Nuke on a Mac Pro - performance and stability

[nikita]

I've seen that a few guys here have Mac Pros running Nuke. I'm thinking about buying one of these 8-core Mac Pros, so I'd really like to know what your experiences are with these boxes.

How is Nuke performing on OS X vs. Linux on these machines? Any chance someone with a dual boot config could whip up a quick benchmark?

How is the stability?

Price aside, would you rather go for a beefy Linux box or for the Mac Pro?

[instinct]

heh. all i'd say is dont run nuke on osx. period. double period. triple pe...wait this could go on forever :P i cant really speak for linux, only win vs. OSX and windows already wins by FAR. And as i hear linux is still a LOT superior over windows...

Regards,
Thorsten

[carmandale]

We primarily use linux, but also use windows at our studio.

I however, use nuke on my laptop macbookpro and also my quad core mac pro. It works very well. scripts work, everything works. The speed is comparable, machine to machine. On my desktop machine, I use a 30" cinema display, and nuke is quite lovely on it. I work on the mac and send renders to our linux farm...no issues.

not sure if the last guys post is based on any actual use, but in my day to day production use, I have no issues.

thanks,
Dale

[hugo_guerra]

We primarily use linux, but also use windows at our studio.

I however, use nuke on my laptop macbookpro and also my quad core mac pro. It works very well. scripts work, everything works. The speed is comparable, machine to machine. On my desktop machine, I use a 30" cinema display, and nuke is quite lovely on it. I work on the mac and send renders to our linux farm...no issues.

not sure if the last guys post is based on any actual use, but in my day to day production use, I have no issues.

thanks,
Dale

Same here Dale, I have no issues in a Mac Pro and even in a Quad G5, Nuke have been very stable in the MAC since 4.7v1 was released, really rock solid, even Qmaster makes the renders, as far as I see it i don´t se a difference of using Mac Osx.

On the other hand the Mac Osx gives other extras, like using Final Cut Studio (beats the crap out of Adobe Suite) as a back up editing platform, and also Shake.

In a way I see the Mac OSX as a "Linux stable Os" with Final Cut Studio/AE as an extra.

Also having Shake makes for much more of a good transition to Nuke, since in the start you can always use both to complement them self's.


All of best

[hugo_guerra]

I've seen that a few guys here have Mac Pros running Nuke. I'm thinking about buying one of these 8-core Mac Pros, so I'd really like to know what your experiences are with these boxes.

How is Nuke performing on OS X vs. Linux on these machines? Any chance someone with a dual boot config could whip up a quick benchmark?

How is the stability?

Price aside, would you rather go for a beefy Linux box or for the Mac Pro?

Hi, I had a "BootCamp" Mac Pro with Mac OSX 10.4.10 and XP SP2 installed on it.
I tested Nuke in both OS, and I got the same render speed, but more crashes in XP then Mac OSX.

All of best

[bimdas]

I tested Nuke in both OS, and I got the same render speed, but more crashes in XP then Mac OSX.



Can you elaborate a bit more. What were you rendering, where was the xp version crashing? that sort of thing.

[hugo_guerra]

Can you elaborate a bit more. What were you rendering, where was the xp version crashing? that sort of thing.

Hi, I was rendering testing composites with Open EXR from Vray with around 12 channels enable in top of a full 10 bit 4:4:4 filmed 720p video plate.

I had a lot of stability problems running Nuke in XP, with some crashes in changes ZBlur nodes or vector blur nodes.

In Mac Osx these same comp did not crash like that.

Also the Hard drive playback in disk cache is faster in the Mac OSX then in the XP, in the same hard drive.

I am not try to sell the MAC here, but I always had issues like this in any thing runned in XP, Fusion and After effects also are like that.

In fact the reason for me to change to the MAC platform was because AE was a lot better in the MAC then in the PC.

[NEO]

AE better in mac? huh! Then we are obviously not talking about an intel mac because AE7 have had some major issues on the mac intels (and CS3 have only been out for some months). And if we are talking about intel mac's your pc must have some serious hardware or software problem. =)

I'm pretty neutral regarding OSX vs Win. Just talking out of experience here regarding AE. Actually i prefer *nix. I would love OSX if it wasn't for the extremely ineffective GUI in it.

Nuke 4.7v3 is rock solid in XP64bit here. Have not tested it on OSX so can't say much about that.


