FORUMS: list search recent posts

Understanding FCPX under the hood.

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Andrew Hays
Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 1:29:01 am

I'm thinking about getting a new computer in the next year or two. Before I do though, I want to understand specifically what FCPX uses Hardware -wise when the program is importing (transcoding) a file, Rendering a file, and exporting a file. What does the program use? Does it rely on huge amounts of RAM? Does it mainly rely on a lot of cores? Is the Graphics card the big thing? I mainly want to know what I need to invest in to import, render, transcode, and export media fast.

I'm looking for detailed technical answers here, not "just buy the new imac. lolz. FCPX RULES!"

I'd like to not have to break the bank of course.


Return to posts index

Andrew Hays
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 1:42:24 am

I'm thinking of what i need as a freelance shooter/editor. I've also posted this on Adobe and Avid forums here on the cow.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 1:42:49 am

[Andrew Hays] "I want to understand specifically what FCPX uses Hardware -wise when the program is importing (transcoding) a file, Rendering a file, and exporting a file. What does the program use? Does it rely on huge amounts of RAM? Does it mainly rely on a lot of cores? Is the Graphics card the big thing?"

All of the above (plus storage).


[Andrew Hays] "I mainly want to know what I need to invest in to import, render, transcode, and export media fast. "

A balanced system is important for running a modern application like FCPX or Pr.

Imbalanced systems bottleneck, wasting resources. The fastest CPU in the world with minimal RAM will provide a bad experience -- if you're going to have little RAM, you may as well get a slower CPU, too. Likewise with the fastest GPU but slowest CPU, or most RAM and slowest GPU, etc.


[Andrew Hays] "I'm looking for detailed technical answers here, not "just buy the new imac. lolz. FCPX RULES!""

Well... the iMac looks to be the best choice for FCPX -- it's got a pretty good GPU, and the latest-generation Intel processors (which feature new instruction sets that FCPX is optimized for that the Mac Pros do not provide).

http://www.barefeats.com/fcpx01.html
http://www.barefeats.com/imac12p1.html

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index


Andrew Hays
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 2:22:41 am

thanks for the reply Walter. The iMac does look nice too.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 4:08:35 am

Just buy the new iMac, lolz, fcpx rules.

If you need portability, check in to the Retina mbp.

If you don't, check in to one of the brand new 27" iMacs.

Get the fastest i7, the most ram, and the fastest GPU, basically, max it out.

It'll serve you longer, it will work the fastest until the next fastest machine comes out in 6 months and eclipses it.

With fcpx, according to Apple, transcoding in the app takes CPU, exporting goes to the GPU. All of that will require as much ram as you can afford and the computer will allow.

The retina has ssd hard drives, I'd get the biggest one you can afford as its going to be hard to do a user upgrade on it, if not impossible.

The iMac has more internal storage options. The Fusion drive sounds kinda cool, but not sure what it means in reality.

The current crop of Apple computers have Nvidia GPUs so you'll be doing OK for Pr even if you haves to hack the GPU text file to get CUDA fired up in the iMacs.

O you can buy an i7 pc and kiss apple goodbye. Pc rules. Lolz.


Return to posts index

Geoff Addis
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 10:01:21 am

Is it possible to CUDA enabble the current 27inch iMac's GPU for use with Resolve? If so, could I have the details please.


Return to posts index


Bernard Newnham
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 10:21:27 am

"Or you can buy an i7 pc and kiss apple goodbye. Pc rules. Lolz."

I can never resist -

You can buy a near impossible to upgrade computer which is massively expensive for what you get and runs an editing system which is off on its own - or almost any other system, all much cheaper, all of which are infinitely upgradable, endlessly flexible, with a huge range of editing and associated software.

As the G-man says in Half-Life "Time To Choose....."

Bernie


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 4:45:05 pm

[Bernard Newnham] "You can buy a near impossible to upgrade computer "

With Thunderbolt I can use the same RAID or Video I/O on all my Macs ('cept the overpriced MacPro). Just plug and play mostly. It's a lot cheaper than buying a separate thing for each system.

Or maybe another way to put it, How many 4x PCIe slots does your Windows laptop have?



Return to posts index

Bernard Newnham
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 6:38:43 pm

"Or maybe another way to put it, How many 4x PCIe slots does your Windows laptop have?"

Absolutely none at all. But then, I haven't edited seriously on a laptop since FCP1, when I was showing it off around the UK for the Royal Television Society. Though I can see that on very rare occasions one might need to edit on a laptop, I think comfy chairs, multiple screens, big speakers, lots of internal drives including SSDs, and hand-picked motherboards, graphics cards and processors are definitely the way to go.

I haven't quite worked out a practical use for Thunderbolt yet, unless you happen to be lumbered with a closed system, like an iMac or laptop. I think the fact that I've just read two current PC magazines and only found one mention of Thunderbolt - it's in some new GigaByte motherboard - means that the wider market aren't too interested in it.

Bernie


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 9:11:43 pm

[Bernard Newnham] "I haven't edited seriously on a laptop since FCP1"

I often have to get up out of my seat to travel. That includes shooting and editing on location hundreds of miles from my workstation. It's easy to bring my Video I/O and storage with me. Some people even like to take their work home with them... and/or work from home at times.

I recently consulted with one client who needed to be ultra portable and they used a Blackmagic Mini Recorder HD-SDI into a MacBookAir and hard drive. That didn't even fill a child's school bag.

[Bernard Newnham] "'ve just read two current PC magazines and only found one mention of Thunderbolt - it's in some new GigaByte motherboard - means that the wider market aren't too interested in it."

Those interested are buying Macs. It just one reason why Mac computer sales are climbing while PC sales aren't for the most part.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 9:37:48 pm

Because it's Friday afternoon, I decided to take a break.

I just built an HP "envy" (I don't know if that's any good or what, it just seemed to be the i7 HP) as close as I could to a maxed out iMac with similar options.

The Hp was 2800 bucks
The iMac was 3600 bucks.

The Hp only allowed to upgrade to 16GBs of RAM so when I drop the iMac down to 16, the price goes to 3200 bucks.

The Hp was 2800 bucks
The iMac was 3200 bucks.

So now, we are within $400.

A copy of Microsoft Office and whatever other software I need to repurchase to the PC side, I am now spending more on a PC.

Can someone else run a real world cost analysis and show me something that is much cheaper? I am truly wondering if this is adding to the Legend. It grows greater every day.

Jeremy

lolz


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 9:47:35 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Can someone else run a real world cost analysis and show me something that is much cheaper? I am truly wondering if this is adding to the Legend. It grows greater every day."

It's part of the Legend, unless you build your own PC. Apple has been price-competitive and often price-superior to top-tier PCs vendors for years.

The real advantages I see on the PC side are the performance and support options not available from Apple.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 10:32:44 pm

[Walter Soyka] "It's part of the Legend, unless you build your own PC."

So then, I guess, if you build a hackintosh you reap the same financial benefits?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 10:34:24 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "So then, I guess, if you build a hackintosh you reap the same financial benefits?"

Same financial benefits, even more risk of something not working.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 10:44:04 pm

i just want the Legend to keep growing


Return to posts index


Shawn Miller
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 12:42:17 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Can someone else run a real world cost analysis and show me something that is much cheaper? I am truly wondering if this is adding to the Legend. It grows greater every day."

Did you look for any other vendors? HP is probably the biggest and best SI on the Windows side, but they're not the only one. Try Dell, Promax, BoldData Systems or Puget Systems.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 1:11:07 am

[Shawn Miller] "Did you look for any other vendors?"

No, but I will. What should I expect? A few bucks difference? Lesser quality?

Am I going to be able to save 400 more dollars for a similarly speced machine?

More legend?


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 1:44:56 am

Dell: $2700
Can't config Promax online
Bolddata: My iDevice hates this website
Puget: $3k (and this is with no 27" monitor)

All of these are core i7 at the fastest clock speed.

32GB of ram

2GBs of nividia 600 class GPU

3 year service warranty or closest AppleCare equivalent

If you start pricing "all in ones" they get even closer in price, and of course there's no thunderbolt and the 27" monitors don't have the overall resolution that the iMac has.

What I have learned today is that the amount of money that I would save getting a PC isn't going to allow me to retire early.

It's fine if someone wants to build their own, I'm just trying to really see what's gong on out there. I do not find pcs to be significantly cheaper but perhaps I'm looking at it incorrectly.

It's going to be around 3 grand for a core i7 and necessary ram/perhipherals/warranty.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 2:05:04 am

I don't think you're wrong.

This conversation always reminds me of those "Laptop hunter" ads from a few years ago. The woman walks in and out of an Apple store, saying she can't get a Mac for under $1000, then walks into a BestBuy or something and finds a 17" laptop for about $600. But there's no real evaluation of what she's getting at that price (of course).

The myth of the Mac is sort of backwards to my mind- it's not that Macs are really expensive... it's just that you can't buy a cheap and shitty one.

PCs with REALLY comparable specs are in the same range, and maybe a bit cheaper, but only if you don't assign any value to the MacOS, build quality, bundled apps, or resale value.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 4:04:23 am

[Marcus Moore] "The myth of the Mac is sort of backwards to my mind- it's not that Macs are really expensive... it's just that you can't buy a cheap and shitty one."

Well said!


[Marcus Moore] "PCs with REALLY comparable specs are in the same range, and maybe a bit cheaper, but only if you don't assign any value to the MacOS, build quality, bundled apps, or resale value."

Build quality on PCs can be quite good, too. I think part of the Legend is that no PCs are built to the same standard as Macs (though I'm the first to agree that Apple laptops are hard to beat).

I wonder if Apple's legendary resale value will change as the systems do. Craig has talked about Apple trying to shorten the duty cycle on their machines to encourage more frequent purchases, and things like integrated batteries and RAM may hurt resale value.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 4:28:01 am

[Walter Soyka] "Build quality on PCs can be quite good, too. I think part of the Legend is that no PCs are built to the same standard as Macs (though I'm the first to agree that Apple laptops are hard to beat). "

Agreed. There are some nicely built PCs out there, even if you remove the shameless rip-offs.

I think the most obvious debunking of this myth is the MacBookAir. Since sales of those things took off with the second generation, PC makers have been chasing it's form factor- with Intel eventually coining the Ultrabook name. And they've found just how difficult it is to build that machine at that price.



Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 2:17:40 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "What I have learned today is that the amount of money that I would save getting a PC isn't going to allow me to retire early."

No, defintely not. :-)

[Jeremy Garchow] "It's fine if someone wants to build their own, I'm just trying to really see what's gong on out there. I do not find pcs to be significantly cheaper but perhaps I'm looking at it incorrectly."

I think you're right, Jeremy. The price difference between comparable Macs and PC's in that all-in-one form factor isn't that great. I think where you'll see HP, Dell and others edging out the Mac in price/performance, is in Xeon based workstations. And that's only because of the availability of newer processors and a wider range of graphics cards. But that's just for now, we'll see what happens later in the year with the new MacPro.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 2:24:26 am

[Shawn Miller] "I think where you'll see HP, Dell and others edging out the Mac in price/performance, is in Xeon based workstations. And that's only because of the availability of newer processors and a wider range of graphics cards. But that's just for now, we'll see what happens later in the year with the new MacPro."

No question. Xeons are in a different league, and PC manufacturers can blow the doors off of a MacPro in price to performance.

But what I was trying to point out is the when people say the get a "way cheaper" PC, it's in the i7 range which is why I started to look comparatively.

When you step up to Xeons, two processors can cost as much as the whole i7 computer and necessary upgrades.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 2:34:51 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "But what I was trying to point out is the when people say the get a "way cheaper" PC, it's in the i7 range which is why I started to look comparatively."

I see, I must have missed that. No argument here. I think the only way you will get a much cheaper i7 PC with high quality components, is if you build it yourself. Not a big deal if you've done it before, but I can see why others might not want to go through the trouble.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 2:50:23 am

[Shawn Miller] "Not a big deal if you've done it before, but I can see why others might not want to go through the trouble."

I'd really like to know how much cheaper that'd be.

And a hackintosh vs MacPro.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 6:39:23 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "
I'd really like to know how much cheaper that'd be."


It's not too difficult to suss out. Components are pretty easy to price... might be fun to visit newegg.com, frys.com or your local PC hardware shop to price out a new system.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 10:48:32 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "But what I was trying to point out is the when people say the get a "way cheaper" PC, it's in the i7 range which is why I started to look comparatively."

What it is is that its cheeper for the non-discerning, plus there are far more turn-over deals available on last generation equipment with far greater mark-downs than are available for Macs. My dad just got a nice little Windows 8 machine based on an i5 for under 500 bucks. Its zippy enough for all of the things he likes to do, and has a solid build. He wouldn't see the difference with an i7. It a replaces a 5 year old whatever-the-heck-it-was processor and seems in comparison like a race car from another planet.

The majority of computer users in this world are probably in my dad's camp, hence the widely held belief that Macs are currently overpriced.

As a side note--I really enjoyed playing around with Windows8. Maybe its because I've been told by so many people (mostly Mac people) that I'd hate it, but I found it quite a bit of fun. I'd be quite interested in playing with the full Windows 8 version of the Surface when it ships. Not that I need anymore toys.


Return to posts index

craig slattery
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 1:36:11 pm

There are two types of people in this world. People who drink Coca Cola, and weirdly people who prefer Pepsi. People who drink Coca Cola use Macs and people who drink Pepsi generally use PCs. I myself prefer the real thing and therefore drink Coca Cola while driving my Mac. As for the cost issue! My first mac was an LC 11, Ive upgraded my Mac every 2 yrs to the latest and greatest maxed out version, but Ive never actually owned a computer. I rent my computers from Mac finance, the premiums are totally tax deductible, (not tax deductible on a percentage of depreciation if I owned them) so in actual fact I don't pay for them either. At the end of the two year cycle, I send the old computer back and they send me a new one.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 4:53:46 pm

Well, here in ATL there are a lot of PC users, and I assume none of them drink Pepsi. I'm pretty sure it's illegal here actually. Oh there may be a few in underground speakeasys, but they probably go to Lowe's too. :)


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 6:57:34 pm

With all due respect--Coca Cola is Cr@p. Pepsi, specifically diet Pepsi, is the real thing.


Return to posts index

craig slattery
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 7:07:13 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Pepsi, specifically diet Pepsi, is the real thing."

Next you'll be telling me you drink decaffeinated coffee with skim milk!


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 7:23:57 pm

No, no, no. Caffeine is king. And, with coffee I paint it black.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 1:59:51 pm

[Chris Harlan] "What it is is that its cheeper for the non-discerning,"

But of course.

That does not describe the people that frequent this forum, however.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 7:28:28 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Chris Harlan] "What it is is that its cheeper for the non-discerning,"

But of course.

That does not describe the people that frequent this forum, however.
"


True. I'm just talking about "the myth." On our level its more about options than price--the array of available GPUs, Xeon configs and RAM.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 3:35:58 pm

[Chris Harlan] " My dad just got a nice little Windows 8 machine based on an i5 for under 500 bucks. Its zippy enough for all of the things he likes to do, and has a solid build. He wouldn't see the difference with an i7. It a replaces a 5 year old whatever-the-heck-it-was processor and seems in comparison like a race car from another planet.

The majority of computer users in this world are probably in my dad's camp, hence the widely held belief that Macs are currently overpriced. "


I have a hunch that actually many such people are moving to Tablets, hence the decline in PC sales overall.

Also the margins for the manufacturers of computers at the lower end of the market is so low that there's no business reason for Apple to go there.



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 7:14:40 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I have a hunch that actually many such people are moving to Tablets, hence the decline in PC sales overall.

Also the margins for the manufacturers of computers at the lower end of the market is so low that there's no business reason for Apple to go there.
"


Yes and no, and yes. Certainly a lot of people are getting tablets, but Excel, Word, Quicken, and Quickbooks really aren't really tablet fare. The decline in computer sales is, I think, much more because everyone already has one, and not because they are moving to tablets. For everyone I know, and most people I can imagine, tablets are a secondary device. They are quite successful at consuming media, but not really in demand as a meat-and-potatoes device. At least not yet. PC sales are down only from a historic high.

And of course Apple's not going to go after the low end of the market. I don't think anyone suggested that, but maybe I missed that part of the thread.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 7:32:28 pm

[Chris Harlan] "ertainly a lot of people are getting tablets, but Excel, Word, Quicken, and Quickbooks really aren't really tablet fare. The decline in computer sales is, I think, much more because everyone already has one, and not because they are moving to tablets."

I strongly disagree. I'm not inclined to dig up all the numbers at the moment but tables have replaced the need for computers for a lot of "pedestrian" uses. Those that are getting computers are getting laptops (which don't have much in the DIY building department) so they can do their work "wherever."

There are certainly very impressive apps along the lines of Word, Excel, Quicken. Granted not easy to use for any length sans keyboard. Heck Microsoft is aware of that given the design of the Surface.

It's simply "everyone already has one" since there'd still be a replacement life cycle even if that grows longer. The decline in sales is significant. There are people who don't buy a computer at all. While that number is a minority, it's growing and, as it grows, computer sales shrink "permanently" because some aren't getting replaced by traditional computers.



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 7:59:00 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I strongly disagree. I'm not inclined to dig up all the numbers at the moment "

Nor am I, so we'll just have to say our gut feelings strongly disagree. I DO agree that laptops will represent the lion share of future PC sales. I don't quite follow what you are trying to say, though. I think maybe we aren't quite on the same page about what it is we are talking about.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 8:06:53 pm

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/01/04/us-macbook-sales-drop-6-over-2012...

Sales of notebooks running Microsoft Windows were down 11 percent year over year, even with the much hyped launch of the new Windows 8 operating system.

The biggest hit for PCs came in the low-end market — a segment where Apple’s iPad has had the greatest effect. Sales of sub-$500 PCs were off 16 percent year over year, according to NPD.

and from Forbes
PC Sales Could Decline 'For Years To Come,' Analyst Says
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/11/12/pc-sales-could-decline-fo...

The Verge
NPD: Windows 8 fails to reverse declining PC notebook sales during holiday season
http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/4/3836222/npd-windows-8-fails-to-reverse-dec...


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 8:10:03 pm

This doesn't help your argument at all. I'm not disputing PC sales are down. Of course they are.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 8:22:57 pm

Amongst the reason PC sales are in decline is cannibalization from Tablets.

Of course PC sales are in decline: Mobile is where its at
http://gigaom.com/mobile/of-course-pc-sales-are-in-decline-mobile-is-where-...

There are people who are using Tablets as their primary computer. It's a small but growing number and it is a significant contributor to the decline in PC sales.

You said:

[Chris Harlan] "My dad just got a nice little Windows 8 machine based on an i5 for under 500 bucks."

Apple Insider says:
The biggest hit for PCs came in the low-end market — a segment where Apple’s iPad has had the greatest effect. Sales of sub-$500 PCs were off 16 percent year over year, according to NPD.

So I believe that market is being lost big time to Tablets.



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 10:43:42 pm

First off--we're arguing at cross purposes, and this is not where the discussion was going. We were simply talking about the myth--which I agree is a myth--that PCs are way cheeper than Macs. So, why we're here-I'm not sure.

Now, as to tablets--I don't think we disagree particularly, but since we seem to be on the subject, let me tell you what I think about them:

Yes, they are on the rise, but in their current form I do not believe the will replace laptops. I Do believe that laptops will eventually replace most home computers. In their current form I think tablets are over-hyped. They are new and exciting, and yes, for some people they are their only computer (and for some people, their phone is their only computer), but MOST tablet owners also own some other form of computer.

Having used tablets for some time now, I do not find that they--in their current form--adequately replace a laptop for personal use. Interestingly, my 14 year old daughter does not either, nor do any of her friends. They love their iPads for casual browsing and media consumption, and a couple of them enjoy some of the finger-driven artistic tools, but given the choice--one or the other--all of them would take the 13" Macbook Pro that their school distributes over their personal iPads. Interestingly, none of them give two figs about the Retina display either. I find among my many friends who have been dual users for some time pretty much exactly the same sentiment. Yes, there is a whole segment of the population that will never get past browsing and media consumption, and yes, there are people who use their tablets professionally (I have several apps, from control surfaces to dictation-takers, that I use regularly), but among the population I have been watching for the last several years, the tablet remains an add-on.

