FORUMS: list search recent posts

About the new Mac Pro-X

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Michael Hadley
About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 12, 2013 at 7:34:53 pm

The conclusion we can draw is this: while Apple may not be committed to satisfying the wish list of every segment of the "pro" market, it has demonstrated with this new machine that it is VERY committed to FCPX users. It is putting its hardware where it's mouth is. This is a dream machine for X. And apparently, X is going to be optimized to run on it, so vice versa.

We switched to FCPX 18 months ago. I've been very happy with it, but the constant flow of negative commentary in the press and on forums like this about X and Apple has been harsh.

Now, after nearly two years of nagging doubt, I feel like I can finally sigh with relief. They love me. They really, really love me.

X-users should be psyched. We are the only NLE with a kick-ass, bespoke machine designed for us.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 12, 2013 at 8:24:20 pm

[Michael Hadley] "We switched to FCPX 18 months ago. I've been very happy with it, but the constant flow of negative commentary in the press and on forums like this about X and Apple has been harsh. "

Yep. :-) And ironically, much of that commentary comes from people who would probably really benefit from a lot of the stuff, current and coming soon, in FCP X. There are some whose workflows/styles are not a good fit for X. And there are alternatives. But there are quite a few people who won't give it a shot because "Apple has abandoned pros". Turns out that's not exactly true...

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Dan Stewart
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 12, 2013 at 8:38:38 pm

Hey when Apple get around to putting back in the things I need to do my job (which they arbitrarily removed a couple of years ago)- and if this box is priced at the current macpro price or better, then I'm interested. Otherwise I'll stay on Avid/Win.. until Avid take their turn to rewrite MC into a crippled version of express- or try to blackmail the customers for a monthly payoff..



Return to posts index


Lance Bachelder
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 12, 2013 at 8:54:54 pm

Exactly - having a killer machine doesn't make FCPX a killer app. The perception here in L.A. is still extremely negative toward FCPX and it will take a serious upgrade and some "celebrity" endorsements to get back to the standing FCP7 had...

With Adobe CC available in the next few days and even MC 7 beating both the uber Mac Pro and upcoming "pro" version of X to market, it's gonna take some time to see how this all shakes out...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 12, 2013 at 9:07:45 pm

I didn't realize CC was launching that soon.

I'd be surprised if we don't see an update to FCPX in the near term. June or July is my guess.



Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 12, 2013 at 9:08:41 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "The perception here in L.A. is still extremely negative toward FCPX and it will take a serious upgrade and some "celebrity" endorsements to get back to the standing FCP7 had..."

True, but in my experience that perception is largely coming from folks who haven't really used it "in anger" as Aindreas would say. Doesn't change things, but I've gotten a couple inquiries about X (based on random forum posts on the tubes...) from some folks who are quite interested. And there will be major, and minor, upgrades... :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index


Michael Hadley
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 12, 2013 at 9:13:05 pm

FCPX may not be the best choice for your workflow/client base. If you have something that works well for you, no reason to change.

For me, FCPX is quite good (not perfect. Nothing is). And the fact that I'll soon have a killer box to run it on--specifically, to run FCPX and Resolve at optimal speeds—is terrific news.

If you don't use X, the new box (or tube, actually) may not be a good choice. Fair enough. But it looks like it will be a great one for those who have made the switch to X. (And those who use Davinci Resolve—at least according to Blackmagic's CEO, who has had a chance to fully evaluate it).


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 12, 2013 at 10:10:39 pm

[Michael Hadley] "no reason to change.....(And those who use Davinci Resolve—at least according to Blackmagic's CEO, who has had a chance to fully evaluate it)."

This to me is the most puzzling...we're working off 5 year old tech on 2 year old rigs with another 6-8 months away from the "refresh" that can't exactly integrate...

Davinci...? Who is this for? The basement pro who has a 6k Sony trimaster el? Maybe one fell off a truck? Once he shells out probably 5k for the tube, another 600 for the rocket chassis? I guess everything will be handed off to him via thunderbolt drive filled with trims that his client has to pay for? Or will he? Maybe a drobo...another 750$? Tipping over 12k now...

