Speeding up Rendering in LR3: Faster Processor or Better Video Card?

I'm currently running a MacPro with 2 Dual-Core Xeons at 2.66 GHz and 7 GB of RAM. I upgraded a while ago to an ATI Radeon HD 3870 video card.
I'm a professional photographer who is wondering what would give me the best LR3 rendering speed bump for my buck. Should I...
1. Add more RAM?
2. Upgrade my Video Card? (If so, which one?)
3. Start from scratch with a faster Mac?
4. All of the above?
I'm looking for any information that would show me real world measurements using LR3. I'm NOT looking for philosophical discussions or speculation. Has anyone seen a test that I could read, or information source that compares different systems rendering identical content in LR3? Concrete help (rather than speculation) would be appreciated.
Thanks!

ambienttroutmask wrote:
Good hard fast hard drives can also help, cheap and can carry on to any new machine, so always worth sticking one in. The Samsung F3 HD103SJ 1TB is an absolute bargain and for real world speed only SD is faster and then only if the OS is on the SD. I got one recently for video editing and stuck my LR catalog on it, a definite noticeable speed increase over other hard drives of a similar spec (although I have heard nasty stuff about them failing early...so back up obviously. I also have a big fast video card for video editing, that sits there doing absolutely nothing when using LR...so unless you edit video or like playing games, don't bother. I prefer my old machines ancient Matrox card for stability and 2 D rendering, but it won't do video sadly!
Processor comparisons here. With your set up you are going to have to invest in a top of the range MAC with an i 7 to benefit anything significant. More RAM won't hurt but may not get used by LR. More RAM and a i7 processor will ensure the RAM actually gets used.
Pete,
Just curious. Have you done any measurements on the Samsung? Say with SpeedTools for the Mac? I'm just wondering what the read/write speeds are across eSATA connection vs. any of the others.. I know a lot can vary from one machine to another, but I was just asking on your machine how it compared with a measured result to another brand. Like you say, the specs are very similar to other drives.
Thanks.
Jay S.

Similar Messages

G4 Sawtooth Processor and Video Card upgrades

Hi there,
I'm heading for a major upgrade on my G4 Sawtooth 500Hz, starting with processor and Video card, not to mention maxing out the RAM slots.
My main applications are Final Cut, After Effects and Photoshop.
I wish I had more money for a dual processor (or even a G5 – sigh!) so I'm looking at the Sonnet Encore/ST G4/1.4GHz Processor versus the PowerLogix G4/1.4GHz 7455A PowerForce55. I've done the benchmark tests at OWC's site and I'm inclined to Sonnet. Anyone have an opinion between these 2, or even if there's another one I should be also considering?
Should I make the effort and go for a dual processor? because of the clear benefits on rendering time (specially for After Effects)?
Video Cards:
These I think I need more help. Going thru these threads I learned that I should consider the power supply (overheating problems) and that "AGP G4's have either a 208w or a 237w Power supply (PSU)" - I have no idea what I got.
On another thread I read: "as far as I'm aware, there are only two video cards currently available retail that support Tiger's core image/video, the Radeon 9600 and 9800. Unfortunately the 9600 requires a x4 AGP slot, so that just leaves the 9800. It's a powerful card but consequently is fairly expensive and can be noisy due to it's fan."
What is a x4 AGP slot? Do Sawtooths have this?
I'll be upgrading to Tiger soon. Does this mean I can't go for the ATI Radeon 9200?
I'd prefer AGP than PCI cards. What are my real options considering power consumption, OS and performance?
Important: I’d like the video card to run 2 monitors, LCD and/or CRT.
Further upgrades would be SATA controller card and one or two internal SATA drives replacing the ones I got.
Last but not least:
Instead of all this fuss, should I 'just' get the MacMini 1.66GHz Intel Core Duo????? and later on get a G5 (or whatever it will be called...)?
PowerMac G4 "Sawtooth" (AGP) 500Mhz, ATI Rage 128Pro, 512MB RAM Mac OS X (10.3.9) Internal ATA drives [25GB - 80GB] / External 160GB

