13 mins on my Mac Pro tower with 12 3.3GHZ cores and 192 ram.
6 mins on my 14 inch Mac book pro. M2 max - 12 cores - 96 gb ram
1 Like
This is the first Flame Channel video I donât have to watch on Mute. Thank you @jeff for using a normal voice.
2 Likes
I agree itâs important to listen to what those who already use Flame say, but the goal should also be to convince others to use it and since the comparisons of those who donât use it are mainly Nuke and After Effect, maybe you could take inspiration from how that software always evolve and offer new things. The idea of ââFlame as a main hub is interesting but many, like me for example, use it as a remote stand-alone and need tools to impress customers. Letâs always remember that Flame is very expensive and honestly one would expect more for what one pays.
1 Like
Flame = 4870 USD/yr
NukeX = 4499 USD/yr
NukeStudio = 5499 USD/yr
mad times
If you think its expensive now, you should have been on it in the 90âs and early 2000âs.
I think the last box we bought was ÂŁ66k.
6 Likes
Well I use Flame since it came out, so I know what you mean but that doesnât mean it is cheap today.
1 Like
If you purchase perpetual licenses for Nuke, then the yearly cost is much lower.
So youâd basically have about 13k for NukeStudio one time, and then the yearly maintenance I think is around $1500.
Only issue with that is that The Foundry stopped selling perpetual licenses. Well, theyâve stopped selling them to new clients and will only sell them to existing clients until the end of the year.
Iâm also interested to see if they will still support a perpetual license paying lower support subs well into the future or not. Or will it be more like what happened with Flame perpetual licenses.
Fusion, one off cost for a few hundred bucks⌠I am surprised it isnât being used more than it currently is. Lacking a few features that Flame and Nuke have but stillâŚ
I didnât know that. Hopefully they still keep the floating licenses around as the Named User crap is fucking horrid in a facility wide environment.
I just saw this thread.
Just ran a 2023.3 vs 2024 benchmark on a M1Ultra 64Cores.
2023.3 = 6m51s
2024 = 6m54s
Itâs actually a bit slower than before, but I donât want to rule out that my index finger has some tolerance on the reaction speed.
I suspect the native Apple Silicon support will show up elsewhere. Or the benchmark is not designed for the newer versions�
1 Like
I had that issue until I saw about hitting render rather than render selection. And then it was much quicker.
So youâre experiencing a difference between 2024 and older releases?
I did keep an eye on using Render as well as the other stuff like flushing renders in the first place and not selecting anything in the sequence.
1 Like
Yes - but quicker on 2024
6 mins 52 on 2023-3
And
5 mins 20 on 2024
Mac Studio M1 Ultra.
1 Like
Ok funny⌠I did it again, but 2023.3 and 2024 are practically the same in render time 
Maybe Rosetta has optimized its live compilation so much by now that it doesnât make a difference. But somehow itâs hard for me to believe that.
From my very limited understanding of APIs, for a large number of tasks there will not be much, if any, difference between APIs. It is only on certain tasks that you will see a massive benefit where the âlow levelâ access really increases performance. Neat Video for instance reported a 40% speed improvement on Metal vs Open CL. My understanding is that debayering RAW media will have a lot better performance as well.
Potentially what is in the benchmark test isnât the type of tasks where you will see much benefit? Or there could be a lot of optimisation for Metal that we are yet to see?
3 Likes
As the upgrade is mainly CPU based the real difference will be when they switch the graphics so the gpu is native metal based then I bet things will improve , stuff like motion vectors etc will be a lot faster.
Oh! I thought the native Apple silicon upgrade also included the metal API. My bad!
According to the AD site, this only runs on the M chip, is that right?
Negative @paul_round , that is absolutely incorrect.
There are 2 columns. Apple Silicon and Intel based systems. If memory serves me right, there has never been a Mac that Flame wonât install on. The experience and performance is a separate discussion, of course.