Is the facility going to integrate this tube for Davinci without cuda's...? Are they going to have to buy chassis' for fibre, rockets, output 16 tracks of audio? What chassis do I need for that? aja's, decklinks? $$$$$...more power captain! Perhaps all they need is a thunderbolt chassis to fit the cards. Not a bad idea...ok, there's an argument for a facility. But there are many questions remaining until it's released. Moving on.

When all is said and done, why would anyone upgrade or buy this for professional grading as a stand alone?? Is this really for stand alone projects which seems like massive overkill and hugely expensive to chassis...Stand alones are in HD...R3D? Trim>Set HDR>Render DPX>realtime playback on an imac.

Is this for a shared environment? You know, tv series, films, broadcast, which seems hugely expensive to chassis when a 5.1 will more than do and can expand on a whim at a fraction of the cost.

Is it for 4k? Time to move to HP at that point...8k isn't far behind...

I sincerely want to know who this is for? That an Imac can't accomplish for the average FCX user, or the HD Davinci stand alone user...

I think we all know who this is really for and going to benefit, comping and animating. I think people are drooling over something they want, not what they need, in the FCX verse.

I like the specs. I want the thing too. But it's shiny and pretty and lonely and will kick butt...but for twice the price of what is needed.

I think there are a lot of diminishing returns to consider on this thing if it costs over 5-6k for FCX or Davinci. To start.

If this is 1500, loaded$ I'll eat this post. With Tabasco.


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 12, 2013 at 10:55:55 pm

I don't think anyone believes it will be $1500 loaded, so you can put the dinnerware away. I imagine it will fall in the same ballpark as the current Mac Pro. If so, I'm getting one. They will sell. Big LA facilities aren't everything.

Somehow I remember FCP Legacy was largely about bringing real editing power to a larger market. I should know. I was the Hawaii Avid dealer. I know what it did to my sales. And expensive proprietary hardware. Went back to production soon. On what? FCP. Also some Media 100. I think the larger facilities will adapt to it as well, the same as they did with FCP legacy and the Power Macs/Mac Pros. But will it change things for the individual operator or small facility? Absolutely.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1,Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.3, Premiere Pro 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Avid MC, Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 8Gb SSD, G5 Quadcore PCIe


Return to posts index


Jamie Franklin
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 12, 2013 at 11:05:05 pm

[Jim Wiseman] " I think the larger facilities will adapt to it"

Sure. At a huge expense. Thunderbolt is not cheap and we can now start looking to somewhat affordable cloud based solutions on dummy boxes with quad ethernet and fibre at expected costs that are manageable until thunder loses some of it's monetary potency. I'm surprised you think larger facilities will move to it. I keep seeing moves away from Apple.

If the price is right, this will move and FCX can move boxes. But it still doesn't answer the question. Who is this for that can't get results for half the price on solutions now, even mac solutions...?

Maybe the question should be, where in the chain could this integrate in a cloud solution? And how, since, you know, it really is just a Mac Pro Mini


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 12, 2013 at 11:37:18 pm

I think they will adapt to it because many of their clients will be using it. In every suite? Probably not. You note I said that LA isn't everything. By that I meant the very largest facilities. But for where these things will sell in quantity, they will do very well, smaller facilities, but primarily one or two man operations. Also photographers, artists, semi-pros, anyone who would have bought the current Mac Pro or a maximum iMac but actually wanted more and is committed to the Apple ecosystem. And for some who aren't. This is one powerful unit. It could turn some Windows users heads. Windows 8 isn't exactly flying out the door.

It wouldn't be the first time Apple changed everything.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1,Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.3, Premiere Pro 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Avid MC, Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 8Gb SSD, G5 Quadcore PCIe


Return to posts index

Nikolas Bäurle
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 12, 2013 at 11:48:36 pm

First of all we don't even know the price, and simply for being small doesn't make it mini.

It looks cool and its looks like it will be very fast and next year even faster, what more do we need? Thunderbolt is very fast. The technology is new and this system is not for the needs we have now but for the future. My G5 still works, one of the places I work for still uses Legacy on their 12 Core MacPros. Why should the new MacPro integrate anything from older workflows? I don't see the point.

As far as I remember DaVinci Resolve used to be this huge machine thing, pretty expensive. Even if the new MacPro turns out more expensive, I can get Resolve for free, or 1000 bucks for the full package.

