New AMD Ryzen Threadripper Editing Machine

[thm_w]

Considering it's been ages since Apple has updated the Mac Pro, it isn't really a recommended option for professionals. Many pros have abandoned Apple the past years, as its obvious Apple is shifting ever more towards the consumer and away from professional use. The 5K iMac you mention is basically a regular mainstream i7 system with a good screen. That's actually nice, but nothing really pro oriented. The thermal side of things is obviously not optimally suited for calculation intensive workloads. That honestly makes your push for open-mindedness, or "you should do exactly as I say" as some would call it, a bit puzzling. Are there any tangible benefits other than just "it's better" and "act like a pro" that give you reason to push the matter so relentlessly?

Just drop $6,300 AUD and all your problems will be solved 
https://www.apple.com/ca/shop/buy-mac/imac-pro

Is this the CPU, it doesn't quite match Apples specs (3.2GHz 8-core Intel Xeon W processor, Turbo Boost up to 4.2GHz): https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+Gold+6134+%40+3.20GHz&id=3008
Threadripper 1950X is still significantly faster: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+Threadripper+1950X&id=3058

[dryjoints]

Considering it's been ages since Apple has updated the Mac Pro, it isn't really a recommended option for professionals. Many pros have abandoned Apple the past years, as its obvious Apple is shifting ever more towards the consumer and away from professional use. The 5K iMac you mention is basically a regular mainstream i7 system with a good screen. That's actually nice, but nothing really pro oriented. The thermal side of things is obviously not optimally suited for calculation intensive workloads. That honestly makes your push for open-mindedness, or "you should do exactly as I say" as some would call it, a bit puzzling. Are there any tangible benefits other than just "it's better" and "act like a pro" that give you reason to push the matter so relentlessly?

Just drop $6,300 AUD and all your problems will be solved 
https://www.apple.com/ca/shop/buy-mac/imac-pro

Is this the CPU, it doesn't quite match Apples specs (3.2GHz 8-core Intel Xeon W processor, Turbo Boost up to 4.2GHz): https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+Gold+6134+%40+3.20GHz&id=3008
Threadripper 1950X is still significantly faster: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+Threadripper+1950X&id=3058

It's the fuel you put in the engine, not just the engine.

[EEVblog]

Dave, if you'd diverted all the energy which you've put into this thread, into buying a VERY POWERFUL iMac (Apple have a returns policy - no quibble), sitting down and TRYING the fully working trial version of Final Cut Pro X, you'd be making FAR more headway than here, where you're just demonstrating what an utterly pedantic perfectionist luddite you seem to be. All this waffle time could be spent TRYING to be open minded - I don't think you want anyone's "help", you just want to keep chasing your tail and then wondering why things don't work out.

You've had your say, now go away and don't post in this thread again.

[Someone]

Considering it's been ages since Apple has updated the Mac Pro, it isn't really a recommended option for professionals. Many pros have abandoned Apple the past years, as its obvious Apple is shifting ever more towards the consumer and away from professional use. The 5K iMac you mention is basically a regular mainstream i7 system with a good screen. That's actually nice, but nothing really pro oriented. The thermal side of things is obviously not optimally suited for calculation intensive workloads. That honestly makes your push for open-mindedness, or "you should do exactly as I say" as some would call it, a bit puzzling. Are there any tangible benefits other than just "it's better" and "act like a pro" that give you reason to push the matter so relentlessly?

Just drop $6,300 AUD and all your problems will be solved 
https://www.apple.com/ca/shop/buy-mac/imac-pro

Is this the CPU, it doesn't quite match Apples specs (3.2GHz 8-core Intel Xeon W processor, Turbo Boost up to 4.2GHz): https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+Gold+6134+%40+3.20GHz&id=3008
Threadripper 1950X is still significantly faster: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+Threadripper+1950X&id=3058

Thats only the base 8 core processor configuration for the iMac pro, it has options for larger chips up to 18 cores which will have more compute performance than the top end Threadripper:
https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks
But they cost more and have less memory bandwidth which might impact some workloads. Also Apple only offering an all in one platform for the pro market is controversial as many people are still preferring their own choice of monitors so its a very divisive design from the start.