But what's a tablet? What's a laptop? They are so close, now, in terms of functionality that it seems foolish to draw major distinctions between them. There are some actions that work better with a touch screen, and some actions that work better with a keyboard and trackpad. Some things are better with a more powerful CPU and some things are better with a much longer battery life. It really comes down to no more than that at this point. And that is the gap that everyone is trying to bridge. But really its a very tiny gab.


Return to posts index

Michael Sanders
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 2:21:45 pm

Er news?

I regularly edit news on the road with a 15 or 17" MBP, bus powered G tech Mini Raid and use the camera (PDW800 mostly) as a deck.

Normally edit in the back of the car or a hotel lobby, coffee shop etc and then send via FTP either over 3G or hotspot.

Also do quite a few quick turn around corporates in the same way usually in a hotel room and output a Prores file.

Michael Sanders
London Based DP/Editor


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 9:49:47 pm

[Craig Seeman] "With Thunderbolt I can use the same RAID or Video I/O on all my Macs ('cept the overpriced MacPro). Just plug and play mostly. It's a lot cheaper than buying a separate thing for each system. "

And this is a cool advantage for those of us with more computers than bodies.

But when you have only one set of storage and one set of video I/O, you have only one edit system, no matter how many computers you have. Having dedicated storage and I/O for each system is sometimes worthwhile, and in this case, you're just spending more for less performance and some flexibility that you don't need.

I really do like Thunderbolt, but it's not the answer to every problem in computing.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 10:50:48 pm

[Walter Soyka] "But when you have only one set of storage and one set of video I/O, you have only one edit system, no matter how many computers you have."

Many years ago I worked in a few small facilities that didn't have centralized machine rooms. They'd put a couple of beta decks on carts and wheel them from Avid to Avid for input. Of course there was the inevitable issue when too many people where inputting for too long. But in this economy I can certainly see some tighter budgeted facilities opting for mobile I/O. I have a hunch that's part of the attraction to AJA's T-TAP and Blackmagic's Mini Monitor. This frees Input devices to wander while a less expensive monitor device remains attached. Is every facility like this? No. I think as the economy and budgets continue tightening the attraction to movable components is only increasing. For similar reasons some take their "dedicated storage" home with them since the work day doesn't end.

The need for flexibility is escalating like crazy as far as i can tell. In many respects it's actually sad but I think it's part of the economic circumstances.



Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 12:43:58 am

[Craig Seeman] " Or maybe another way to put it, How many 4x PCIe slots does your Windows laptop have?"

Thunderbolt specs claims to be PCIe 4x capable , well it might be sometimes. IDK.
But here we have this new PCIe 2.0 4x card, where one or two SSDs work in tandem.
Great product as it doesn't require drivers on OS X or on WIN 7 - but no booting OS in MP!
But I digress...

According to them, both in native PCIe 4x in a Mac Pro and also in a Thunderbolt enabled PCIe 4x,
The Mac Pro performs considerably better than the TB Mac which isn't disclosured but it must be an iMac 11

http://www.sonnettech.com/product/tempossdpro.html?tab=2

Testing was done on their own Thunderbolt expansion chassis for PCIe card, so the problem may lie there
But the card is Thunderbolt aware and I can't for the life of me grasp why would they cap ThunderBolt
Unless there's a firmware upgrade that unleashes the lightpeak of thunderbolt, IDK what to make of this...


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 1:07:37 am

[Christian Schumacher] ", IDK what to make of this..."

No matter what machine you are on, you have enough bandwidth to capture uncompressed 1080iHD.

You'd have enough to capture 444 uncompressed HD. One one 2.5" drive.

On an iMac, or a retina, or a MacPro.

Switch that to compressed, and you can do a multicam on one drive.

I don't know what you make of that, but I'd say we are doing ok.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 9:03:28 pm

Outside of the MacPro, which is VERY overpriced for the components your getting right now- I don't buy it.

A comparable PC might end up a couple hundred less on a several thousand dollar machine, but I think the term "massive" is overstating it to say the least.

And if you're going to go down the road of saying you can build a box on your own out of the raw parts, then that's a different story entirely- and a judgement call on your part to take on all the compatibility and upgrade issues that come with it. I could probably build a wooden chair cheaper than I can buy one, but it would be more hassle than it's worth. I just want to sit down!

I look for stability and absolute minimum of time spent working "on" my machine so that I can just worry about working "with" my machine. Macs have provided me with worry-free experience for over a decade- and THAT has a real dollar and cent value to me.

Buying a new machine every 2-3 years is just a cost of doing business, and considering the high value on the resale of Macs, money I used towards the next purchase, I'd be surprised if you come out that far ahead in the long run.

Just my take.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 9:37:44 pm

[Bernard Newnham] "You can buy a near impossible to upgrade computer which is massively expensive for what you get and runs an editing system which is off on its own - or almost any other system, all much cheaper, all of which are infinitely upgradable, endlessly flexible, with a huge range of editing and associated software."

It's nice to have the option for self-builds, but I won't do them myself (although I could), and I don't generally recommend it to others. I don't want to spend the time doing the research I'd have to do before building a monster PC, I don't want to be my own support, and I don't want to provide myself my own warranty.

I like PCs for flexibility and greater choice on performance options, but they way I'm using them, they're just not cheaper. A nice "Tier 1" PC workstation will set you back a pretty penny.

I have done exactly the same sorts of upgrades on my HP as I have on my Mac Pros -- RAM, GPU, video I/O, H.264 accelerator, USB3.0 card, SSD on PCIe, RAID, tape drive, internal hard drives. I will not be touching the "hard" stuff like motherboards and CPUs on my HP any more than I would on my Macs. When it gets too old, I'll buy a whole new workstation and repurpose this one.

While my PCs can run Premiere Pro and Avid MC very nicely, they cannot run FCP7, FCPX, or Smoke 2013 at all.

It's great to have these choices.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 10:58:39 am

Barefeats did some performance tests in Resolve yes:

http://www.barefeats.com/imac12p2.html

Seems the GF680MX is quite speedy after all.

I don't however know exactly what you have to re-configure in Resolve to get it to work.

THE CUDA FIX
To get the Premiere Pro to recognize the iMac's GeForce 680MX as a CUDA supported card, we edited the "approved" list in the app's Contents folder. However, we also added it to the OpenCL supported cards list. Turns out that having it in both lists confuses Premiere Pro. When we removed it from the OpenCL list, Premiere Pro reported that it was using CUDA acceleration and the render times for Gaussian Blur and Fast Color Correction dropped. The same is true for the GeForce GT 650M in the Retina MacBook Pro. The graphs were updated accordingly on January 30th. Plus we added results for the GeForce G680 Classified as well.


Return to posts index

Geoff Addis
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 2:16:56 pm

Thank you, Erik


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 8:46:18 pm

I have infinite respect for the hardware obsessed.

But just don't forget that hardware is only in the mix to enable content creation.

I kinda feel that unless you're already very successful, the hardware won't actually make much difference in terms of whether you'll be successful or not in the video production industry at the level of a sole practitioner - unless you stumble into a system that is failure prone. And above the sole practitioner level, there are typically company-wide tech issues in place that take those decisions out of the mix for any individual editor.

For the individual editor, we have SUPERB content creations tools today from all the modern vendors.

They all work incredibly well and can output excellent work. IF the user has the skills to use them.

I've always felt that too much hardware obsession is a bit like the folks who go to restaurants where they serve huge portions. It gives you the impression you're getting a lot for your money, but if you find yourself constantly taking home leftovers and throwing them away two days later - whats the point?

And if a screaming fast system loaded with every option is cranking out just one project a month and sitting idle for three weeks beyond surfing the net and general business stuff - then its fair to at least consider if the strategy has been to over-purchase capacity while focusing, perhaps, too little attention on other things that can drive more success for you - more quickly.

I just think that the "appliance" model can have major advantages over the "bespoke" model - for those who feel that more effort devoted to the content creation side can provide superior return to more effort spent on focus on a perhaps too obsessive hardware vetting process.

But to each their own.

The term "gear po*rn" exists for a reason. And I certainly understand the draw. But there is often a huge distinction between what we WANT in order to make our content - and what we actually NEED.

Just sayin'.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 8:54:58 pm

If you say a year or two, it might be worth a wait to see if Apple puts out a new Mac Pro and revised pro computer. Tim Cook has said something is coming out in 2013 sometime. A lot of people think they know how to read the tea leaves. They don't. Neither do I.



Return to posts index

Bernard Newnham
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 11:27:37 pm

I got into building gear when I had to order a custom machine for the graphics designer on our team at the BBC, where I was a producer. We were told to pioneer "low cost" production, which meant DV cameras, strictly no Quantel, and shoot and edit it yourself. A bit of research at IBC said we we needed a powerful PC - Pentium 2 or whatever - with Matrox Digisuite, a still impressive set of cards.

When the PC turned up, it was wrong, and I had to take it apart and start again. It then ran for two years on our weekly show. When we needed a second one, I just ordered the parts. If you wanted something done properly, even at the BBC, do it yourself!

Since I left, I've made about a dozen, including a hackintosh. They all worked fine, and some are still running merrily. One that used to be my main machine has been a Linux terminal at my flying club since 2008. It's never turned off.

So it is possible to do your own - in fact it's easy these days. A lot like Lego, really.

And I for one am not into "gear porn" - these are machines to do a job, reliably and for a long time. I only ever used the Macs - a G4 then the hack - for Final Cut, as the PCs can do so much more and for so much less.

BTW Crystal Disc says that one of the four drives in this machine has 26041 hours on it. Only a backup though, 'cos that's a lot of hours.

Bernie


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 4, 2013 at 11:53:19 pm

'Gear porn'! I understand that is the case when my 19 yo stepson drools over specs - cases with flashing blue LEDs around the fans etc. But building your own edit PC is just simple professionalism. It has nothing to do with poor analogies of overeating. I charge for a job which means spending hours longer waiting for a slower machine to render or drop frames on critical playouts to tape makes the economics of building grunt a total no brainer. If you charge by the hour and your client doesn't mind paying for under performing hardware then sure, the economics may be different.

Even over paying for my MacPro three years ago paid for itself within weeks on a big job compared to unbillable time waiting for a G5. With FCP legend now being phased out for CS6 and da Vinci I would be practicing poor economy not building a PC.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 12:00:44 am

[Michael Gissing] "But building your own edit PC is just simple professionalism."