Hi, I was rendering testing composites with Open EXR from Vray with around 12 channels enable in top of a full 10 bit 4:4:4 filmed 720p video plate.

I had a lot of stability problems running Nuke in XP, with some crashes in changes ZBlur nodes or vector blur nodes.

In Mac Osx these same comp did not crash like that.

Also the Hard drive playback in disk cache is faster in the Mac OSX then in the XP, in the same hard drive.

I am not try to sell the MAC here, but I always had issues like this in any thing runned in XP, Fusion and After effects also are like that.

In fact the reason for me to change to the MAC platform was because AE was a lot better in the MAC then in the PC.

[hugo_guerra]

AE better in mac? huh! Then we are obviously not talking about an intel mac because AE7 have had some major issues on the mac intels (and CS3 have only been out for some months). And if we are talking about intel mac's your pc must have some serious hardware or software problem. =)

I'm pretty neutral regarding OSX vs Win. Just talking out of experience here regarding AE. Actually i prefer *nix. I would love OSX if it wasn't for the extremely ineffective GUI in it.

Nuke 4.7v3 is rock solid in XP64bit here. Have not tested it on OSX so can't say much about that.


Hi, yes AE in a G5.

But AE CS3 in Intel is very fast and good.

But anyway, you know what? It really dosen´t matter, OS, Software, we work where we are like best, as long as we do the job right.

I prefer MAC OSX, but, of course that is just my opinion.

[NEO]

Agree. AE CS3 on our macs are rock solid and really fast!

And you are absolutely right. It's not the OS, the HW or the stand alone worker that matters. It's when you combine all those components in the most efficient way that you get results. :guitarman

I didn't mean to sound harsh in my last post. But when reading it now I understand that it might have sounded a bit harsh/rude. Must be the lack of coffee t'day. :coffee: :cheers:

Any words on Maya 2008 stability on OSX Hugo? Have not had the time to test it here yet since Autodesk always makes a mess with the dongle licenses. :wheelchai


Hi, yes AE in a G5.

But AE CS3 in Intel is very fast and good.

But anyway, you know what? It really dosen´t matter, OS, Software, we work where we are like best, as long as we do the job right.

I prefer MAC OSX, but, of course that is just my opinion.

[bimdas]

unless you are using some weird plugin, AE is rock solid on any system. Now that macs have moved over to intel hardware, the only difference is in the OS. At this moment you could even install OSX on a intel core duo pc, just google hackintosh. I don't see why apple just don't sell OSX except for the reason of profiting by overcharging for hardware.

[hugo_guerra]

unless you are using some weird plugin, AE is rock solid on any system. Now that macs have moved over to intel hardware, the only difference is in the OS. At this moment you could even install OSX on a intel core duo pc, just google hackintosh. I don't see why apple just don't sell OSX except for the reason of profiting by overcharging for hardware.

Hi, like I saw before, it dosen´t matter where, I personally use Mac OSX because of Stability, the X-Serve Fiber and Final Cut, that is me, I don´t about other systems, maybe I was not lucky with XP, but the bottom line is that as long as we make good work and it is in Nuke, everything is fine :)

[nikita]

Thanks for everyone's replies.

The "feeling" of speed is highly subjective. Unless you use the program with the same or similar complex script on two OSs on the same machine you can't really compare it.

I went from Windows (2000, though) to Linux in my facility and did some tests back then. The speedup was between 0-30%, depending on the script.

If you have OS X and Windows on the same machine, could you do us a little benchmark? Just create a script that needs at least a few minutes to render and give us the numbers? It may not be very scientific or representative, but at least a hint. Thanks!

[nikita]

On the other hand, did anyone have a chance to get a Linux distro running on the Mac Pro?

[beaker]

unless you are using some weird plugin, AE is rock solid on any system. Now that macs have moved over to intel hardware, the only difference is in the OS. At this moment you could even install OSX on a intel core duo pc, just google hackintosh. I don't see why apple just don't sell OSX except for the reason of profiting by overcharging for hardware.Actually they have been pretty competitive on the highend front since they moved to Intel. An equal configured quad or 8 core from Dell or BOXX is more expensive. Apple sells the quadro 4500 card at cost.

Apple can't sell the OS only because no one would pay for the consequences of that change. They subsidize their software costs with hardware. FC studio for $1299, Shake for $500 and Logic for $500 were previously 2-10x the price (Final Cut Studios contents alone makes up around 50k in software, Shake was 10k, logic was 2k).