"Always look on the bright side of life" - Monty Python



Return to posts index


Jamie Franklin
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 13, 2013 at 12:05:08 am

[Nikolas Bäurle] "small doesn't make it mini"

Its always the small ones that get so defensive :P

I meant it as a self contained parking lot like the mini. The comparison is fair.

[Nikolas Bäurle] "It looks cool and its looks like it will be very fast and next year even faster, what more do we need?"

Who is that for? The businessman? Looking cool is still in? Being fast is everything? Not sure if you heard, a lot of post facilities were doing big layoffs and vfx houses at the oscars had some words buzzing around...like "bankruptcy". For an industry on the ropes, on a rollarcoaster of retooling, sacrificing and repackaging costs, it sure would be a peculiar decision to buy what looks "cool" and what's fast without any other consideration.

[Nikolas Bäurle] "My G5 still works, one of the places I work for still uses Legacy on their 12 Core MacPros. Why should the new MacPro integrate anything from older workflows? I don't see the point."

I don't see your point. FCP cut very deep in the industry, which is why this self contained parking lot is a very puzzling move. As is the Server EOL. But I don't know much, I just work in a post facility with 14 MPROS ;)

[Nikolas Bäurle] "As far as I remember DaVinci Resolve used to be this huge machine thing, pretty expensive. Even if the new MacPro turns out more expensive, I can get Resolve for free, or 1000 bucks for the full package."

So was color. So was Avid...we can shine many lights on examples here that have nothing to really do with anything. Because these systems were more expensive the criticisms on this new rig and how they will incorporate in current workflows are automatically invalid?

It's a discussion, not a black and white issue.


Return to posts index

Nikolas Bäurle
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 13, 2013 at 12:50:36 am

i never said current workflows are invalid. My point simply is that technology changes, and at some point post facilites and individuals will have to adapt, or decide for a different system, or use what they currently use for the time being, and since there's also the Hackintosh option I don't see it as such a big problem.

The postproduction I work for hasn't lost any business because of FCPX, and they're taking their time to decide what to do next. I work in Berlin, so I don't know the industry in the States...but do these bankruptcies have anything to do with FCPX or Macs? If a post house is going bankrupt doesn't that have to do with factors like an economic crisis or the use of cheap labor, which is going on in all industries?

The clients I've mentioned FCPX to are always interested but don't care what they use as long as the work gets done. FCP7 is still pretty darn fast for the needs of today.

And what's wrong the cool factor. This Pro is not just for facilities. Apple doesn't just sell technology, this has always been the case. Those who want to afford one, will, and for those who don't, there's plenty of options out there.

"Always look on the bright side of life" - Monty Python



Return to posts index

Michael Hadley
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 13, 2013 at 1:29:06 am

In 1999, I remember being in a $600/hour Davinci Resolve Suite at a mid-level NYC post house. Massive interface, massive hardware.

Now Davinci Lite works up to 2K for FREEE. FCPX is $300. (Alright, let's say $800 with a decent set of plug ins, etc).

If the new Mac Pro sets me back $3,000, so what?

The huge drop in cost coupled with the huge gain in capability, quality, and speed is simply amazing.

At the time, a Beta SP Camera was $75K. With glass, add another $15-$25--for a quality zoom lens. Today, a C300 with a fine set of glass is $25k. And the quality improvement is HUGE.

Folks, this is a great time to be in the video business. Maybe not the film business. But we have two edit systems, both on FCPX, and I can't wait to get a new mac pro. From my perspective, for my work, my clients, my budgets, it looks terrific.


Return to posts index


Brett Sherman
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 13, 2013 at 2:48:33 am

[Michael Hadley] "oth on FCPX, and I can't wait to get a new mac pro. From my perspective, for my work, my clients, my budgets, it looks terrific."

I agree. I don't get all the hand wringing over this. Until someone actually tests this thing with FCP X or Premiere Pro or whatever, we really don't know squat. If it makes editing faster and more efficient in FCP X I'll get it.



Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 13, 2013 at 12:26:54 am

I have been interested in hearing the feedback from the audio community. Agro seems common. They see that this is a GPU puppy and lack of eSata, internal drive and PCLe and rack mounting seems a problem to many in pro audio.

So the perception that Apple doesn't care about audio pros seems to be strong with this MacPro announcement.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 14, 2013 at 2:12:37 pm

[Michael Gissing] "I have been interested in hearing the feedback from the audio community... the perception that Apple doesn't care about audio pros seems to be strong with this MacPro announcement."

