New system recomendations for HD editing

[shueardm]

It sounds to me more like a resourses conflict with the RAID card. You could try moving the card to another slot.

[cybertrix]

Edius testing and benching in Quadcore and Duel Xeons

G'day all.

Spent this afternoon at my PC builders workshop doing some testing on Core2Duo, Quadcore and "Octacore" Dual Quadcore systems – all chips running at 2.6ghz. We were using Edius build 4.50.46 (if you click properties on the icon) with Broadcast Dongle and a Canopus Storm2 – which although showing age, is still fully functional 4 years later thanks to the “scalability” of Canopus’ gear. I can live with OCHI for HD until the “next” NX with an HDMI interface is released ;-) (I’m just guessing OK?!!!)

I didn’t get a lot of time with each system build as it took a bit of effort to play around with each machine and port the hardware across and install the software on each box. I should have taken a second dongle but my business partner needed an edit Suite.

The Tests

To test each system I built 2 benchmarks: The first was to test CPU on effects processing (purely) and it consisted of entirely of bars, 3D PiPs, while balance, blurs, movie effect (for noise, border darken and additional blur) and layers of titles. The sequence gets progressively more intense CPU wise until it stops playback at which point I noted the timecode it got to as a benchmark. I must say that it gets very extreme mid way though (about 1:45) – ie. 2 PiP with 7 effects on each, 3 titles and a keyed layer over the top also containing 6 effects. So it is a miracle that it plays at all in comparison to any other editing platform!!

The 2nd bench mark was based on a job that I’ve just finished – 2 base layers containing 3D “slow” zooming high resolution 32bit pictures (reframed in Edius) with a swirling border animation (in HQ) luma keyed over the top. 2 additional PSD layers sit under the animation to brighten borders and darken a title area of the screen. The project is 1080i HDV and is currently playing on a plasma wall at the Melbourne Show in case anyone is going. To bench this I rendered the result to various formats and timed the result.

Neither of these benchmarks were ideal “editing” tests, but I had to come up with something quickly that I could easily fit onto a DVD-R. I had a brief play with some 1080i HQ and native M2P HDV video and both played with fade transitions and a color grades + curves and 2 titles perfectly on System 3 – so for HD cutting and grading that’s good enough editing for me. (with 96 frame buffer, no lag on space bar though)

The Systems

System 1 : Intel P4 E 3.00GHz w/ 2GB RAM (800fsb)
My old “tweaked” box which is still my SD workhorse. Hat’s off to Canopus for having RT so ahead of its time!

System 2 : Intel Core2Duo 6700 = 2 cores @ 2.66Ghz & 2GB RAM (1066fsb)
An off-the-shelf XP workstation. Just XP, Adobe Suite, Edius and Macdrive. Has a Gigabyte 7800GT with full driver install and also includes a RAID card plus an install of Macdrive. Solid dedicated edit workstation, but not overly tweaked.

System 3 : Intel Core2Quad Q6700 = 4 cores @ 2.66Ghz & 2GB RAM (1066fsb)
A specialist audio “super quiet” workstation – includes heavily tweaked BIOS and registry. Just XP and Edius.

System 4 : Intel Xeon Quad 5355 x 2 = 8 cores @ 2.66Ghz & 4GB RAM (1333fsb)
A top end audio “super quiet” workstation – includes heavily tweaked BIOS and registry. Just XP and Edius. And some massive heat sinks.

All computers were running 2 monitors and the Storm SD Component out (for Benchmark 1)

The Results

Bench #1 : Realtime Playback (higher is better)

System 1 : Drop out at 0:55
System 2 : Drop out at 1:33
System 3 : Drop out at 2:05 <-- best
System 4 : Drop out at 1:58

Bench #1 : Rendering SD to DV (lower is better)
System 1 – 6:26
System 2 – 3:16
System 3 – 1:59 (1:44 when over clocked!) <-- best
System 4 – 2:20

Bench #2 : Rendering composite to HDV 1080i with Speed Encoder (lower is better)
System 1 – 14:35
System 2 – 8:00
System 3 – 5:02 (4:27 when over clocked)
System 4 – 4:56 <-- best


Core Usage : How Edius (at v4.5) uses multi cores.

I would like to start this section by noting that we are (Sept ’07) at a stage where there is a lot of rebuilding and optimizing of code currently occurring in the multimedia industry. There are very few packages that are 100% multi-core optimized and even the biggest brands that shout “multi-core” are rarely making use of more than 2 cores in an effective manner on average. I say on average because some opperations launch into 8 core glory but then pull back to 1 or 2 again.