Or a task that one might view as avoidable - and further, one that sucks time and energy that would be better forced on prospecting, marketing, client services, etc, etc, etc.

I respect people who train themselves to be good at anything, including computer systems specification and integration.

But I'm NOT a computer systems integrator, nor do I wish to become one.

I want to launch the software and EDIT. Period.

That task is dauntingly difficult enough by itself, IMHE.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 12:27:04 am

To each his own Bill. Apple I am sure prefer people like you. Much of their business model is based on the idea of 'just give me a working box that I don't have to think about'.

It actually takes very little time to maintain hardware and software but it sure pays off.


Return to posts index

Bernard Newnham
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 11:03:50 am

True - it really isn't difficult or time consuming. Instead of looking at the Apple site and picking from a very few models, none of which particularly fits your spec and are jolly expensive, you go to your local equivalent of dabs.com and choose from dozens of graphics cards, processors, motherboards etc for just the ones you want.

And you know that if any of these needs updating in a few months, you just change it - none of that "when are they producing a new MacPro?" rubbish.

A couple of hours - if that - to set up, and you're on your way with the very latest in editing machinery, with the sure and certain knowledge that if any part of it stops being at the cutting edge, you can just change it..... GTX690 getting a bit slow for your 6k video? Out it comes, and in with a nice new GTXXX8000 mega card. Drives not spacious enough? Out with those four 2 terabyte clunkers and in with some brand new 6 terabyte SSDs. All terribly easy, and can be done in no time at all, with still time to edit the odd four-minuter before lunch. And no Thunderbolt required at all.

Bernie


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 2:11:54 pm

[Bernard Newnham] "True - it really isn't difficult or time consuming. Instead of looking at the Apple site and picking from a very few models, none of which particularly fits your spec and are jolly expensive"

Now, I see you haven't been paying attention in class.

Almost any place that I went to to price a similar configured PC cost about the same as the jolly expensive Mac.

Can we please out this myth out to pasture?

[Bernard Newnham] "And you know that if any of these needs updating in a few months, you just change it - none of that "when are they producing a new MacPro?" rubbish. "

Is it really that easy? I always read about mother board conflicts and when you are talking about a professional video setup with capture cards, storage cards, etc, its not as easy as "just changing it".

[Bernard Newnham] "A couple of hours - if that - to set up, and you're on your way with the very latest in editing machinery, with the sure and certain knowledge that if any part of it stops being at the cutting edge, you can just change it..... GTX690 getting a bit slow for your 6k video? Out it comes, and in with a nice new GTXXX8000 mega card. Drives not spacious enough? Out with those four 2 terabyte clunkers and in with some brand new 6 terabyte SSDs. All terribly easy, and can be done in no time at all, with still time to edit the odd four-minuter before lunch. And no Thunderbolt required at all."

I see here you are preparing for capabilities that aren't possible yet. That's fine.

I like to dream too.


Return to posts index

Bernard Newnham
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 3:43:12 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Is it really that easy? I always read about mother board conflicts and when you are talking about a professional video setup with capture cards, storage cards, etc, its not as easy as "just changing it"."

Yes. Both the motherboard manufacturers and the video card manufacturers have come a long way from the dreaded old conflicting interrupts stuff. These days I only have a Blackmagic Intensity Pro, and don't use that much, but it goes in the the PC or the hackintosh and does its job as required. Other stuff - graphics cards, drives, RAM etc, just slip in and work too.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Almost any place that I went to to price a similar configured PC cost about the same as the jolly expensive Mac."

Off to Apple.....
27-inch, 2.9GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 ,8GB memory, 1TB hard drive, GeForce GTX 660M
£1,499.00

Off to Dabs....
Dabs don't have a Core i5 at 2.9Ghz, but a faster i5-3750k at 3.4Ghz is £173.

8Gb RAM - £30.99.
No, I want 16Gb - £50.98

Motherboard - lets have a nice one, though there are lots to choose from - Asus P8Z77-V PRO at £149.98 - though I could probably get one at £100 and not lose much.

1TB drive - no, lets upgrade and get two at 2TB - £141

GTX 660M - no, lets have better - a GTX670 for £300

At that point, I'm on just over £800, and I have all the important bits. Because I've been doing this a while now, I have case, keyboards, mice and screens already, and because they aren't all stuck in a flashy plastic box, I can re-use them till they are out of date. Big price in that would be a nice big new screen. I'll have an Acer 27" priced at £200.

At that point I still haven't nearly hit the cost of the iMac and I have £500 to spare to go on holiday. A couple of hours work when the boxes arrive, and we're back editing again, or in my current case writing an application for a uni newsroom in Actionscript 3.

Bernie


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 3:57:12 pm

[Bernard Newnham] "These days I only have a Blackmagic Intensity Pro, and don't use that much,"

I've worked with too many people that have had to deal with the following when putting together systems. This extends to other manufacturers as well. Then there's the driver update dance.

http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/support/detail/supportnotes/supportnote?sid...

Supported Hardware
Certified PC Workstations
The following workstations are certified for use with Decklink, Multibridge and Intensity capture cards:

Hewlett Packard Z400
Hewlett Packard Z600
Hewlett Packard Z800
Hewlett Packard XW9300
Hewlett Packard XW8600 (not recommended for Decklink PCI or PCI-X cards)
For additional configuration information, check the HP XW8600 or XW9300 workstation Tech note.

Please note: Dell workstations are not supported for use with Blackmagic Design capture cards.

Recommended Motherboards
The following motherboards are recommended for use with Decklink, Multibridge and Intensity capture cards:

Asus P5E
Asus P5B
Asus P5Q Pro Turbo
Asus P6X58D (Bios later than 12.04.2010)
Asus P8P67 PRO (Rev 3.1)
Gigabyte EP45-DS3
Gigabyte x48DQ6
Gigabyte GA-P67A-UD7-B3 (rev. 1.0)
Intel D975XBX
XFX 790i Ultra

For the latest compatibility information regarding x58 chipsets, please review the following Tech notes:

Intel® Desktop Board DX58SO

Asus P6T series motherboards




Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 4:49:42 pm

And if you add a dual link 27" led monitor?

We all agreed that building your own is cheaper. I am building comparative products from reputable comparative companies with comparative (paid) services.

I could also build a hackintosh for much cheaper than a Mac, probably close to your prices above, but needing a little more time to configure.

There are people who don't want to build their own.

Even if a Mac motherboard completely dies, I can take that same boot drive and mount it on any other Mac in the shop and keep working, from MacMini to MacPro, in minutes. With Thunderbolt, this would be even easier as all of my components can transfer from macmini to MacPro (assuming a thunderbolt MacPro) in seconds. That's worth something to me.

We have more than one mouth to feed, more than one machine to maintain, and more than one point of view, but one very busy shop that needs to stay up, but it doesn't necessarily need to by a new GPU every 6 months for a few more clock cycles to garner new clients.

I appreciate the DIY ethic, and I can see that it is demonstrably cheaper, but that doesn't mean I'm an idiot, or a Luddite, or throwing good money after bad because I have machine that sits in the corner with 26000 hours on the hard drive.

PC hard drives spin just like Mac hard drives spin, no?


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 4:21:12 pm

Jeremy -

I suggest you go here. Their builds are updated every 6 months or so. Generally New Egg has the best prices for the parts.

http://www.videoguys.com/Guide/E/Videoguys+DIY9+Its+Time+for+Sandy+Bridge+E...

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Bernard Newnham
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 4:50:08 pm

Craig -

I lost interest in which boxes manufacturers tested and approved their gear on years ago. I discovered that generally by the time I looked I couldn't buy the stuff any more.

I think - though I've only just passed my eyes over your list - that almost all the gear on the list is out of date. The whole HP Z400 range appears to be long gone. The Asus P8P67 PRO has been superceded by the Asus P8Z77-V PRO whixch is in my (quickly produced) list above. In three months, things will have moved on again. That's the way it is outside the world of Apple - always something new.

Blackmagic can test on a motherboard/memory/processor system, but it'll probably be out of date before it's published, so they have to build to the general standard. Everyone else builds to the standard too, including Apple, and mostly that standard works, over a huge range of gear and manufacturers. Everything works with everything else because it has to, otherwise companies don't make money.

Bernie


Return to posts index

Bernard Newnham
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 5:15:45 pm

"PC hard drives spin just like Mac hard drives spin, no?"

Jeremy -

Of course they do, they're from the same place (or places). Hard drives are commodities used by PC makers and Apple alike. So is memory.

It's true that I don't have to keep the show on the road any more, but experience in these things doesn't go away when you leave the BBC. If I was asked to spec a small editing house now - just a few machines and no common files needing shared editing, I'd do the same as when I did exactly that in our low cost unit at the BBC.

What do I need to do?
Edit from various formats, add graphics created nearby, and export in some format or other (DigiBeta in those days) - a 30 minute show each week.

What shall I use?
Stuff that people can work and fits the budget.

In those days we ran 2 Eidos Optimas for off-line, an Avid on-line and a graphics pc workstation running Photoshop and After Effects with DigiSuite to get the video in and out.

Now - 15 years on, with the same low budget requirement -

Three, maybe four, PCs running Windows, and probably the whole Adobe Production Bundle. Not because I'm a loyal Adobe customer, but because currently that's the right choice for that job. I'd have someone build the PCs to my spec, because as producer I'm too busy to do it myself. When the PCs get old, I'll just update all or parts of them, and I too will move my drives to the new machine if they work ok, though I'd rather buy a new boot drive, preferably an SSD.

I shall have vastly more flexibility than if I'd gone Mac, and it'll cost much less to set up and maintain. A few years ago I would have spent the extra dosh on a couple of G4s running FCP, but that time has passed now

Bernie


Return to posts index

Jason Porthouse
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 5:35:41 pm

It's an interesting and ongoing argument I have with a lot of editors and friends who aren't Apple users. In my experience of both working freelance and at the Beeb, I've had more trouble with PC based systems than Mac ones. My own suite is a venerable MacPro 1.1 (the earliest Intel) that I've had since new - crashes I can count on one hand, and downtime due to hardware or software problems would be a few hours at most. I've lost days before when using PC based systems - even with full tech support, I've had whole mornings where clever people have been 'under the hood' (this on HP 800 workstations so not cheap stuff) and I've been unable to edit. So in terms of billable time the Macs I've worked on have been, as a rule, ultra-reliable. Were it not for support for X and some of the new hardware coming out I'd not be considering changing my Mac, but I can't complain as it's provided sterling service for 5 years now. Worth every penny IMHO.