Sidebar: I ran across some interesting research going on with physically-modeled sound synthesis, done in realtime on GPUs:

http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2484010

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

Gary Huff
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 13, 2013 at 12:37:35 am

If the base model is $6000, how many here will get one?


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 13, 2013 at 12:47:50 am

It won't be.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1,Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.3, Premiere Pro 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Avid MC, Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 8Gb SSD, G5 Quadcore PCIe


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 13, 2013 at 1:11:53 am

[Jim Wiseman] "It won't be."

But if it is?


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 13, 2013 at 1:21:13 am

I don't think the base will be 6 grand but a maxed out one will be in that ballpark or more easily. ECC RAM, PCIe storage, Dual uber GPU's, 12 core Xeon - these are very pricey items, Then factor in Apple's way higher than average margins on hardware... this ain't gonna be cheap 'cause you're gonna wanna ad 2 4K Cinema Display's and those will be insanely expensive too...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 13, 2013 at 1:51:30 am

Unless you can get a new Mac Pro without 12 cores or DUAL FirePros in the first place, I fail to see how it will be close to the base Mac Pro's price on the previous model.


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 13, 2013 at 1:38:03 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "ECC RAM, PCIe storage, Dual uber GPU's, 12 core Xeon - these are very pricey items,"

Then what do you make of all the griping that these towers are underpowered. Personally, I think Apple hit it as far as price/performance assuming these are relatively the same as existing Mac Pros. I don't see them being priced higher than existing Macs. As much as us video people like to think of ourselves as the center of the universe, these towers are also undoubtedly targeted toward high end graphic design and layout also. If they were $10-15K as many on the board seem to want them to be, they'd sell almost none of them.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 14, 2013 at 2:09:30 pm

[Brett Sherman] "Then what do you make of all the griping that these towers are underpowered. Personally, I think Apple hit it as far as price/performance assuming these are relatively the same as existing Mac Pros. I don't see them being priced higher than existing Macs. As much as us video people like to think of ourselves as the center of the universe, these towers are also undoubtedly targeted toward high end graphic design and layout also. If they were $10-15K as many on the board seem to want them to be, they'd sell almost none of them."

I guess I'm one of those griping that the systems will be underpowered, but that's only due to my very specific requirements. It's all horses for courses, and there are some applications where the old Mac Pro could compete against its peers but the new one won't.

The Mac Pro is going to be a fantastic system for a really broad variety of creative tasks. It will fly with FCPX/M5. It will fly with Resolve, especially for an out-of-the-box system. It will fly with Photoshop and its OpenCL acceleration on things like Liquify and Warp. It will fly with GPU-based applications dealing with large datasets, like the MARI demo shows.

However, CPU-intensive applications like Ae, C4D and NUKE will all have better performance options available on PC systems. There will be a huge performance gulf between the Mac Pro tube with a single 12-core CPU and a PC workstation with dual 12-core CPUs for 3D rendering. The Mac will be literally half as fast. This hasn't happened before, at least since the Intel transition.

I didn't want ALL Mac Pros to ship with a dual-CPU configuration. I wanted a second CPU BTO option, not a second CPU standard. You are right that not everyone needs, wants, or cares to pay for that kind of CPU power. I recognize that I'm in the small minority.

I'm happy to see a serious computer coming from Apple again, and I'm really impressed with their decision to push dual GPUs into the market, but I'm sad to see Apple choosing not to compete on CPU power so they could have a smaller and cooler-looking computer.

The new Mac Pro looks like a really nice system overall, but I think there are some niches where it's far from ideal.

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: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 14, 2013 at 8:17:12 pm

Are we sure we're sure about the config options? All this hand wringing over dual CPUs could be for nothing.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 14, 2013 at 11:57:15 pm

[Marcus Moore] "Are we sure we're sure about the config options? All this hand wringing over dual CPUs could be for nothing."

I don't have Cartesian certainty about what the options will be on this unreleased system, but there are a few pieces of evidence pointing to single-socket, and none pointing to dual-socket.

The Mac Pro minisite refers specifically to "processor" and the picture shows room only for a single CPU.

