December 30, 2013

Just How Fast Are the New Mac Pros? (Hint: They're Mind-Blowingly Fast)

Mac ProWe already know that the brand new Mac Pros are impressive machines, both in terms of raw specs and design. However, until this point it's been unclear just how fast these new computers are in comparison to older versions of the Mac Pro, as well as in comparison to some spec'd-out iMacs and MacBook Pros. We here at No Film School have taken the time to pull together the first round of speed tests and benchmark tests from a few tech sources around the interwebs, and not surprisingly, the new Mac Pro is an absurdly fast computer. Stick with us to see just how fast.

In our first, and most telling look at the capabilities of the new Mac Pro, we turn to Macworld. They tested an impressive build of the new machine that featured an 8-core 3.0GHz Xeon E5 processor, 512GB of flash storage, 32GB of RAM, and dual AMD FirePro D700 graphics with 6GB of video memory for each card. Here's how Macworld conducted their basic tests.

Macworld Lab uses a Speedmark 9 score that’s an indicator of how well a Mac performs overall. We take the performance results from the 15 individual tests that make up Speedmark and boil them down to a single number.

Here are the Speedmark scores for the late 2013 Mac Pro:

Mac Pro Speedmark Scores

Not surprisingly, the late 2013 Mac Pro is the fastest computer that Apple has ever built. It absolutely wipes the floor with its predecessor, the mid 2012 Mac Pro. However, in comparison to the other modern Macs, the spec'd-out 27-inch iMac and the 15-inch MacBook Pro, the new Mac Pro offers only a mildly higher score. In fact, the new machine only offers an 8% higher score than the new iMac.

While the overall performance of the a system is definitely important, that's not where the new Mac Pros shine the most. As you might have guessed, the new machine's performance in regards to the recently upgraded version of Final Cut Pro X is mind-blowing. As we know, the new version of Apple's video editing software was optimized for the new Mac Pros. However, what this optimization would mean in terms of pure performance was not yet known.

Here are the Final Cut Pro X benchmarks for the new Mac Pro, which were determined by how well the tested computers could import 60 seconds of 4K video and then render said video with multiple instances of filters and color correction plugins applied to the footage. Background rendering was turned off.

Mac Pro Final Cut X Benchmarks

These are the results that are most pertinent to filmmakers. It's clear that whatever Apple did to optimize Final Cut Pro X for the new hardware was wildly successful. The import times are leagues ahead of everything except the new spec'd-out MacBook Pros, but it's the render times that are truly the most astounding part of this test. The new Mac Pro offers an insane performance boost over every other computer that Macworld tested, which is likely due to the dual AMD graphics cards with 6GB of memory each.

Beyond these results, the folks at Engadget have reported that they have seen the new Mac Pro do some incredible things with 4K video:

We've already seen it play back 16 simultaneous 4K streams in the new version of Final Cut Pro, with zero waiting time as effects were applied to the original footage.

With the new machine only having been available for two-ish weeks, it's likely that we're going to keep seeing reports of mind-blowing performance from the new Mac Pro, and we're certainly going to keep you guys updated with the latest.

If you'd like to see a whole bunch of individual program benchmarks for the new Mac Pro, head on over to Macworld and click through to the second page of their write-up. There you can see how the new machine performed in programs like Photoshop CC, Aperture, and Cinebench.

What do you guys think? Are you surprised by how well the new Mac Pro performs in comparison to other powerful Mac computers? How about the incredible performance of FCPX? Let us hear those thoughts down in the comments!

Links:

Your Comment

109 Comments

And how many "real pros" actually use FCP X ?

December 30, 2013

2
Reply
Juhan-i

me

December 30, 2013

-1
Reply

Me too.

December 31, 2013

-1
Reply
scot

Me Three. It's the future, get used to it.

December 31, 2013

0
Reply

I, along with everyone in my circle, have all turned our attention toward Adobe.