Hi
Video Cards:
These I think I need more help. Going thru these
threads I learned that I should consider the power
supply (overheating problems) and that "AGP G4's
have either a 208w or a 237w Power supply (PSU)"
- I have no idea what I got.
On another thread I read: "as far as I'm aware,
there are only two video cards currently available
retail that support Tiger's core image/video, the
Radeon 9600 and 9800. Unfortunately the 9600 requires
a x4 AGP slot, so that just leaves the 9800. It's a
powerful card but consequently is fairly expensive
and can be noisy due to it's fan."
What is a x4 AGP slot? Do Sawtooths have
this?
I'll be upgrading to Tiger soon. Does this mean I
can't go for the ATI Radeon 9200?
I'd prefer AGP than PCI cards. What are my real
options considering power consumption, OS and
performance?
Important: I’d like the video card to run 2
monitors, LCD and/or CRT.
I think I may have written what you've quoted. You probably already know, but you don't actually need a Core Image compatible card to use Tiger. As far as I'm aware, few applications currently make use of Core Image and fewer still actually require it (Apple's Aperture and Motion being possible exceptions).
As PB PM mentions, you have a x2 AGP slot and unfortunately there's little middle ground in terms of graphics cards available. The main options are the Radeon 9800 at one end (powerful but relatively expensive, power hungry, hot running and noisy) or perhaps the Radeon 9000 at the other. It's no longer available retail but they appear on eBay occasionally. It's an AGP card, was available in 64MB and 128MB versions and can support two monitors. One slight downside is that it has an ADC connector (alongside the VGA connector), which the Sawtooth logic board doesn't support, but I believe you can still connect an ADC to DVI adapter cable to connect a DVI monitor. It doesn't support Core Image either.

Is their a 3rd party card that will speed up rendering for FCP6?

Is their a 3rd party card that will speed up rendering of DV footage on the timeline & for conversions also for FCP6? I am thinking about buying an 8 core.
steve

8 gigs, one per processor.
But you're not going to achieve any appreciable decrease in rendering times.
It's a topic that we see around here about one a week so you can search for RENDERING TIME or similar topics and see lots of threads.
If you want faster rendering times, you have to use a proprietary, hardware-based codec. This is NOT a good idea unless you are prepared to abandon the hardware when the project wraps since it will certainly and quickly become obsolete or orphaned when the mfr goes out of business.
bogiesan

Can i hack gtx 560 ti speed up rendering in premiere pro using mercucy engine ??*

I'm going to buy this card soon, msi gtx 560 ti oc version, i wonder if i can "hack" it to use mercucy to speed up rendering and playback ??? please tell me ??

As Harm stated, yes, you can. However, there are currently two different MSI GTX 560 Ti OC cards on the market (the Twin Frozr II and the Twin Frozr III, the former being based on the regular 560 Ti with only 384 CUDA cores and 256-bit graphics memory bus, the latter with 448 CUDA cores and a 320-bit graphics memory bus). Between the two, go for the Twin Frozr III as the lesser Twin Frozr II (being based on the "regular" 560 Ti) can only achieve a score of 90 to 100 seconds (versus 60 to 70 seconds for the Twin Frozr III/GTX 560 Ti 448) in the MPEG-2 DVD portion of the PPBM5 benchmark even on a system with a heavily overclocked CPU. (This assumes that you're going to use the card in a system with an overclocked i7-2600K or higher CPU. If on the other hand you're going to use the new card in a system with only a limited-overclockable i5 CPU or an i7 CPU that's stuck at or near stock speed, then the regular Twin Frozr II would be sufficient as the Twin Frozr III's performance would not have been sufficiently faster in such a limited system to justify the higher price.)
Remember, performance is affected not only by the number of CUDA cores, but also by the memory throughput. The latter is the very reason why the GTX 550 Ti is slightly slower than the GTX 260 despite both GPUs having the exact same number of CUDA cores (192, in this case) because 192-bit DDR5 memory (as used on the GTX 550 Ti) has slightly less total memory throughput than the GTX 260's 448-bit DDR3 memory.

Those who can advise which processor speed and video card ...

