Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Quad Core 2.66 vs Dual Core 3.06


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 jonny shaw

jonny shaw

    Orca

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1315 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 21 August 2009 - 05:23 PM

I understand that a quad core chip has 4 cores which can be utilised and dual 2, however comparing a 3.06 dual core to a 2.66 quad... will there be a big difference? Does FCS use all 4 cores?

Cheers

Jon

www.ginclearfilm.com
www.facebook.com/ginclearfilm
GATES DEEP EPIC Based in Sydney


#2 TheRealDrew

TheRealDrew

    Humpback Whale

  • Moderator
  • 2855 posts

Posted 21 August 2009 - 05:37 PM

I understand that a quad core chip has 4 cores which can be utilised and dual 2, however comparing a 3.06 dual core to a 2.66 quad... will there be a big difference? Does FCS use all 4 cores?

Cheers

Jon



You are looking at a Quad Core vs 8 Core? (The new machines or looking at something else?)

Big one is setting up virtual clusters for Compressor, really helps having more cores cores. Final Cut has gotten better (being able to export a timeline and keep editing) while Snow Leopard will be coming down the pike and tap into more cores. In other words I would go for 8 cores over 4 cores (and also a good graphics card) before going for a Quad Core with a relatively small increase in processor speed....

Older tests between older Intels for chip differences Here

#3 jonny shaw

jonny shaw

    Orca

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1315 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 21 August 2009 - 05:46 PM

You are looking at a Quad Core vs 8 Core? (The new machines or looking at something else?)

Big one is setting up virtual clusters for Compressor, really helps having more cores cores. Final Cut has gotten better (being able to export a timeline and keep editing) while Snow Leopard will be coming down the pike and tap into more cores. In other words I would go for 8 cores over 4 cores (and also a good graphics card) before going for a Quad Core with a relatively small increase in processor speed....

Older tests between older Intels for chip differences Here


I actually was looking at a 2nd machine either being a mac pro tower or a high spec iMac, there is a pretty big price difference between then and wondered how much difference there will be performance wise. The iMac would be around $3500 AUD and the Mac Pro around $6500 AUD obviously the Mac Pro has the expandability and at that price there are a couple of 1Tb drives.

www.ginclearfilm.com
www.facebook.com/ginclearfilm
GATES DEEP EPIC Based in Sydney


#4 TheRealDrew

TheRealDrew

    Humpback Whale

  • Moderator
  • 2855 posts

Posted 21 August 2009 - 06:13 PM

I actually was looking at a 2nd machine either being a mac pro tower or a high spec iMac, there is a pretty big price difference between then and wondered how much difference there will be performance wise. The iMac would be around $3500 AUD and the Mac Pro around $6500 AUD obviously the Mac Pro has the expandability and at that price there are a couple of 1Tb drives.


My wife has an iMac. I really like using it, pretty powerful and good for many things. Can do editing on it. That being said the Mac Pro Quad is something I would take over an iMac due to expandability and the power. More RAM capacity that is easy to upgrade as needed, slots for expansion cards, four internal bays.

Some more older benchmarks Benchmarks

Also take a look how the machines compare here ther Tests - though the iMac is not there, the G5 from the first test is there so it gives you some sense.

It very well be that you do not need the horsepower, but for more streams, expansion and the rest, the Tower is really the way to go. Of course if you are not running many streams of video (though HD will become problematic at some point), do not mind waiting for things to get done (renders and the rest) the difference in price may not be worth it, but I doubt it. If you are doing video work either (a) very often and/or (b) on time deadlines, the tower will pay for itself pretty quickly.

#5 Steve Douglas

Steve Douglas

    Humpback Whale

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Diego
  • Interests:filming/editing/exotic travel. l write reviews of editing software, books, tutorials and Mac based NLE related products for the www.kenstone.net and www.lafcpug.org sites as well as articles for Asian Diver Magazine and wetpixel. I am one of the founding members of the San Diego UnderSea Film Festival

Posted 26 August 2009 - 09:36 AM

Jonny, Not sure if your computer is intel or not but Snow Leopard will not work on any non Intel Mac.
Steve

www.kenstone.net
www.lafcpug.org

Steve Douglas
steve-sharksdelight@cox.net

I have worked as an unpaid reviewer for the editing websites since 2002. Most all hardware and software is sent to me free of charge, however, in no way am I obligated to provide either positive or negative evaluations. Any suggestions I make regarding products are a result of my own, completely, personal opinions and experiences with said products.


