11 Replies Latest reply on May 10, 2013 8:03 AM by RjL190365

    Editing rig - input needed! Xeon vs i7?

    lemonsgraph

      I am building a new editing machine. Primarily, I work with After Effects, Premiere, Photoshop, Illustrator, and convert a lot of video/audio files in Media Encoder. All CS6.

       

      Originally, I had a Lenovo D30. There were many complications with the system (I don't typically buy pre-built machines, but I did this time, and I'm feeling every bump). After working with Adobe tech support, PNY, NVIDIA, Intel, and Lenovo - probably two hundred trouble-shooting tests and many render/export variations, I figured it best just to send the D30 back and build a better rig.

       

      The render/export time for simple videos was just ridiculous... with projects containting minimal effects (maybe 2-3, used once) all CUDA accelerated in Premiere. After Effects projects typically have minimal coding and effects layers. The render time out of AE is also ridiculous. All cores (even HT) Max'd at 100%. The majority of the testing pointed to a bottle-neck in the processor, which didn't surprise me a lot. This is also the first time I've used Xeon and not i7.

       

      D30 Specs:
      Intel XEON E5-2620 Processor (6 Cores @ 2GHz, HT) Ivy Bridge series (Mobo space for two CPU)
      24GB RAM
      NVIDIA Quadro 6000
      Two 1-TB Segate Baracuda HDD's, 7200 RPM, no RAID
      HDD1 = Program Files
      HDD2 = Scratch disc and storage

       

      Planned new rig:
      ASUS Rampage IV Extreme LGA 2011 ATX Mobo
      Intel Core i7-3970X Extreme Edition Sandy Bridge-E 3.5GHz (4.0GHz Turbo) LGA 2011
      NVIDIA Quadro 4000
      CORSAIR Vengeance 16GB (2x8GB) 240-pin DDR3 (TWO PACKS = 32GB)
      Intel 520 Series Cherryville 240GB SSD (Scratch disc)
      VelociRaptor 500GB 10000RPM 64MB Cache (BUYING 4)
      EVGA superNOVA NEX1500 Classified 120-PG-1500W Power Supply

       

      I am aware that the D30 only came with a single XEON. The best question I can ask, I suppose, If I ordered an additional XEON for the D30, would it out-perform the new rig?

       

      Interestingly enough, I have an older computer that out-performs the D30 as it is:

      MSI X58 Pro-E LGA 1366 Mobo
      Intel Core i7-920 Processor, 2.66GHz, Quad-core, HT
      CORSAIR dominator 24GB DDR3
      NVIDIA Quadro 4000
      WD Black 2TB 7200 RPM Cache

       

      Simple questions/answers: Yes, all drivers are updated. Yes, the Quadro 6000 is connected with an 8-pin and not both the 6 and 8-pin. No, the computer is not connected to a network or internet. And, the only "extra" thing installed to the computer is the Adobe Production Premium suite. Microsoft Office isn't even on the machine.

       

      Thanks for the help!

        • 1. Re: Editing rig - input needed! Xeon vs i7?
          Mylenium Most Valuable Participant

          Yes, Turboboost in coreXi processors outperforms Xeons. Very much to be expected, since many tasks in video processing are linear and singlethreaded, leaving no room for parallel processing on a Xeon where the per-core efficiency is lower. Also using multiprocessing usually disables GPU acceleration. Xeons really only are useful for number-crunching stuff like 3D rendering or encoding in optimized software encoders. Therefore if smooth working is the more important part, core7i is way to go.

           

          Mylenium

          1 person found this helpful
          • 2. Re: Editing rig - input needed! Xeon vs i7?
            RjL190365 Level 4

            With your planned i7-3970X, I would not recommend the Quadro 4000 at all: That GPU is not only of an older generation (GTX 400 Fermi generation), but is also significantly slower than many of the lower-end GeForce GPUs. In fact, as I stated numerous times in the Adobe hardware forum, that Quadro 4000's performance is slower than even a GeForce GTX 460 SE because of its low number of CUDA cores (only 256 CUDA cores versus 288 CUDA cores in the GTX 460 SE) and its extremely low (by expensive GPU standards) memory bandwidth (only 89.6 GB/s versus 86.4 GB/s in the much newer and far cheaper GTX 650 Ti non-Boost). Unless you're going to carry over that Quadro 4000 from your old i7-920 system, do not buy a "new" Quadro 4000 as it is now outdated. A much more reasonable choice for that i7-3970X would be a Quadro K4000 or K5000 (in either case if you absolutely must have a Quadro), based on the newer Kepler architecture (although keep in mind that the Quadro K4000 would still be slightly slower than a GTX 650 Ti Boost due to the Quadro's lack of a Boost feature and its slightly lower memory bandwidth - 134 GB/s for the Quadro K4000 versus 144.2 GB/s for the GTX 650 Ti Boost).

             

            And yes, the Xeon E5-2620 is a dog of a CPU due to the extremely low clock speed and the lack of a Turbo Boost feature (the lack of easy overclocking capability notwithstanding). And even adding a second CPU would have increased the Lenovo system's maximum CPU performance by approximately 1.4x over the single CPU; thus, that system would have still underperformed even with a second CPU.

            • 3. Re: Editing rig - input needed! Xeon vs i7?
              Harm Millaard Level 7

              The basics of the planned model are reasonably OK, but ...