Configuring MP...
Would appreciate any feedback on which processor speed... for photo editing apps., I keep open a few at a time, and some final cut express which I close any photo editing apps, and then of course in the b/g the mail, safari, etc.
Anyone can advise now if theirs is too much or not enough?
Also, will the 4870 make a big difference compared to the 120 stock card in my applications?
Thanks so much in advance....
Message was edited by: D3 Shooter

I received a 2.26 eight core MP Tuesday with 8GB RAM (upgrading to 16GB soon) ATI video card and dual Super Drives.
Photoshop CS3 and Lightroom 2.3 are the fastest I've ever seen run. I tested a photo with my 2.5 GHz G5 quad using a 12 MB RAW file and radial blur filter is PS. The G5 took 48 seconds, the new MP took 7.7 seconds. Radial blur in a processor intensive filter, so I thought it was a good comparison of processor speed. The sliders in LR are smooth with no hesitation.
I was told not to "waste money" on the upgraded video card but research in the Adobe forums suggest that PS CS5 will take advantage of the video cards power. I purchased it for the future upgrades. I also edit some video so the card will help with Final Cut Pro. I'm using dual 23" ACD monitors, I had to buy a DVI/mini display adapter for $30 for the second display.
Exporting is 2-3 times faster.
I ordered it with one 640GB HD. I addded three 1TB WD Caviar Black HDs before I even turned it on. The best price on the drive was Amazon.
I was using the G5 with 250GB and 500GB HDs and using Time Machine connected to a 1TB external G Drive. I connected the G Drive to the new MP before turning it on. The MP asked "Do you want to transfer using Time Machine, I clicked yes. It took about 40 minutes to transfer all of the programs, system settings, including the Wacom Tablet. I used my iPhone to sync adn it set up email, bookmarks, podcasts, etc.
So far I'm very happy with the computer.

Can I add a faster processor to my mac book pro early 2011

I am looking to either increase ram or better still if I can afford it, put in a faster processor, my laptop is quite slow....and with more than two programs open, it can sometimes grind to a halt....
thanks

Have a look at OWC and Crucial for your RAM and SSD upgrade if you wish.
Going through Apple for the RAM will cost you more than what OWC and Crucial are selling it for.
SSD is like a hard drive with no moving parts. ( basic explaination ) Performs faster than your average hard drive.
SSD can come in either internal or external (via enclosure), in your case however, it's best to get an internal one for you MB.

SPEED TEST: 10.0.2 faster than 10.0.3

After a couple of weeks battering my brain switching between two identical systems with one running 10.0.2 and the other 10.0.3, I decided to do a side-by-side comparion.
To my (not really) surprise, 10.0.2 was much FASTER and less beachballing than 10.0.3!
Both used the same general edits, filters, text. Both used the same 422 footage.
> rendering was way faster for the same thing on 10.0.2 - you name it, '02 rendered it faster.
> "thinking" beachball downtime was less frequent on 10.0.2 than '03.
> dropped frames and "sticking" on skimming was much less frequent or non-existent on '02 than on '03.
both systems the LATEST MBP with Thunderbolt drives: READ : EXACTLY THE SAME
When Apple writes that this update provides "performance and stability issues" and I finally put it to an A/B test after "feeling" that this was NOT the case all along, I have to scratch my head how/why this even got out the door.
The answer I believe is obvious and one priority only : to get the lack of "multi-cam" criticism put to bed and that's it.
Problem is, it was all at the expense of overall performance from the previous update. I would rather wait for multi-cam etc and have a speedy app with less errors than to have features that function in an environment worse than the previous one.

