The 2011 MBP refresh / buyers and owner's thread (1 Viewer)

[Ronald Epstein]

Welp, I came within seconds of ordering a new 17" Macbook Pro today.


Of all days, launch day, I dropped my 3-year-old 17" Macbook Pro at

work. Suffered some bad nicks on the unibody. All the programs on the

screen froze up. Tried rebooting a dozen times and I could never get past

the Apple logo at bootup.


So, I went to the GVT Apple Site and looked at the 17" Macbook Pro i7.

Had selected the slower model but put in 8 gigs ram. I got $100 off for

being a federal employee.


...but suddenly my old Macbook Pro finally booted up. Must have taken

30 minutes of constant trying.


So far my old Macbook is working but I haven't turned it off and tried

rebooting it again.


I'm gonna buy one of these new Macbooks as I need an i7 for all the

movie editing that I do.


I just don't want to spend $3k today, and I'm sort of relieve it did not

come down to that.


Question....


Better to get the faster i7 and 4GB of ram or the slower i7 and 8GB

of ram?

 

[DaveF]

Originally Posted by mattCR

You're overthinking this. I could ENCODE achieving 240 frames encoded to a new compression level. When you play it back, it is played back at 24fps or 30fps. But during the encode process, the only thing that matters is that each frame is processed on it's own, like a flipbook animation and recompressed. You can recompress as fast as the processor can manage it.

To help this make sense: realize when you re-encode the process is this: a file is split into two. Audio / Video. Audio is then re-encoded (or left alone, your choice) Video is then encoded however you want. The rate at which it encodes is not limited by you watching it, only how fast it can be compressed. This is the same as say, uploading a video to Youtube and having it re-encode it for YouTube, etc. It's just a conversion process that works as fast as your processor allows. Then it is muxed back together at the end into a container.

I'm not saying anything about viewing time. This is solely about the time to do the encoding.


If you have a video with 90,000 frames, a 50 minute video, and you're encoding at 25 frames per second, you can't encode it -- you can't do the computational work -- in less than 3600 seconds (60 minutes elapsed time). But that's what those speed reports were saying.

Specifically, to encode a 42 min video in 36 minutes requires 35 fps encoding, but they report 24 fps encoding. (Conversely, encoding 42 minute video at 24 fps takes 53 minutes, not the 36 minutes reported.) Something is askew. I don't know what. Maybe there aren't "frames" as I think of them in the input or the output files. (In which case, reporting encoding speed as frames-per-second is not useful.)



Do the math. Compute the # of frames in a video. Divide by the frames per second encoding rate to get the time required. This is freshman algebra You've probably helped your kids do these story problems.



The one thing that makes sense is if that report is actually frames-per-second, *per core*. A dual-core doing 24 fps on both cores, that would get the job done in 26 minutes; add some overhead to bring it to 36. And 24 fps per core on a quad-core would get it done in 13 minutes; add overhead to be 16 minutes maybe?

 

[mattCR]

You're just thinking about this all wrong. Let me give you an example. I have my Windows Media Center record something for me. 1 hour. 44 minutes, and it's 63514 frames.

I think tell Media Center I want to long term store it, and if it is recorded in the clear from my Ceton, it will then be converted from 1080P to 720P and filed and stored. The process on files that comply takes about 24 minutes for a 44 minute file (roughly)


I say to the encoder: this video will be played back at 24fps (or 30 or 60 or whatever). The encoder then writes a header on the file:


"This file has two streams: Video, encoded in X264, and Audio AC3-6 channel. Video is 1920x1080, 24fps"


This is then established in the header.


Now, the video is processed. The encoder knows that it has 63514 frames. It will finish with 63514 frames. The header in the finished file tells it to play back at 24fps.

The frames are now treated independently. The processor can "encode" them as fast as it can compress them, like converting 63,514 still images from BMP to JPG at a set compression ratio (CQ 20 as an example) It then compresses each frame, one by one and writes them back into the new file.


