality silently and automatically; therefore, this requires the administrator to explicitly change this setting.
    The /3GB switch allocates 3 GB of virtual address space to an application that uses IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE in the process header. This switch allows applications to address 1 GB of additional virtual address space above 2 GB.
    The virtual address space of processes and applications is still limited to 2 GB, unless the /3GB switch is used in the Boot.ini file. The following example shows how to add the /3GB parameter in the Boot.ini file to enable application memory tuning:
    However, knock yourselves out on getting the biggest baddest processors out there.
    regards,

  • What to get: 3.7GHz quad-core or 3.5GHz 6-quad-core for the Mac Pro 6,1?

    I'm thinking of getting the new Mac Pro 6,1. I want to keep the price down as much as I can. I work in, FCPX 10.1, Motion 5, Premiere Pro CC, After Effects CC, Speedgrade CC and DaVinci Resolve 11 lite? Sufficient to say I do a lot of rendering. I do not work with any 4K footage, just 1080P. So does anybody have any thoughts or experience with the MP 6,1 and do you think the 3.7GHz quad-core has enough power?
    Thanks,
    -Russ

    There are two ways to get the 6-core:
    One is to start with the entry for the 4-core (includes D300 graphics) and customize to 6-core processor only, adds US$500.
    The other is to start with the 6-core (includes D500 graphics) and starts at US$1000 more.
    If you buy the 4-core today, the processor can be third-party or do-it-yourself upgraded with an off-the-shelf processor later.
    I expect others would advise you to buy as much graphics power as you can afford, but I think it has a smaller and diminishing return.

  • Do you need quad-core for gaming?

    Really attracted by the 13" retina MBP (although i've read many very mixed reviews). Was hoping someone could help me with a niggling concern with it; will the dual-core i5 be enough for running parallel Windows/OS, photoshop and gaming, all day, everyday?
    By the time you upgrade the 256GB 13" to i7 you're into the 15" terratory which comes with quad-core i7 as standard. Just put off by the size...
    Would really appreciate peoples thoughts on this.
    Cheers

    Will the dual-core i5 be able to handle parallel OS, photo editing and gaming or are we talking quad-core i7 realms to manage this comfortably?
    Cheers

  • 8-Core vs Quad-Core for Adobe After Effects

    With AfterEffects running native on Intel, how much difference will it make to run AE on an 8-core MacPro vs the Quad-core?
    Thanks!

    Without specifically knowing AE, it's behaviours and requirements, it's hard to say. However, generally speaking the ability to saturate 8 cores is dependent on two things…
    1) Mac OS X. The performance of Mac OS X and its handling of multi-threaded applications is all important. While Tiger does a decent job of this you'll find that Leopard will put it to shame in this regard. If you actually monitor your core saturation during processing you'll notice that many application, which includes the like of iTunes etc, won't simultaneously saturate all cores. What they'll actually do is saturate one core at a time sequentially. Funnily I find that multi-threaded PowerPC applications/Rosetta saturates all cores very well.
    2) Data source and destination. Where your data is coming from and going to, obviously with CPU processing in between, is a hugge consideration. For instance, if data must come and go from hard disk you might well find that this will be you bottleneck. This also goes for RAM. How much data must come and go from the processors is all important as this will result, or not, in the processor cores waiting for data or not. If they're waiting they won't saturate.
    Obviously there are things you can do in this regard to minimise your data bottlenecks such as using RAID and optimal RAM installations (I'd recommend anyone going with 8 cores go with a minimum 8GB - 4 x 2GB in Slots 1/2 - RAM)
    Ultimately, unless you know how efficient AE is in the multi-threaded and its data handling stakes you might well find a huge benefit by going with 8 cores. On the other hand, you could also be wasting your money. My advise would be to call Adobe and ask them. Additionally, find someone with AE and a quad-core MP and watch the core saturation for yourself. I'd use MenuMeters…
    http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/17713
    … set to update as fast as possible for this to see what's going on.
    I get the feeling the biggest benefit, as others have noted, will be more efficient multiple application processing/multi-tasking rather than single application processing. Until it gets into oswers hands it's hard to really say for certain.

  • Quad Core for my PC

    Hi I have a HP Compaq dc 7900CMT PC I am wondering is there a quad core processor that I can get to fit this  computer Thanking you Simon 
    This question was solved.
    View Solution.

    Hi, Simon:
    Below is the link to the quickspecs for your PC.
    Supported processors are listed on pages 9 and 10.
    http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/13029_ca/13029_ca.PDF

  • 8 cores or 4 cores for Motion?

    Hello,
    I know to upgrade the graphics card because thats what runs Motion.
    But does Motion use or need 8 cores?
    Thanks

    I believe the answer is no.
    People who've done tests can back that up (I haven't) but it seems to be the consensus when the question has come up before. Motion apparently doesn't make any meaningful use of multithreading, probably because it's irrelevant since the GPU is the one doing the work. It can, however, help you render, because you can now send projects to Compressor which can devote different cores to rendering different frames at the same time. I haven't had any luck using Compressor with Motion yet, however, without getting weird render artifacts in my movies.

  • Macbook pro, dual core or quad core?

