Resolume Forum

gradek wrote:SSD- Crossair P128 internal SSD with OS and apps installed.
External - Western Digital Mybook 500GB (7200) connected via Firewire400

Doesn't make much sense to compare these, does it?
Anyway thanks for the testing.

why does it not make sense to compare them? I realize its not a scientific one to one comparison. But it's interesting to know if you even need an external drive when using resolume. who wants to carry more gear to a gig? It's a real word performance "observation" with the app that matters.

What I would like to see is a comparison between eSATA and Internal SSD. since the drives are so small in storage space, having all the clips on the local HD takes up needed space for apps, and other docs. I'd rather have a small pocked sized eSATA external for my VJ files.

that's what I meant : comparing firewire400 to sata.
nevertheless it is still good to know. that's why I wrote "Anyway thanks for the testing."
I think this was somehow confusing . Sorry for that.

@ gradek:

you are right i am using a esate connection over pci-express to connect to the intel ssd x25-80gb

i did run bench:
Disk Test 201.48
Sequential 128.89
Uncached Write 132.88 81.59 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 127.40 72.08 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 87.83 25.70 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 234.03 117.62 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 461.30
Uncached Write 463.83 49.10 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 234.23 74.99 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 1753.45 12.43 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 596.80 110.74 MB/sec [256K blocks]

which is not the promised 200 read but 110 is not bad.

the strange thing is that if i run the same files over the internal drive which has about 24 mb/S read speed i achieve the same frame rate.

anybody knows the reason?
the ssd is to small for internal so i would love to find a external connection.

sikanda wrote:@ gradek:
the strange thing is that if i run the same files over the internal drive which has about 24 mb/S read speed i achieve the same frame rate.

anybody knows the reason?

What sort of foottage is it you are testing framerate with?
If I get you right, the thing is testing with a 2 second long clip @ 200x200px, it won't make a difference if you are using a ssd drive. I think it will be different using x layers all playing 1080p foottage. Any ideas from other users?

sikanda wrote:@ gradek:
the ssd is to small for internal so i would love to find a external connection.

What do you mean? Is it too small for installing the drive inside the computer case? If that's what you are saying there are cages to install them in regular 3,5" slots. If you are talking about the size in GB you can simply forget what I'm writing here

@Tschoepler :
-i was testing with a resolution of 2400x600 with the dxv and 800x600 codec.
-with small i meant the gb of the drive.
but thx anyway.

anybode uses a ssd over pci-express?
is my ATY,RadeonX1600 the pottlenec?

yes... the X1600 is not a really fast one for higher resolutions!
with my ati 4870 everything seems endless

ok i installed an intel x25 last night, all went smoothly and everything seems great. only problem is playback via resolume avenue.

im looking to launch 3072x768 clips, one layer at a time would do, but i'm getting poor frame rates. similar to the other day when i ran 3072x768 in resolume off my 5400rpm internal drive.

difference is here, while on my 5400 drive i couldn't even playback the clips without total lag even in quicktime, now i can run 2 or three quicktimes at that resolution (in quicktime player) and achieve almost steady 25fps framerates. So what i don't understand is how this can't be smooth as a button in resolume when it is in quicktime player.

i haven't yet tried dxv codec at this resolution to be honest, and although this might be the problem I don't think it is. Even when i tried running 3 400x300 dxv clips layered I was getting poor framerates. I dropped the comp size down to 1920x480 and this improved but only very little.

I will however make a dxv test now and see how it goes.

I did read something tom said about GL and running over 2000 pixels wide using another GL buffer or something which seriously slows down GPU, and how it was best to stick with 1920x480 for th2go content.

This is a fresh osx 10.4.11 install on macbook pro with aty radeon x1600

without someone jumping the gun and claiming my system isn't powerful enough to handle this resolution someone please explain to me why now quicktime can handle this a breeze and vj software can't.

rebeloverlay wrote:This is a fresh osx 10.4.11 install on macbook pro with aty radeon x1600

HerrNieDa wrote:yes... the X1600 is not a really fast one for higher resolutions!
with my ati 4870 everything seems endless

Could this be the problem?

edit:

found this here: http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobili ... 154.0.html

someone please explain to me why now quicktime can handle this a breeze and vj software can't.

Avenue is designed to use the GPU of your graphics card for all the computation needed for displaying the image. This allows more room for other computation (updating interface, BPM, receiving data, audio effects etc) on the CPU. Overall, this should make the application run as efficient as possible for what it's meant to do.

As far as I know, Quicktime runs only on the CPU, or a combination of both. All it has to do, is play back a video and update the playhead. Basically it can use all the resources of your computer, just for displaying video linearly.

In your case, the X1600 is indeed a bit on the old side, and you're more likely to run into the limitations of its GPU power.

I hope that answers the question a bit.

Joris