Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

chfilm

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Nov 15, 2012
3,322
1,994
Berlin
Hey guys,

I just wanted to share my latest finding after finally having gotten my hands on one of the m2 ultra mac studios with full spec/128gb ram.
I opened up some after effects comps that took each about 12-16 minutes to render on my 16 core mac pro with 192gb ram.
No plugins, just a lot of layers, blur effects, color corrections, noises etc.

The Mac pro took 16,5 minutes, the studio did the same comp in 7 minutes.
The second comp, the mac pro took 12 minutes and the studio less than 6.

Also, when I look at the timeline, it and look at the frame render time, it's like 3,5 seconds on the studio, when the mac pro takes 5,6 seconds.
So if it just relies on single core speed it's not double, but at least 70% faster.

It's just wild! I couldnt conduct any GPU tests yet. If you have any ideas for me, let me know. Are there any known after effects plugins that profit massively from the GPU? I tried some trapcode particular, but interestingly, as soon as particular or form came into play, both machines were about the EXACT same speed, with rendering inside the plugin set both to CPU or GPU (gpu being slower).

Very odd- so it seems if it just comes down to raw cpu crunch, the studio is definitely faster, but in the real world one wouldnt neccessarily feel the difference as much as some plugins still seem not really optimized (even when red giant claims they are.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ddhhddhh2

avkills

macrumors 65816
Jun 14, 2002
1,182
985
Element3D should use the GPU a lot. Or rendering using Cinema4D. Interesting results, but I am not surprised since the M2 CPU cores are a lot better than the Xeon cores.

If you can run the Puget Systems AfterEffects benchmark that would be helpful to see how it fairs against PC kits.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.