Canopus have been very forward and open about the fact they are working on a modified engine for supporting multi-core processing and that is to be commended. Many developers (esp. in Audio industry) are making ridicules claims about performance “leaps” with Vista and Quadcore CPU’s and releasing “multi-core-optimized” code which independent benchmarks have proven returns very little gain. I'd prefer to wait for my code and get the real deal - and I think Canopus realize that we arn't stupid so have been honest. (thanks)

But does Edius use 4 cores?

4 “Logical Processors” in Edius (aka. Core2Quad Q6700)

While running a purely color bar and title based sequence (no video decoding) it is apparent that only the first two cores are being utilized with only a touch of movement in cores 3 & 4. Exactly as I would have expected.

But when running a sequence that contains video (HQ or Storm DV) it seems that an additional core is utilized to do this decoding. Quite a pleasant surprise (see below)



So while the full Quad isn’t used (at present) for effects and rendering, it seems that there is a certain amount of “Quadage” being used by the Canopus CODEC set. Nice. So: one of the things that Canopus (or GV) is wildly excited about is their super-hot Speed Encoder for HDV. So rendering the same sequence I thought I’d see how it fared. (see below)



So you can see that core 3 is cycling between hard processing and waiting for the rendering from cores 1 and 2. But all 4 cores are certainly running quite hot. (note that the CPU meter looks a lot less loaded when resized this small) When I did a test encoding just a single HQ track with Speed Encoder all 4 cores were running hot without cycling nearly as much as here, so I can only assume that for MPEG2 content generation we have a winner!


8 “Logical Processors” in Edius (2 x Xeon Quad 5355)

I won’t write too much here. All I can say is that Edius obviously prefers to work over two chips, even if it could be faster to run all operations on one chip.



The performance was similar to the chip above except for the fact Edius seemed to be doing some “core hopping”. It seemed to favor the “first two” logical processors and the “last two” logical processors but a few times when we booted it decided to go with cores 6 and 7 for the rendering, and core 3 for the decoding. Interestingly when I changed some settings in the hardware (buffers) it utilized core 5 for the GUI processing on the menus. Then switched back to 6 and 7 again for rendering.



Shortly after this, we went to render to DV and after 70% had a Kernal level crash and the whole system rebooted. It could just be the system because we juggled video cards at the start to get DirectX working properly – but something just didn’t feel right about using 8 cores and getting slightly slower results. The exception was when we used Speed Encoder to encode from HQ with minimal effects, but for complex timelines the rendering held it back. I'm sure in time (by mid 2008?) an 8 core system might make sense, but seeing as SD editing screams on the Quad and HD was more than solid - I don't see the point in "future proofing" for an extra $2000

By this point I had that “gut” feeling and had decided to go for the Quad system anyway.

Quad or not to Quad

So in conclusion, is it worth running a Quadcore with Edius 4.5x?

Yeah. A single Quad or even 2 DuoCore Xeons look like they are worth it. A double quad system is hard to justify for now.

I’ve ordered my Quadcore workstation and will happily to put up more info or take requests if anyone wants me to bench anything in particular (I have Broadcast dongle). Trust me, for SD editing you won't be rendering no more! And for HD it should only require the odd render but be realtime for practically every "sensible" edit you can throw at it. Use HQ or DVCPRO HD and performance will be muuuuch better than trying to deal with a TS.

Australians looking for a "near silent" specced machine optimized for Edius certainly have some local options – but I'm sure the Turnkey Xeon systems from Edius are also a good solution. And as for overclocking... well that was just a bit of fun, but if it's stable at 2.93Ghz I may leave it so. (although "silent PC" and "overclocking" generally don't work in the same sentence!) At the end of the day, my 4 core system will knock the "real-time" socks off that system we all love (the one named after a fruit) so I'm happy enough :-]

Finally, I must point out that I think the Core2Duo 6700 may have performed better (+10%-15%ish) with a more tweaked system. But that's the difference between getting a proper A/V workstation from an expert (or GV), and buying a "pleb" box from your local computer store.


(ps. if any of the Grass Valley team would like me to beta test under an NDA let me know ;-) )

[Angelo]

Nice system review with Edius.

I had the E6600 Dual-Core for a couple of months and started to edit with HDV and noticed the slow down. I went ahead and upgraded to the Quad-Core Q6600 and was a bit disappointed that is was only about 25% gain with the Quad never at +90% usage. I do recall with the DVStorm 160 buffer responded better than "automatic" 192 buffer via Storm software even with the E6600 Dual-Core. Now the Q6600 Quad-Core and 192 buffer the system responds just like the Dual-Core with 160 buffers. Quad-Core may not give you that 100% upgrade in speed but does make the system more fluid.

I to agree the Quad is the best value going for Edius RT systems.

...Angelo

[GrassValley_BH]

Nice testing! I suspect the 8-core machine is becoming memory bandwidth-limited, but still doesn't really hurt to have more cores around - at the very least it keeps the mouse pointer from "skipping" when you're running intense loads!