#6 CompuDude

CompuDude

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 26 August 2009 - 10:36 AM

Once you get past two cores, increasing processors or cores has less and less effect on day-to-day operations of a machine, but for things like rendering video, using software that can issue enough parallel streams to keep the processors/cores humming, more cores will definitely get things finished faster.

#7 wagsy

wagsy

    Blue Whale

  • Senior Moderator
  • 3845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cairns, Queensland.
  • Interests:Sewing and Knitting......no diving of course :-)

Posted 26 August 2009 - 02:39 PM

My Quad will render out files faster than the Core2duo when using software that maxes out the CPU.
Amphibico Phenom & EVO PRO & Navigator 900
Share Your Underwater Videos www.hdvunderwater.com | www.flykam.com.au | www.reeftorainforest.com.au

#8 jonny shaw

jonny shaw

    Orca

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1315 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 26 August 2009 - 02:48 PM

Thanks for the input guys,
Steve, I only have intel based macs so Snow Leopard should be cool

I'm still on the fence actually.... as it's a second machine I can just leave it rendering and use my main one. I'm still not convinced that a Quad 2.66 will be much faster than a dual 3.06 though.

www.ginclearfilm.com
www.facebook.com/ginclearfilm
GATES DEEP EPIC Based in Sydney


#9 CompuDude

CompuDude

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 26 August 2009 - 03:45 PM

Thanks for the input guys,
Steve, I only have intel based macs so Snow Leopard should be cool

I'm still on the fence actually.... as it's a second machine I can just leave it rendering and use my main one. I'm still not convinced that a Quad 2.66 will be much faster than a dual 3.06 though.

It depends on the chip's efficiency (a 3.0ghz Pentium4 is not nearly as powerful/efficient as a 3.0ghz Core 2 Duo, so clearly clock speed is NOT the sole determiner of what a chip can do), and also important, what you're trying to do with the chip.

If you're rendering highly complex single frames (say, color correcting, time shifting and adding a rendered video effect like film grain to a short segment), there's a limit to how much the work can spread out among multiple processors. If you're feeding it lots and lots of video footage to render out, as one example, the ability to render more frames at once can be more important than the ability to render individual frames a little faster (not real-world performance numbers, this just illustrates the point):

If your quad core proc can crank out 4 frames at once, and each frame takes 2 seconds to render, total ETA for 8 frames = 4 seconds

If your dual core proc can only crank out 2 frames at once, but each frame only takes 1.5 seconds to render, total ETA for 8 frames = 6 seconds

At 24-60 frames per second of footage, that can add up to a big difference...

Edited by CompuDude, 26 August 2009 - 03:49 PM.


#10 wagsy

wagsy

    Blue Whale

  • Senior Moderator
  • 3845 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cairns, Queensland.
  • Interests:Sewing and Knitting......no diving of course :-)

Posted 26 August 2009 - 04:14 PM

Not sure if you can do it on a MAC but the other thing is you can over clock chips pretty easy.
I got my old 2.4 Quad running at 3.2 with no problems what so ever.
Set it back to standard speed a couple time but quickly put it back as you can pick the difference.
You can do things like rendering video clips, work in Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Flash, surfing, etc all at the same time.

I also can get many more video tracks playing back in realtime with the overclocked Quad compared to the 2.53 Core2Duo when editing.
Amphibico Phenom & EVO PRO & Navigator 900
Share Your Underwater Videos www.hdvunderwater.com | www.flykam.com.au | www.reeftorainforest.com.au

#11 Drew

Drew

    The Controller

  • Video Expert
  • 10638 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:GPS is not reliable in South East Asian seas

Posted 26 August 2009 - 07:25 PM

For compression, it's not about the speed or number of cores only but also about bus speed. That's why 4-6 cores are optimum for compressor because of the lag on the bus. Even when you can use all 8 cores, the speed gain isn't as much as from a quad from a dual core due to the bus lag.
Quad core is a minimum for video.
Some people have gone to upgrading their Macpros with faster Xeon chips (warranty is toast of course). ;)

Drew
Moderator
"Journalism is what someone else does not want printed, everything else is public relations."

"I was born not knowing, and have only had a little time to change that here and there.


#12 jonny shaw

jonny shaw

    Orca

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1315 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 26 August 2009 - 08:52 PM

Not sure if you can do it on a MAC but the other thing is you can over clock chips pretty easy.
I got my old 2.4 Quad running at 3.2 with no problems what so ever.