[bimdas]

Actually they have been pretty competitive on the highend front since they moved to Intel. An equal configured quad or 8 core from Dell or BOXX is more expensive. Apple sells the quadro 4500 card at cost.


Sorry I meant for people like me who like to build our pcs from components. In that instance I could build my own BOXX spec windows/linux box and save alot of money. But of course not everyone has the time to learn about hardware.
But your opinion on the software side of things makes alot of sense although apple do make most of their money from ipods and I believe they are cutting the price of their software suites to compete with adobe. They could just as easily make a cross platform OS as I believe they can make a cross platform version of Final Cut Studio and maybe make more money than they do now with this platform monopoly deal they have always had going on.

[Ajax]

On the other hand, did anyone have a chance to get a Linux distro running on the Mac Pro?

...You might want to look into Parallels or VMWare Fusion for Mac OS X. I'm using VMWare running Windows XP and its pretty solid. You can of course run Linux on it also, I'm thinking of throwing Ubuntu on it but really cant justify why I would do so If I cant do production work on it. On the XP side I use it for gaming purposes.

[nikita]

...You might want to look into Parallels or VMWare Fusion for Mac OS X. I'm using VMWare running Windows XP and its pretty solid. You can of course run Linux on it also, I'm thinking of throwing Ubuntu on it but really cant justify why I would do so If I cant do production work on it. On the XP side I use it for gaming purposes.

I meant to run Nuke on that Linux. A virtualized Linux would probably take too much of a performance hit to be worth the trouble.

[Ajax]

I meant to run Nuke on that Linux. A virtualized Linux would probably take too much of a performance hit to be worth the trouble.

Yeah, that was my concern in general with a production workflow. I think it wouldn't really be a good idea, but I was answering the linux distro part ;)

[nathan]

You can run Linux on a Mac box, I know Ubuntu will run and they have a forum all for Ubuntu on Mac boxes - link (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=211).

If you wanna pay the price of a Mac then at least you can choose which OS you wanna toss on it. You have all 3 choices Linux, OSX, and Windows so if your undecided you can always get a Mac knowing you can always change your mind OS wise at any date.

[beaker]

I meant to run Nuke on that Linux. A virtualized Linux would probably take too much of a performance hit to be worth the trouble.What you can do is install bootcamp. Parallels and Vmware let you run off a bootcamp partition. So if you just need something small in windows/linux you can run it in virtualization, but if you need its full power, then just boot into whatever OS you want.

[beaker]

Sorry I meant for people like me who like to build our pcs from components. In that instance I could build my own BOXX spec windows/linux box and save alot of money.Well yea, thats a given. Thats because your not counting your labor that went into building the machine. I can build a car from scratch for a lot cheaper then I can buy one whole. :)


But your opinion on the software side of things makes alot of sense although apple do make most of their money from ipods and I believe they are cutting the price of their software suites to compete with adobe. They could just as easily make a cross platform OS as I believe they can make a cross platform version of Final Cut Studio and maybe make more money than they do now with this platform monopoly deal they have always had going on.Adobe wasn't really much to compete with back when FCP first came out. Premiere sucked ass for many years(till pro came around). The big company that Apple was kicking to the curb was Avid, who's boxes come in at 50k+ for their highend editors.

I think you overestimate the size of our field. Compositing, 3d, graphics, etc... is a really small niche market. Remember that Shake only sold around 2500 copies when Apple bought them. We are not a huge money making industry. General consumers is where Microsoft made all their money, not graphics people. Shit, Alias sold for only 60 million a few years ago. Thats pocket change when it comes to companies.

[nathan]

I think your car analogy is tad flawed in that it takes a lot less effort to toss together a box then build a car. I doesn't take that much of a person to read a manual, plug things together and get a box up and running.

When I worked in a computer repair shop at the end of highschool you would be surprised how many John Does and Jane Does would actually buy a part and install it themselves, although that doesn't mean they don't put a stick of ddr2 ram into a sdram slot cracking the motherboard in the process from time to time.

Back to the topic at hand, running any kind of software related to work through a VM would be pointless and a waste of resources, thats not even counting the fact of would it run to begin with and would it be stable enough.

Since the original question posed asked whether a beefy Linux setup would be better then a Mac box all I can repeat is that if you choose to get a Mac at least you still have the option of going the Linux route should you decide to not wanna use OSX. I don't own a Mac personally but I can see this as being a huge plus when someone is considering getting one because it allows you the option of having another OS besides OSX. So if you end up putting a Linux machine together but later regret it then your SOL while if you get a Mac box and decide you would rather go the Linux route all you have to do is partition your drive and install.