December 31, 2013

1
Reply
Josh

Adobe cc for me too, got on as a student for $19.99 a month.
For photoshop, premiere, muse, lightroom, bridge, after effects, speedgrade, audition.
new big updates all the time, its worth it for me.
And honestly, i don't respect many of apple's decisions since Jobs passed. i'm not going near FCPX

where is the nvidia option on the apple store? why can't mac play a blu-ray?
why do i have to use terminal to get osx 9 on my backup ssd, instead of it auto installing over my working os?
i could go on. there are work-arounds, but i'm tired of the sand box. give us freedom

i have protools and MC7, @ $300 student pricing, collecting dust.
taken classes on both avid suites, but after using photoshop for 13+ years
i think these are terribly unintuitive, and i would sell them if i could.

premiere trumps all IMHO ...for now

January 3, 2014

-1
Reply

Me too. No way I'm going back to v7! Love it! Why? Because I took time to learn it and understand the philosophy behind it instead of just opening it and closing it after five minutes because it looks like iMovie. It's actually a great editing software.

December 30, 2013

-1
Reply
Robert

Please, stop that "you are only a pro if you use XYZ Software" … getting really tired of this.

December 30, 2013

-2
Reply
Andy Kaczé

I agree 100 percent with you. Its not the software... its the editor.

January 20, 2014

0
Reply

Me too. What Robert said.

December 30, 2013

0
Reply

I use fcpx.

December 30, 2013

-1
Reply
Josh

I also use FCPX and I think it's just the fastest NLE out there.....if only DavinciResolve could unfold compound clips....

December 30, 2013

-2
Reply
jesuan

Ditto

December 30, 2013

-2
Reply

I suppose all of those deposits in my bank account for the "pro" work I've done in FCP X isn't "real".

December 30, 2013

2
Reply
swisteed

"real pros" using FCPX" ? that is so 2011. I bet you yell at kids to get our of your yard.

December 31, 2013

1
Reply

me too

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
maz

Me ........seventeen? Sorry man I'm sure everyone was not trying to make you look like an asshole, you kind of did that on your own

January 2, 2014

0
Reply
Ricky

me too

January 2, 2014

0
Reply
stanperry

@Juhan-i - None, only hobbyists.

January 2, 2014

3
Reply
Razor

Why even try, Razor? Believing you're right doesn't make it so.

January 2, 2014

-2
Reply
Swissted

I try to pick the best tool for the job at hand.. I love FCPX.

January 2, 2014

-2
Reply
Brenton

Still waiting for comparison with real world PC "AND" Premiere use. Of course, from independent parties.

December 30, 2013

2
Reply

*this*!

December 30, 2013

-1
Reply

Oh well, instead of buying a Macbook Pro Retina, I'll grab this Mac Pro and a tiny 7" iKan IPS monitor :D Working on location will truly be a breeze!

December 30, 2013

-1
Reply

Would love to see some comparisons based on Adobe Premiere and After Effects.

December 30, 2013

0
Reply

As would I. Some Premiere and Avid benchmarks would be fantastic. However I doubt the performance improvements will be as drastic as they are with FCPX.

December 30, 2013

0
Reply
avatar
Robert Hardy
Writer
Cinematographer / Editor

Hard to get that much performance increase when you already dominated 4k import with 1080p / 720p all on same time line with effects galore. FCPX had a long way to go so its all relative. What we need is the end result comparison between them.

December 30, 2013

0
Reply
Bc

For Adobe Premiere the dual W9000 gives you almost the same performance as the single GTX titan:

http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Premiere-Pro-CC-Professi...

Since the D700 is a lower spec'd card than the W9000 I doubt it will be better. So if you are using Adobe Premiere get either a TITAN (or 2 780s for even faster performance at the same price) and stick with hackintosh or Windows.

December 30, 2013

2
Reply
don hogfan

For PC users hang tight - faster cheaper will be with us very soon.

http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/196158/intel-core-i7-haswell-e-to-laun...

December 30, 2013

-1
Reply
Greg egan

The CPU in this Mac Pro can be swapped out / upgraded.

