CPU: Dual Xeon vs i7

[yash-lucid]

Hello. Please can someone explain the basics of Dual Xeon processors vs i7 processors for Premiere Pro CS6 editing and After Effects CS6 graphics.

If you were to compare a Dual Xeon setup that costs the same as an i7 setup, which would be better for the above and why? Thanks in advance

[John T Smith]

I can't answer that, but I can say to go to the CS5 Benchmark http://ppbm5.com/ to review the results to see what people are using

[Harm_Millaard]

If you were to compare a Dual Xeon setup that costs the same as an i7 setup, which would be better for the above and why?

That is impossible.  Even dual Xeon i5-2620 CPU's cost way more than an i7-3930K (€ 720 versus € 515), dual Xeon motherboards are almost twice as expensive as single CPU 2011 boards, the memory for Xeon boards can be more expensive, etc. Dual E5-5620 systems are around 2.5 to 2.8 times slower than the fastest i7-3930K despite the higher cost, mainly because they can not be reasonably overclocked and their very low clock speed holds them back. If you spend around 20K on a dual Xeon system, it may come close to the fastest single i7-3930K system that costs only a fraction.

[yash-lucid]

You are indeed, a legend Harm. Thanks again

[excited_Genie16B8]

I wonder...can you put two 3930's into a board like this?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131886

[RjL190365]

Sorry, Jim, but all desktop i7 CPUs (yes, even including the 3930K and 3960X) are only uniprocessor capable. Thus, only one such CPU per board.

[excited_Genie16B8]

all desktop i7 CPUs are only uniprocessor capable.

Disappointing.

[Alex_-_DV411]

If you spend around 20K on a dual Xeon system, it may come close to the fastest single i7-3930K system that costs only a fraction.

1. The fastest dual Xeon system is around $12K from Tier 1 (HP, Dell, Lenovo), much less from COTS components.
   (Please don't quote me HP Direct prices again - few folks buy there unless they get at least 20% off.)
2. When you say "it may come close", do you mean in PPBM scores only, or in any other benchmarks? You don't by any chance think that PPBM is uniquitous and adequately reflects Premiere Pro workflows?  In other words, could you justify your statements by means other than PPBM?
3. You can't directly compare McLaren (or Lotus) and Kia on a price either. To each his own.  Purely on tangible benefits, though: dual Xeons offer more memory, better protected and stable memory, higher memory bandwidth, higher I/O bandwidth, higher computational performance. For a price, of course.

Core i7 systems are the best BFTB (value, i.e. performance on a dollar), but doesn't mean dual Xeons are somehow inferior to i7.

Harm, would it be a good time to stop knocking down platforms you don't like?

[Bill Gehrke]

Alex Gerulaitis wrote:

1. ......You don't by any chance think that PPBM is uniquitous and adequately reflects Premiere Pro workflows?  In other words, could you justify your statements by means other than PPBM?

Please define uniquitous

[Alex_-_DV411]

Please define uniquitous

A happy marriage between unique and ubiquitous. I meant the latter of course.

[Guest]

+1

[Guest]

+1

[Guest]

well sir while i respect ur views, i disagree with just the BFTB argument. many editors here do not just use premier pro. we use cinema 4d, after effects and other high multitasking programs. we have a HP Z820 with the evga gtx 680 clasified and the dual 2687w and 64gig ram the hp spanks a manually built 3930k 2@4.2ghz with same graphic card and 64gig ram by a large margin. the hp has a red rocket, also so we mainly do epic 5k 5;1 footage. so if u have the clients, BFTB is no question epically wehen you have to edit, and grade a music video within 24hrs.

one more thing while is hp the best looking computer case you can get. those comercial cases are for gamers with ther transformer kind of looks too childish. dat can be a big factor for people.

[RjL190365]

Here is the primary reason for that:

Most of those programs that you mentioned favor more cores/threads over higher CPU clock speeds to begin with. (Or put it conversely, Premiere Pro does not take full advantage of more than a uniprocessor PC based on a single multi-core, multi-threaded, highly-clocked CPU.)

[Alex_-_DV411]

RjL190365 wrote:

(Or put it conversely, Premiere Pro does not take full advantage of more than a uniprocessor PC based on a single multi-core, multi-threaded, highly-clocked CPU.)

Proof?

[RjL190365]

I can't provide conclusive evidence given that there aren't enough Xeon E5 CPU-based PCs on the PPBM5 list to judge. However, while it is a good test for commonly used HD consumer resolutions, it does not tell you how it will perform with 4K material.

[Alex_-_DV411]

I can't provide conclusive evidence given that there aren't enough Xeon E5 CPU-based PCs on the PPBM5 list to judge.

This assumes PPBM5 results (or those of any set of fixed benchmarks) are directly correlated to how Premiere Pro will perform in a variety of workflows.

This is like asking a heavyweight champion to run a 40 mile marathon and assume most marathon runners will be as slow.

That's a big assumption to ride, which in turn will require some proving to do.  As Scott says, there are Pr workflows that do benefit from dual Xeon configurations - and that doesn't even cover the other benefits of dual Xeon platforms that I mentioned above.