[hugo_guerra]

Since the original question posed asked whether a beefy Linux setup would be better then a Mac box all I can repeat is that if you choose to get a Mac at least you still have the option of going the Linux route should you decide to not wanna use OSX. I don't own a Mac personally but I can see this as being a huge plus when someone is considering getting one because it allows you the option of having another OS besides OSX. So if you end up putting a Linux machine together but later regret it then your SOL while if you get a Mac box and decide you would rather go the Linux route all you have to do is partition your drive and install.


Point taken, just do what I did, get a MAC Pro with 4 cores and 4GB Ram, and make a triple boot out of it, them you have Linux, XP and MAX OSX to test, play, work, anything you like, but do not use VMware, it just slows down the MAC Pro and the Open GL and direct X in virtualiation softwares is still a joke. It just crashes all the time.

[beaker]

I think your car analogy is tad flawed in that it takes a lot less effort to toss together a box then build a car. I doesn't take that much of a person to read a manual, plug things together and get a box up and running.Obviously with the smily face I was exaggerating.

My point being time is money. With a $5-700 dayrate, you just paid for the difference in price over a Boxx, HP, Apple in that day you spent building the box. Then the pain in the ass of dealing with parts if they go bad. That 2-3 week turn around for returns sucks compared to 24-48 hours with Boxx, dell or apple. It's all personal preferences though.

[Ajax]

Point taken, just do what I did, get a MAC Pro with 4 cores and 4GB Ram, and make a triple boot out of it, them you have Linux, XP and MAX OSX to test, play, work, anything you like, but do not use VMware, it just slows down the MAC Pro and the Open GL and direct X in virtualiation softwares is still a joke. It just crashes all the time.

Really, it does all that? well I guess I'll take it off I was hoping for a better gaming solution rather then having to boot into XP...

[nathan]

I understand you may of been exaggerating but even now I still have to disagree. I understand building a computer isn't for everyone and thats someones personal choice however when someone suggests building a box I will assume they have the knowledge to complete the task. This is why I will have to disagree with your $5-700 dayrate example.

It takes me at most 30 mins to build a machine from opening the packages to first boot and starting the install process. This is nowhere near a waste of my time and I can do it over the weekend. When it comes to building a box yourself it will ALWAYS be cheaper and by an order of magnitude of quit a bit then buying a BOXX or any other setup.

I priced a duel duel-core Opteron 4gb RAM 1tb raid 5 setup and a whole bunch of other stuff, I was well under 2k from an Apple setup or anyone else when it came to the final price. This is even including buying the bare minimum specs from Apple etc and adding upgrades myself since everyone knows you don't by the ram you want from Apple as they charge out the ass for it.

The money I save from building my own setup is such an amount that half the thing could fry two days later and I could order new parts while STILL not going over the price I would of paid from a major hardware vendor. If your building your own setup then worrying about a part going bad should be of no issue as you already know how to deal with it and as I explained above you already saved money on your purchase so ordering a new part isn't a money sink if you think about it.

So I have to disagree with building your own setup is just as expensive as buying from a vendor. If you know what you're doing and really care about getting the most value out of your dollar then it can be a moderate to huge money saving venture.

[bimdas]

Gee $500-700 a day, $2500-3500 a week? Damn you must be living large! Seriously though, the only thing you need to know about building a computer is what parts are compatible with the motherboard you've chosen. From there you order the parts on the internet and as nrgy said, build it like a lego set and install everything on it an hour or two. The only thing you'll need is a phillips head screw driver. I believe you can train a chimpanzee to do it. Every computer I've ever built has never failed because unlike Dell and I think even Boxx, I don't skimp on components even though getting the best is hardly expensive. And if something does get broke, in my case the pioneer dvd burner, I wouldn't worry about it because they only cost $40au from the store around the corner. Plus lets not go into how much extended warrentys with dell and such can cost and there will always be downtime if something breaks, I know because my laptop is a dell and I will never buy dell again. Can't vouch for Boxx except they are like the apple for PCs, overcharging for a fancy badge and case.
The only apple software I really want to use is Logic Studio for only $650au. Makes my ptle setup look like a lawyer, I'm not paying $500 just to import omfs. I am thinking about building a hackintosh just to run it and i believe i can do one for under $500 with a dual core and everything and it can double as a render node. The final cut studio looks nice and that price is unbeatable, that is after you've paid more than $4k on a mac pro.

