After Effects Benchmarking Redux
I know no one cared about the last one, so I did some additional tests:
Previously After Effects 7.x on my MacBook Pro would crash on launch because I've been using Monolingual to remove the PowerPC portions of Universal binaries to conserve hard drive space. That's why I had to test AFX under Parallels and not in Rosetta (the seamless "emulation" environment that translates PowerPC code to Intel x86 code).
After checking out the error logs, I was able to use Pacifist to copy over the broken files (Chinese, Japanese, Thai, and Unicode text encodings) and After Effects launched without a problem (well, some QuickTime components could pose an issue, but I don't use those broken codecs).
So I ran the same test, and then I applied the 7.0.1 update and re-rested. I also updated my G5's copy and re-tested. And then I went a party and came back to do some more fiddling, went to bed, woke up, and did some more tests. In CS3 I mucked around with settings and tested the new "render multiple frames simultaneously" feature.
Once again I used Keynote to make a fancy graph (I haven't bothered to learn if Pages does graphs... wait... yes, it does do graphs. Oh well. It's way too late now.), and I made it even fancier than last time. And I figured out the PC's official name ("hp workstation xw8400." Yes, that is correct capitalization. I hate it when companies use random letters and numbers for product names.) The results are interesting:
Times are in seconds. Shorter bars are better.
Updating AFX to 7.0.1 on the G5 helped shave off 39 seconds (roughly 4%). Any boost in speed is always appreciated. But it could be a fluke (or maybe the original test was a fluke).
AFX 7.0 using Rosetta is balls slow. And updating to 7.0.1 made it two seconds slower, but I'm willing to believe that something was running in the background and that otherwise it would have been the same.
The first CS3 test was the one I posted Wednesday, with the default setting with multi frame processing off. I then enabled it today (but I had to drop the memory settings, so each core could get the same amount of RAM). I was taken aback that this MBP got the nice speed bump due to multiprocessing, but I decided to turn it back off just to see if it was another anomaly. And... it appears that it was. With multiprocessing back off, it was faster still. I don't know why both are so much faster than the original CS3 test I did.
It's my understanding that the render multiple frames setting is geared towards quad- and eight-core machines with lots of RAM. And, you know, machines that aren't using slow ass laptop hard drives. I would like to see how the PC (dual processor with hyperthreading) would fair with CS3's multiprocessing.
Running After Effects through virtualized Windows XP is faster than running it through Rosetta on Mac OS X. Crazy. But it makes sense. Parallels is pretty good at what it does, and fast emulation (call it "translating" if you must, Apple) of this complexity is just never going to happen. Though the fact that Apple has Rosetta working so well in the first place is extremely commendable (you know, when users like me don't fuck around with the file system). Rosetta is great for... Microsoft Office and light Photoshop and Illustrator work. But anything complicated like 3D animation or video editing would totally choke.
Here's another graph showing how much faster each setup was compared to the first AFX 7.0 G5 test:
Longer bars are better. G5 running AFX 7.0 is the baseline.
This is an interesting way of looking at the same data. Hopefully it's easier for many of you (all two people who might read this) to digest. The new MBP CS3 times sound consistent, almost two and a half times the speed of the G5. Though to be sure, I should load AFX CS3 on the G5 and test that, but I'm far too lazy. I am happy with my skewed results.
I would love to use the AFX CS3 full time once the final version is out this Summer, but I would need the rest of the office to upgrade, too, because AFX project files are not backwards-compatible with older versions. Which is such bullshit. I love Photoshop's Maximize Compatibility feature (which lets you open files saved in newer versions of PS in older versions), it has saved my ass many times that I always leave it enabled, even though it makes file sizes a bit larger.
So my current setup, working primarily on the PC, but copying files to do additional work on the train or at home, and then copying any updated files back to the PC to render, is working pretty well. The slowest part of the process (well, CPU-wise) is rendering; I can build and animate layers with no problem on any system, and then use lower resolution RAM previews for most testing purposes. Just as long as I do most of my best quality renders on the PC.
Aside from being fully native and faster, I don't know what other compelling reasons there are for upgrading to After Effects CS3. Photoshop has a wonderful (though basic) 3D object import which would be just about the greatest thing ever to have in AFX. I fucking hate animating in 3ds max. If I could import 3D objects into AFX and animate it within AFX's timeline, man, I'd be so happy. I would probably do a lot more 3D work than I do now. And by animate, I mean move the entire model/scene file. I understand AFX would never gain the ability to animate individual faces and vertices. Though I think Photoshop's 3D import allows for some animation, but it has to already be in the 3D file. And probably only specific file formats.
One last thing: Why don't the graph lines line up with the bars? I'm wondering the same fucking thing. If you understand how layers in 3D space work, then I will say this: the bars are much closer to the viewer than the graph lines are. I could have used the 2D graphics, but they're not as shiny. Yes, it is all about the eye candy.
I know no one cared about the last one, so I did some additional tests:
Previously After Effects 7.x on my MacBook Pro would crash on launch because I've been using Monolingual to remove the PowerPC portions of Universal binaries to conserve hard drive space. That's why I had to test AFX under Parallels and not in Rosetta (the seamless "emulation" environment that translates PowerPC code to Intel x86 code).
After checking out the error logs, I was able to use Pacifist to copy over the broken files (Chinese, Japanese, Thai, and Unicode text encodings) and After Effects launched without a problem (well, some QuickTime components could pose an issue, but I don't use those broken codecs).