You could simply but the $3000 base Mac Pro, pay $1000 to upgrade the GPUs, upgrade the CPU next fall and still have the fastest machine available.

December 31, 2013

-2
Reply
Josh

this is the way to go

January 3, 2014

0
Reply

Anything that runs on OpenCL will benefit from the AMD configurations. FCPX was meant for this, no big surprise here..

As for the rest of us in need of CUDA, we can't even upgrade to 10.9 without losing support.

I'd like to see some Adobe CC OpenCL figures.

December 30, 2013

-4
Reply
Lcky

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
Dennis

interesting, makes me wonder how OpenCL could perform on my 4gb gtx760 using 10.9, still lose some RT options in select programs and would have to keep 10.8 around.. anything to shave off time from a 16 hour+ render!

January 2, 2014

1
Reply
Lcky

There is an excellent article here comparing FCPX against Premiere. Good read. As for "real pros" using FCPX, that meme is getting old. bit.ly/1eAtlel

December 30, 2013

-1
Reply

^ This.

December 30, 2013

-1
Reply

Go on the cow forums and discuss fcpx being a pro platform.....I am not saying you can't use it, it has come A LONG WAY, however you will find that most pros say it still is not up to snuff, but this recent change might sway them, we shall see. They are still upset with how apple screwed them over releasing this when it was a year away from being primetime.

December 30, 2013

-1
Reply
Bc

Apple released it prematurely, but how did that force anyone to use it?

January 2, 2014

0
Reply
Zan Shin

Lots of pros use FCPX, including the post house Light Iron https://vimeo.com/74681700

If you run adobe cc, I would not buy this mac I would wait until the open cl support is stronger for premiere or just build a really fast PC.

I personally can't wait to cut on this machine.

December 30, 2013

1
Reply

For the price this is a waste, I rather build a pc for cheaper and better specs

December 30, 2013

0
Reply
Andrew

December 30, 2013

0
Reply

For the article in your link:
"It’s also worth noting that you have the option of using cheaper graphics cards, too — instead of paying $3400 for a FirePro W9000, a couple of Nvidia Quadro or GeForce cards would be thousands of dollars cheaper, and could yield better performance in CUDA-optimized apps."
And thats in the case the graphics card is the same as the $3400 FirePro W9000.
This is very important because I saw many articles claiming this. From the $9500 you spend $7000 on just the graphics cards. If I didn't have money to burn, I would get a dual cpu machine that would perform better in most demanding programs.
Never compare specs but the actual performance of the program that you use.

December 30, 2013

2
Reply
don hogfan

Interesting. So could someone please settle the perceived advantage in going with the more expensive cards ?

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
Saied

Well if you're doing medical imaging or engineering you need the absolute accuracy of the workstation cards...but IMO it's pointless in film making since if there's an error, you'll either see it and it's a problem, or you won't see it and it's not a problem. It's not like it'll screw up someone's brain surgery.

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
Gabe

Most NLE's nowadays use OpenCL or CUDA. What that means is basically that a lot of your editing work has been put on your graphics cards rather than a CPU. For most editors, today, the GPU is way more important than a machine's CPU.

December 31, 2013

4
Reply
Josh

You can't. Price out the parts for PC or Mac and you will not be able to build a machine for less. The base Mac Pro would be over $6000 if you tried to build it as a PC.

January 1, 2014

-1
Reply
Seth

What's the deal with the new macpros and this site? Don't you have anything better to report? I guess you enjoy the traffic of mac haters/lovers.

P.S. I wouldn't call mind-blowing result the 2x times render decrease over a laptop with half the cores.

December 30, 2013

1
Reply
don hogfan

Erm, the new mac pro's are kind of a big deal for video professionals. Why would they not give them significant attention?

December 30, 2013

1
Reply
Brian

From the article: "With the new machine only having been available for two-ish weeks, it’s likely that we’re going to keep seeing reports of mind-blowing performance from the new Mac Pro, and we’re certainly going to keep you guys updated with the latest."

This is not a report, this is a promotion.