How fast it can do it is irrelevent. It doesn't have to encode them at any FPS. It could encode them at 4FPS (which may happen on a slow processor) because how fast it encodes it is irrelevent to the decoder, which only looks at the header in the file that tells it how fast to play it back.


Let's say I tell the processor to encode at 10% quality, which means I will basically get crappy quality. I could then encode at about 400fps, because the time the processor spends to correctly convert each frame is miniscule.

So, for example, right now I'm re-encoding video from my wife's Flip camera for DVD. Going from a 720P source to DVD, I'm averaging 134fps... that is not the speed at which it will be played back, that is the speed at which the encoder is able to convert the frames in the file.


Does this help?


The ability of a processor to correctly make the conversion is it's own, based on the performance of the processor to do so. The projected play FPS has nothing to do with anything. It's header value only.






As an example. You're getting caught up in the FPS to play. Which never, ever, ever enter the equation. As long as the # of frames stays exactly the same in the finished product and the beginning, then the output playback will be the exact same length because the playback clock is a fixed, unchanged value that isn't impacted at all by the rate of the conversion.


So, there are two entirely different "FPS" "Frames Per Second" on playback, and "Frames Per Second that are Converted"

 

[DaveF]

We're talking at cross purposes. You're not getting the idea of an encoding framerate. I'm speaking of the encoding speed in terms of frames encoded per second of processing time.


From your example:

[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]44 minutes[/COLOR]

[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]63514 frames. [/COLOR]

(implies a 24 fps playback rate of the video, which is helpful)



[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]Encode time: 26 minutes. [/COLOR]


63514 / (26*60) = 44 fps encoding rate. You are encoding, on average, 44 frames per second.


If you told me that your ecoding ran at 22 fps and did that job in 26 minutes, I'd say something's wrong with your math. And that's the sort of discrepancy I see in the benchmarks Sam quoted:



[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]Quote:[/COLOR] [COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]First minor benchmark:
2.4 gig 42 minute HD TV episode in mkv encoded to .m4v for itunes using Handbrake:

i7 2.8 gig dual core: 24.38fps average 36 minutes total
i7 2.3 gig quad core: 54.22fps average 16 minutes total

Yikes.[/COLOR]
[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)] Those handbrake rates aren't the playback framerate of the video; it's the encode speed. And the encoding framerate is too slow for the total encode time claimed.[/COLOR]


My guess is twofold:
HDTV (playing) framerate is 24 fps, not 30, as I thought. And Handbrake isn't computing average encoding speed correctly. It's doing some sort of running average that doesn't yield the true total-time average (total encoded frames divided by total encoding time).

 

[Michael_K_Sr]

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein

Question....


Better to get the faster i7 and 4GB of ram or the slower i7 and 8GB

of ram?

Ron, if you have to choose one, get the faster processor. You can always double the RAM later for $100 or so.

 

[Sam Posten]

Definitely agree with Michael. These processors are benching faster than last years mac pros. Not just fasster than the old lappys but faster than the quad towers. http://www.9to5mac.com/53810/new-macbook-pros-get-geekbenched

 

[mattCR]

Originally Posted by DaveF

We're talking at cross purposes. You're not getting the idea of an encoding framerate. I'm speaking of the encoding speed in terms of frames encoded per second of processing time.


From your example:

[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]44 minutes[/COLOR]

[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]63514 frames. [/COLOR]

(implies a 24 fps playback rate of the video, which is helpful)



[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]Encode time: 26 minutes. [/COLOR]


63514 / (26*60) = 44 fps encoding rate. You are encoding, on average, 44 frames per second.


