I tried a Mac for video editing...

[Toque]

We are kinda floating away from key here, we need dave to give us a update on how his system worked out?

Talking about tha heading "Re: I tried a Mac for video editing... ", which I didnt read tha first posts in tha thread yet, but I am gathering tha Mac didnt fair well for some reason, althou at least now there close to fair playing field CPU wise.. I used to laugh when people would tell me there mac did photoshop faster then a P3 1GHZ system, I would would say well maybe u just like tha interface, would it still be faster then a dual P3 1GHZ system, of course they allways thought so.. Needless to say it didnt even come close to a single P3 1GHZ system, back then they were powered by PowerPC cpus and just didnt have tha snuff..

[firewalker]

I believe he is waiting for the CPU.

Alexander.

[Toque]

I believe he is waiting for the CPU.

Alexander.

Oh, thought his local store would of had stock on this one, pretty common CPU these days..

[M. András]

on the i7 familiy intel did a great job on their memory controller be it dual or triple channel, both over 20gb/s even on my laptop which have a first gen i7 cpu in it, on the new amd cpu-s fx 8xxx series you can get around 16gb/s read and around 12gb/s write with a little tweaking copy is 18gb/s, when you incrase the fsb or cpu speed it can get up to 18gb read/write but thats the limit of the chip with a serious overclock best stats i could find, the geil modules i have 4x8gb 1866mhz reaches 22gb/s read 20gb/s write on an intel i7 2600 cpu, i get 15gb/s read and 11-12gb/s write on my fx8350,

Are u saying your laptop has more memory bandwith then my i7-920 triple channel as well? If so what model laptop and i7 chip? Or u talking memory read speeds instead of write, my i7-3770k came up as 27809 read speed.. None tha less these i7 cpu are nice, this memory controller tech all started with tha Athlon64, next to tha i7 cpu and of course back when things moved slower, tha Athlon64 would of been tha cpu I used tha longest, it was a great cpu for its time..

its an intel ibex peak-m hm55 chipset+i7 740qm cpu+8gigs of 1333mhz hynix rams, but its fulctuates between 15gb/s and 20 depending on the state of the os and the overall temp of the laptop, best what i measured when it was new the above stated numbers

[Toque]

on the i7 familiy intel did a great job on their memory controller be it dual or triple channel, both over 20gb/s even on my laptop which have a first gen i7 cpu in it, on the new amd cpu-s fx 8xxx series you can get around 16gb/s read and around 12gb/s write with a little tweaking copy is 18gb/s, when you incrase the fsb or cpu speed it can get up to 18gb read/write but thats the limit of the chip with a serious overclock best stats i could find, the geil modules i have 4x8gb 1866mhz reaches 22gb/s read 20gb/s write on an intel i7 2600 cpu, i get 15gb/s read and 11-12gb/s write on my fx8350,

Are u saying your laptop has more memory bandwith then my i7-920 triple channel as well? If so what model laptop and i7 chip? Or u talking memory read speeds instead of write, my i7-3770k came up as 27809 read speed.. None tha less these i7 cpu are nice, this memory controller tech all started with tha Athlon64, next to tha i7 cpu and of course back when things moved slower, tha Athlon64 would of been tha cpu I used tha longest, it was a great cpu for its time..

its an intel ibex peak-m hm55 chipset+i7 740qm cpu+8gigs of 1333mhz hynix rams, but its fulctuates between 15gb/s and 20 depending on the state of the os and the overall temp of the laptop, best what i measured when it was new the above stated numbers

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html
So, Number 74 on tha list hey, thats not too bad for a laptop..
My Desktop, 3770k overclocked, comes in at 2.5 on that list, I guess around a 3930k not overclocked for multithread, I get Cinebench R11.5 64Bit of 9.33.. My laptop is a acer I got for cheap, I come in at 224 on that list, I dont use it much, so I havent bothered to upgrade it, prefer tha desktop..

A dual Intel Xeon E5-2680 overclocked would sure be a nice system, quite a few bucks thou

Intel Xeon E5-2620 Sandy Bridge-EP 2.0GHz (2.5GHz Turbo Boost) 15MB L3 Cache LGA 2011 95W Six-Core Server Processor BX80621E52620
Wonder how high one could overclock this bad boy, there only around $400 a cpu.. I will have to look into it to see if its worth it, its only a 15mb cache instead of tha 20mb, those start around $1200.00..
Well quick search revealed what I thought, just a bclk overlcock only, not much..