December 30, 2013

0
Reply
don hogfan

Well in that sense, this hasn't been the first product to be "promoted" on this site so why should the Mac Pro be excluded? It is sort of a big deal for some since there are virtually only 2 options to use to edit with Macs or PC's. This deserves to be here since its clearly a fact that people are interested in it.

December 30, 2013

1
Reply

Why do you get on this website again?...Oh yea its the NEWS of film, cameras, hardwear etc... If you do not like the articles go SOMEWHERE else. simple

December 30, 2013

0
Reply
Jordan S

BOOM. Roasted.

December 30, 2013

0
Reply
george

Um, not really.

December 30, 2013

0
Reply
Gavin

People spent the last few years on threads complaining about how Apple ditched the "pro" market because it didn't update the Mac Pro.

Now they've released a pretty impressive new Mac Pro and you don't want it to be covered on a production-focused blog.

Can't win with the trolls, I suppose.

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
sweested

What video card, price compared to performance, is factually the best video card available right now for video editing?

December 30, 2013

0
Reply
george

If you use premiere CC here is a nice article:
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Premiere-Pro-CC-Professi...

A single $430 Quadro K2000 will do an excellent job. But you can go even cheaper with a GTX without loosing any performance.

December 30, 2013

0
Reply
don hogfan

Quadro 6000. Anything less either a Titan or two or something a little newer maybe even better a gtx 780 ti. Make sure it's a ti, 25 to 30% faster than the regular 780. I think it might matter for 4k playback

December 30, 2013

0
Reply
Anthony Marino

I don't care if anyone uses Windows Movie Maker or iMovie HD etc to cut films, its the editing skills and the finished product that's important to me. Do you go into a Porsche dealer and say "was this car designed on a Linux, Windows 8 or an OSX system?"

December 30, 2013

0
Reply
shaun wilson

I love your analogy dude!

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
Kirubel

+1 I once heard from a director/producer's perspective that the right way to go about all of this is to hire the talent and then rent/build the system around what they're used to so they can do their best work. Not only do you get better results creatively, but it ends up being cost-effective too. Obviously that doesn't apply as much to the one-man-band or short project kind of thing, but still- if you feel you can do better work in one system vs. another, go for it. If someone else is the exact opposite, great. The only time it really matters is when you need to collaborate and share project files, so adjust accordingly for that.

December 31, 2013

0
Reply

"Gravity" was made on Pinnacle Studio Plus.

January 1, 2014

0
Reply
Pianohero

I am more interested to know how the lowest specs of the new MacPro will performance. I mean, why spend $2,999 if the iMac 27" (2013) can out perform the new MacPro right?

December 30, 2013

0
Reply

If I'm reading the charts right, the 27" iMac that is within 8% of the new MacPro is the $1999 iMac (that comes with a sweet monitor). That's $2k with monitor compared to the $5,500 MacPro (which needs a monitor, etc). Kinda a sweet promo for the 27" iMac.

December 30, 2013

0
Reply
Erik Stenbakken

But its the 2k version with extras. Closer to $3k when all is said and done. But does still seem like a better value on most things. Still interested to see what the difference would be for After Effects and Cinema4d.

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
Brett

+1 I would really like to see how lowest config Mac Pro compares to iMac and MacBook Pro, kind of really comparing apples to apples price wise :)

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
Robert B.

I guess this is a big deal if you insist on using Macs.

December 30, 2013

0
Reply
moebius22

I guess you couldn't come up with any useful to contribute, but still felt like letting people know you're annoying.

December 30, 2013

0
Reply
Travis

Deal with it.

December 30, 2013

0
Reply
moebius22

"Insist" or willingly choose because of the advantage of seamless software/hardware integration?

December 30, 2013

0
Reply
swisteed

Please explain what seamless software/hardware integration is, and how that differs on Mac versus the PC?

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
moebius22

Well for starters PCs are more expensive, needs drivers, instalations, uninstalations and crashes.
Macs dont.