You've saved me a lot of potential aggravation. It may have already been mentioned, but from my perspective it looks like Apple released 10.0.3 at the end of January, because the promised multicam would be available by then. They may have pooled their resources to focus on some of the functional pro features rather than fixes. It could be that their QA group didn't even get their hands on this release to do sufficient regression and performance testing. I don't condone Apple's behavior in the least; I'm just speculating on the forces that may be in play from my decades of software development and QA. For developers under the gun of an impending deadline, their view of the universe shrinks and their goal is to make sure the new stuff works and passes functional unit tests... in a very narrow, development centric use case. If they have tunnel vision, for whatever reason, regression testing and performance testing across a wide variety of customer project and hardware scenarios is the last thing on a developers mind. A QA group usually needs to get their hands on a code-frozen version of the software early in advance to perform this level of testing.
I read that Apple's head of product integrity left for Google recently. What we're seeing with FCPX may have nothing to do with his exit, due to the breadth of his prior responsibilities.
I'm going to give Apple 6 more months to get their FCPX act together and tread carefully in the meantime with Time Machine backing up everything except for raw media and render files. My personal fallback is Sony Vegas, which seems to run just fine on my MBPS in either Bootcamp or in a VM.
Again thanks for the heads up.

Since updating to ios 4.3.4 songs and podcasts have speeded up. Music goes faster, people talk faster in podcasts.

Since updating to ios 4.3.4 songs and podcasts have speeded up. Music goes faster, people talk faster in podcasts.

In the podcast playing screen there is a box on the left just under the scrubber bar. It has a 1/2X. 1X or 2X. Those are the playback speeds. Tap on the box to cycle through and change the playback speed.

Which is better, faster processor or more ram?

Hello all!
I'm planning on upgrading from my 1.33Ghz g4 ibook with 512mb of ram to a new macbook, because Logic Express 7 and Final Cut Express 3.5 don't run very well on my current system. Because of money constraints, I'm limited in what features I can afford, so I'd like some advice from other mac users. In having to choose between getting an entry level macbook with 2gb of ram, or the mid-level macbook with only 1gb of ram, which would you think might handle these two applications best?

Hi skipgo,
welcome to macbook forum.
I would go with the faster processor, not only the processor is fixed and not upgradeable, you also got bigger hard drive and superdrive that will be crucial for backing up big files on dvd (4 gb) or dual layer dvd (8 gb) and or burn your project into dvd from your FCE using iDVD.
And memory is tend to go cheaper each day and relatively easy to upgrade it yourself compare to built to order 2 gb memory in entry model at apple store.
And remember that apple will not accept return on BTO model just in case you decided to return it within their 14 days grace period.
Good Luck.
ps: beat by Mike with the same advise.....

More Memory or faster processor?

Hi, Im interested in buying a Macbook soon and have a question. Which setup would give me better performance?
1)
2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2 GB Memory
2)
2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB Memory
Everything else is exactly the same. Thanks in advance

Hi jtp861,
I prefer faster processor over more ram, because the processor is fixed, while ram you can upgrade anytime.
Also with 2.16 model you also get dual layer dvd burner that will come handy if you need to back up your iTunes library and your other data.
And if you purchase 2.0 with 2 gb of ram directly from apple, it considered as built to order item, and apple will not accept return on BTO order.
Better upgrade memory yourself.
Good Luck.

How to speed up rendering/ transcoding in FCPX

It has just taken 8 (eight) hours to render then transcode two hours of video footage, before any editing.
I have two video clips from a Panasonic camera in .MTS form. (1920 x 1080)
To get them onto FCPX I used Handbrake to convert them to .mp4 files.
On FCPX import preferences, 4 items ticked, Copy file to event, Create opti media, Create proxy media, Analyze audio.
I also then clicked stabilization, on both clips.
Machine is a Mac Pro serial # YM******XYK with upgraded video card and 20g RAM (4x 4G +4x 1G)
Using OS 10.6.8
Using USB hard-drive to store original footage, but
onboard hard-drive for event and project
Activity monitor showed most of the time CPU's at 30% use 60% idle and RAM 7.7M used. 13M idle.
There was a short period when FCPX CPU at 750%, however RAM never went above 8M
I know best way to quicken render / transcode is buy a bigger computer,
However would like to know if I can get better % use out of CPU and RAM
It would appear that I did not need any more RAM above 8M, as machine appears not to use rest.
Also, I would like to know if I am bringing footage into FCPX, in the most efficient way.
PS, footage is of a hall presentation. Sound taken off camera mic and camera operator keeps moving / bumping camera. So need to analyze, then optimize both audio and video to make best of a bad shoot.
<Edited by Host>