    Hey guys Im getting an early college present and was wondering which Macbook I should look at. This will be my one and only computer while im in college. No photo editing or anything like that, maybe some video editing but it will be almost none. Will be used to surf the web and write documents. My question is should i get the dual core or quad core processor? Will it really matter for what i want it for? One thing I absolutely hate is lag! So the faster of the two the better.

    tony477g wrote:
    So if I went with the quadcore because you guys say it is faster than the 2.9 ghz dualcore. Would the difference be noticable between the 2.6 ghz and the 2.3 ghz? I noticed the 2.6 has 8 gb to the 4gb and 750gb to the 500 gb.
    Well, actually, only one guy said the quad core would be faster, but it is not clear why they said that. You said you were only going to use it "to surf the web and write documents." Well, guess what. You don't need a quad-core for that. You don't need a dual-core for that. I've surfed the web and written documents on my old single-core iPhone. Those tasks are just not that demanding.
    So unless there are more things you want to do that you haven't mentioned, there is just about no way it's worth paying for quad-core or a 2.6GHz processor if all you are going to do is surf the web and write documents.
    The quad-core is going to speed up operations that specifically benefit from parallel processing, like intensive editing of photo/audio/video, or bulk encoding of audio and video, or specific math apps, stuff like that. And most Mac users would not benefit from choosing the 2.6GHz over the 2.3GHz because the performance of so many common uses depends not only on the CPU speed, but actually on the overall balance of CPU, RAM, and disc. In other words, if you really have a legitimate application for 2.6GHz it usually means you must also install a great deal more RAM and also an SSD to avoid creating a bottleneck that holds back the CPU. But then you would have a machine that is massively overpowered and overpriced for surfing the web and writing documents.
    You could surf the web and write documents quite effectively on the least expensive MacBook that Apple sells. But since you do want to keep it throughout all of college, it is a good idea to buy something higher than the bottom of the line. For a Mac for very basic uses that should last four years, I would suggest:
    13-inch MacBook Air with 256GB SSD storage and 8GB RAM
    13-inch MacBook Pro with 500GB HD storage and 8GB RAM
    13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display with 256GB SSD storage and 8GB RAM
    (You didn't mention what your budget is)
    I suggested 13-inch because it's more portable than the 15-inch but more comfortable for 4 years than an 11-inch. I chose storage sizes that would be appropriate since you said you would do some video. And I chose 8GB RAM because 4GB may not be enough for 4 years, and also because insufficient RAM is often a bigger cause of lag than CPU or disk speed.
    If you have a limited amount of money, from this point on you'll need to justify why you would want a bigger screen, a faster CPU, or more cores given the two tasks you said you'd be doing most of the time. Because again, if you didn't actually need a Mac, you could write documents and surf the web on an iPad with the Logitech Ultrathin Keyboard Cover and be done for $600.

  • Imac Intel Core Duo 20' For Motion Graphics?

    Hi everyone,
    Just seeing what people thought about the Imac Intel Cores for motion graphics based work. Basically I need to run the Adobe suite (After Effects, Photoshop, Illustrator and Final Cut Pro.) Also, down the track I will be wanting to put 3D Studio Max via boot Camp.
    How many of you are using this machine for motion graphics? And, is it as fast and productive as you would like etc?
    Cheers,
    James

    Depends on how intensive you plan on getting with the iMac. For the most part, it should run pretty well. When the Adobe products become universal they should fly. I currently run all the same software plus Maya on my iMac G5 2.1 GHZ w/o a problem, so they should run just as well on the intel (more so when all apps become universal). I actually plan on selling the G5 and picking up the intel version so I can run boot camp and 3D Max as as well.

  • Is Quad-Core processors really worth it ?

    I'm debating between the 13 inch MacBook Pro that has the dual core while the 15 inch MacBook Pro has a quad core, but I'm using this purely for school and video chat.
    Do I really need a quad core for these things at the moment ?

    Debater112651 wrote:
    I'm debating between the 13 inch MacBook Pro that has the dual core while the 15 inch MacBook Pro has a quad core, but I'm using this purely for school and video chat.
    Do I really need a quad core for these things at the moment ?
    Quad cores are the new benchline, even the new iPad has a quad core processor.
    If you can take care of your machine and make it last for 4 years, want to play 3D games, then the 15"
    If your not going ot play 3D games and will replace the machine in 2 years, light uses, then the 13"
    If your rough on computers then buy a $400 Windows 7 PC instead

  • First gen quad-core MacPro i7 upgrade

    Greetings. I have my first gen 2.66 Quad Core for almost two years now and interested to give it a makeover. With the i7 have huge possibility to incorporate onboard t the macPro in MacWorld debute, I am actually thinking about swapping out my two 2.66 due-core and replace them with two 2.66 i7 (currently list price on newegg for about $300 a pop).
    And here is my question, from you guys experience with G4 and macPro CPU upgrade, will a general retail CPU compatible with apple EFI?
    And after I swap out those old due core, can I build a PC out of it?
    Meanwhile, I just have to wait and try really hard not to get a 8800GT for Christmas, since that will more than likely to be refresh to 4870 as well...
    Thanks guys!

    You aren't going to outgrow just because something new is around the corner. Wait for it and OS X to mature and catch up to each other and better use what you have like Snow Leopard.
    If you had a 4 yr old system, and outgrew it, yes. If you want a 2nd system, I'd still say wait a year.
    There are literally new articles and discussions of Core i7 every day as enthusiasts play around, companies try to improve their BIOS code. It is still very very new.
    As mentioned earlier in thread, you have to use the same pin-compatible chips. And even if you could, it uses DDR3, the cost, and you'd have to what, sell your top of the line.
    It is better to just buy a new system and then sell or keep as backup. And I would not jump on new platform until it has been out for months and a couple OS X updates under the belt as well.
    So far I haven't seen any dual cpu motherboards for Nehalem (name Core I7 use to go by) in production.

  • Quad Core Mac Tower keeps switching off!!!

    Hi, my Quad Core Mac Tower keeps switching off!!! I start the computer up on start up half way through the process it switches off I have had this quad core for quite a few years with no problems until now. Can anyone help please

    Then
    Boot to recovery and repair the HD via Disk Utility
    OS X: About OS X Recovery - Apple Support
    Resinstall the OS. If you follow the following nothing should be lost
    OS X Yosemite: Reinstall OS X

Maybe you are looking for