But having a known configuration is worth a lot when you want reliability/dependability which has been the theme of this thread and the previous one, just as Apple offer a limited range of configurations which allows comprehensive testing and qualification of compatibility the major PC vendors do the same with their qualified workstation lines Dell Precision, HP Z, and some smaller specialty assemblers who provide ongoing support:
http://www.pugetsystems.com
http://www.boxx.com
They'll deliver a system already tested and tuned for your particular application and then support it, when time is money it can be worth spending the extra upfront on a system.

[wraper]

Thats only the base 8 core processor configuration for the iMac pro, it has options for larger chips up to 18 cores which will have more compute performance than the top end Threadripper:
https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks
But they cost more and have less memory bandwidth which might impact some workloads. Also Apple only offering an all in one platform for the pro market is controversial as many people are still preferring their own choice of monitors so its a very divisive design from the start.

18 core Xeon in apple has only 2.3 GHz base frequency, no it does not beat threadripper. And did you check those benchmark results before posting that link? 
BTW https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=136526&curpostid=136666

[dryjoints]

Apple are releasing a MODULAR Mac pro, later this year, which was announced in 2017 as an ongoing project. Some of us are knee-deep in Apple news and immersed in listening to 3-4hr Apple-centric podcasts, WEEKLY, hosted by Leo Laporte, Alex Lyndsay (Alex did sfx for Star Wars, works on EXTREMELY high end editing and capture solutions) - if you want someone who ACTUALLY, SERIOUSLY knows the inside out and upside down, back and front of film and media production, you could do worse than asking him or watching their podcasts:

https://twit.tv/people/alex-lindsay

[Electro Detective]

How many multiple beach balls do these multicore Intel powered Xeonified Macs give you all at once, when attempting to render files?

18...  or 36 ?   

 

[Someone]

Thats only the base 8 core processor configuration for the iMac pro, it has options for larger chips up to 18 cores which will have more compute performance than the top end Threadripper:
https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks
But they cost more and have less memory bandwidth which might impact some workloads. Also Apple only offering an all in one platform for the pro market is controversial as many people are still preferring their own choice of monitors so its a very divisive design from the start.

18 core Xeon in apple has only 2.3 GHz base frequency, no it does not beat threadripper. And did you check those benchmark results before posting that link? 
BTW https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=136526&curpostid=136666

Base frequency is a largely symbolic number like TDP, many processors will run on "boost" 24/7 without throttling back to the base frequency. And I certainly did read the link posed it conspicuously doesnt include any data from the 2190/2195 yet on multicore compute the W-2150B comes out right around the same as the 1950X:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+W-2150B+%40+3.00GHz&id=3162
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD
If you look at the i9 equivalents there is a clear lead from Intel at the top end:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-7980XE-vs-AMD-Ryzen-TR-1950X/m352013vs3932
But it comes back to specific workloads and value for money where its anyones game depending on what metrics you pick:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/11891/best-cpus-for-workstations-2017
Distributed rendering on many nodes has been more cost effective for a long time, trying to build peak performance in a single machine is chasing diminishing returns and a poor investment for many tasks.

[borjam]

Considering it's been ages since Apple has updated the Mac Pro, it isn't really a recommended option for professionals. Many pros have abandoned Apple the past years, as its obvious Apple is shifting ever more towards the consumer and away from professional use. The 5K iMac you mention is basically a regular mainstream i7 system with a good screen. That's actually nice, but nothing really pro oriented. The thermal side of things is obviously not optimally suited for calculation intensive workloads. That honestly makes your push for open-mindedness, or "you should do exactly as I say" as some would call it, a bit puzzling. Are there any tangible benefits other than just "it's better" and "act like a pro" that give you reason to push the matter so relentlessly?