A couple of points that may work.
Rendering -
     this is only used so you can see the finished 'look' while working on your project. If this is not important, turn rendering off in Preferences. This appears not to affect final output, but quickens work time.
Original files V's Proxy media.
     Working with Proxy media speeds work times and the computer processing. So use Proxy unless the original files needed.
To do this you need all projects in FCPX closed.
In preferences -
          Import, tick 'Create Proxy media'
          Playback, tick "Use Proxy media'
This was for version 10.0.3
Note if you change these preferences while you have an existing project, you can cause files to go offline.
Only a novice, so if someone who knows better, they can expound a better way to speed up the computer processing

I have a Mac with software version 10.5.8 My hardware overview: Model Name: iMac Model Identifier: iMac8,1 Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo Processor Speed: 2.8 GHz Number Of Processors: 1 Total Number Of. I is it poss to

I have a Mac with software version 10.5.8 My hardware overview: Model Name: iMac Model Identifier: iMac8,1 Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo Processor Speed: 2.8 GHz Number Of Processors: 1 Total Number Of. I is it poss to upgrade to Lion.

Yes. You need to purchase Mac OS X 10.6 on DVD first.
(62528)

Faster processor or bigger ram?

dear forum,
i asked basically the same question some days ago, but i didn't have a satisfying answer, so here i am again..
i wanna use LE on a MackBook. The question is, is it better to have a faster processor (2.0 instead 1.83) or a bigger ram (2 instead 1 Gb) ?
having both -unfortunately- is not an option, so i have to pick one.
what should i do?
thanx folks!

Hey Richard,
no one is going to shout you down mate!
But if someone will, give me a call (I'm a big fellow)! :o)
We all have diferent ideias and tastes, the good thing
is to respect the other forum mates and learn from everyone,
we may not agree always, but we're here to help each other!
I've made a similar option on my laptop 1.5 GHz over the 1.65
and more Ram, almost 2 years latter I don't regret my decision.
In my opinion (nook) if you can´t go any further the 1.83 is
a very good machine, and boy, with 2Mb of ram you'll have a ball!
Best regards,
Jorge

My home envirornment is an older Mini Mac running 10.5.8 with a PowerPC G4 processor ( I know, it's old). I also use an iPhone 3S, accessing my mac mail account. Do I have to upgrade my computer to a faster processor to use iCloud?

My home envirornment is an older Mini Mac running 10.5.8 with a PowerPC G4 processor ( I know, it's old). I also use an iPhone 3S, accessing my mac mail account. Do I have to upgrade my computer to a faster processor to use iCloud?

Hello,
You can't upgrade to any faster, & especially not to an Intel CPU needed to run Lion/10.7 for full iCloud usage.
You can have limited use of iCloud the way it is, you can view all of iCloud in a Browser, You can use Find my Phone I hear, & you can use IMAP Mail for syncing, but no other syncing.
iCloud Mail setup...
IMAP (Incoming Mail Server) information:
Server name: imap.mail.me.com
SSL Required: Yes
Port: 993
Username: [email protected] (use your @me.com address from your iCloud account)
Password: Your iCloud password
SMTP (outgoing mail server) information:
Server name: smtp.mail.me.com
SSL Required: Yes
Port: 587
SMTP Authentication Required: Yes
Username: [email protected] (use your @me.com address from your iCloud account)
Password: Your iCloud password

Why these features aren't avaiable on iphone?Internal radio,Bluetooth(work with any mobile),Memory slot,Better internal memory( 512 MB),Fast processor,21Mbps HSDPA,Big display(feel da real experience of IOS)Will the next iphone resolve these issues ?

Why these features aren't avaiable on iphone yet ?Internal radio, Bluetooth(work with any mobile), Memory slot, Better internal memory(>512 MB), Fast processor, 21Mbps HSDPA, Big display (feel the real experience of IOS) Will the next iphone resolve these issues ?

For the same reason my car hasn't got in-dash satnav, leather upholstery or a six litre engine. Because that's how the manufacturer chose to make it. If you are unhappy with the specs, don't buy one.
There is no information regarding any new iPhone.

Speeding up Rendering in LR3: Faster Processor or Better Video Card?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for