_________________________________

Before you criticise a man, walk a mile in his shoes.
Then when you do criticise him, you'll be a mile away. And have his shoes.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 7:37:02 pm

[Jason Porthouse] "My own suite is a venerable MacPro 1.1 (the earliest Intel) that I've had since new - crashes I can count on one hand, and downtime due to hardware or software problems would be a few hours at most."

I had that same build till last June - depending on the date, it might crash 3 times a day, downtime due to hardware was fairly extensive, memory costs compared to more modern builds were exorbitant and by the time it died I was almost glad to see it go. It seems mileage does vary.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 8:07:43 pm

Agreed. I've had my share of Mac adventures, usually related to OS X, Quicktime or iTune updates. The eSATA driver thing was a major PITA. And my experience with PCs has been about the same, which is to say every bit as rock solid and occasionally problematic. The major thing you have to do with PCs is keep folks from downloading a lot of cr@p, especially free games and virus-laden screen savers.


Return to posts index

Fabrizio D'Agnano
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 8:26:05 pm

I really agree with Jason. I used to work on PC machines, some put together strictly following the Videguys tips, some more randomly assembling parts, others bought from reputable vendors. I mostly work on long projects, in terms of time the project is being edited and in minutes of duration. I often experienced crashes, corrupted and unrecoverable projects (backups carrying the seed of the incoming crash), and a collection of more or less serious problems nobody seemed to be able to solve (it could be the OS, no, it's an Adobe problem, no, it's the motherboard that conflicts with the graphic card.....). I remember I was once saved by a Japanese editor on a forum when I could not export a project on tape and I was on a dead end. He asked me if the total number of frames ended with a "5" or a "7", for what I recall. I said "yes", and he answered that with that combination of motherboard and other components I had, on long projects it had happened before, so I could just add or cut one frame, and he was right so I could export after a few days of aborted trials. Five years ago I bought two MP and an iMac, together with FCP. I never experienced a single real problem since, and when there was something wrong, the "closed dumbed down" system with HW, OS and editing SW coming from the same vendor helped narrowing the odds a lot. I have a very reliable set I can work with, and for me it's much more important than saving a few seconds on a render or a couple hundred dollars in a five years time lapse. It just runs as smooth as silk, and I'd never consider a different option unless I'm really forced to.

Fabrizio D'Agnano
Rome, Italy


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 6, 2013 at 4:10:01 pm

[Bernard Newnham] "What shall I use?
Stuff that people can work and fits the budget."


Well, if $500 - $700 breaks the budget, then yes, I can see the value.

For me, it would be quite an experiment and if it didn't work, I'd have to spend the money again on a system that was prebuilt and warrantied. I know talk about "good economics" around here, but for us, there is a peace of mind that might not show up as a line item on a budget, but it does carry value for us.

If you have a team or person that's dedicated to trouble shooting any issues and you can afford to take the machine completely offline without any sort of replacement, then I'd say it would probably be worth it to you.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 5:39:15 pm

[Bernard Newnham] "I think - though I've only just passed my eyes over your list - that almost all the gear on the list is out of date."

Yes it is. Even Blackmagic seems to have stopped posting verified motherboards.

[Bernard Newnham] "Everything works with everything else because it has to, otherwise companies don't make money."

Given all the people I deal with who are building their own systems, that doesn't seem to be the case. The trouble shooting and swapping out of components relative to the savings seems small.

The advantage of DIY is you get exactly what you need without compromise rather than any component cost savings once you factor in time and troubleshooting. The advantage is that, over time, you can swap out older components for newer components as your needs change. That can be important when some bits of technology make major changes in short order.

For many though, it actually makes more cost sense to replace their computer every year or two.
The only big problem with Apple is that since 2010 that hasn't been possible at all with the MacPro.
If anything Apple's likely going to want to move people from working with the same MacPro for 3-6 years(!!!) to replacing that every year or two as well.

To restate succinctly, IMHO
DIY allows the ideal machine for your current needs.
DIY allows interim updates as hardware needs change.
I don't think there's a big cost savings when you factor in time and trouble shooting.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 6, 2013 at 4:02:36 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I suggest you go here. Their builds are updated every 6 months or so. Generally New Egg has the best prices for the parts. "

Thank you, Herb. That is helpful.

DIY10 sounds like it will answer the hackintosh questions. Looking forward to that build.

Too bad it will be a "lowly" i7 that constantly gets berated around here for not being quite pro enough.

And it will have the absolutely shameful thunderbolt that isn't going to add any flexibility or capability at all to anything in the pro video space. Oh, the humanity.

But I guess what's good for the goose isn't good enough for the gander?


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 6, 2013 at 4:33:23 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "And it will have the absolutely shameful thunderbolt that isn't going to add any flexibility or capability at all to anything in the pro video space. Oh, the humanity."

Yes it will have Thunderbolt, IN ADDITION to numerous PCIe slots.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 6, 2013 at 5:08:12 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Too bad it will be a "lowly" i7 that constantly gets berated around here for not being quite pro enough. And it will have the absolutely shameful thunderbolt that isn't going to add any flexibility or capability at all to anything in the pro video space. Oh, the humanity."

I assume this is said with at least a little wink.

I'm one of the biggest sizzle core/PCIe slot cheerleaders around here, but I also recognize that a Thunderbolt-equipped i7 is a very nice machine -- especially for editorial.

There are adjacent spaces, though, where Xeons and faster I/O are worthwhile.

I'm glad we can use Core i7 and Thunderbolt where appropriate, but I'd find it limiting if they were our only options.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 6, 2013 at 6:16:46 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I assume this is said with at least a little wink."

A big one.

It is odd to me that we always talk about PC vs Mac in this forum, how much cheaper, how much faster etc etc.

My point here, is that when you start to really look at it, they aren't that much different in cost and parts.

And what is all of a sudden good enough for a PC ("screaming", "fast", etc etc), sucks on a Mac.

I understand you can swap a GPU, but that's really about all you can't do with an iMac provided you are OK with an external Thunderbolt chassis or two.

I am trying to point out these inconsistencies in the vernacular.

Everyone, so far, that we've talked to and mentioned here that is building a PC is building an iMac tower. The newegg comment was a Xeon based motherboard, that one not withstanding.

And all of a sudden, it's pro enough.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 5:04:59 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Everyone, so far, that we've talked to and mentioned here that is building a PC is building an iMac tower. The newegg comment was a Xeon based motherboard, that one not withstanding.

And all of a sudden, it's pro enough.
"


I don't get the tear you're off on. I must have missed the post that set you off. For the record, I love my i7 Macbook Pro; I probably do most of my work on it right now. And, I WOULD consider an iMac, but I'm unhappy they aren't made with matte finish anymore, and that is probably enough to keep me from buying one. I've been debating an external monitor for the laptop, and I like that the Apple monitor supports TBolt, but I'm probably going to go with Dell because I really hate glossy.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 5:16:06 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I don't get the tear you're off on. "

Just trying to keep the conversation going.

I understand that DIY isn't for everyone, but it might be a necessity.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 7:21:28 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Is it really that easy? I always read about mother board conflicts and when you are talking about a professional video setup with capture cards, storage cards, etc, its not as easy as "just changing it".
"


Actually, while conflicts can occur, they are rare and getting rarer. It generally is "that easy." It was a huge shock for me when I moved over to Apple products, years back, how few customization options were available. And, how expensive they were in comparison. GPUs would be a prime example of this.


Return to posts index

Bernard Newnham
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 10:38:00 pm

I'm always a touch amazed at the "I had so many crashes on PCs and so few on Macs" stories. I have very few on either these days, and for a long time now.

Back when FCP was in earlier versions - up to about 4 - I habitually changed the autosave to 5 minutes from 30 on any new setup because it crashed so often. I only persevered because I thought it was a really good system despite the aggro. I had some very short tempered days though.....

Jason, further up, says-
"I've lost days before when using PC based systems - even with full tech support, I've had whole mornings where clever people have been 'under the hood' (this on HP 800 workstations so not cheap stuff) "

One does have to wonder what year that was - sometime in the nineties? And what software he was using. I remember all that stuff too, but I was a lot younger then.

Bernie


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 5, 2013 at 10:51:00 pm

[Bernard Newnham] "Jason, further up, says-
"I've lost days before when using PC based systems - even with full tech support, I've had whole mornings where clever people have been 'under the hood' (this on HP 800 workstations so not cheap stuff) "

One does have to wonder what year that was - sometime in the nineties? And what software he was using. I remember all that stuff too, but I was a lot younger then."


Yes, I've never had that kind of an experience with a PC. I used to have that kind of fun with a Matrox Digisuite / Dual Pentium setup, but never ever considered it to be an issue with the PC. NT 4.5--Windows XP was a marvelous, generally rock solid experience for me on PCs. I did have Vista, which had all the incompatible driver fun, but not on a work PC. I guess I could see having the issues Jason is referring to when upgrading from XP to Vista. I hear, though, that Windows 7 was rock solid again.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 6, 2013 at 5:52:22 am

Garage Band for example, is a blast on the iPad as you can actually play instruments and interact, and on the computer you need a midi keyboard or a real guitar.

I can see motion graphics and editing benefitting in similar ways


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 6, 2013 at 6:43:00 am

[Bret Williams] "Garage Band for example, is a blast on the iPad as you can actually play instruments and interact, and on the computer you need a midi keyboard or a real guitar.

I can see motion graphics and editing benefitting in similar ways
"


Actually you don't need a midi keyboard, and I tend to prefer using a virtual computer keyboard when I have to, as opposed to the iPad screen, though a virtual keyboard probably takes a little more practice. For those of us who Do have a keyboard, I don't really think there is much of a comparison.

Musical things I Do use the iPad for: Omnisphere has a sweet little iPad utility that acts as a powerful but oddball controller. AC-7 is a fun little virtual control surface/mixer that works well with FCP 6/7 and Logic. I like the controls on Touch OSC, and when I have some free time, I'm going to see if I can't get them working with Media Composer and Audition. I'm also very interested in trying out V-Control Pro with Media Composer when I get the chance. Also, if I were into Ableton, I think it would be a bitchin' trigger device.