[JCschild]

thats easy i can just imagine how slow a say 2.4GHz Xeons system would be

Video material - AVCHD 1080P 24 Frame Each Cut to 30 minutes of material

Export Codec - H264 HDTV 1080P 24 Preset Default

4 Effects per Layer - Fast Color Corrector, Brightness & Contrast, Video Limiter, Sharpen

Each Layer Scaled to 50% for 4 frame PinP view.

Ivy Bridge 3770 @ 4.7GHz

16GB DDR3 1600

4x 1TB 32Meg Cache Drives. (2 sets raid 0)

680GTX 2GB video card

Adobe CS6

3 Layer - 28:05

4 layer - 33:19

3930K @ 3.2 GHz (stock)

32GB DDR3 1600

4x 1TB 64Meg Cache Drives.

670GTX 4GB video card

Adobe CS6

3 Layer - 30:12

4 layer - 37:00

3930K @ 4.5GHz

32GB DDR3 1600

4x 1TB 64Meg Cache Drives.

670GTX 4GB video card

Adobe CS6

3 Layer - 25:59

4 layer - 31:05 <---- winner by far.

2X Xeon E5 2687 @3.1

32GB DDR3 1600

4x 1TB 64Meg Cache Drives Raid 10

670GTX 4GB video card

Adobe CS6.02

3 Layer - 31:15

4 layer - 38:43

Note* the slowest performer in THIS test is the DUAL Xeon. this is more about GHZ than core count with this work flow even the Ivy @ 4.7GHz beat the stock 3930k

cant imagine how slow a single Xeon would be... this is indicitive of the average workfow for most in Premiere.

Next up Red 4K where the Xeons shine.. we didnt bother with the Ivy system.

2X Xeon E5 2687 @3.1

32GB DDR3 1600

4x 1TB 64Meg Cache Drives Raid 10

670GTX 4GB video card

Adobe CS6.02

Red 4K to DPX 4096 x 2048 24p Full Range (max bit depth)

3 Layer - 8:13

4 layer - 11:52

3930K @ 3.2 GHz (stock)

32GB DDR3 1600

4x 1TB 64Meg Cache Drives.

670GTX 4GB video card

Red 4K to DPX 4096 x 2048 24p Full Range (max bit depth)

3 Layer - 11:23

4 layer - 13:55

3930K @ 4.5GHz

32GB DDR3 1600

4x 1TB 64Meg Cache Drives.

670GTX 4GB video card

Red 4K to DPX 4096 x 2048 24p Full Range (max bit depth)

3 Layer - 9:49

4 layer - 11:53 OH WAIT A TIE with the Xeons..

We feel there is a place for dual Xeons and red 4K tpe codecs or heavy animation is it..

[lasvideo]

SC- "We feel there is a place for dual Xeons and red 4K tpe codecs or heavy animation is it.."

Amen!

[Guest]

Like I said not everybody with a dual processor setup is just restricted to premier most ppl with dat setup use other softwares.

[excited_Genie16B8]

Red 4K to DPX 4096 x 2048 24p Full Range (max bit depth)

What...no 4K to deliverable tests?  No Blu-ray or MXF OP1a?

It'd be interesting to see the results using the same export setting for both media types.  It would have been more telling.

[ECBowen]

I used DPX because that is the most common export out of Premiere or AE when taking Red to another application since exporting Red is not an option. Also DPX is commonly used as the Master when finishing so it seemed to be the most common workflow. Since the same export settings were used on all of the platforms tested, I don't believe there was a need to export as H264 like the AVCHD testing.

Eric

ADK

[excited_Genie16B8]

I don't believe there was a need to export as H264 like the AVCHD testing.

Still would have been interesting to see those results, I think.  Eliminating variables and such.  (Same export setting for all tests, regardless of system or source media.)

[JCschild]

we did include the Xeon for AVC to H264

[MarkWeiss]

I think Harm is onto something here about dual Xeons not being as fast for Premiere as a single i7. My experience has been that my old Core2Quad runs CS6 smoothly, reliably and with no quirks. Whereas on the dual Xeon system with 128GB of RAM and a Titan X GPU, it's erratic, drops frames, sometimes speeds up by itself so it's playing like fast forward 8X, and then stops. I can't get it to play more than 4 minutes without either stopping or speeding up and then stopping.

Of course my decision to go with a dual Xeon weighed in the fact that I also do a fair amount of 3D CG and for that it is splendid.

Premiere just doesn't seem to be multithread aware, or it doesn't efficiently use more than four threads. Even UI stuff like launching the Media Encoder window (control-M) takes longer on the new machine than it does on the old Core2Quad.

I'm convinced that the E5-2630 v3 isn't enough for Premiere. I should have gotten a bigger mortgage and gone with the 2699 CPUs. And I thought modern CPUs could execute more instructions per clock than old CPUs. I guess that isn't true after all.

To edit 4K in Premiere, it seems you need the highest end i7 money can buy, cryogenically cooled and overclocked to 6GHz.