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
M

Keep spreading bullshit like a fucking apple fanboy. Macs do crash, this is the same hardware for fuck sake. OSX looks cool and fits AiO iMacs and laptops well, but for professional workstation, hehehehehe

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
Natt

Macs are more expensive and they do crash. They're also less versatile, have a set shelf life, and are far more vulnerable to security threats.

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
Luca

My goodness, Natt. You seem awfully bitter. I'm sorry that a viable alternative in the marketplace makes you so upset.

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
sweested

This is dumbest thing I have heard all year.

January 1, 2014

0
Reply
Jim

@ Luca, Macs are "far more vulnerable to security threats"? You can't be serious?

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

Pretty simple to explain: the operating system (with an excellently designed UNIX-based architecture) is built by the same company that designs the software, and the entire package is built around a consistent hardware package that will be supported for years to come. As much as I dislike spending time in an Apple store, the customer service I have received there has been nothing short of exceptional.

Sure, I could spend time putting together a machine on Newegg with a bunch of disparate parts, hoping that the drivers will all cooperate properly both today and down the road. I might save a few hundred bucks, but I'll be stuck with a machine that (a) I likely can't resell someday and (b) probably won't have comprehensive warranty coverage available.

As for Dell/HP and the rest, they make fine machines but I've yet to see a dramatic enough price difference between a comparable Mac product to make the switch to a Windows-based environment.

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
sweested

Youre best either with the titian or GTX 780 Ti. Premiere uses only one gpu for playback, with 2 you only up your export times. It's important for some, but for most I really don't think so. Rendering is a whole other issue, I just figure I'd point that out. Thanks

December 30, 2013

0
Reply
Anthony Marino

Just curious - could one get a system for 1/3rd the price but with 3/4th of the performance? You've mentioned the different video cards/GPU's? Could one sub the CPU's as well for, let's say, a previously mentioned 4- or 6-core Xeon and save himself a bundle without losing much in terms of the performance? From the above charts, the difference between a process taking 15 or 21 seconds is minuscule but the price tag is anything but.

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
DLD

Exactly, is it worth it? For professionals using a mac compatibility seems to be the biggest issue, even more so than speed. But looks like that's changing now for the better. Of course if you do heavy VFX, cad stuff then the higher tier Xeon (duel perferrably) and a quadro card will benefit more than the latest i7 CPU with lets say a GTX 680. Benchmarks show minimal improvements from an i7 to the latest single Xeon chip for basic video editing (render, export). Yes, if price/performance ratio count more than compatibility, you can build a system (pc) for less and get the same if not better performance. Any newer 6 core i7 CPU will split hairs against a single xeon system as far as speed goes considering your PC is built with the right components. Hardware compatibility is really the biggest issue when building a pc, that's the hard part (learned that the hard way) The hardware is definitely tricky. Regarding speed, reducing any bottlenecks what matters most is your hdd/ssd array (raid), RAM and ability to play the footage via video card. Keep in mind any 6 core system with a upper tier GTX (gaming card) is fine in this day and age. I built a (pc) system last year and to be honest It ended up costing way more than I origionally thought, but way less than a duel xeon system I first origionally wanted. Way way less...Still I used all enterprise hardware, raid card, re4 drives, and Ram. Im running the i7 3930k and the newer chips out now only beat it by very small numbers. I don't do heavy VFX work, just basic editing, usually no more than 4 layers, so my i7 system is more than enough for 4k editing especially with the new gtx 780 ti i recently upgraded to. I should be fine for a while...At least till next year :) The new mac is a sexy, lighting fast system but you will pay more for it than a similar spec'd PC especially with a major hdd/ssd array. Have a happy new year DLD, stay well.

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
Anthony Marino

Thank you, Anthony. The same to you (and, naturally, to all the nice NFS posters and writers as well).
.
As to the system, I definitely couldn't build one myself. Looking at some workstations on Tiger Direct, it seems that a dual Xenon 6-core CPU, dual GPU, Raid SSD system can be put together for around $5K. If the difference is only a few seconds on your basic 4K grading test, then $5K is probably more of a sweet spot than a top of the line system. Then again, it usually works that way.

