Jump to content

Massive performance drop - Bad Axe 2 Q6600 & After effects CS3


59 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Hi peeps,

 

I just made a stress test on my newly acquired D975XBX2 and Q6600 in After Effects. The result is...errr... more than disheartening.

 

A 5 seconds long complex particle animation from a still took quite precisely 30 minutes to render on the D945GNTLKR and a D940 (dual 3.2 ghz). On this new combo (all specs in my sig) the exact same animation took 50 minutes :D

 

The only things I changed is mobo, processor and an addition (!) of 2 GB of RAM. All other components are still the same. Now I'm left with a performance loss of 35% :)

 

I enabled HPET in the BIOS which I still can't get my head around, to be honest. I just keep seeing it in many threads and it seems as if it's THE thing to have for a true performer.

 

The activity monitor shows 200% CPU usage during the process btw.

 

This can't be right, so any clues as to what could cause such a massive drop are massively welcome.

 

some more info if that's of any help

Machine Name: OSx86 Development Platform

Machine Model: iHack2,1

Processor Name: Intel® Core2 Quad CPU Q6600 @

Processor Speed: 2.4 GHz

Total Number Of Cores: 4

L2 Cache (per processor): 4 MB

Processor Features: FPU VME DE PSE TSC MSR PAE MCE CX8 APIC SEP MTRR PGE MCA CMOV PAT PSE36 CLFSH DS ACPI MMX FXSR SSE SSE2 SS HTT TM SSE3 MON DSCPL VMX EST TM2 MNI CX16 TPR

Memory: 4 GB

Bus Speed: 1.07 GHz

Boot ROM Version: Hack.88Z.int.0sh.061193037 (Intel Corp.)

 

 

cheers :)

sol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D940 (dual 3.2 ghz)

 

Quad Processor Speed: 2.4 GHz

 

Let see 3.2 - 2.4 = 0.8

 

0.8 / 3.2 = .25 or 25%

 

I don't think Adobe uses more than 2 cores. So, you are really running a duo @ 2.4 GHz. Maybe you can overclock the mobo and the quad and see if it helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Adobe uses more than 2 cores.

Cheers for the reply mate but hang on a sec!

I suppose I need some very basic IT training again ;)

 

(My own ignorance: I always thought it's the OS which controls the cores in a CPU. In other words if the OS is able to handle 4 or more cores it's all good. The OS just 'hands the processing power over' to the application by the amount the application needs. If the app is very computing intensive then the OS should give the max, ie. all 4 cores. Then when you fire up more apps the OS manages somehow to split the processing power up.)

 

So since my 'theory' is rubbish I must conclude that Adobe is not up to scratch with the hardware industry. I'm wondering, what are pro effect studios doing then? Render on an overclocked dual core? Hard to believe though. I've read about render farms where they basically build clusters of x CPUs and After Effects is supposedly able to handle that. Anyway, I better not get into technical discussion as my detailed knowledge is very limited.

 

Whew, it looks like I shot myself in the foot... If I overclock this beast I will run into the same heat issues (and fan noise) I had with the D940. That's the main reason why I 'upgraded' to a quad in a first place. It looks like a downgrade now...

yikes :P

 

Last question, is it possible to overclock just two cores? If that was possible the heat issue should be reduced, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(My own ignorance: I always thought it's the OS which controls the cores in a CPU. In other words if the OS is able to handle 4 or more cores it's all good. The OS just 'hands the processing power over' to the application by the amount the application needs. If the app is very computing intensive then the OS should give the max, ie. all 4 cores. Then when you fire up more apps the OS manages somehow to split the processing power up.)

 

Nope. An OS itself can usually handle multiple cores, but it does not break up individual programs' tasks up for them; instead, it's the program itself that must be asking the OS for multi-threaded support through the code; I know this point all too well as I wait for PS2/Gamecube emulators to get faster from dual core support. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) No, you cant just overclock 2 Cores. You can only overclock the whole CPU. Many times that results in an a bit unstable machine, you need a bit of tweaking (good ram, good cpu fan...) to overclock successfully.

2) The software is responsible for how much Cores it uses. For many Softwares its not necessary to use more cores, many use it. After Effects uses 4, especially CS3 BUT it seems at the moment it doesnt use them very well - when i render a scene here, it uses all 4 cores but only with about 40-50% of their power.

3) HPET should not have any real effect. Its a high precision timer, i dont think it is much used by osx. Correct me if i am wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

solaar - Hi . . a fairly reliable online comparison of CPU performance in various benchmarks [including CS3 filtering, as used in the following linkage] would suggest that an E6600 is faster than a D940 in an approx ratio of 7:4 & a Q6600, as excellently explained by previous posters, is no faster since it is exploited by CS3 as if a dual-core.