Starting with Nehalem, Xeons have the memory controller on the CPU, and new Xeons use a quad-channel memory interface. There are only four memory slots shown, suggesting a single quad-channel interface and thus a single CPU.

The site also refers to "up to 12 cores of processing power." The next generation E5 Xeons will offer 12 cores on a single CPU. If they were using current Xeons and had a dual-CPU configuration, I'd expect them to say "up to 16 cores." If they were using next-gen Xeons with a dual-processor configuration, I'd expect "up to 24 cores."

I wouldn't say it's really hand-wringing, either -- just a recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of this particular system. I'm already using Macs and PCs, so I can just keep on using PCs where I really need that kind of CPU power. Not every application benefits from a zillion sizzle cores, and the Mac Pro will be a fine system for those. I just don't expect to buy a Mac Pro and use it for all my work, as a good portion of what I do could go twice as fast on a dual-processor system.

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: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 15, 2013 at 1:04:19 pm

That's good some good reasoning, Walter.

Optimized performance is obviously the point. I spent a ton of money on a G5 Quad when they were released, but I'm not sure I ever got the real benefit out of using using the software I did.

I believe I've read from you that Motion and FCPX particularly will benefit from this- where GPUs power is more important than CPU cores.

I haven't looked into this in a while, but its no longer as simple as GPUs are real-time performance and CPUs are for rendering, is it? My impression is that line has started to blur, even if its only in one direction with rendering being aided by GPUs now.

Where is the benefit to 24 cores now? 3D applications I'm guessing?

Benchmarks tests for this thing are going to be interesting.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 16, 2013 at 5:00:53 am

[Marcus Moore] "I believe I've read from you that Motion and FCPX particularly will benefit from this- where GPUs power is more important than CPU cores. "

Yes. I think there are a number of applications which will benefit from the system design of the new Mac Pro, FCPX/M5 among them.


[Marcus Moore] "I haven't looked into this in a while, but its no longer as simple as GPUs are real-time performance and CPUs are for rendering, is it? My impression is that line has started to blur, even if its only in one direction with rendering being aided by GPUs now."

Absolutely. For a long time, rendering on a GPU meant rendering with OpenGL (Open Graphics Library) and one of the biggest benefits was the fact that it could render in real-time.

Now, rendering on a GPU goes well beyond graphics -- CUDA (Compute Unified Device Architecture) and OpenCL (Open Computing Language) both allow GPUs with their massively parallel architectures to crunch numbers instead of just draw images.

That means that you are not restricted to what's possible with OpenGL: you can implement other kinds of renderers and use the GPU to run the calculations.

The blurring is bi-directional, too. It's absolutely possible to use OpenGL for non-realtime rendering. Things like computing motion blur (basically rendering subframes and compositing them together), anti-aliasing (smoothing harsh edges of renders), and supersampling (a specific method of anti-aliasing where the images is rendered at higher resolution than output) can all slow a detailed OpenGL render to below real-time.


[Marcus Moore] "Where is the benefit to 24 cores now? 3D applications I'm guessing?"

Any CPU-heavy parallel task. 3D rendering is particularly notable, as there are few GPU-accelerated production renderers on the market and most renderers are still entirely CPU-based. Compositing is another: both Ae and NUKE benefit from loads of cores. Compression is a third: few encoders or decoders leverage GPUs.

These may be good candidates for GPU acceleration, but we're not there yet.

RAM-heavy uses (again, compositing is a good example) or operations on very large data sets tend to benefit from CPU rather than GPU, because very few GPUs have significant quantities of their own RAM.


[Marcus Moore] "Benchmarks tests for this thing are going to be interesting."

Yes indeed -- but in the end, I think it will come down to what software you want to use.

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

Jim Wiseman
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 13, 2013 at 3:47:18 am

$6k will be toward the high end version. Being honest, I've always been in the midrange with price/performance, hence my Hexacore 3.33 2010. Don't do a lot of mograph. If I did, yes I would buy it at $6k. No hesitation. A lot of Cheese Graters were sold at higher prices, and this thing will scream with no hassles, unlike Hackintosh or even Windows.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1,Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.3, Premiere Pro 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Avid MC, Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 8Gb SSD, G5 Quadcore PCIe


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: About the new Mac Pro-X
on Jun 13, 2013 at 4:09:57 am

Windows can scream with little hassle as well.


Return to posts index

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