[EEVblog]

Oh, thought his local store would of had stock on this one, pretty common CPU these days..

Yes, I thought it would be their most popular CPU. Was surprised they didn't have it. Everything else they had in-stock at one of their stores, even the case which isn't listed on their website.
Still waiting, won't be in until at least tomorrow at best.

[Monkeh]

Oh, and I just read your post above, u don't wanta do software raid, tha ICH inside Z77 is very very powerfull for a chipset, u can do RAID 0,1 or 10 just fine, but not RAID5.. I am running RAID0, 2x Plex M5P256 as my boot volume on Z77 ICH, and getting 1100 MB/s.. Also running some old 4x 500G WD hardrives in RAID10 as my Scratch volume, don't have to worry about losing any fresh downloads etc , think im getting around 125 MB/s average on that volume, didn't bother to test it..

Spoiler: You're using software RAID.

[Toque]

Oh, thought his local store would of had stock on this one, pretty common CPU these days..

Yes, I thought it would be their most popular CPU. Was surprised they didn't have it. Everything else they had in-stock at one of their stores, even the case which isn't listed on their website.
Still waiting, won't be in until at least tomorrow at best.

Dave, Im starting to think for tha tasks your doing, u should of blessed yourself with a 3960x overlcocked, knock another 5 or 10 min of processing a video, after all a few rigol scopes, some of which are pretty pricey Why save tha money

[Toque]

Oh, and I just read your post above, u don't wanta do software raid, tha ICH inside Z77 is very very powerfull for a chipset, u can do RAID 0,1 or 10 just fine, but not RAID5.. I am running RAID0, 2x Plex M5P256 as my boot volume on Z77 ICH, and getting 1100 MB/s.. Also running some old 4x 500G WD hardrives in RAID10 as my Scratch volume, don't have to worry about losing any fresh downloads etc , think im getting around 125 MB/s average on that volume, didn't bother to test it..

Spoiler: You're using software RAID.

Not really, it uses host cpu cycles yes, but its assisted, and there is no software layer u need to apply, u can boot to dos and access tha volume (of course given that its a acceptable dos filesystem and size, number of drives wont mater).. Software raid is one thing, Host based/assisted or sometimes called fakeraid is another, and a full hardware raid another.. I used to have a scsi card, a jazz drive (tha removable hd platters, which was scsi interface), and a 8x scsi cdrom burner.. THAT was a full HARDWARE solution, I could reboot tha machine (as long as I didnt do a full bus reset on tha motherboard, via tha reset switch), and my burning to tha cd, or copying files from tha cd to tha jazz drive would finish well I was playing games in dos

[alm]

Within Windows (or whatever other OS you run), a mass storage driver is responsible for RAID operation. This is your software layer. The BIOS also implements the RAID driver, allowing the boot loader and dump OSes like DOS to access the RAID array.

[Toque]

Within Windows (or whatever other OS you run), a mass storage driver is responsible for RAID operation. This is your software layer. The BIOS also implements the RAID driver, allowing the boot loader and dump OSes like DOS to access the RAID array.

Just because u install a driver, doesnt make it software raid, take a highpoint 2320 for example, that is host based, but all raid5 parity cal are assisted by chips on tha raid card.. How else would that card write up to 300MB/s to a RAID5 using 5% of your cpu here and there?

Software raid would be when u take JBOD drives, and use windows and your cpu to control/access/calculate tha RAID.. Host based is a different idea..

[Monkeh]

So, you want to explain why the device acts like a perfectly ordinary AHCI controller with discrete drives?

[Toque]

So, you want to explain why the device acts like a perfectly ordinary AHCI controller with discrete drives?

Because its host based, same with some printers, there host based and without a 64 bit driver avl, u cant print to them period in a 64bit os (I suppose u could vitual machine 32bit to use tha host based driver)..

[Monkeh]

So, you want to explain why the device acts like a perfectly ordinary AHCI controller with discrete drives?

Because its host based, same with some printers, there host based and without a 64 bit driver avl, u cant print to them period in a 64bit os (I suppose u could vitual machine 32bit to use tha host based driver)..