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
DLD

Thanks DLD. To better answer questions to suit your needs call ADK video editing, forget tiger direct. I made that mistake before talking with them. Thank God I was able to return the hardware I picked out due to compability issues. QVL's can be shady. They're proficient in pc and macs as well as the programs they use. They can spec out a beautifully engineered pc that comes with a full warrenty and lifetime support. They even label their own RAM. Ask for Eric, he's more than helpful and will answer any question you have free of charge. If you're serious about a new system, Mac or pc I would call them first. You'll be happy you did, the tiger direct route is scary, dealing with ADK is a breeze. With them, you'll get a stable system no matter how big or small.

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
Anthony Marino

Lol. Sorry for the commercial but I can't say enough good things about these guys. My system is lightning fast and stable as heck thanks to them. Just figured I'd get that I get that in there, didn't want you think I work for them.

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
Anthony Marino

I'm making the move to FCX in January. Can anyone recommend a good resource to learn how to use it comprehensively? I dont mind paying a small amount if necessary.

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
Peter Kelly

Ripple Training is a good resource. Their free MacBreak videos are always helpful as well.

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
scot

Also, stay tuned to FCP.CO for good info on plugins and other free stuff.

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
scot

Thanks!

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
Peter Kelly

But don't you need AE?
To get Ae you must either get an outdated version, or sign up for CC.
Now you're paying for CC, and not using Premiere Pro.
Sounds like a waste of money to me.
To be clear, I've nothing against FCPX.
I've never used it, but based upon the video ads, it really looks like a nice piece of software, and some of you guys (and gals?) are praising it.
So again, I ask about why use FCPX when you'll need Ae (and probably Ps, maybe even Ai) as well?

January 2, 2014

0
Reply

You don't necessarily need AE. Motion is $50 and can handle many titling and animation tasks, plus you can use it to create your own filters, transitions and title templates for FCP X. Every lower third in an FCP X production can be made from a single template made in Motion, and can be as fancy as you want.

AE does do some things which Motion doesn't, but you don't need those, you're fine.

January 4, 2014

0
Reply

I kind of really wasn't impressed by its speed of the iMac considering the price difference...

December 31, 2013

0
Reply
Kian

Nice post. I like FCPX because it is, as it were, more pictorial than the others. But it doesn't matter what software you use, you need to know where to cut.

December 31, 2013

0
Reply

Hmm...thank you ...this seems to confirm that the real news here is the power of the new Mac Laptops...

I am looking forward to more real world tests with apps like Premiere CC, Maya, AE etc., no disrespect but an Apple App ( that we and most of the pro world no longer uses ) tuned for Apple hardware is not enough to have us commit to the new version 1 of hardware.

January 2, 2014

0
Reply
art

Benchmark comparison to an equally priced pc running premiere.

The 8 core mac pro is $5500, know how badass a pc you can build for that?

January 2, 2014

0
Reply
Lowell

I was thinking the same thing. You could also use GPUs that Adobe supports. As far as I am aware, Adobe's mercury engine only accelerates CUDA cores.

January 4, 2014

0
Reply
Terence Kearns

So many of the "professional editors" who scream about how much money they can save building a PC turn around and drop it on an incredibly overpriced rear spoiler and stereo in their chick-magnet Honda Civic. Let's face it, the real reason most people own a PC over a Mac is to run a bootleg copy of MS Office for your day job and play games with your friends while planning your next fanboy zombie thriller.

January 2, 2014

0
Reply
Zan Shin

Funny isn't it. Always screaming it's so expensive. Most pro's don't care that much, of course there is always some consideration before purchasing such a system. In most countries you can get a tax write-off for purchasing computer systems, software and such anyway. And furthermore, here in the Netherlands, as a business owner/self employed/freelancer, you don't 'pay' the add sales tax of 21%...