I own a 2010 Mac Pro (6 cores at 3.33 GHz) with an AMD 7950 graphics card and its performance is awesome. I haven't tried editing 4K video, but for 1080p it's fantastic even with color corrections, etc.  The Apple advantage in this case is, for example, largely seamless OpenCL (unlike Windows, where there seems to be a lot of trial and error to get a GPU to really work for anything but games). As for professional usage, Final Cut usage has been growing as far as I know.

Regarding the Mac Pro updates, the cylinder Mac Pro didn't have a too dramatic advantage in CPU performance, but that's just because CPU performance is hitting a ceiling lately. Its main advantage is less power consumption.

Dave, if you are curious let me download a file from somewhere and I can try encoding it with Compressor (Apple's transcoder) and Handbrake and get back to you with the results (time spent, etc).

I don't have Vegas or Premiere however, so I can't import a project.

[EEVblog]

Dave, if you are curious let me download a file from somewhere and I can try encoding it with Compressor (Apple's transcoder) and Handbrake and get back to you with the results (time spent, etc).

Thanks but I have no interest at all in switching to Mac.

[Mr. Scram]

Thats only the base 8 core processor configuration for the iMac pro, it has options for larger chips up to 18 cores which will have more compute performance than the top end Threadripper:
https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks
But they cost more and have less memory bandwidth which might impact some workloads. Also Apple only offering an all in one platform for the pro market is controversial as many people are still preferring their own choice of monitors so its a very divisive design from the start.

But having a known configuration is worth a lot when you want reliability/dependability which has been the theme of this thread and the previous one, just as Apple offer a limited range of configurations which allows comprehensive testing and qualification of compatibility the major PC vendors do the same with their qualified workstation lines Dell Precision, HP Z, and some smaller specialty assemblers who provide ongoing support:
http://www.pugetsystems.com
http://www.boxx.com
They'll deliver a system already tested and tuned for your particular application and then support it, when time is money it can be worth spending the extra upfront on a system.

You're exactly right. When you're talking about that kind of money, you get into proper workstation territory. This means getting very well tested workstations, possibly tailor-made for your specific application and not unimportantly, built as robust work horses with little show and all go. The support typically is also a bit better than that of your regular consumer grade stuff.

If you configure a workstation, you can get into some fairly schmick hardware. Dual Xeon processors, oodles of RAM, you name it.

http://store.hp.com/us/en/ConfigureView?catalogId=10051&langId=-1&storeId=10151&urlLangId=&catEntryId=3074457345618619819&quantity=1

[Electro Detective]

Thanks but I have no interest at all in switching to Mac.

 

FWIW: item below performs the same, and cheaper by the dozen 

[kalel]

This has been a long thread already, going in various directions, and sorry not to follow/remember it all, but I would like to ask which problems remain as of right now? I saw your posts about fixing some bios settings and some about decent rendering speed with the nVidia card.

OpenCL (unlike Windows, where there seems to be a lot of trial and error to get a GPU to really work for anything but games)

I assume this is up to the software as well. Although nVidia does like to not always provide the latest OpenCL support (as they have CUDA). I heard there were some additional issues in Linux with OpenCL/nVidia. This was all more than a year ago, things might have changed. With free video editing tools on Windows, I haven't found many that use the GPU codecs, but obviously the major ones should.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Dave, if you are curious let me download a file from somewhere and I can try encoding it with Compressor (Apple's transcoder) and Handbrake and get back to you with the results (time spent, etc).

Thanks but I have no interest at all in switching to Mac.

Ordinary people... meh!
--
J. Ive

[Mr. Scram]

Ordinary people... meh!
--
J. Ive

Think different!

[SparkyFX]

Given the encoders used are as good as they can be and the software does the proper CPU-utilisation there is not much that can be done without a reference value to compare to. Either a problem is assumed or the toolchain needs optimisation (can´t help with the latter).

Upon upgrading my AMD system over the holidays (new CPU and RAM, not a Ryzen Threadripper) i came across a few less obious issues, mabye they provide food for thought in problemsolving

• wrong RAM JEDEC profile loaded by BIOS from cold boot to warm boot (disabling some ACPI features and the boot guard feature which rewrites BIOS settings solved that)
• power saving feature did noticeably throttle the CPU and therefore video game frame rate in a disharmonic way - disabled
• HT Link/NB not as fast as possible - changed

Most could be found using CPUID Cpu-Z.

