-
Advice needed on PC workstation for 8K files in After Effects
-
David Lawrence writes:
> My understanding is that this is the fastest possible internal storage for a PC. In my monster
> system, I’m imagining three PCIe SSDs – 1) System and applications, 2) Adobe cache (AE and
> Premiere), 3) Rendered outputHmm, I’m not sure you’d notice any useful or measurable gain from having a PCIe SSD for the C-drive
as opposed to a normal top-end SATA SSD like an 850 Pro. Maybe you would, but so far I’ve seen no
data, ie. to a large extent people are just assuming this would be the case but without any results
to back that up. I would do tests, but I don’t have the relevant parts atm, can’t afford them either.What I mean btw is someone comparing a system for AE where it’s as you described (PCIe for the cache,
PCIe for the output, etc.), but one has an 850 Pro for the C-drive while the other config uses PCIe.
Change just the variable in question, see what happens. All too often comments come from people with
entirely different builds (CPU, mbd, gfx, etc.), so conclusions are iffy at best.Remember too it’s a good idea to have a separate SSD for the Windows paging file, just a medium
model like a 120GB. For a system with 64GB RAM, the paging file should be 96GB, leave the rest unused
for spare area. Frees up lots of space from the C-drive, which makes quite a difference if the C-drive
SSD is only 256GB. For a system with 128GB RAM, then a 250GB EVO would suffice (paging file should be
1.5X RAM capacity).Lastly, consider this alternative: PCIe for the cache and output, but a PCIe for the source input and
normal SATA SSD for the C-drive. Would having a PCIe SSD instead of a SATA SSD for the source files
be faster? I don’t know for sure, but annecdotal evidence suggests it may be.> A fourth, larger fast SATA drive would be for storing final output. …
Do consider using Enterprise SATA, not consumer SATA. I’ve had good success obtaining new/unused
drives of this kind, mostly 2TB Hitachi/Seagate.> Backup would be some external >solution TBD.
Recommend LTO, or if cost is an issue then RAID1 at a minimum, RAID10 for an extra speed edge.
> Does this seem like a reasonable plan?
If you can use PCIe for all of them then sure, but it’ll gobble up PCIe slots pretty quick (most mbds
will only have one M.2 port you can use). The more normal PCIe slots you use up for SSDs, the fewer
will be available for extra GPU expansion.Hmm, is it possible to buy a x16 PCIe to M.2 multiport adapter card yet? I would have thought there’d
be a market for something like that. There are single port cards, but I couldn’t find one with multiple
M.2 ports (not even on a site like span.com).Ian.
> Re: PCIe – when I go through PC configuration options (for example on HP’s Z840 customize page)
> I find I’m only allowed one or two PCIe storage choices. I assume this is a limitation of the
> motherboard? …Not necessarily, but probably. OEMs often use custom boards which have nowhere near as many PCIe
slots as a board like the ASUS X99E-WS.> Are there motherboards out there I should be looking for that would allow for additional fast
> PCIe storage (three or more SSDs)?See above, that’s what I’d use for a prosumer build. In the dual-socket XEON world, it’d be the
ASUS Z10PE-D8 WS instead.> Thanks again for sharing your expertise!
Most welcome! 🙂
Ian.
——–
SGI Guru -
[Ian Mapleson] “OEMs often use custom boards which have nowhere near as many PCIe slots as a board like the ASUS X99E-WS.”
Here’s the PCIe configuration on a Z840:
Slot 1: PCIe Gen3 x4
Slot 2: PCIe Gen3 x16
Slot 3: PCIe Gen3 x8 – Available ONLY when 2nd processor is installed
Slot 4: PCIe Gen3 x16 – Available ONLY when 2nd processor is installed
Slot 5: PCIe Gen2 x4 when 1 CPU is installed. Transforms to PCIe Gen3 x8 when 2nd CPU is installed
Slot 6: PCIe Gen3 x16
Slot 7: PCIe Gen2 x1HP presumably offers only two Turbo Drives because those plus the GPU will take all the x16 slots, but I wonder if that’s really necessary: note that the Fusion IO cards read 2.8 GB/s and only require PCIe Gen2 x8.
HP does not offer M.2 onboard on the Z840.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[David Lawrence] “BTW, what are doing for backup? Are you using tape or swappable HDs?”
Nearline storage on NAS, archive on LTO-5. I am eagerly awaiting LTO-7.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
Walter Soyka writes:
> Here’s the PCIe configuration on a Z840:Yikes, what a mess! Yeah, exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of, all sorts of horrible
dependencies & gotchas. Makes deciding what to use rather complicated re SSDs, PCIe, etc.I should have been more specific btw, I meant OEM boards often have nowhere near as many full
x16 slots as a board like the X99E-WS.Hence, the ASUS Z10PE-D8 WS is a far better board for this sort of task than whatever HP is using.
I’d rather do a home build than by a Z840.> Nearline storage on NAS, archive on LTO-5. I am eagerly awaiting LTO-7.
Sweet! 8)
Ian.