.. So, you want to explain how it's 'assisted' when it's just an AHCI device?

[Toque]

So, you want to explain why the device acts like a perfectly ordinary AHCI controller with discrete drives?

Because its host based, same with some printers, there host based and without a 64 bit driver avl, u cant print to them period in a 64bit os (I suppose u could vitual machine 32bit to use tha host based driver)..

.. So, you want to explain how it's 'assisted' when it's just an AHCI device?

I could google things for you, but I will let you figure it out.. More or less once youve made some RAID5 volumes, between software raid, host based, and full hardware, u would see tha differences, ive done this myself plenty of times.. And for sake of discussion on this, even a full hardware raid card requires a driver to use it in tha system

[Monkeh]

So, you want to explain why the device acts like a perfectly ordinary AHCI controller with discrete drives?

Because its host based, same with some printers, there host based and without a 64 bit driver avl, u cant print to them period in a 64bit os (I suppose u could vitual machine 32bit to use tha host based driver)..

.. So, you want to explain how it's 'assisted' when it's just an AHCI device?

I could google things for you, but I will let you figure it out.. More or less once youve made some RAID5 volumes, between software raid, host based, and full hardware, u would see tha differences, ive done this myself plenty of times..

How about you provide some evidence to back your claims?

Code would be really nice.

[Toque]

So, you want to explain why the device acts like a perfectly ordinary AHCI controller with discrete drives?

Because its host based, same with some printers, there host based and without a 64 bit driver avl, u cant print to them period in a 64bit os (I suppose u could vitual machine 32bit to use tha host based driver)..

.. So, you want to explain how it's 'assisted' when it's just an AHCI device?

I could google things for you, but I will let you figure it out.. More or less once youve made some RAID5 volumes, between software raid, host based, and full hardware, u would see tha differences, ive done this myself plenty of times..

How about you provide some evidence to back your claims?

Code would be really nice.

Maybe later, if im wrong, then im wrong, however I must have some idea on how it works, as ive done it.. U could allways explain were im wrong, and why it works how it does according to tha correct information u find..
 

[Monkeh]

Maybe later, if im wrong, then im wrong, however I must have some idea on how it works, as ive done it..

I use 'Matrix RAID', too. And if there were any serious, useful hardware offloading done.. Intel would probably document it. But they don't.

It's just software RAID. The firmware only handles stupid things like bootloaders and DOS. Once Windows boots, the driver figures out the array from the headers on the drives and assembles it like any other software RAID solution.

[Toque]

Maybe later, if im wrong, then im wrong, however I must have some idea on how it works, as ive done it..

I use 'Matrix RAID', too. And if there were any serious, useful hardware offloading done.. Intel would probably document it. But they don't.

It's just software RAID. The firmware only handles stupid things like bootloaders and DOS. Once Windows boots, the driver figures out the array from the headers on the drives and assembles it like any other software RAID solution.

Okay, if thats tha case, and there is 0% assist, its still a layer applied at tha hardware level regardless which is kinda nice and tight, u dont have to worry about software getting messed and losing or having problems with your raid etc, and heck, u can take a drive set from ICH5 and plug it into ICH8 and they work, kinda nice..

[Monkeh]

Okay, if thats tha case, and there is 0% assist, its still a layer applied at tha hardware level regardless which is kinda nice and tight, u dont have to worry about software getting messed and losing or having problems with your raid etc, and heck, u can take a drive set from ICH5 and plug it into ICH8 and they work, kinda nice..

Actually, the firmware has been known to go nuts and delete arrays for no reason. My OS doesn't do that. It will also pretend the array is unsupportable if you upgrade the firmware, even though it's perfectly functional. Still works once in the OS, though, funny that.

I can take any array from a Matrix RAID setup and plug it into.. ANY controller and access the array. Probably not from Windows, though.

[Toque]

Okay, if thats tha case, and there is 0% assist, its still a layer applied at tha hardware level regardless which is kinda nice and tight, u dont have to worry about software getting messed and losing or having problems with your raid etc, and heck, u can take a drive set from ICH5 and plug it into ICH8 and they work, kinda nice..