 

Despite the considerable gross speed-difference between the [16x200MHz] 3.2GHz D940 & the [9x266MHz] 2.4GHz E/Q6600, the latter is faster at almost all tasks since it does more work-per-tick & has superior memory bandwidth & efficiency.

 

. . . the optimal CPU for your tasks would be more like an E6850 than a Q6600 - partly due to still greater memory bandwidth [it runs at 9x333] plus the extra 600MHz.

 

I suspect you have some low-level configuration issue: you speak of overheating [unsurprising with a D940 . . . . ]; & it looks likely to me that your Q6600 is throttling itself under full load due to heat issues.

 

. . a [faster] dual-core C2D of the same stepping/revision will run cooler than your quad-core.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow! cheers people for all the replies. I reckon this is an interesting topic for everybody who's rather into the artistic bits than the tech ones but can't afford a Mac Pro :D

 

After Effects uses 4, especially CS3 BUT it seems at the moment it doesnt use them very well - when i render a scene here, it uses all 4 cores but only with about 40-50% of their power.

'Only about 40-50% of their power' is worrying indeed. That could explain the 200 % (= 4x50) I see in the activity monitor.

 

Here's the comment on the Multiprocessing tab in AE's preferences:

Based on the current memory & cache settings and machine configuration, 2 additional processors will be used to render multiple frames simultaneously.

 

Independent of this setting, all CPUs (4) may be used to accelerate rendering within a single frame.

 

Errr...

 

Even two 2.4Ghz CPUs on the Core micro-architecture can *spank* 2 non-native 3.2Ghz CPUs on the Netburst m-architecture.

 

Something else is wrecking it. Check preferences in After Effects- I think there's a choice for multiple *frame* rendering over 2 CPUs.

I do have multiple frame rendering checked in AE. Actually your first phrase 'something else is wrecking it' sounds more like it. What is it though? That's what my quest is all about... :P

 

Some folks say CS3 can only handle 2 cores. Well... I suppose After Effects is a bit of a different beast than Photoshop whose processing requirements are featherweight compared to AE.

 

About the render farms I mentioned, it is a very common practice in AE to use all the CPUs/cores you have to accelerate the process for one project. Apart from the standard settings in AE, I found a utility more or less specifically made for CPU hungry apps which looks interesting.

 

http://www.gridironsoftware.com/NucleoPro/

 

Still weird though. I agree, a Q6600 should eat a D940 for breakfast but well....

 

thanks much again fellas!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to insist guys but could it be that I got fooled by Intel's marketing pitch? I don't believe it though...

 

http://www.intel.com/performance/desktop/d...ial_effects.htm

 

Their bar graph seems consistent to what most users say. And I bet they didn't overclock anything. Although their test was made in Windoze and AE7 I simply can't believe AE CS3 in OSX86 is in any way inferior.

 

Any more ideas of how to loosen the 'hand brake' here are always welcome.

 

cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as soon as i have the time, i will compare my 2 core machine with my 4 core machine to see if its faster. the fact is: Software that supports 4 cores is FAST. My 3D software is about 80% faster in rendering with 4 cores than with 2. And its an awsome much faster on Core2 Architecture then on AMD or on P4. BUT: When i render, all cores are used by 100%. With After FX, only about 40-50%. So I assume its an AfterFX thing.

After FX CS3 e.g. doesnt support OpenGL rendring at the moment - maybe they cut off other things, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After FX CS3 e.g. doesnt support OpenGL rendring at the moment - maybe they cut off other things, too.

I hear you mate.

It's maybe disabled internally but the check box for OpenGL is there. I saw it somewhere in the render options.

 

Combining what you're saying and Intel's little comparative graphs, Adobe made a step backwards from AE7?

whew...

 

Does anybody know an alternative to AE that's as easy to learn but faster in rendering?... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, Win"doze" is better on certain apps (Maxwell Render, a very calculation intensive unbiased renderer, for one)

 

 

What's interesting about the dual- Core 2 vs Quad- Core 2 figures is that dual vs quad issue is trivial, it's the improved optimizations of the CPU that help out the most.

 

 

I seriously think it's something like Speedstep or EIST slowing the PC down with incorrect thermal/power management. Perhaps your cooling for the 6600 wasn't enough (these quad cores eat power and release heat quite crazily, which is the main reason I'm getting a Phenom instead) and it drops the clocks to ensure thermal consistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, Win"doze" is better on certain apps (Maxwell Render, a very calculation intensive unbiased renderer, for one)

What's interesting about the dual- Core 2 vs Quad- Core 2 figures is that dual vs quad issue is trivial, it's the improved optimizations of the CPU that help out the most.