——–
SGI Guru -
I’d like to chip in my two cents here to point out a feature-wise competitive motherboard to the ASUS X99-E WS, and that is the ASRock X99 Extreme 11.
Granted the ASRock does not have 7 PCIe x16 slots. It has 5, and similar to the ASUS, 4 are x16 lanes when all 4 are occupied mainly owing to the 2 PLX PEX 8747 embedded chips (which I suspect the ASUS also has though not mentioned by ASUS).
For storage, I would think the ASRock offers superior features in that there are 2 x 32Gb/s M.2 slots (though they share PCIe lanes with a SATA3 connector when occupied) versus 1 similar speed M.2 slot for the ASUS. Additionally, the ASRock has 18 x SATA3 (8 x SAS3 12.0 Gb/s + 10 x SATA3 6.0 Gb/s versus the ASUS 8 x SATA3 6.0 Gb/s).
In summary then, both boards support Xeon processors, can cater to 4-way Crossfire or SLI, have 12K hour capacitors and if I’m not wrong both are 12-phase Power Designs for smooth power delivery at low temps. But the ASRock has more high-speed storage features than the ASUS.
Thomas Leong
-
Thomas Leong writes:
> … (which I suspect the ASUS also has though not mentioned by ASUS).Yes, it has them, I posted a link to a picture showing them earlier.
> For storage, I would think the ASRock offers superior features in that there are 2 x 32Gb/s M.2 slots
> (though they share PCIe lanes with a SATA3 connector when occupied) versus 1 similar speed M.2 slot
> for the ASUS. Additionally, the ASRock has 18 x SATA3 (8 x SAS3 12.0 Gb/s + 10 x SATA3 6.0 Gb/s versus
> the ASUS 8 x SATA3 6.0 Gb/s).I do like the presence of SAS on the Asrock board, and it’s nice that it has two M.2 ports (caveats
with lane sharing notwithstanding), but I’m not sure moving someone onto a path of using SAS devices
with a consumer level board is such a good idea, given the cost of SAS storage (it’s a feature set
which seems out of place on a single-socket board). Also, some of the effectiveness of SSD performance
is lost when connected via the 3008, partly because speed is limited by the SAS controller’s max IOPS,
but mostly because the 3008 has no cache RAM AFAIK (ruins RAID0 when I tried it). The Asrock is also
a fair bit more expensive.I’ve used both Asrock and ASUS boards, and for a long while was a fanatical Asrock user (I have sooo
many of their P55 Extreme/Deluxe boards, X58 Extreme6, etc.), but I jumped ship when the X79 Extreme11
came out, couldn’t believe they’d put SAS on a mbd without any cache RAM, and it cost a fortune (well
over 600 UKP).I wouldn’t put a XEON on either board, an oc’d 5960X would be faster (same overall threaded speed,
much better IPC once oc’d). XEONs only really shine once 2 or more are put on a multi-socket board.Trouble is of course, if Asrock uses a SAS controller which did have some cache RAM, that would add
a lot to the cost.Don’t get me wrong, I love Asrock boards, I have loads, but the feature set of the Extreme11 isn’t
a natural match for Adobe apps IMO, and the ASUS will handle an oc’d 5960X better for sure.Ian.
——–
SGI Guru -
[Ian Mapleson] “Yikes, what a mess! Yeah, exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of, all sorts of horrible dependencies & gotchas. Makes deciding what to use rather complicated re SSDs, PCIe, etc. I should have been more specific btw, I meant OEM boards often have nowhere near as many full
x16 slots as a board like the X99E-WS.”I think it’s a tradeoff. Presumably the Z840 slot configuration is as complicated as it is because the HP’s Gen3 PCIe slots are CPU-direct, not switched like the X99E-WS. This means lower latency and provides the option for optimizing performance by minding the slot load order.
That said, I’d doubt there’d be any measurable performance difference for our applications.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
Walter Soyka writes:
> I think it’s a tradeoff. Presumably the Z840 slot configuration is as complicated as it is because
> the HP’s Gen3 PCIe slots are CPU-direct, not switched like the X99E-WS. …The switching is more for broad multi-GPU support, etc., but I don’t think it adds any significant latency. I suspect bandwidth, and the ability to use broader configurations at all (such as three
GPUs and a RAID card), are probably more useful (has anyone tested the latency factor?). But then,
OEM systems have always had a less flexible PCIe setup compared to top-end consumer boards. That’s
why I rather like the Z10PE-D8 WS, kinda the best of both worlds, though even there it’s not quite
as good as the X99E-WS.> That said, I’d doubt there’d be any measurable performance difference for our applications.
Only insofar as a board with more PCIe slots can allow one to install extra CUDA cards for faster
rendering, or use spare slots for further PCIe SSDs, etc.Btw, I’ve talked to someone who has tested an HP Z Turbo Drive Quad Pro for raw 8K work, he was
able to obtain approx. 4.6GB/sec write and 8.2GB/sec read sustained. Not cheap though. 😀 See:https://www8.hp.com/h20195/v2/GetPDF.aspx/4AA6-1667ENW.pdf
Ian.
——–
SGI Guru
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up