I've heard that.. how do you over clock on a PC... was that the mad contraption you posted a picture of a year or so back???

www.ginclearfilm.com
www.facebook.com/ginclearfilm
GATES DEEP EPIC Based in Sydney


#13 Drew

Drew

    The Controller

  • Video Expert
  • 10638 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:GPS is not reliable in South East Asian seas

Posted 27 August 2009 - 03:43 AM

Jonny
Overclocking is often thought of as a "cheap" way of getting more speed. However, if you seriously over clock a machine, you'll have to buy bigger heatsinks for CPU/GPU, stronger fans, better low latency/high speed RAM etc etc.
So you pay extra for the stuff necessary to get more juice, deal with more noise, probably shorter component life to be a geek teenage kid who plays 3D video games? Or a 40 yr old kid like Wags ;)
And then you have to deal with Windoze.
Of course you can build a hackintosh, but it's not a plug n play install nor very updateable in software terms. And I own a Psystar :D
I must say I appreciate the Psystar. I can upgrade the processor when it finally feels sluggish as a server.
I have to admit I'm very tempted now seeing how Apple took away the Express Card slot on the MBP 15".

Drew
Moderator
"Journalism is what someone else does not want printed, everything else is public relations."

"I was born not knowing, and have only had a little time to change that here and there.


#14 Steve Douglas

Steve Douglas

    Humpback Whale

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Diego
  • Interests:filming/editing/exotic travel. l write reviews of editing software, books, tutorials and Mac based NLE related products for the www.kenstone.net and www.lafcpug.org sites as well as articles for Asian Diver Magazine and wetpixel. I am one of the founding members of the San Diego UnderSea Film Festival

Posted 29 August 2009 - 02:40 PM

It's not about which Macs (as long as they dual core), it's about the apps needing to be rewritten to run 64 bit. The app has to be written to take advantage of 64 bit, which Final Cut Studio 2 is not written to do, and neither is the new Studio. f your mac is:
'intel Core Duo' it's 32 bit
if its an 'intel Core 2 Duo' it's 64 bit capable
I'm not a programmer but- my understanding is that to take advantage of multi processors the app's need to be written for 64 bit or multithreaded enabled (to be honest those two things could be the same thing- as i say I'm not a programmer)
'Grand central dispatch' an SL technology apparently helps non 64-bit multithreaded written applications take some advantage of SL 64 bit architecture
As far as I know compressor is the only application in FCS3 that comes close to being 64-bit/multithreaded.

Taken from computerworld.com:

64-bit and 32-bit side by side
One of the biggest accomplishments of Snow Leopard is that 64-bit and 32-bit applications can run side by side with no disruption to or input from the user. Launch a 32-bit app and it works; launch a 64-bit app next to it and it works. Users don't need to be concerned with whether an application is 32-bit or 64-bit -- they'll just notice that 64-bit apps run faster and may be a little bit more stable.

Note that not all Intel-based Macs (which are the only Macs capable of running Snow Leopard) are 64-bit machines. The first Intel Macs, released in early to mid-2006, were built around Intel's 32-bit Core Duo and Core Solo processors rather than the 64-bit Core 2 Duo and Xeon processors. While only a handful of models (the first Intel iMacs, MacBook Pros, MacBooks and Mac minis) contain the 32-bit processors, it meant that Snow Leopard and the apps that run on it had to be designed to run in either 32-bit or 64-bit operation.

Apple has done this in its own applications and other system components, and the developer tools it provides for Snow Leopard make it easy for third-party developers to create products that can run on either 64-bit or 32-bit Macs. If a user's Mac is a 32-bit machine, it will simply run Snow Leopard and all applications in 32-bit mode.

It's also worth noting that Snow Leopard's predecessor, Leopard, was capable of running 64-bit applications when it shipped two years ago. However, at that time, many of the core applications of Mac OS X weren't written to take advantage of 64-bit operation, and neither were most third-party apps.

Today we're at a midway point between 32-bit and 64-bit computing. What Apple has done in Snow Leopard is to ensure that almost any part of the operating system can run in either 32-bit or 64-bit operation -- and that by default, the vast majority of components run in 64-bit mode.
Steve

www.kenstone.net
www.lafcpug.org

Steve Douglas
steve-sharksdelight@cox.net

I have worked as an unpaid reviewer for the editing websites since 2002. Most all hardware and software is sent to me free of charge, however, in no way am I obligated to provide either positive or negative evaluations. Any suggestions I make regarding products are a result of my own, completely, personal opinions and experiences with said products.