Actually, the firmware has been known to go nuts and delete arrays for no reason. My OS doesn't do that. It will also pretend the array is unsupportable if you upgrade the firmware, even though it's perfectly functional. Still works once in the OS, though, funny that.

I can take any array from a Matrix RAID setup and plug it into.. ANY controller and access the array. Probably not from Windows, though.

Well, ya, i remmber some troubles, were tha firmware version had a bug, and update a patch bug out, ya u will get undesired results.. U are saying ANY controller, ive never tried that, so I can take my Intel RAID0, and move it to a SIL3132 card in another machine? Somehow I am not gathering that should work, esp with matrix volumes and such other controllers would be confused..

[Monkeh]

Well, ya, i remmber some troubles, were tha firmware version had a bug, and update a patch bug out, ya u will get undesired results.. U are saying ANY controller, ive never tried that, so I can take my Intel RAID0, and move it to a SIL3132 card in another machine?

Sure, but it probably won't work in Windows.

[Toque]

Well, ya, i remmber some troubles, were tha firmware version had a bug, and update a patch bug out, ya u will get undesired results.. U are saying ANY controller, ive never tried that, so I can take my Intel RAID0, and move it to a SIL3132 card in another machine?

Sure, but it probably won't work in Windows.

I havent researched it, but just kinda had tha idea in my mind that there is no header/etc standard for raid volumes, and each type of controller would have there own marks as such..

[Monkeh]

Well, ya, i remmber some troubles, were tha firmware version had a bug, and update a patch bug out, ya u will get undesired results.. U are saying ANY controller, ive never tried that, so I can take my Intel RAID0, and move it to a SIL3132 card in another machine?

Sure, but it probably won't work in Windows.

I havent researched it, but just kinda had tha idea in my mind that there is no header/etc standard for raid volumes, and each type of controller would have there own marks as such..

Nothing to do with the controller: It's software RAID. If you run an OS which doesn't require a vendor supplied driver (ie. NOT WINDOWS) which supports the array, you can access it just fine with it plugged into any old controller. Intel use a standard, well supported header, so with a Linux or BSD system, at the very least (Can't speak for others) you can access an Intel Matrix RAID array from any controller. I'm pretty much certain it won't work from Windows, because the Intel driver will only install and run when you have a supported chipset.

There's also DDF, but I don't know who (if anyone) actually uses it.

[Toque]

Well, ya, i remmber some troubles, were tha firmware version had a bug, and update a patch bug out, ya u will get undesired results.. U are saying ANY controller, ive never tried that, so I can take my Intel RAID0, and move it to a SIL3132 card in another machine?

Sure, but it probably won't work in Windows.

I havent researched it, but just kinda had tha idea in my mind that there is no header/etc standard for raid volumes, and each type of controller would have there own marks as such..

Nothing to do with the controller: It's software RAID. If you run an OS which doesn't require a vendor supplied driver (ie. NOT WINDOWS) which supports the array, you can access it just fine with it plugged into any old controller. Intel use a standard, well supported header, so with a Linux or BSD system, at the very least (Can't speak for others) you can access an Intel Matrix RAID array from any controller. I'm pretty much certain it won't work from Windows, because the Intel driver will only install and run when you have a supported chipset.

There's also DDF, but I don't know who (if anyone) actually uses it.

Okay, I will have to try it sometime.. However with a quick search I am seeing host based and software RAID grouped into tha same cat, but to me its something different, as a card thats not a full hardware solution can still really do alot of tha work, were as a pure based software solution your left with a taxed cpu depending on tha complex of tha RAID volumes involved, and RAID5 isnt any walk in tha park, but yet a card like tha Highpoint 2320 can handle that one task of parity just fine..

For example, a RAID5 volume on Intel ICH will get ya oh somewhere in tha neighborhood of 20-30MB/s writes on ICH7 or greater, maybe 5-10MB/s writes on SIL3132 or something, but up to 300 MB/s write on Highpoint 2320.. There is a difference, yet tha Highpoint 2320 is host based, and doesnt do anything with tha raid set until tha driver is loaded And its not a bus/bandwith problem, as I can get 1100 MB/s on a RAID0 volume on ICH7
Sorry, I guess I mean ICH10R or something, so many versions of tha same idea, is it ICH10R in Z77 chipset