Return to posts index

Jason Porthouse
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 6, 2013 at 1:09:36 pm

[Bernard Newnham] "Jason, further up, says-
"I've lost days before when using PC based systems - even with full tech support, I've had whole mornings where clever people have been 'under the hood' (this on HP 800 workstations so not cheap stuff) "

One does have to wonder what year that was - sometime in the nineties? And what software he was using. I remember all that stuff too, but I was a lot younger then."


No Bernie - last year, hence the HP 800. Running Avid...

Overall I'm pretty platform agnostic, I'll cut on whatever someone pays me to cut on. All I can go on is my experience, having owned both PC and Mac based systems. I had nightmares with some of the early Avids - especially the ones running on 'custom' hardware (what was the one with the rack-mounted CPU with big clamshell doors they sold in the 90s? I shudder to remember that POS...) yet my Fast Silver was rock solid running on a beefy PC. I think it has a lot to do with how carefully any PC is put together - and money does play a part here. Too many people cut corners and pay the price in terms of downtime and incompatibilities. I don't want to have to troubleshoot that kind of thing - I can if I have to, but I'd rather be cutting. I have been fortunate in the reliability stakes with my own kit, probably because I can't afford to have it crap out on me so I take good care of it.

Looking overall at the computers I've used and owned both at work and domestically, I'd say Apple have both the best reliability and longevity - heck my Blue & White G3 still worked when i junked it (couldn't even find someone to give it to) and we've still got a pair of eMacs that work fine. Must've been through at least 3 desktop PCs and a couple of windows based laptops in that time. But as always YYMV...

_________________________________

Before you criticise a man, walk a mile in his shoes.
Then when you do criticise him, you'll be a mile away. And have his shoes.



Return to posts index

Bernard Newnham
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 6, 2013 at 3:59:04 pm

" I think it has a lot to do with how carefully any PC is put together"

True of any gear I suppose, but it is difficult to get building a PC wrong. Put the processor in the slot provided, add the heatsink. Slot in the memory. Screw the motherboard to the standoffs provided. Plug in the graphics card. Connect the cables to the drives and power supply etc. That's about it. There are endless how-tos on the net, eg - http://www.wikihow.com/Build-a-Computer

It either works straight away, or not,really. Mostly it does, because PCs are designed to be built by not-too-bright people who aren't concentrating, rather than someone who's about to use the thing to make money - and get on the air.

I still have my G4 here. It seems too pretty to chuck away, but I have no use for it.....actually, perhaps I could build a PC inside. Should fit ok.

Bernie


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 6, 2013 at 4:15:48 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Actually, while conflicts can occur, they are rare and getting rarer. "

I would imagine that "the world' determines what motherboards are working or not.

Here's a comment from a newegg user that I came across trying to piece together and wade through the absolutely confusing amount of choices in motherboards. I don't know what the hell I'm doing, but I would assume I am not alone in that department.

Case, motherboard, power supply, processor, ram, GPU, cooling, peripherals. How hard can it be? ;)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813188119

"Pros: I own a small Visual Effects company specializing in 3D productions. Having the absolute fastest workstation(s) for this kind of work is something we have spent a lot of money on testing. We have tested the SR-X, the Asus Z9PE-D8 (another dual socket 2011), the SR-2 of course, and even the AMD 4 Socket boards (16 cores per CPU, 64 cores total). I can officially say that the SR-X is the best, BUT, that comes with a disclaimer! Be sure to read "Cons" and "Other thoughts" for everything you probably want to know before buying.

Big Q: Is it worth spending twice the budget to buy an SR-X with dual E5 CPU's? Or is it better to spend half the budget for an overclocked/watercooled SR-2? Well... Don't rule out the SR-2 just yet! If you read my other comments you'll see why you still might want to go the SR-2 route, depending on your specific needs.

Best things to say about the SR-X:
Great Windows 7 Performance
Higher RAM capacity
Noticeable GPU performance increase (Quadro's)
Other st

Cons: Read Other Thoughts for more details:

Cons: Not a dramatic difference in CPU/GPU performance for 3D workstation use. An overclocked and watercooled SR-2 will cost you half the price and operate at nearly the same speed as the SR-X when rendering 3D. You'll see a bigger margin of performance in other CPU computing areas, but not really where you need it the most.

Passmark and other benchmark websites will show a 30-40% performance improvements, but again, pay close attention to WHERE those calculation improvments are. They're not everywhere.

Why 4 stars and not 5? Because the SR-X we got direct from EVGA seems to not have all of it quirks worked out yet. It works well, but only for about 3 to 4 days straight before we starting getting errors that eventually lead to crashing - HDD/SDD related. Could be unrelated to the Mobo, but doubtful.

Worst things about SR-X:
No overclocking, but that's Intel's fault for locking CPU's.
Still only 2 SATA3 RAID Ports, seriously EVGA?

Other Thoughts: We tested both the E5-2690 cpus and the E5-2687w cpus, the 2687w's are faster, but only by a 2% margin. We first tested the Asus Z9PE-D8 and were very impressed with overall performance, especially in Windows 7, but 2 things were lacking... (1) even with PCI-E gen3 the graphics cards seemed to run slower than on the SR-2. (2) 3D rendering was only 8% faster AT BEST over the SR-2. Other CPU benchmarks were much higher, but 3D rendering was barely noticeable over the Intel 5680 CPUs in the SR-2.

Next we tested the SR-X (direct from EVGA). As expected it operated about the same as the Asus Z9PE-D8, BUT where we saw a dramatic difference was the GPU performance! Our Quadro 5000's we put in the SR-X were operating at nearly 1.5 times the speed of both the SR-2 and the Z9PE-D8. Again though, 3D render times were only 8% over the SR-2 with 5680's (tested with the E5-2687w CPUs).

Recommendation: The SR-2 is STILL the best for the buck. If you need the extra 5-10% for 3D rendering, go SR-"


Return to posts index

Bernard Newnham
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 6, 2013 at 4:54:23 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " I don't know what the hell I'm doing, but I would assume I am not alone in that department."

That's fair enough - it's like any complex technical thing the first time (like editing).

Unless you are needing the very fastest machinery - the Ferrari of computers - you don't need to trip through all that stuff in your post. If you're not running a render farm but just doing editing and some graphics, you just want straightforward stuff.

Processor - at the top end, there's mega expensive stuff that Apple like to put in workstations, usually branded Xeon. You don't need them, just the current "sweet spot" Core something. At the time of writing, it's the Core i5-3570K . You can pay much more or much less, but that will do the job. It will come with a heatsink.

Next, a motherboard to carry it. It's a socket LGA1155, so you'll need one with that socket. Dabs, here in the UK, have 105 to choose from, but you can narrow that down with their selector system. You want the latest chipset - Z77 (down to 49). You want separate graphics (45). You want the full size ATX motherboard (30). Now it's down to brands, and what options you want. Some will take more memory than others, some will have more SATA connectors, etc etc. For your first time, pick a major brand - Asus or Gigabyte maybe. Arbitrarily picking Asus (I've used lots of both makes) I'm down to 19. At this point one has to start doing a bit more research on what each board has on it, and a trip to the Asus website tells all. I'm picking the one I picked earlier - P8Z77-V PRO - although the price cut probably means it's about to be superceded. Dabs had five makers boards to choose from, and all are generally reliable, so if you have particular needs with inputs and outputs, you can generally find something.

Memory. Go for lots, as it's cheap at the moment. As it's a commodity, like pork belly futures, the prices go up and down. Kingston and Crucial are the big manufacturers, and both have systems to select which memory you want for your motherboard. Crucial tells me that I can have 32Gb for my motherboard on part No BLS4C8G3D1609ES2LX0BEU which I can buy from them, or dabs, or someone else. I might not want 32Gb, but I can check around for smaller.

Graphics card. Again, you probably want the current "sweet spot". You don't need all that expensive Quadro stuff unless you're doing 3DsMax or CAD. Editing doesn't need it. So maybe a GTX660.

After that, it's just drives and boxes. I highly recommend an SSD as boot drive.

Bernie


Return to posts index

Andrew Hays
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 6, 2013 at 5:41:11 pm

wow! This got derailed quick! Not in a bad way though. I've enjoyed reading all your posts, but I just wanted to learn how FCPX processes imports, renders and exports. If I know what FCPX needs to "eat" in order to do that faster, than I know what to get more of for my computer build. I know the program LOVES lots of RAM and LOVES eating up CPU processing, so I think those are the areas to focus on getting lots of if I go FCPX.

At work we have stand alone iMacs with ONE 3.4 GHz processor with 4 cores. 8 GB of RAM memory. THe GPU escapes me but I believe it is a Radeon HD 6970 with 1GB of on board memory. I had no say whatsoever in which build we got. So I just have to work with what I've got. I will say that lately, I've be getting a lot of spinning beach balls when in FCPX. Usually so the program can just write the waveform. I wonder if the lag in performance is related to how large to project file or "event" file gets...


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 6, 2013 at 6:22:51 pm

[Bernard Newnham] "Unless you are needing the very fastest machinery - the Ferrari of computers - you don't need to trip through all that stuff in your post. "

So you are telling me I don't need any of that?

Sorry, Bernhard, you are losing me.

Everything you just mentioned is pretty much what I listed.

[Bernard Newnham] "Processor"

[Bernard Newnham] "motherboard"

[Bernard Newnham] "Memory."

[Bernard Newnham] "Graphics card. "

[Bernard Newnham] "drives and boxes"

So, I do in fact need to "trip up" on everything you just mentioned.

While I have no idea what exact components are best, I do know what goes inside of a computer.


Return to posts index

Bernard Newnham
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 6, 2013 at 10:25:33 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "So, I do in fact need to "trip up" on everything you just mentioned.

While I have no idea what exact components are best, I do know what goes inside of a computer."


You quoted a load of stuff -

"...an overclocked and watercooled SR-2 will cost you half the price and operate at nearly the same speed as the SR-X when rendering 3D....."

etc, etc, and then implied you were confused.

So was I.

It's badly written material, and it's all about stuff that people who are just doing editing don't need. I was suggesting some standard components rather than this week's very fastest and most expensive.

Just trying to be helpful.

Bernie


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 6, 2013 at 11:01:52 pm

That was a quote from a comment on a computer part store.