January 2, 2014

0
Reply
Yuri

I just really wish I could meet more level-headed people who haven't drunk the Koolaid on either side.
I'm neither pro nor anti-Mac. I've owned both, and it's tool, just like the editing software is a tool. The same footage, ingested into an AVID, at the hands of a talentless (or inexperienced) person will not yield as good results as that on iMovie or Sony Vegas or whatever, in the hands of a talented editor.

Be that as it may, I really do like my Macbook Pro, and am presently flailing back and forth on whether to build a monster monkey PC or do Mac Pro or 27" iMac. I dunno. I just need a powerful machine for editing, an I'm just trying to get the best bang for the buck and avoid problems in the future ... which is steering me in the direction of Mac again. As one person said, I can at least resell my old Mac for a fairly decent price. Reselling a used PC is another story.

And speaking of which, I'm now in my fourth year of owning this little Macbook Pro 13, and she's still running like a champ. I can't say that for any PC I've ever owned. They were all pretty much in rocking chairs or using walkers by the time 4 years rolled around.

Now, I've been told by PC users that they can build something more powerful than a Mac Pro for less. And then I see Mac folks saying No you can't.

But I do I remember not too long ago, seeing a comparison between Mac and PC, and quite frankly the PC won in every category. We're only talking seconds, but the bigger the project, the more those seconds start adding up, etc. And I was disappointed, as I've gotten used to how Macs work, even though I miss certain easier aspects of PC's. There's good and bad on both platforms, and anyone being honest will admit this is true.

Well that's my two-cents worth.

January 2, 2014

0
Reply

I'm with you on this one. I used to build PC's in my high school years and early college years. I had enough time to fool around with different setups and what not. Now I don't. I just want a out of the box system that not only works but keeps working!
What I find interesting, why is everybody hammering on how expensive certain stuff is. If someone want to buy it and can buy it, what's the deal of saying: Hey it can be done cheaper if you do this and that...
Everybody is concerned about a someone else's wallets? As I stated earlier, as a pro (whether you're freelance/self employed/business owner), you will, at least I do hope so!, earn back that money you spend AND you spend less due to tax write offs and what not...

January 3, 2014

0
Reply
Yuri

Excuse me if some of my english is poor, it's not my native language :p

January 3, 2014

0
Reply
Yuri

Premiere & AE have a dynamic link between them.
And that's one of the main reasons I moved from FCP to Premiere a few years ago.
How well does FCPX work with Adobe After Effects nowadays??
If there is any good solution (as good as dynamic link), then I wouldn't mind considering moving back to FCPX.
Anyone?

January 2, 2014

0
Reply
Tal

I use Sony Vegas in conjunction with After Effects. I render image sequences from AE. I drop that image sequence into Vegas ans save out the dedicated .veg file. The .veg project file can be treated as a descrete clip in your main Vegas project.

This way, if I need to re-render a small percentage of the image sequence from AE, then Vegas automagically is updated. Nothing to do or import. You don't need to use Premiere to be "linked" to AE. Vegas can render image sequences too if you need to go the other way (unlikely).

January 4, 2014

0
Reply
Terence Kearns

I'm sure you can achieve something similar with FCPX

January 4, 2014

0
Reply
Terence Kearns

The best way to solve this mac vs pc debate would be to build comparable pc's for much cheaper as claimed and sell them. If you can make a system that is as fast and stable and easy to use as the macs, I am interested in buying, but everywhere I look the price is about the same and I personally like working with my mac better than my pc. The main issue with macs I have found is the lack of graphics power but the new pros fix that. I don't care about upgrading because by the time I want to buy more hardware it's usually better to get a new system, as the technology changes fast enough that I will save for a complete package instead of a piece at a time.

January 3, 2014

0
Reply
Dandytrooper

Are most features still being cut in AVID?

Correct me if I am wrong.

For we the masses, choosing a platform based upon personal skills, preferences and or taste, seems very much (as ever) a Chevy or Ford discussion.

Arguably iJOBS was eclipsed a few years back when Nvidia and Intel made the long held graphics are more powerful on a MAC machine moot.

