Skip navigation
macmanpro
Currently Being Moderated

Slow Performance On Mac Pro 12-Core

Apr 3, 2013 9:54 PM

Tags: #pro #mac #premiere #slow #cs6 #core #12

Hello Everyone,

 

I just recently purchased a 2012 Mac pro 12-Core and i have been getting unbelievabley slow performance with it. I am using Premiere Pro CS6 and it seems that the footage can sometimes get a bit laggy at times and not play back smoothly, sometimes rendering can take a bit of time as well. However here are the specs of my system:

 

Mac Pro 12-Core 2.4GHz (2.67GHz Turbo Boost)

40GB of Ram

ATI 5770 Graphics Card

1TB scratch disk (with a user on the drive that i can boot into)

OCZ 120GB Vertex 3 SSD OS/APPS drive

 

 

First question i would like to get answered once and for all.. Did i make a bad decision by purchasing a computer with such a slow clock speed (2.4GHz)?? I figured since The new editing software is switching to 64bit it shouldn't depend on clock speed anymore? (i just want to be sure that i purchased a more than capable machine) However i will be buying a Samsung 840 Pro Series 256GB SSD Drive for Scratch within the month. (I dont have the budget to buy a Raid controller yet to utilize 6GB/s transfer speeds, so 1 Fast SSD drive will have to do for now)

 

I should mention the current SSD drive im on right now only has 13GB remaining, would that affect performance? Also, my 1Tb media drive is filled up with CRAP from my previous computer (Migration transferred EVERYTHING to that drive, only 120GB remains) would that drive with the media im working with affect performance too? Also just as a test, i took some footage from my GoPro Hero 3 camera and put it on my SSD to see if that would eliminate the lag, but still lag was present in Premiere.. (the footage was in a crappy .M4P format, so that may have affected it, but I dont know)

 

 

Any suggestions are greatly appreciated!

-Thanks in Advance!

 
Replies
  • joe bloe premiere
    4,391 posts
    Dec 6, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 4, 2013 5:17 AM   in reply to macmanpro

    I'm not a mac person, but there might be some useful info here:

    Optimizing for performance: Adobe Premiere Pro and After Effects

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 4, 2013 6:01 AM   in reply to macmanpro

    The new editing software is switching to 64bit it shouldn't depend on clock speed anymore?

     

    Wrong, clock speed is everything.

     

    I should mention the current SSD drive im on right now only has 13GB remaining, would that affect performance?

     

    No, not really.

     

    Also, my 1Tb media drive is filled up with CRAP from my previous computer (Migration transferred EVERYTHING to that drive, only 120GB remains) would that drive with the media im working with affect performance too?

     

    When fill rates go up, performance goes down. With almost 90% fill rate, the disk performs only at around 50% of a new disk.

     

    Two disks is absolute bare minimum, and your cores will constantly be waiting for the disks to read or write data, sitting idle most of the time.

     

    Also just as a test, i took some footage from my GoPro Hero 3 camera and put it on my SSD to see if that would eliminate the lag, but still lag was present in Premiere..

     

    GoPro material requires a very fast computer, which yours is not with the low clock speed, outdated E5620 CPU's, only two disks, and a non-CUDA capable video card.

     

    Take a look at the PPBM5 Benchmark and look at the system at rank # 854, which is a MacPro, very similar to your system, dual E5620, AMD video card, less memory but uses three disks.

     

    So, your system would be around the same rank as the one above, among the slowest 25% of all systems and something like 10 - 15 times slower than a fast system. You tax your system to the extreme with the GoPro Hero3 material, and the consequence is the slow performance you see.

     

    Sorry, not much you can do, other than get a new system. If you sell it now, it may get you a price, good enough to get a much faster Windows system and maybe even keep the change.  Simply said, you bought a MacPro for € 3.5 K, sell it for € 3 K, buy a PC for € 2.5 K that is around 5-6 times faster and your loss is recovered.

     

    However i will be buying a Samsung 840 Pro Series 256GB SSD Drive for Scratch within the month

     

    What a pity the MacPro does not have SATA 6G ports, only SATA 3G, because then that SSD will run at almost half speed.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 4, 2013 8:14 AM   in reply to macmanpro

    macmanpro wrote:

     

    I originally had bought the 6-Core Mac Pro @3.33GHz, was that a better machine to keep?

    Better from a clock perspective, but not a RAM one.  The single processor Mac Pros only have 4 DIMM slots; yours has 8.  You could have loaded it up with 32G of RAM by buying sorta-costly 8G DIMMs, or 64G with really costly 16G DIMMs.  It all depends on how much RAM your system is using though to know whether it would have mattered.  Likely: the faster one would have been the better choice.

     

    You need more spinning or non-spinning storage in that thing.  Go get two more drives, toss them into the last 2 slots, stripe them, and move your scratch space to that.  Software RAID0 will be better than nothing.  But there's always the risk of one drive dying and taking the entire volume, which is why I say put the scratch there.

     

    You need a better video card.  No ifs, no ands, no buts.  The ATI card you have in your machine is a first class turd.  The challenge is: how much money do you want to spend and/or how technically capable are you?  PC-based nVidia cards will work in Mac Pros with the latest OS release and drivers, but they won't show the grey Apple boot screen.  You can wait while EVGA gets the polish on their recently-announced Mac version of the GTX680, but it's going to be a hefty chunk of change for a 2GB card (circa $600USD).  If you buy a card not listed in Premiere's CUDA text file, you'll also need to remember to edit that.