If you told me that your ecoding ran at 22 fps and did that job in 26 minutes, I'd say something's wrong with your math. And that's the sort of discrepancy I see in the benchmarks Sam quoted:



[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)] Those handbrake rates aren't the playback framerate of the video; it's the encode speed. And the encoding framerate is too slow for the total encode time claimed.[/COLOR]


My guess is twofold:
HDTV (playing) framerate is 24 fps, not 30, as I thought. And Handbrake isn't computing average encoding speed correctly. It's doing some sort of running average that doesn't yield the true total-time average (total encoded frames divided by total encoding time).

You're getting there. If a show is recorded NTSC, it's native framerate is actually 23.97 (not 24) If it encodes at 24.38, that's not quite but about a half a frame per second faster then the display rate. ... so I followed Sam's link, and the benchmarks aren't there anymore So either someone caught on and grabbed it.. or made a typo. I wonder if a typo, because if the framerate encoded was 34, not 24, then counting the time to demux the audio stream, you'd be pretty close to dead right. But *shrug* since that person has wiped their results, it's hard to know.


So..... I see what you were getting at, I was too focused on the "how can you encode" bit You also have to remember there is a bit of time in the total process to mux/demux the content.. so the time factor seems very wrong here.. early benchmarks I'm seeing in the forums I'm in on the 13" are not very good.


http://www.techyalert.com/2011/02/25/macbook-pro-2010-vs-macbook-pro-2011/


This is kind of what I was concerned about going with the Intel HD graphics adapter, which is known to be a dog and has some significant catches in comparison to the Nvidia. I prefer the ATI chipset to both. But Intel as a graphics processor, based in the CPU, is fairly low on my list for power usage. It's passable, but if you weren't gaming on a Macbook Pro 13" before, you sure as heck aren't now.


The 15" and 17" are good buys, great processors, great graphics chipset.. the 13" has a "meh" graphics chipset and going a clip backwards on video quality and performance is pretty suck. So: 15" and 17" = Winners. 13" = Turkey.

 

[mattCR]

Damnit, now you have my interest piqued. I'll pick up a 15" tomorrow and see benchmark it and try to figure this out.

 

[Sam Posten]

Way to TOFTT

 

[mattCR]

Sam, your acronym baffles me Why not? I have plenty of clients who use Macs, I can have it placed by the end of the day, but it's worthwhile to figure out a real run of x264 binaries against media. Despite all the benchmarks on line, the only way to really understand it is to get 3 seperate benches, against H.264 from AVC, H.264 from H.264 in a res change, and H.264 from RAW. It gives you a good idea of where you start and end.

 

[Sam Posten]

Take one for the team I was kinda baffled about why I might want an express port instead of an sedate reader, reply #7 sealed it for me, can put a small ssd in there down the road http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1102450

 

[Sam Posten]

iFixit teardown:

http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook-Pro-15-Inch-Unibody-Early-2011-Teardown/4990/1


Pro: No Pentolubular screws, pretty well user maintainable except for the battery

Cons: Lots of thermal paste, 1 stripped screw, 1 unsecured socket.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Sam,


I know you are eyeing this new Macbook refresh.


What are your impressions? Anything you are unhappy

about (besides lack of Blu-ray)?


I have been busy working on a review this end so I
haven't really had time to read up on the new Macbook.


I am hoping to buy it within a few months. Probably

going to have to opt for the fastest i7 processor and

8GB ram as I do a lot of video editing on my laptop.

 

[DaveF]

Thanks Matt, glad to know we're slowly converging on having the same conversation


I'm a month away from my next Handbrake encode (gotta finish 24 S8 before I can rip and start Prison Break). But when I do I'll try to watch the reported encoding rate. And maybe I'll peruse Handbrake's forums to see how encoding "fps" is reported. I can believe the fast times. But those reports weren't internally consistent.


I'm thinking about doing an HTPC next year (to replace my two TivoHDs), so I'm starting to pay attention to these things a bit.

 

[mattCR]

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein

Sam,


I know you are eyeing this new Macbook refresh.


What are your impressions? Anything you are unhappy

about (besides lack of Blu-ray)?


I have been busy working on a review this end so I
haven't really had time to read up on the new Macbook.