So I ran the same test, and then I applied the 7.0.1 update and re-rested. I also updated my G5's copy and re-tested. And then I went a party and came back to do some more fiddling, went to bed, woke up, and did some more tests. In CS3 I mucked around with settings and tested the new "render multiple frames simultaneously" feature.
Once again I used Keynote to make a fancy graph (I haven't bothered to learn if Pages does graphs... wait... yes, it does do graphs. Oh well. It's way too late now.), and I made it even fancier than last time. And I figured out the PC's official name ("hp workstation xw8400." Yes, that is correct capitalization. I hate it when companies use random letters and numbers for product names.) The results are interesting:
Times are in seconds. Shorter bars are better.
Updating AFX to 7.0.1 on the G5 helped shave off 39 seconds (roughly 4%). Any boost in speed is always appreciated. But it could be a fluke (or maybe the original test was a fluke).
AFX 7.0 using Rosetta is balls slow. And updating to 7.0.1 made it two seconds slower, but I'm willing to believe that something was running in the background and that otherwise it would have been the same.
The first CS3 test was the one I posted Wednesday, with the default setting with multi frame processing off. I then enabled it today (but I had to drop the memory settings, so each core could get the same amount of RAM). I was taken aback that this MBP got the nice speed bump due to multiprocessing, but I decided to turn it back off just to see if it was another anomaly. And... it appears that it was. With multiprocessing back off, it was faster still. I don't know why both are so much faster than the original CS3 test I did.
It's my understanding that the render multiple frames setting is geared towards quad- and eight-core machines with lots of RAM. And, you know, machines that aren't using slow ass laptop hard drives. I would like to see how the PC (dual processor with hyperthreading) would fair with CS3's multiprocessing.
Running After Effects through virtualized Windows XP is faster than running it through Rosetta on Mac OS X. Crazy. But it makes sense. Parallels is pretty good at what it does, and fast emulation (call it "translating" if you must, Apple) of this complexity is just never going to happen. Though the fact that Apple has Rosetta working so well in the first place is extremely commendable (you know, when users like me don't fuck around with the file system). Rosetta is great for... Microsoft Office and light Photoshop and Illustrator work. But anything complicated like 3D animation or video editing would totally choke.
Here's another graph showing how much faster each setup was compared to the first AFX 7.0 G5 test:
Longer bars are better. G5 running AFX 7.0 is the baseline.
This is an interesting way of looking at the same data. Hopefully it's easier for many of you (all two people who might read this) to digest. The new MBP CS3 times sound consistent, almost two and a half times the speed of the G5. Though to be sure, I should load AFX CS3 on the G5 and test that, but I'm far too lazy. I am happy with my skewed results.
I would love to use the AFX CS3 full time once the final version is out this Summer, but I would need the rest of the office to upgrade, too, because AFX project files are not backwards-compatible with older versions. Which is such bullshit. I love Photoshop's Maximize Compatibility feature (which lets you open files saved in newer versions of PS in older versions), it has saved my ass many times that I always leave it enabled, even though it makes file sizes a bit larger.
So my current setup, working primarily on the PC, but copying files to do additional work on the train or at home, and then copying any updated files back to the PC to render, is working pretty well. The slowest part of the process (well, CPU-wise) is rendering; I can build and animate layers with no problem on any system, and then use lower resolution RAM previews for most testing purposes. Just as long as I do most of my best quality renders on the PC.
Aside from being fully native and faster, I don't know what other compelling reasons there are for upgrading to After Effects CS3. Photoshop has a wonderful (though basic) 3D object import which would be just about the greatest thing ever to have in AFX. I fucking hate animating in 3ds max. If I could import 3D objects into AFX and animate it within AFX's timeline, man, I'd be so happy. I would probably do a lot more 3D work than I do now. And by animate, I mean move the entire model/scene file. I understand AFX would never gain the ability to animate individual faces and vertices. Though I think Photoshop's 3D import allows for some animation, but it has to already be in the 3D file. And probably only specific file formats.
One last thing: Why don't the graph lines line up with the bars? I'm wondering the same fucking thing. If you understand how layers in 3D space work, then I will say this: the bars are much closer to the viewer than the graph lines are. I could have used the 2D graphics, but they're not as shiny. Yes, it is all about the eye candy.
VIEW 4 of 4 COMMENTS
Silly boy. You know I can't remember every geeky detail you bombard my female brain with.
I love you even though we're broken up now!
Universal binary: I told you this already, so here it is again, shorter, and with less information that is wrong:
All computers have processors. These are made by various companies. Processor have different languages. Macs in the past have been PowerPC processors (made by Apple, IBM, and Motorola). Intel is the bigger producer of processors and Apple finally switched to using theirs.
PowerPC chips use the PowerPC language. Intel's chips use the x86 language. An Intel chip can not read a PowerPC program, and visa versa. At least, not without it being emulated (you know, like SNES emulators).
So, when a software developer makes a program for a Mac, they are now given the choice: Make the program for:
- a PowerPC Mac
- an Intel Mac
- Both.
Universal binaries are the programs that contain both languages. They are roughly twice the filze size.
Binary: Not just 1s and 0s. In Mac OS X, a program is actually a folder. Inside is a Resources folder, which contains language-specific stuff (English, French, etc.), icons and pictures, movie files, sound clips, etc. There's another folder called MacOS which typically contains one file. This file is pure code. This file is an executable binary file. Like a Windows .exe file (exe = executable).
We're still broken up.