I seriously think it's something like Speedstep or EIST slowing the PC down with incorrect thermal/power management. Perhaps your cooling for the 6600 wasn't enough (these quad cores eat power and release heat quite crazily, which is the main reason I'm getting a Phenom instead) and it drops the clocks to ensure thermal consistency.

I have a Freezer 7 on the Q6600 at the moment. It's actually decent and quiet. It used to handle the toasty D940 like a pro. My Zalman CU... (a monster) doesn't fit into the case but it seems it's not that much of a difference anyway.

 

If something is slowing it down, the question is then how can I unleash it? Forget about the thermal thing for a moment, just disable anything fancy and let it rip full speed for an hour or so. At least that would give me the certainty that I didn't buy a dud.

The BIOS doesn't really help me much here. All I see is overclock options but I don't want to do that anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm... in BIOS turn everything related to C1 Halt (if I remember correctly), EIST and Speedstep off. Use platform=X86PC on boot.

Freezer 7 should be alright for a Q6600 at stock.

 

OSX should be highly optimized for Core 2s as is, because they were the only CPUs that Apple used.

(FSB speeds and latency? If you have Windoze, download CPU-Z and see if anything's abnormal)

 

 

 

Wanna try Nucleo? 4GB is plentiful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm... in BIOS turn everything related to C1 Halt (if I remember correctly), EIST and Speedstep off. Use platform=X86PC on boot.

Freezer 7 should be alright for a Q6600 at stock.

 

OSX should be highly optimized for Core 2s as is, because they were the only CPUs that Apple used.

(FSB speeds and latency? If you have Windoze, download CPU-Z and see if anything's abnormal)

Wanna try Nucleo? 4GB is plentiful.

Nice one. Cheers mate!

 

As I've banned all MS products from my flat I need to find something else. If not for OSX I bet there's plenty of stuff for Linux out there.

 

But hang on a sec. Here's an interesting update. I disabled HPET in the BIOS and gave my AE animation another go. No other parametres changed. This time it finished in 35 minutes :D That's looks much better already but still not quite what I would expect.

 

This HPET thing is killing my brain cells man. I'm sure the brilliant tech heads on here will come up with an explanation for that.

 

Another thing, I kept reading that you should update the BIOS on the Bad Axe 2 for OSX86. I never understood why. My install/upgrade went smoothly without it. At least so I thought. Could that be it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

read what your saying and also one difficulty with ae is that it will only address 2gb ram unless you modify it. you need to google that. i remember having to do the same for my self. also check preferences, the last window will have a link for something about it but you need to modify something else. im not sure if this is only on windows but im pretty sure its on mac too. also you may need to check your kernel. ive heard some different story with dual and quad core support and how they work on different kernels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a good one mates...

 

I installed AE CS3 on my humble Macbook (something I never even thought about doing). I rendered the same animation, all parametres identical.

 

Surprise surprise!! it zapped through in 18 minutes. Now that's more like it, comparing to the 30 minutes on the D940.

My MB is from the 1st generation with Core Duo (not Core 2) 2ghz and 2GB RAM...and... a GMA950... just like on my previous system with the Intel 945 mobo.

 

I would expect the Q6600 do this in at maximum the same amount of time as the Core Duo but more likely in 12-15 minutes or even faster. btw the activity monitor was at around 140% CPU on the MB so AE must be able to use more than 50% CPU power (unless they coded a brake for quads into it which I don't see what sense it would make.)

 

I suppose the culprit is the graphics card/ driver. When I installed OSX I chose Natit 0.2 because I read it has better dual monitor support. Anyway not that I need two monitors right now but I had a few problems with Titan before so I chose Natit to be on the safe side.

 

I may be totally off the mark with my suspicion (please tech heads correct me) but could it be that there is a fundamental flaw in Natit? Something nobody has ever noticed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After Effects final render does not invoke OpenGL.

 

Beam Sync?

There is a check box for OpenGL in the render options though. What is it for?

I don't think the nvidia 7600 cards have openGL anyway (not that I know of).

 

What is Beam sync?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I thought. OpenGL is not the issue. My old hackintosh with the GMA950 showed consistent performance. It wasn't lightning fast but the 30 minutes render time seems plausible now compared to the Macbook. The only major difference in my quad hack is the graphics card. So it seems plausible to me that there's something in the graphics environment (whatever it is) that makes it perform so poorly.

 

Why can't it simply be a problem in Natit 0.2? I believe it has never been as mature as the GMA950 driver.

 

I will make a test with a different nvidia driver.

 

laterz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm... Maybe. But the fact that AFX needs V8.01/OSX10.4.10/A particular Driver for beeing accellerated by OpenGL (and i doubt you exactly have that constellation, have you?) it should be anything else. Ill test my machines today, compared to my MacBook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...