I am hoping to buy it within a few months. Probably

going to have to opt for the fastest i7 processor and

8GB ram as I do a lot of video editing on my laptop.

Ron, even as an outsider, I will tell you that the 15/17 are very, very good and outside of the lack of bluray and HD audio output, they are great designs. The 13", though, is a faster processor with a hobbled graphics chip and it weighs too much. So, I'm sure Sam will have his own thoughts: 13"=pass. 15/17=Worth if it you're looking to upgrade your mac.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Thanks, Matt. That helps a great deal.

 

[Sam Posten]

I wish it had been 'Air-ified' and removed the optical drive and slimmed down a few pounds but other than that, no I'm pretty satisfied.


I think it will be fast enough that I might be able to go bootcamp free and put the one app I HAVE to have a PC for, Everquest, under Parallels and be able to play faster than what I am now with your old 15", which has been my workhorse since I got it. Put 10s of thousands of miles and thousands of hours on it. I haven't run Geekbench myself but similar ones are getting roughly 3000 scores:

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/21179

http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/


So 3000 to 10k+, yeah I think it will have enough juice to run EQ just fine under emulation... I know there were problems making the two work in the past but I think version 6 got them to be friendly. So I'll try that first and if I have to make a bootcamp partition I will. If I can make it work I will sell off the 750gb drive and put a 250gb SSD in when the prices come down.

Other than that, the only thing that scares me is the price. $3k is more than I paid for my first car, but knowing how much I use a lappy I think it's a good use of my dough. Not an 'investment', I hate when people think of disposable gear like this in terms of an investment, but a smart use of my little free money.

 

[Sam Posten]

BTW, it's official, my tax return didn't get here today so no MBP until next week at a minimum. I'm going with the 17" 2.3ghz Matte display with whichever hard drive they have in these configurations at Christiana Mall. I could save $100 and still not pay tax up front by buying from Macmall, but I'd rather buy it at an Apple store. My experience has been that genius bar response has always favored those that buy retail, and I'm considering buying Apple Care too, it seems smart on a purchase of this size. I'm definitely holding off on SSD at this point due to cost, but hope to upgrade to it not too deep into the lifetime of this notebook.


The good news is that the earliest I will be back in Delaware is next Wednesday, but more likely Friday, so I will have a good idea what the details of the next iPad will be and how likely I am to want to upgrade to that by the time I'm ready to buy my new Lappy.

 

[DaveF]

Originally Posted by Sam Posten


So 3000 to 10k+, yeah I think it will have enough juice to run EQ just fine under emulation... I know there were problems making the two work in the past but I think version 6 got them to be friendly. So I'll try that first and if I have to make a bootcamp partition I will. If I can make it work I will sell off the 750gb drive and put a 250gb SSD in when the prices come down.

Add in Parallels 6 + Win7, which seems an efficient pairing, and you may be pleasantly surprised. It's a system hog: my wife can't leave Parallels 6 running in the background when trying to do Adobe CS work on her 2009 iMac. But Parallels 6 and Win7 seem to run fast and cleanly.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Frack!


My Macbook Pro is definately having problems. Takes about 6

separate boot ups until everything loads properly. The hard drive

must have really taken a hit when I dropped it yesterday.


I could get it fixed, it would cost me a lot less, but the darn thing

is now 3 years old and I was looking to upgrade to a new i7 processor

to match what I have on my iMac desktop.


So, looks like Monday I am making a trip to the Apple store to

buy a loaded 17" with the faster processor and 8GB of ram.


Like Sam, not happy to have to spend nearly $3k on this baby,

but what am I gonna do. That laptop is my lifeline.


Question:


Is it still possible to hook an old Macbook up to a new one and

import over all the software? Is that prompted during the initial

bootup on a brand new Mac? I think the old one has Firewire

400 while the new one 800. I do have firewire cable with an adapter

so hopefully it will transfer under those circumstances.