Apart from that and if overclocking is not an option, another way of looking at it would be to say that rendering never can be live during editing and never will take zero time, so it will always be needed at the end of editing - being it one or two minutes per minute video does not make that big of a difference. Only way around that would be some lazy background rendering in the editing software right after making changes. Would be a change in the workflow and only applicable to certain types of changes, afaik no one does it currently.

[Electro Detective]

"Ok class, once the beach balls subside,
and Safari and iTunes finish updating again,
we can continue our research on the history, development and future of computing..."

---------------------

"Ummm, excuse me Sir, but our Macs are still downloading the latest operating system update beta release of "Stoned Sierra"
which apparently addresses the ongoing SBBOD issues during rendering of our video projects. 
Estimated Time: 6 days 6 hours 6 minutes

[Electro Detective]

BS, BSOD, and SBBOD humor aside for a minute     if this guy on Youtube got a huge performance boost with his AMD Ryzen and Vegas 15, I reckon the Xeon system with the right tweak would do ok too 

Vegas Pro 15 MASSIVE Performance Boost on AMD Ryzen vs Vegas Pro 14

"Hey guys, in this video I share some results I obtained by running a few rendering tests in Vegas Pro 14 and Vegas pro 15.
The results will please a lot of you, rendering speed has been improved tremendously."


youtube.com/watch?v=RO7MMB38l2s

(be sure to SKIP AD > if the Wix wankers pollute the beginning of the video)

[Mr. Scram]

BS, BSOD, and SBBOD humor aside for a minute     if this guy on Youtube got a huge performance boost with his AMD Ryzen and Vegas 15, I reckon the Xeon system with the right tweak would do ok too 

Vegas Pro 15 MASSIVE Performance Boost on AMD Ryzen vs Vegas Pro 14

"Hey guys, in this video I share some results I obtained by running a few rendering tests in Vegas Pro 14 and Vegas pro 15.
The results will please a lot of you, rendering speed has been improved tremendously."


youtube.com/watch?v=RO7MMB38l2s

(be sure to SKIP AD > if the Wix wankers pollute the beginning of the video)

That's not necessarily true. Dual CPU systems sometimes don't scale well, as do systems with a lot of cores. Sometimes adding processors or cores can actually hurt performance. It all depends on how the software was written.

[EEVblog]

To fix the WIndows upgrade problem, I think I might just slip my boot drive into a another machine, let it update (hopefully), and then switch it back 

[Mr. Scram]

To fix the WIndows upgrade problem, I think I might just slip my boot drive into a another machine, let it update (hopefully), and then switch it back 

It needs to be a fairly similar machine to do that. If it works in the first place, you don't want all sorts of drivers being installed automatically because the hardware is present in that system, but not in yours. Cluttering Windows with system files isn't the best of starts.

[EEVblog]

That's not necessarily true. Dual CPU systems sometimes don't scale well, as do systems with a lot of cores. Sometimes adding processors or cores can actually hurt performance. It all depends on how the software was written.

Even with one Xeon, I've still got 10 physical cores

[EEVblog]

It needs to be a fairly similar machine to do that. If it works in the first place, you don't want all sorts of drivers being installed automatically because the hardware is present in that system, but not in yours. Cluttering Windows with system files isn't the best of starts.

Better than what I have now.

[Mr. Scram]

Better than what I have now.

What is the current problem and on what machine or configuration? I've scanned back, but have to admit I've lost the thread.

[Marco]

I did see that for NVENC rendering, the Pascal Quadro's can do 9 streams of H.264 1080P high quality frames simultaneously or 21 streams of the Highest quantity of frames. For consumer GPU's, NVENC limits it to just 2 streams. Sounds like nVidia has crippled the non-Quadro Pascal based cards like the GTX 10X0 series.

High quality of course being relative for hardware encoding, if you can spare a few minutes x264 gives you more bang for your MB.