#15 jonny shaw

jonny shaw

    Orca

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1315 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 29 August 2009 - 04:32 PM

So to summarize only compressor will be the program that I would notice a big difference on?
Or is that over simplification?

Jon

Edited by jonny shaw, 29 August 2009 - 07:07 PM.

www.ginclearfilm.com
www.facebook.com/ginclearfilm
GATES DEEP EPIC Based in Sydney


#16 Steve Douglas

Steve Douglas

    Humpback Whale

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Diego
  • Interests:filming/editing/exotic travel. l write reviews of editing software, books, tutorials and Mac based NLE related products for the www.kenstone.net and www.lafcpug.org sites as well as articles for Asian Diver Magazine and wetpixel. I am one of the founding members of the San Diego UnderSea Film Festival

Posted 30 August 2009 - 09:07 AM

You hit the nail on the head. FCP is simply not written as a 64 bit program. Not sure if Adobe AE is or not but my guess is no as its code is ancient. I love AE but it is just too damn slow.
Steve

www.kenstone.net
www.lafcpug.org

Steve Douglas
steve-sharksdelight@cox.net

I have worked as an unpaid reviewer for the editing websites since 2002. Most all hardware and software is sent to me free of charge, however, in no way am I obligated to provide either positive or negative evaluations. Any suggestions I make regarding products are a result of my own, completely, personal opinions and experiences with said products.


#17 jonny shaw

jonny shaw

    Orca

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1315 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 30 August 2009 - 02:26 PM

You hit the nail on the head. FCP is simply not written as a 64 bit program. Not sure if Adobe AE is or not but my guess is no as its code is ancient. I love AE but it is just too damn slow.
Steve


That's ridiculous.. I wonder why they didn't write FCS3 as a 64 bit program. Surely most editors use Mac Pro's. When FCP renders though does it use compressor for the render hence 64 bit or is it done internally at 32bit?

www.ginclearfilm.com
www.facebook.com/ginclearfilm
GATES DEEP EPIC Based in Sydney


#18 TheRealDrew

TheRealDrew

    Humpback Whale

  • Moderator
  • 2855 posts

Posted 30 August 2009 - 02:56 PM

So to summarize only compressor will be the program that I would notice a big difference on?
Or is that over simplification?
.....
That's ridiculous.. I wonder why they didn't write FCS3 as a 64 bit program. Surely most editors use Mac Pro's. When FCP renders though does it use compressor for the render hence 64 bit or is it done internally at 32bit?


Not sure (I do not think Compressor is 64 bit) but it is not only 64 Bit vs 32 Bit, but also the cores (subject to bottlenecks as Drew mentioned). For instance on Final Cut 6 when exporting a timeline it does not use all the cores to full capacity - on my Octo they get up to about 400% or so at times, while setting up virtual clusters for Compressor allows more of the Cores to being used to full capacity (right now I have a 6 core Cluster set up and each get 95%+). I will often have Compressor running things while I work in Lightroom/Aperture or many other things, including editing. Final Cut 7 also allows exporting and continuing to work at the same time, though I have not put that through many paces yet. (Still working with the new Studio solely on one of my test laptops before putting it on my main machine, do not want to change horses mid-streeam and right now in a middle of many streams ;) )

There has been alot of speculation why the new items were not yet 64 Bit like here

http://createdigital...nal-cut-studio/

#19 Steve Douglas

Steve Douglas

    Humpback Whale

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Diego
  • Interests:filming/editing/exotic travel. l write reviews of editing software, books, tutorials and Mac based NLE related products for the www.kenstone.net and www.lafcpug.org sites as well as articles for Asian Diver Magazine and wetpixel. I am one of the founding members of the San Diego UnderSea Film Festival

Posted 31 August 2009 - 11:07 AM

I have to agree. IMHO FCP 7 should really be FC 6.5 Guess they just want my money for the now new certification exam.
Steve

www.kenstone.net
www.lafcpug.org

Steve Douglas
steve-sharksdelight@cox.net

I have worked as an unpaid reviewer for the editing websites since 2002. Most all hardware and software is sent to me free of charge, however, in no way am I obligated to provide either positive or negative evaluations. Any suggestions I make regarding products are a result of my own, completely, personal opinions and experiences with said products.