[STORMDAVE]

At the end of the day, my 4 core system will knock the "real-time" socks off that system we all love (the one named after a fruit)

Performance under Windows should be similar.

Under OSX, AECS3 eats the Windows version alive because OSX has better memory management and you don't have to use a "special" 64bit OS just to get the best of it. And by then, CS3 will be optimized for a better performance.

When I have a very CPU intensive render going on in AECS3, there is about 8.8GB of memory in use and all processors are maxed out. The speed of the fans on the computer kick up a little bit. This is under OSX, I do not have CS3 for Windows so I could do testing....

Hard Drives and software are becoming bottlenecks nowadays...

PS. I have the X5365 :D

Did I mention how quite this machine is? :)

[kwshaw1]

Under OSX, AECS3 eats the Windows version alive because OSX has better memory management and you don't have to use a "special" 64bit OS just to get the best of it...I do not have CS3 for Windows so I could do testing...

How do you know the OSX version of CS3 is faster than the Windows one if you don't have both to test for comparison?

[STORMDAVE]

How do you know the OSX version of CS3 is faster than the Windows one if you don't have both to test for comparison?

I used the now expired trial under Windows. It is faster under OSX because it is able to utilize all the RAM that is available.

I do not have the 64bit version of Windows XP so I cannot test that. Not even sure XP64 allows allocation for more than 3GB of RAM per app under XP64.

Plus it is a dream working under OSX. I run 5 apps at the same time and switch between them easily. No bogging down.

[GrassValley_BH]

Not even sure XP64 allows allocation for more than 3GB of RAM per app under XP64.

Unless the app is 64-bit native, it'll run under the 32-bit WoW and act just like it does in 32-bit Windows, meaning no extra RAM access.

[STORMDAVE]

Unless the app is 64-bit native, it'll run under the 32-bit WoW and act just like it does in 32-bit Windows, meaning no extra RAM access.

Yeah that's what I figured, just don't have first hand experience with 64bit Windows. SoftImage XSI and 3d Max for example have 64bit versions of the apps for Windows, so those applications will probably use all the RAM that's available.

Dunno, I just prefer OSX for graphics work now...

[Robert Charles]

I am also about to make a new system, but my budget does not stretch to a Quad Zeon processor, which adds about 2-3 times the cost of a standard Quad.

Recently, I bought a 2nd hand DV Storm2 Card to compliment my other Storm2 system, but the new system needs to be Edius and NX Express Ready.

From what I am reading here, it is great to have a Quad system, but Edius does not use all the processors yet and yes, it is nice to have a couple of processors on stand-by just incase you want to run another application or two.

For the money I want to spend, the following two processors are being considered;

- Intel Core 2 Quad-Core Q6600, S775, 2.40 GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 8MB Cache, Retail is £170 (S0 95W lower Power rating)

- Intel Core 2 Duo E6850, S775, 3.0 GHz, 1333MHz FSB, Conroe Core, 4MB Cache, Retail is £169

Without overclocking, which processor would be best? When you consider Edius at the moment is essentially only using two processes, (Yes, I know the code and engine may be changed to use more processors later on), surely the Core2Duo which is working at a higher Ghz and addressing the FSB at a higher rate, would beat the Quad processor in a straight race, even if both systems were 1066Mhz FSB?

[Jerry]

I am also about to make a new system, but my budget does not stretch to a Quad Zeon processor, which adds about 2-3 times the cost of a standard Quad.

Recently, I bought a 2nd hand DV Storm2 Card to compliment my other Storm2 system, but the new system needs to be Edius and NX Express Ready.

From what I am reading here, it is great to have a Quad system, but Edius does not use all the processors yet and yes, it is nice to have a couple of processors on stand-by just incase you want to run another application or two.

For the money I want to spend, the following two processors are being considered;

- Intel Core 2 Quad-Core Q6600, S775, 2.40 GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 8MB Cache, Retail is £170 (S0 95W lower Power rating)

- Intel Core 2 Duo E6850, S775, 3.0 GHz, 1333MHz FSB, Conroe Core, 4MB Cache, Retail is £169

Without overclocking, which processor would be best? When you consider Edius at the moment is essentially only using two processes, (Yes, I know the code and engine may be changed to use more processors later on), surely the Core2Duo which is working at a higher Ghz and addressing the FSB at a higher rate, would beat the Quad processor in a straight race, even if both systems were 1066Mhz FSB?

Between the two, I would say the E6850. Not because of the 1333mhz but because of the 3.0. Edius reads that right off the bat. If you are only using Edius, not AE, not Photoshop, just Edius, the 2 core would give you the push you want, without overclocking. If you overclock the 2.4 to 3.0, that would be a different story.