Since then, Adobe changed the game by stepping into the NLE fray as a 'player' and the stutter step release of the long awaited, and sought after FCPX, gave them shrift with Nvidia (who built a MAC only GPU during that bridge period).

FCPX has unique tools and should, or if, these become pervasive within the community of media professionals, then one can expect some cross pollination copping of those riffs, that is how commerce works.

Open CL is a good example of market driven adjustment for Adobe just as piracy made Adobe switch to CC.

Nothing is hard set in stone and rules based upon marketing bell curves are sure to be in flux for the foreseeable future.

Note to a few mentions above in this thread, I'm still doing fine on a four year old PC as many here are doing fine on older MACs and my stand alone DAR is 32 bit but records quite well using PreSonus Studio One version 2, but, sure I should upgrade it.

As for A & B comparatives on build components for NLE machines, IMO, these are an exercise in personal opinion.

Some edification: "In terms of computer systems, we've been a massive Mac house since 1994 because that's what the industry was. I think over the past couple of years, as Apple has started to visibly show lack of interest in this particular subsection, we've gotten into a lot more Windows workstations just because that's a place where we can add value." http://www.hdvideopro.com/workflow/desktop-nle-systems/heavy-lifting.html

Or, consider ADK Computers where one can load in specs from starting around $1500 or $3200. These folks actually test drive everything they build (then sell) under load. http://www.adkvideoediting.com/

The point here is that despite or in spite of the constant bickering over if and whether a PC or a MAC is relevant, belies the fact that many who are doing the work, simply use the tools availed regardless, in order to reach project conclusion.

Let's not forget that some of the post software costs as much as the computers being chewed on gnash and bite in these types of comment threads, so it is all relative.

January 3, 2014

0
Reply
Rob Manning

Very well said.

January 4, 2014

0
Reply
Terence Kearns

You are obviously Apple shills! Yes Per core the new pros ARE way faster. Per dollar they are a JOKE. Not ONE of your benchmarks compare to 12 CORE mac PROs!!!
Basically for more than 100% more money a top of the line new mac Pro is about 30% faster than a 12 core 2010 or 2012 mac pro and 1000% less expandable. Thunderbolt 2 is a joke. You can't use it for Graphics cards expansion!

January 22, 2014

0
Reply
brainburst

Well, yes and no. This is only true if you look at the exact same parts. If you are talking about building a machine whose real-world performance is the same or even better, this can, just as usual, be done with non apple-parts for less than half the cost of a mac pro. Willt run OsX if you want it to. Sure, it won't look as good. It's just that, regardless of whether you are spending $1000 or $10000 on your system, that money will always buy you at least twice the performance if you build your own PC. It's just a fact. Was true last year, will be true the next. If you hear otherwise, they are simply wrong or not looking at actual performance. Of course, you need to do a little more research, be a little more technically minded, a little more work. For some peole it's worth it, for others not.

June 15, 2014

0
Reply
Sven

Well, yes and no. This is only true if you look at the exact same parts. If you are talking about building a machine whose real-world performance is the same or even better, this can, just as usual, be done with non apple-parts for less than half the cost of a mac pro. Will run OsX if you want it to. Sure, it won't look as good. It's just that, regardless of whether you are spending $1000 or $10000 on your system, that money will always buy you at least twice the performance if you build your own PC. It's just a fact. Was true last year, will be true the next. If you hear otherwise, they are simply wrong or not looking at actual performance. Of course, you need to do a little more research, be a little more technically minded, a little more work. For some peole it's worth it, for others not.

June 15, 2014

0
Reply
Sven

Well, you need to look at "enthusiast" desktop PCs built for gamers (not office machines from Dell, HP etc). Gaming PCs will give you the same real-world performance for half or possibly even a third of the cost compared to Mac Pros. Of course, there's usually a bit of tweaking involved to installing OsX on a PC but not especially complicated. Doing this yourself is legal, however selling a complete system with OsX preinstalled likely wouldn't be, so you have to do it yourself and do a bit of reading. For some people it's worth the hassle, for others not.

June 15, 2014

0
Reply
Sven