               

              • Get a better video card, like the GTX 660 Ti, not the outdated and ill-performing Quadro 4000.
              • Change the Intel 520 for a Samsung 840 Pro SSD. Less 'stable state' performance degradation.
              • Change the EVGA 1500 W PSU to something like Corsair AX-1000 W. More than enough for your setup
              • Consider Seagate Barracuda 7200.15 disks instead of Velociraptors. Less noise, less heat, more space and equally fast if not faster.
              • An i7-3930K is the better BFTB when overclocked.

               

              For some ideas, look at Intro Part 1 and the following pages.

              • 4. Re: Editing rig - input needed! Xeon vs i7?
                lemonsgraph Level 1

                I have a GTX 680 in my personal computer (along side an i7), and it can't handle the work in Premiere that the Quadro 4000 can. Old? Yes. Ill-performing? I have to disagree. Although, I may certainly look into something like a Quadro K5000 instead.

                • 5. Re: Editing rig - input needed! Xeon vs i7?
                  RjL190365 Level 4

                  lemonsgraph wrote:

                   

                  I have a GTX 680 in my personal computer (along side an i7), and it can't handle the work in Premiere that the Quadro 4000 can. Old? Yes. Ill-performing? I have to disagree. Although, I may certainly look into something like a Quadro K5000 instead.

                  This is primarily due to the lack of robust OpenGL support in all of the available drivers for nVidia's gaming GPUs. And yes, even the GTX 680 performs relatively slow compared to even an old Quadro 600 in productivity apps that make heavy use of OpenGL.

                  • 6. Re: Editing rig - input needed! Xeon vs i7?
                    Harm Millaard Level 7

                    Statistics prove you wrong.

                     

                    48 observations with a GTX 680 show an average render time of 6.00 seconds,

                    49 observations with a Quadro 4000 show an average render time of 15.08 seconds.

                     

                    That clearly shows the GTX 680 is more than 2.5 times faster than a Quadro 4000. In fact the GTS 450 is faster than a Quadro 4000.

                    • 7. Re: Editing rig - input needed! Xeon vs i7?
                      RjL190365 Level 4

                      This includes results from all CS5+ versions of Premiere Pro. If the results list were narrowed down to only those systems running CS6, then the average render time with the GTX 680 would be 5.35 seconds while the average render time with the Quadro 4000 would be 15.71 seconds. The MPEG-2 DVD export in PPBM5 averaged 70.77 seconds with the GTX 680 while it took all of 157.29 seconds with the average Quadro 4000 result.

                       

                      Perhaps the OP did not know about the CUDA hack, and he could be using 6.0.0 or 6.0.1? No wonder why Premiere could have defaulted to the MPE software-only mode with the GTX 680.

                      • 8. Re: Editing rig - input needed! Xeon vs i7?
                        Alex - DV411 Level 2

                        Therefore if smooth working is the more important part, core7i is way to go.

                        Does that include heavy duty AE work? (Not ray tracing.)

                        • 9. Re: Editing rig - input needed! Xeon vs i7?
                          lemonsgraph Level 1

                          What are your sources? Were they using the same projects for correct comparison? How did the rest of both rigs differ?

                           

                          I'm asking because I have taken the same projects between both systems, and the Q4000 DOES render faster. The lag I experience in Premiere while editing is pretty frustrating in the GTX machine - and yes, all of my settings are correct.

                           

                          Now, the issues I'm experiencing in AE is a processor issue. I believe that will be solved with the CPU swap, as Mylenium stated.

                          • 10. Re: Editing rig - input needed! Xeon vs i7?
                            Harm Millaard Level 7

                            See the descriptions on the PPBM5 Benchmark

                            Same project, same source material, same timeline, same rendering.

                            Also see MPE Gains

                            • 11. Re: Editing rig - input needed! Xeon vs i7?
                              RjL190365 Level 4

                              lemonsgraph wrote:

                               

                              What are your sources? Were they using the same projects for correct comparison? How did the rest of both rigs differ?

                               

                              I'm asking because I have taken the same projects between both systems, and the Q4000 DOES render faster. The lag I experience in Premiere while editing is pretty frustrating in the GTX machine - and yes, all of my settings are correct.

                              Which goes back to what I might be suspecting all along. There are two questions to answer:

                               

                              1) Have you ever updated your Premiere Pro CS6 installation within the past eight months?

                               

                              2) If you didn't do so, then have you ever edited the "cuda_supported_cards.txt" file to enable MPE GPU acceleration with a non-officially-supported GPU?

                               

                              If you did neither, then there's your problem: With the GTX 680, Premiere is locked to the MPE software-only mode while with an officially supported GPU (such as the Q4000) for such an early version Premiere is set to use MPE GPU acceleration by default.

                               

                              In fact, I did my own testing of my two systems using a last-generation mid-range GPU and a higher-end GPU of the same generation. While there is hardly any difference in the timeline rendering speed in the PPBM5 benchmark test with either GPU, the MPEG-2 DVD export results in the newer PPBM6 test clearly showed that the GTX 560 is more than 1.5 times slower than the GTX 560 Ti 448 in either system. In that same test, the Q4000 would have performed much slower than even the GTX 560, let alone the GTX 560 Ti 448, because the hardware specifications of the Q4000 are clearly inferior to those of the GTX 560.