He's a guy, running a VFX business, and building a machine.

My point is, you can't just pick what you want, it's not as easy as "just change it".


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 4:37:06 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "That was a quote from a comment on a computer part store.

He's a guy, running a VFX business, and building a machine.

My point is, you can't just pick what you want, it's not as easy as "just change it".
"


I think you misunderstand. That was a guy building a super hot rod and looking at his options. Everything he was testing was for speed vs. cost, not whether something functions or not. Basically, he was trying to decide if an over-clocked i7 was competitive for his needs or whether he needed to shell out for dual Zeons. He was sharing his findings like we do here. It may seem foreign or over-complicated to you, but it really isn't any different for him than it is for us arguing about what camera or NLE is best. You don't HAVE to be that in to it to roll your own, but it can be a whole lot of fun if you are. One of the things I really miss living on planet Mac are all of the options.


Return to posts index

Bernard Newnham
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 10:56:40 am

[Chris Harlan] "Basically, he was trying to decide if an over-clocked i7 was competitive for his needs or whether he needed to shell out for dual Zeons"

I always wonder why people bother with that stuff - I it think might be "gear porn" stuff that gives them a thrill.

Getting the very fastest machine at any point in time might be good hobby, but it isn't good business. Those processors they were talking about cost more even than an iMac, and give a few percentage points of speed gain. Add on water cooling - a slightly dangerous option - and you've spent a very large amount of money. Then a few months later AMD or Intel come out with some basic chip that's much faster at a tenth of the price.

For the price they were spending they could have built a good few ordinary machines and used them as a render farm, then passed them on for office use when they got slower that whatever came next.

Bernie


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 8, 2013 at 6:24:48 am

[Bernard Newnham] "I always wonder why people bother with that stuff - I it think might be "gear porn" stuff that gives them a thrill.

Getting the very fastest machine at any point in time might be good hobby, but it isn't good business. Those processors they were talking about cost more even than an iMac, and give a few percentage points of speed gain."


I agree with most of what you're saying here, Bernie. A fast(ish) single proc machine with a fast HDD sub system and beefy(ish) GPU is more than enough for many creative pros. For users needing as many CPU threads as they can get, an i7 based system isn't going to cut it though. For tasks like fluid/physics simulations or muti-threaded rendering, more cores = faster output. Why not just send out to the render farm you might ask? Because you need to do full quality test renders before farming out whole sequences, and assuming you do a lot of test renders before final output (as I do), saving a few minutes per frame can add up to hours of valuable project time saved (over the life of the project).

Shawn



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 8, 2013 at 4:43:17 pm

[Shawn Miller] "saving a few minutes per frame can add up to hours of valuable project time saved (over the life of the project)."

And fewer jitters because of that much less coffee. Or in my case, Diet Pepsi.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 4:33:45 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I think you misunderstand. "

With all due respect, I think I get it.

What is happeing here, and what I am trying to point out, are the inconsistencies.

There has been much blood spilled over the "death of the MacPro" and of course, some are scrambling, some are waiting, some have moved to the i7 platform, some have moved to the Xeon PC platform.

What I find ironic about this whole situation is that all of a sudden, on the PC side, i7s are good enough and as a matter of fact are "recommended", yet on the Mac side, they aren't.

I point out a guy trying to build a MacPro (Xeon) equivalent, and it gets called a "Ferrari".

By my shitty deductive reasoning, a MacPro = Ferrari, but it is a travesty that we are still driving the 3 year old model. The Ferrari in PC land is too fussy and I shouldn't bother with it.

[Chris Harlan] "It may seem foreign or over-complicated to you, but it really isn't any different for him than it is for us arguing about what camera or NLE is best."

Except for the simple fact that I don't build our cameras or program our NLEs.

DIY has been made to seem simple, and maybe it is. But if you look closely at the fine print "just change it" is a loaded comment.

Even the DIY videoguys blog says they found out from a reader that the current recommended motherboard, for $50 more, is worth the added stability. Added stability? I have to pay more for that? What if I "just changed it" to the shittier board without me knowing that it's less stable? Who do I call about that? Who's accountable?

And what if 2-3 years down the road when I'm ready to "just change" something, are the parts going to be available?

I'd rather pay a few extra bucks and get a system that's tested and built. And if it doesn't work and there's a recall, I can make a phone call to get a new one.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 4:52:31 pm

Dude, what is going on? There's no one answer. Some people like DIY, some people hate it. Added stability? I haven't looked back at the post, but that's probably because he's over-clocking, and he needs something that can take the extra heat.

Listen, don't go there. If you're not intrigued by it or interested in it, DIY is not for you. Most people buy their cars fully configured, and add nothing more than their iPod; some people like to rework the engine. Its the same thing. Some people pay an integrator to put together an NLE all the way down to the monitor speakers; some people build their own component by component. And some people build their own card by card. Its just levels of expertise and interest. I don't understand why you are stressing over it.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 4:58:16 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Added stability?"

This is not a knock on VideoGuys, truly.

I am just pointing out that "just change it" isn't that easy.

From this link: http://www.videoguys.com/Guide/C/DIY+Systems/Videoguys+DIY9+Its+Time+for+Sa...

"We are going with the Asus P9X79 Pro motherboard after getting some valuable feedback from one of our DIY followers. We'll pay $50 more, but the added stability will be worth it."


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 5:22:23 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I am just pointing out that "just change it" isn't that easy.
"


I think its a matter of generational perspective. When I was first getting into computers, they didn't come with sound cards; you bought them after-market and installed them yourself. There was no USB; you had to physically install almost any device and assign them IRQ spots, which you had to continually manage. I used to keep a chart of IRQ usage on the side of my computer. There was no plug-and-play. You want to add a scanner or a MODEM? Pop the hood. Find a slot, and when that slot doesn't work, spend your day reordering the existing cards, and try to find the right balance of IRQs and AMAs. The things that you keep linking to don't seem at all intimidating compared to what it used to be like.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 5:37:18 pm

[Chris Harlan] "The things that you keep linking to don't seem at all intimidating compared to what it used to be like."

It's not getting in and doing the work. That part is fairly easy.

It's finding out the motherboard is unstable after you've spent the money and built it, and if you've built more than one, then you can multiply by the number of machines you've built.

I think the 3D VFX guy is a perfect example, he said "they don't have all the quirks worked out".

Is this really the future we are setting up here?

4 out of 5 stars for this:

"Why 4 stars and not 5? Because the SR-X we got direct from EVGA seems to not have all of it quirks worked out yet. It works well, but only for about 3 to 4 days straight before we starting getting errors that eventually lead to crashing - HDD/SDD related. Could be unrelated to the Mobo, but doubtful."


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 5:44:28 pm

If I bought a piece of hardware that crashed after 3 or 4 days of uptime, I don't think I'd be so kind as to rate it 4 of 5 stars.

That'd be like the GTX285 in had in my Mac Pro for Resolve for a while in 2010. That combo was so kernel panic-y that I had to buy an iBoot (remote power switch) to reboot the sucker from the road when I couldn't remote into it. Zero stars!

Also an interesting anecdotal data point about the Legendary stability of Macs.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 5:56:49 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Also an interesting anecdotal data point about the Legendary stability of Macs."

or the legendary crapness of Nvidia drivers for Mac

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 7:10:06 pm

[Steve Connor] "or the legendary crapness of Nvidia drivers for Mac"

I could have picked any of a number of Mac issues I've had over the years.

While I do agree with you regarding the tragic quality of those drivers, I'd point out that Apple themselves sold that GTX285 card.

How is a Mac user learning the hard way to avoid NVIDIA because the drivers are (were?) poor any different than a PC user learning the hard way not to use the XYZ 3000 Deluxe motherboard?

Things like stability are computer issues, not platform issues.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 6:01:41 pm

[Walter Soyka] "That'd be like the GTX285 in had in my Mac Pro for Resolve f"

FWIW, the 285 I have in my 2008 MacPro has always performed well. Why mine and not yours? Some build or software reason on the Mac or the version of the 285 or something having to do with Resolve, perhaps. Or the driver versions. Or... Or... As you so correctly point out, component flakiness is not limited by OSs or to DIY PCs.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 5:54:05 pm

Again, so? Don't go this route. Bleeding knuckles are not for you. Some people like 'em. I really do not get what you are on about. This is clearly not a world that you want to be a part of, and there is no reason that you should. This is hobbyist stuff. Years ago, I always went for the bleeding knuckles stuff. I don't anymore. I paid my dues. I tend to hang back and ride a wave or two behind. I now tend to let others find the trash, and profit from the intrepid gung-ho-edness of guys like the one whose post you shared. If you are actually thinking about DIYing something, perhaps you should do the same.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 6:01:37 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I think its a matter of generational perspective. When I was first getting into computers, they didn't come with sound cards; you bought them after-market and installed them yourself. There was no USB; you had to physically install almost any device and assign them IRQ spots, which you had to continually manage. I used to keep a chart of IRQ usage on the side of my computer. There was no plug-and-play. You want to add a scanner or a MODEM? Pop the hood. Find a slot, and when that slot doesn't work, spend your day reordering the existing cards, and try to find the right balance of IRQs and AMAs."

That brings back some (un) happy memories. Last system I built myself was for a Matrox Digisuite DTV card and the sense of achievement when it finally worked was great, it had a massive 36GB SCSI RAID drive that still lives in my garage somewhere.

If I needed the extra horsepower I wouldn't be averse to doing the same thing again.

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 4:53:17 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "What is happeing here, and what I am trying to point out, is the inconsistencies. There has been much blood spilled over the "death of the MacPro" and of course, some are scrambling, some are waiting, some have moved to the i7 platform, some have moved to the Xeon PC platform. What I find ironic about this whole situation is that all of a sudden, on the PC side, i7s are good enough and as a matter of fact are "recommended", yet on the Mac side, they aren't."

The way Apple structures their product line, the Mac Pro kind of conflates processing power and expansion options. These are separate issues on the PC platform.

If you wanted a Mac Pro for expansion, you might well be happy with an i7 PC (and somewhat unhappy with the iMac). If you wanted a Mac Pro for the Xeons... well, you won't really be happy with the Mac Pro.

It's not like there's a single voice wailing about the Mac Pro -- different people valued different things about it, so they have different viable replacement options.