[beaker]

thats a pretty standard rate for an experienced Los Angeles freelancer in film. Remember that often times we only work 9-10 months a year because of gaps between projects. Also lots of overtime.

[Diogo Girondi]

I have to say the assembling your own systems can be cheaper but it can also bring you some extra headaches once you need support from especific software vendor. If you rely on a custom built system the chances that your software vendor will be able to really help you, are reduced since they won't be able to run tests on the same setup as yours.

Some vendors like Avid won't even provide support for the higher end products unless you're running the recomended setup. Same holds true for Assimilate and severall others.

I still rather rely on a vendor like DELL or BOXX, never had problems with neither of them and they certainly have a lot more feedback regarding problems, crashes, failures and stuff in a month then what I hopefuly will in my entire life so you pay for that as well.

BOXX computers are great and their support kicks ass, one of the boxxes here had it's motherboard burned and they've sent us a new motherboard and a new power supply within 3 days from US to Brazil, this would be equivalent to "same day" in US.

Also it's a lot easier to call a single hardware vendor then having to call one for each part when you have a problem.

And assembling your custom system might not be as difficult as building a car but it sure has it's secretes and it has a lot more to it then just matching compatible components. Not everything that is compatible is in fact balanced to work together in the level we use stuff.

[bimdas]

If you are using an Avid, (such as I do), then you build your system according to their specs. Simply means go for an intel cpu, and a nvidia video card. A simple look at a software's specs is all thats needed before you build a system for a specific software and those kinds of software that rely on a specific cpu or video card are rare.
Apart from getting the right cpu which is decided on the motherboard you get, there are no secrets. If your motherboard has pcie you get a pcie video card, if it has sata you get a sata harddrive, if it supports ddr2-3 ram, you get the picture.

[Diogo Girondi]

If you are using an Avid, (such as I do), then you build your system according to their specs. Simply means go for an intel cpu, and a nvidia video card. A simple look at a software's specs is all thats needed before you build a system for a specific software and those kinds of software that rely on a specific cpu or video card are rare.
Apart from getting the right cpu which is decided on the motherboard you get, there are no secrets. If your motherboard has pcie you get a pcie video card, if it has sata you get a sata harddrive, if it supports ddr2-3 ram, you get the picture.

Sure, that's pretty obvious. You wouldn't expect to plug an AMD proc on a Intel Xeon motherboard or a PCIe on a ISA slot, it's like 1+1=2. But depending on the system and in the situation you are you will hear "We will try to help you sir but your system isn't qualified by Avid or whatever".

Once you use qualified/certified systems you avoid hearing excuses once things get nasty from both your hardware and software vendors.

[bimdas]

What your saying is people who build their own systems don't get avid support. Of course they do, I've never had a problem but even people running xpress pro on an amd are getting support on their forums and I'd assume their phone support. If what you are saying is correct than avid don't support boxx systems either because on their site, their qualified workstations are only HP and dell.
The other high end systems such as scratch and avid adrenalines are usually sold as a turnkey system anyway so you can't really build those type of systems and why would you if you could afford such expensive tools. If I was rich, trust me, I wouldn't bother with trying to save a couple thousand on a system, I'm just arguing the case for people who have other things to spend their money on.

[Diogo Girondi]

No bimdas you got me wrong man. I'm not saying that people who don't run their apps on a certified system won't get any support, sure they will (unless stated by the vendor). I'm just saying that the once you do use a certified system by X software vendor for their Y app the chances of getting a better support and not just relying on their good will are increased.

If you run an app with the certified system by the software vendor there is no argument, they've commited to that and your following their own instructions, if you don't and things reach a 'no solotion point' you are more or less on your own.

This doesn't mean that a Apple, DELL, HP or BOXX are any better then each other or even that your own custom built system, it's just a question of arguments when you find your self in a creppy situation and need help.

As for the Avid, I was just using as an example and it was not Xpress Pro related, more for their "higher end prducts" like Adrenaline and Synphony.

[anshul]

i wanna ask bout windows how s nuke performing if any body can help me regarding tht...

[beaker]

i wanna ask bout windows how s tht performing if any body can help me regarding tht...Nuke on Widows or Windows on a Macpro?