     

    Finally: if you're using AVCHD and they're spanned clips, then you're out of luck with CS6.  For whatever reason, Adobe has introduced a problem with spanned AVCHD clips making CS6 basically useless in a lot of cases.  Mac or PC.  Said problem didn't exist in CS5.5.

     

    jas

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 4, 2013 11:20 AM   in reply to macmanpro

    macmanpro wrote:

     

    Isn't it better to have the work load spread out over 12 cores still better? Now, I know the computer doesn't put it in terms if this but 12*2.4=28.8GHz where as the 6-core has a higher clock speed but 6*3.33=19.98GHz. So roughly aren't I benefiting by 8 more GHz with the 12 core? 

    Normally, yes, for applications that are properly threaded.  If you watch your core loads when work is under way, you'll see that Premiere can't really pin all 24 of your virtual cores.  In fact, with most Adobe software, there seems to be a point of diminishing returns when it comes to core count.

     

    jas

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 4, 2013 11:34 AM   in reply to macmanpro

    Much too simple an assumption.

     

    First, the E5620 is a quad core, not a hexa core, so even if your assumptions were correct it would be 8 x 2.4 = 19.2, but than you are discounting inter CPU latencies, that are a severe drag. Now, following your example, compare that to 6 x 4.6 = 27.6. There is a reason why the first dual Xeon X5690 only comes in at rank # 47 in the CS6 test, preceded by 46 single CPU systems, despite 12 x 3.46 = 41.52. Just a median machine.

     

    Not only CPU speed, but bus speed, and all other components play a role.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 4, 2013 11:41 AM   in reply to Harm Millaard

    Harm Millaard wrote:

     

    First, the E5620 is a quad core, not a hexa core

    For what little it's worth, the Xeons in his Mac Pro aren't the E5620s.  They're the E5645s.  So yes, he does have a 2 x 6 core Xeon, or 12 physical cores (24 v-cores).

     

    jas

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 4, 2013 11:42 AM   in reply to macmanpro

    macmanpro wrote:

    Does this mean if i would have gone with the 6-core 3.33GHz system it would have been faster than my 12-core?

    Again: a little.  What kind of footage are you editing in Premiere?

     

    jas

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 4, 2013 11:50 AM   in reply to macmanpro

    macmanpro wrote:

     

    AVCHD from my Sony NX5U

    And how long are the clips?  Long enough to span multiple files?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 4, 2013 12:00 PM   in reply to macmanpro

    macmanpro wrote:

     

    well right now at the moment i am working on a wedding, which is about an hours worth of total footage, but the longest clip i have in the timeline is about 15 minutes or so.

    A 15 minute 1080p AVCHD clip will definitely be spanned.  As I wrote in my first reply: you're going to have performance problems with that in CS6, regardless of the machine you use.  Known bug, not fixed yet, etc, etc.

     

    jas

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 4, 2013 12:13 PM   in reply to macmanpro

    macmanpro wrote:

     

    Just out of curiosity, what type of system are you editing on?

    A heavily modified Mac Pro with 2 6-core 3.46GHz Xeons (not available from Apple) with 40G of RAM, a modified PC-based nVidia GTX570 converted to work in a Mac, SSD for OS and apps, striped volume of 2 300G 10k SATA drives for scratch, and a 1TB mirrored volume for my footage storage.  I'm considering converting that 1TB RAID1 volume into a 2TB RAID0 volume for a little extra speed, since I back everything up to another machine anyway.

     

    CS5.5 flies on the system.  CS6 sucks.  Badly.  And it's all due to the AVCHD issue.

    Okay, maybe i will switch back to CS5 to adress this issue..

    CS5.5, you mean?

     

    Is this someting that i should try and get the 6-Core model back?

    It's not worth it to try and get the 6-core back.  It isn't going to help you with this issue.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 4, 2013 12:26 PM   in reply to macmanpro

    macmanpro wrote:

     

    Yes, I mean CS5.5, if thats going to run faster on my computer, theres no reason to be messing with CS6 at the moment, especialy since AVCHD is my primary source of footage..

    Good.  Get a better video card to complete the package.  Steer away from the AMD/ATI garbage and look to nVidia's stuff.  As I posted earlier, a new GTX680 is about to be shipped by EVGA that is Mac-compatible; in other words it supports the Mac's EFI.  Or you can add any PC-based nVidia card (remember that you only have 2x6-pin PCI power connectors to use...) and just deal with the fact that you don't have a boot screen.  You'll just need to edit the CUDA text file once you add it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 4, 2013 12:31 PM   in reply to macmanpro

    macmanpro wrote:

     

    That's what i was thinking. Is there any problem with opening my sequence in 5.5? or is it not possible to take a project from CS6 and go to 5.5?

    That's a question best answered by someone a bit more Premiere-Pro-knowledgeable than I. :-)  I'm not in front of my rig right now; is there a menu option that let's you "Save As" or "Export" the project?

     

    jas

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • joe bloe premiere
    4,391 posts
    Dec 6, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 4, 2013 12:38 PM   in reply to Jason Van Patten

    Opening a CS6 project in CS5.5:

    http://forums.adobe.com/message/4540759#4540759

     

    See post #5.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 4, 2013 12:47 PM   in reply to macmanpro

    [moved to hardware forum]

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points