New mac pro render times

My processing speed and storage is hurting my capabilities right off the back. I know I need to Upgrade Ram to 16 or Run an external hard drive and external GPU. From what I read this should do the trick but you mention the CPU multiple times and I believe the i3 might not be able to handle it. What are your thoughts?

Do I need to trade my Mac mini in for an i7 and more storage or can I make it work with my current mini. Ive edited 4k 60 frames video and honestly, I thought the mini handled well spare the exporting speed and lag once it would heat up. Also can you include a link regarding video compression. You commented on that and at this time, I am not truly familiar with the difference from video editing. Should you upgrade? Well, it depends upon your budget, your deadlines and the value of your time. Yes, more RAM will absolutely help. Exporting H. The i3 is a bit underpowered for heavy editing.

An i5 or i7 I recommend the i7 for serious video editing and compression due to how it handles multi-threading will be an improvement in speed. For 4K and higher resolution video, lots of high-speed external storage will be really helpful. Your GB storage is woefully inadequate. Thanks for this write up. I was really deciding between a new iMac or a new macbook until I saw this article. I thought the best way to was to sell both my macbook and iMac and get a new macbook pro, which costs about usd 32gb ram, 8 core i9, gb ssd.

I can use it as a powerful desktop machine and on the go. Half of that would get me the mac mini, and since I mainly use it for photo editing, it would suit me just fine. Sell iMac, keep macbook pro and get mac mini? Or just get an all in one powerful macbook pro and dongle it up? As with any computer, there are always trade-offs; and only you can determine which ones make sense for you. Generally, the more money you spend, the more power you get — but, you also spend more money.

If you are principally a still photographer, who dabbles in video, the Mac mini will be an excellent choice. Your trade-off, when you do video editing, it not quality, but speed. The Mac mini will not render or export as quickly as a faster system. On the other hand, it is also about half the price. And are you really willing to spend a lot more money to get a system that will cut your export times in half? If you are driven by your video, the MacBook Pro is probably a better choice.

If you are driven by stills, the Mac mini will be excellent. Yes, the Mac mini can edit 4K. Where it is weak is its GPU.

Post navigation

If you have tight deadlines, and projects with lots of effects, the Mac mini can do them with outstanding quality, just not quickly. 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 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.

Video: iMac Pro vs 2013 Mac Pro (Part 4) - 3D rendering and thermals

They were all pretty much in rocking chairs or using walkers by the time 4 years rolled around. And then I see Mac folks saying No you can't. We're only talking seconds, but the bigger the project, the more those seconds start adding up, etc. There's good and bad on both platforms, and anyone being honest will admit this is true. 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?

If there is any good solution as good as dynamic link , then I wouldn't mind considering moving back to FCPX. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. Some edification: "In terms of computer systems, we've been a massive Mac house since 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. These folks actually test drive everything they build then sell under load. 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. You are obviously Apple shills! Yes Per core the new pros ARE way faster. Per dollar they are a JOKE. Thunderbolt 2 is a joke. You can't use it for Graphics cards expansion! 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 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. Will run OsX if you want it to. 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.

Skip to main content. No Film School. December 30, Here are the Speedmark scores for the late Mac Pro: Not surprisingly, the late Mac Pro is the fastest computer that Apple has ever built. 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.

Leave this field blank. Reply Share Share this answer:. Richard Cave. Me Three. It's the future, get used to it. I, along with everyone in my circle, have all turned our attention toward Adobe. Please, stop that "you are only a pro if you use XYZ Software" … getting really tired of this. I agree percent with you. Its not the software Jonathan Rodriguez. What Robert said. Marcelo Teson. Antoine Bordeleau. I bet you yell at kids to get our of your yard. Randy Noland. Juhan-i - None, only hobbyists. Why even try, Razor? Believing you're right doesn't make it so.

I try to pick the best tool for the job at hand.. I love FCPX. David Peterson. Hai Bac. Phil Mastman. Rob Hardy Founder of Filmmaker Freedom. For PC users hang tight - faster cheaper will be with us very soon. Greg egan.

Apple Footer

As for the rest of us in need of CUDA, we can't even upgrade to What about this? Steve Martin. Apple released it prematurely, but how did that force anyone to use it? Zan Shin. I personally can't wait to cut on this machine. For the price this is a waste, I rather build a pc for cheaper and better specs. There are three important metrics in a modern CPU: base clock, turbo boost clock, and core count. The turbo speed is the highest speed the processer can operate at when intensive calculations are required. For digital content creators, not only are we constantly doing tasks that require turbo speed, but those tasks tend to run for a long time decoding multiple streams of video, rendering 3D animation , etc.

The problem with this is that the CPU quickly heats up with the higher clock speed. Without adequate cooling, the CPU is forced to throttle the speed back down to prevent overheating. The highest turbo clock quoted 4. Then comes core count.

  • Apple unveils powerful, all-new Mac Pro and groundbreaking Pro Display XDR - Apple.
  • diferencia entre pc y mac macintosh;
  • Don't Miss:!
  • olivetti olicard 145 mac os x.
  • Now Available in the App Store.
  • mac mini 2009 connect to tv.

Each core is essentially a separate CPU, capable of executing a bunch of commands in a software program. By dividing tasks between cores, software developers can execute processes in parallel. So 28 cores means 28x the processing power of a single core, right? Well, not really. It only works for certain tasks; many processes are by nature serial, with each step requiring data from the previous step before being executed.

And even when tasks lend themselves to parallel processing like crunching all the pixels in a big image writing bug-free multithreaded code is much more difficult to develop and troubleshoot than single thread code. Processes accessing and altering the same memory space cause all kinds of problems. In summary: for many software tasks your extra cores may be spending most of their time sitting around just warming your office. A perfect example is a 3D animation package like Maya.

It offers the second-highest base clock at 3.

Macs in the professional world. Speed up rendering, render farming | MacRumors Forums

So for the many interactive processes that only utilize a single core it will give you maximum punch, but you still get 12 cores for multithreading. In contrast, the 28 core CPU will drop you down to 2. The moral to the story? Do a little research online with the apps you most commonly use and find out whether they favor single core operations or multithreaded operations. The new Mac Pros boast a staggering maximum of 1.

While the price of ECC memory has come down in recent years, that 1. There was one trick we all used to count on when purchasing a new Mac: buy the minimum RAM from Apple, the replace it with third party RAM purchased at a fraction of the price. This is probably possible with the new Mac Pros, but it remains to be seen. There have been many studies that indicate that ECC is pretty much unnecessary in a workstation, so purchasing its cheaper sibling would be a helpful saving. Read on to see if that matters to you. In fact, for digital video, more RAM is a pretty big deal.

Take for example a frame of 8K video with alpha channel e. ProRes To process the data in 32 bit, floating point precision requires x x 4 x 32 bits of data. That works out to MB. Start blending layers of video together and doing motion effects and your system quickly comes to a spluttering, choppy stop. The more RAM you have, the more responsive your NLE or node-based compositor will be when you tweak a filter setting or perform color corrections. In comparison, buying a larger amount of RAM may see significant boost in overall performance assuming the higher end models will take MHz RAM as well, which they should.

Rather than use them purely to make pretty graphics, modern developers use them to accelerate massively parallel tasks—everything from deep learning processes to real-time ray tracing.

Afterburner – elimination of proxy editing

Up until around , advances in general computing were all about the CPU. Around , a lot of the action shifted to the GPU. Apple boasts Before you get too carried away comparing teraflops, there are many factors that go into final performance. Why is this a big deal?