Personally, I like the new i7 iMacs (for what they are). I'm sad that they are arguably superior to the "current" Mac Pro.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I'd rather pay a few extra bucks and get a system that's tested and built. And if it doesn't work and there's a recall, I can make a phone call to get a new one."

I'm with you here. I think it's nice that you can build your own PC, but I'm glad I don't have to do that.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 5:14:59 pm

[Walter Soyka] "well, you won't really be happy with the Mac Pro."

Unless of course you build your own, which is why I am even continuing this conversation.

If there's nothing but an iMac in the future, I might have to take to the black market and roll my own Mac. Of course, I believe there will be more than an i7 Mac in the future.

I am not interested in 100% interested in PCs, but I am interested in Macs.

If I continue with FCPX and use it for its potential, it is a virtual transcoding, file flipping powerhouse. It is going to need more CPU and fast, as Apple states that most transcoding is done on the CPU (background rendering and encode on GPU). The i7 will not be enough.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 5:25:46 pm

[Walter Soyka] "well, you won't really be happy with the Mac Pro."

[Jeremy Garchow] "Unless of course you build your own, which is why I am even continuing this conversation. If there's nothing but an iMac in the future, I might have to take to the black market and roll my own Mac. Of course, I believe there will be more than an i7 Mac in the future."

Got it.

In that case, building your own and just swapping stuff out gets even harder, and any notion of even limited support flies out the window.

Of course, if there's nothing by an i7 Mac in the future, who's to say you could roll your own even if you wanted to? If Apple were to drop the Mac Pro entirely, why would they bother writing drivers for anything but the hardware in their laptops and iMacs?



[Jeremy Garchow] "If I continue with FCPX and use it for its potential, it is a virtual transcoding, file flipping powerhouse. It is going to need more CPU and fast, as Apple states that most transcoding is done on the CPU (background rendering and encode on GPU). The i7 will not be enough."

I hope there will be a nice sizzle core for you!

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 5:33:51 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I hope there will be a nice sizzle core for you!"

I hope it's snazzy.

A snazzle core.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 5:37:24 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "A snazzle core."

I'd buy a snazzle core.

My son is into Dr. Seuss recently -- I think he'd approve.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 7:34:38 pm

Behold the lovely snazzle core
Your boxy friend that you'll adore.
With keyboard gleaming fit to type
Clickety-clack long thru the night
Oh the wondrous shows we’ll make
And satisfying coin we’ll take
From audiences, rapt with glee
content to keep our company.
We’ll shake the rafters- ever more
When we finaly get our snazzle-core.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 5:38:02 pm

[Walter Soyka] "In that case, building your own and just swapping stuff out gets even harder, and any notion of even limited support flies out the window."

Completely. It will be even harder.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 6:06:44 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I'm with you here. I think it's nice that you can build your own PC, but I'm glad I don't have to do that."

Hear, hear!


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 5:08:54 pm

Jeremy -

A couple of points.

We can't compare costs between a MacPro vs PC Xeon DIY build because there is no equivalent MacPro to look at.

On the surface it might seem unfair that Imacs are getting hammered for not being good enough while a PC i7 (or in one case i5) are being touted as more than good enough. However the fact is that these PC builds are far superior in terms of GPU and PCIe flexibility and power, and that is where their superiority lies.

Like you I have no desire to "roll my own" but the fact is that if you were of that mind you could get a system superior to an Imac for between $2000 - 2500. Which means you are paying a 20 to 50% premium for Apple's name and reliability. You are correct that you would have to pay the same premium to get HP's name on the box. The difference is that in PC land there are many VARs that are making video specific boxes with better warranties than either HP or Apple and are charging about a 15-20% premium for their work. Nothing like that exists in the OSX world.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 5:12:08 pm

It really boils down to being able to swap the GPU, and that's about it.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 5:53:54 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "It really boils down to being able to swap the GPU, and that's about it."

GPU and PCIe (x8 and x16) slots. Which is about 50% of the whole picture. Editing Performance = CPU+GPU+PCIe+Memory. 2 out of the 4 factors are much more limited on an Imac.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 6:22:34 pm

[Herb Sevush] "2 out of the 4 factors are much more limited on an Imac."

GPU.

You can connect whatever storage you want with an iMac and go plenty fast from fw400 to Fiber Channel. (But let's remember, it's a Mac, you can't go the fastEST).

You can't swap your own GPU.

You can get 32GBs of RAM just like everyone else.

You can add monitors to an iMac just like everyone else.

The CPUs are the equivalent, you might be missing a tenth of a GHz. (again, not the fastEST).


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 6:39:07 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "GPU.

You can connect whatever storage you want with an iMac and go plenty fast from fw400 to Fiber Channel. (But let's remember, it's a Mac, you can't go the fastEST).

You can't swap your own GPU."


For you its GPU only. For me it's also PCIe. Most of the motherboards we're talking about have at least 4 16x PCIe slots plus another 2 to 4 slower slots. Why should I pay more money and get less expansion options? I have 2 raid cards that work best with 8X slots, in addition to GPU and I/O. Firewire may be fast enough for your work, not for me. What happens if I want a Tesla card? When Tbolt can give me multiple 8x slots I'll consider it, although I'll be adding the cost of external Tbolt to PCIe adapters when comparing prices.

[Jeremy Garchow] "You can add monitors to an iMac just like everyone else."

Yes but if you don't want their monitor your still stuck with hiding it somewhere. I prefer components, I like to buy what I want, not what the vendor wants to sell me, even if it costs more.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 6:57:38 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You can add monitors to an iMac just like everyone else."

Seriously? You're gonna go with that? C'mon. Stop kidding around.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 7:35:44 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You can add monitors to an iMac just like everyone else."

Seriously? You're gonna go with that?


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 7:38:22 pm

[Chris Harlan] "[Jeremy Garchow] "You can add monitors to an iMac just like everyone else."

Seriously? You're gonna go with that?
"


It occurs to me that I misunderstood. Perhaps you mean video monitoring as opposed to adding another computer monitor to replace the GLOSSY one. Probably my bad.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 6:11:06 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "It really boils down to being able to swap the GPU, and that's about it."

And monitors.


Return to posts index

Bernard Newnham
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 6:22:05 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "It really boils down to being able to swap the GPU, and that's about it."

Or anything else. Whilst the processor manufacturers keep the same slot, you can just keep substituting a more modern processor, for instance. Intel are notorious for changing more often than necessary, but AMD have I believe kept the same one for a long time now. Upgrade the power supply to run more drives? Just unplug the old and plug in the new. More memory? Just slots in. More drives? Put in as many as the case will hold, usually up to around six.

Personally, I tend to upgrade my main machine in bits. A new GPU maybe up to a year apart from motherboard/processor. The power supply in this particular box has moved on from 350W to 700W as more gear has gone in and GPUs have got more hungry. Back in the low cost unit I was part of at the BBC we did similar stuff.

I just want to point out again that whatever box you buy, inside it's the same stuff. Mac/pc is just a change of operating system and little else. If you want to buy a pretty and expensive box which you can't really upgrade, buy an iMac. If you want a Xeon processor - mostly you really don't any more than you want the Ferrari - go and buy one, but a Core i5 comes a lot cheaper and for normal editing you won't notice much difference. You can probably put either on the same motherboard.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"I made this", as they said at the end of X-Files - not a Ferrari, but I do like making things. A propos of nothing because we seem to be going round and round a bit now. Jeremy - dip your toe, there's a whole new (cheaper) world waiting...

<a href="http://images.creativecow.net/18642/car_complete_small.jpg"><img src="//i1.creativecow.net/u/18642/car_complete_small.jpg" border="0" /></a>

Bernie


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 7:50:51 pm

[Bernard Newnham] "You don't need them, just the current "sweet spot" Core something. At the time of writing, it's the Core i5-3570K ."

I'd suggest the Core i7-3770K. i5 doesn't do hyperthreading.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Paul Dickin
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 8:12:07 pm

Hi
[Herb Sevush] "at least 4 16x PCIe slots plus another 2 to 4 slower slots..."

How does that work with Bernard's Core i5 "sweet spot"?
Isn't that part of Jeremy's problem as well?



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 8:17:32 pm

[Paul Dickin] "How does that work with Bernard's Core i5 "sweet spot"? Isn't that part of Jeremy's problem as well?"

I don't understand that comment. Multiple 16x PCIe slots are not leading edge, they are the norm in anything other than a Mac. They are the "sweet spot."

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Paul Dickin
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 9:04:13 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I don't understand that comment. "

Hi
Bernard's "sweet spot, with Walter's amendment, doesn't even give a quarter of what you want ;)
But they are PCIe 3.0, if you swap your cards in for newer v3.0 versions...

Quote:
Core i7-3770K PCI Express Configurations 1x16, 2x8, 1x8 & 2x4
http://ark.intel.com/products/65523

Presumably the commas are 'or' alternatives - 1x16 or 2x8 or 1x8 & 2x4.



Return to posts index

Bernard Newnham
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 7, 2013 at 9:31:28 pm

[Paul Dickin] "Bernard's "sweet spot, with Walter's amendment, doesn't even give a quarter of what you want ;)"

One shouldn't get too pedantic about the "sweet spot" bit. There are a huge number of choices, so if an i7 is preferable, and there's the budget for it - well, go for it. Pick the amount of memory you want, and the shade of GPU. There aren't just a few expensive options, there are thousands of cheaper ones. My sweet spot bit is just a middle ground pick. I know it works for ordinary HD editing, with a few layers, some sounds tracks and a lower third or two, because my machine here, which is set at a sweet spot months old now, does the job perfectly well.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why didn't my car pick work??



Bernie


Return to posts index

Darren Roark
Re: Understanding FCPX under the hood.
on Jan 10, 2013 at 12:32:17 am

I ended up building a hackintosh in September of 11'. I had an ATI gpu which ran FCPX great. Then I recently upgraded to a GeForce GTX 570 which really made a difference.

I spent just over $1,000.00 to have an i7 quad core processor and 16gb of ram. It even has a Blu-Ray burner.

The only time I have ever had any downtime is when I upgraded a version of Lion before doing the cardinal rule of hackintoshing, clone your boot drive first. Other than that, it has been just as stable as my aging 2007 Mac Pro and over twice as fast.

You can put PC Nvidia cards in to mac pros to give them CUDA.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]