FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCPX on 5K iMac

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Steve Connor
FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 14, 2014 at 12:27:12 pm

Spent the day editing on FCP X at a clients office on their new 5K iMac. (Yes I have Clients that use FCPX!)

Very VERY impressed with the speed of FCP X, Zero interface lag, fast renders and that screen!!! It's convinced me to get one instead of the new Mac Pro.


Return to posts index

Ryan Holmes
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 14, 2014 at 3:43:35 pm

[Steve Connor] " It's convinced me to get one instead of the new Mac Pro."

Why not get both?! :-) They each have their place and depending on what type of work you do they each can fill certain niches very well. Both are very nice computers...just depends on what you need the machine to do.

Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost


Return to posts index

Douglas K. Dempsey
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 14, 2014 at 4:04:09 pm

Ha ha, yes I'll take both!

I'll used distrusted processing to have the MacPro do transcoding, while I edit on the iMac!

Doug D


Return to posts index


Dave Jenkins
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 14, 2014 at 4:04:22 pm
Last Edited By Dave Jenkins on Nov 14, 2014 at 4:06:58 pm

What media hard drives where you editing from? What was the footage format and size?

Dajen Productions, Santa Barbara, CA
Mac Pro 3.5MHz 6-Core Late 2013
FCP X


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 14, 2014 at 4:17:25 pm

It was mostly from the internal SSD, but had some other footage on a USB3 drive


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 14, 2014 at 4:27:42 pm

What is the machine you edit on the most vs this 5K iMac?


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 14, 2014 at 4:35:21 pm

2008 8 core Mac Pro with SSD drive, G-Tech SATA and Radeon 7950, which I know is less than ideal, But I also use an i7 2013 MBP and the 5K felt considerably faster


Return to posts index

Mark Suszko
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 14, 2014 at 4:54:52 pm

I thought my machine was the only one featuring distrusted processing :-)


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 14, 2014 at 5:05:33 pm

I do not trust the processing, Sam-I-Am, I do not trust green eggs and ham.


Return to posts index


Ryan Holmes
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 14, 2014 at 5:10:47 pm

No...distrusted processing has been an Apple feature since at least OS 10.5. Some may argue for even earlier...

Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 14, 2014 at 5:51:07 pm

[Ryan Holmes] "No...distrusted processing has been an Apple feature since at least OS 10.5. Some may argue for even earlier..."

heyyyy-ooooo


Return to posts index

Ryan Holmes
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 14, 2014 at 10:31:28 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "heyyyy-ooooo"

Thank you, I'll be here all week. Tip your waitress! :-)

Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost


Return to posts index


Lance Bachelder
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 14, 2014 at 10:20:54 pm

Nice to know about the iMac. I'm currently on a similar 2009 Mac Pro 8 core with SSD and 7950. It's just okay. Can't wait to try out the iMac.

It was at a Vegas premiere that I resolved to become an avid FCPX user.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 15, 2014 at 1:14:54 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "Nice to know about the iMac. I'm currently on a similar 2009 Mac Pro 8 core with SSD and 7950. It's just okay. Can't wait to try out the iMac."

Don't try it until you can actually get one, it's very depressing going back! going to put my order in next week.


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 15, 2014 at 1:28:53 pm

[Steve Connor] "2008 8 core Mac Pro with SSD drive, G-Tech SATA and Radeon 7950, which I know is less than ideal, But I also use an i7 2013 MBP and the 5K felt considerably faster"
I am also editing on a 2008 2.8 Ghz 8-core Mac Pro with SSD and Radeon HD 5870 and I was considering buying a used 2010 2.93 Ghz 12-core Mac Pro on eBay which are going for about $2500 which is the base price on the iMac 5K. Are you saying I should consider the iMac 5K instead? (I also have a Mid-2012 MBP)

Do you know the specs of the iMac 5K you were editing with? Was it a base model? (which is only a Core i5) or did it have upgrades? When you add the 4.0Ghz Core i7, 32GB memory, and Radeon R9 M295X the price jumps $1100 to $3600. I guess I could get only 16GB of memory for $3200.

Since we're both coming from a 2008 8-Core Mac Pro, I guess what I'm asking is between a 2010 12-Core Mac Pro and the iMac 5K which would you get for FCP X work?

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 15, 2014 at 1:33:18 pm

I'd go with the iMac, FCP X seems to be optimised for the newer Intel chips, I've used a 12 core and it didn't match the iMac for editing tasks, the one benefit to the 12 core is that I imagine renders will be faster, although having said that when I rendered some .h264 files from the iMac it seemed pretty quick.

The one I used was an i7 with the 4GB graphics card and only 16GB RAM


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 15, 2014 at 1:38:35 pm

[Steve Connor] "I've used a 12 core and it didn't match the iMac for editing tasks, the one benefit to the 12 core is that I imagine renders will be faster, although having said that when I rendered some .h264 files from the iMac it seemed pretty quick."
I'm primarily concerned with speed of editing and not so much with rendering time. If you're saying that the 12 core didn't match the iMac for editing then I really have some re-thinking to do.
[Steve Connor] "The one I used was an i7 with the 4GB graphics card and only 16GB RAM"
Perfect! That's $3200... something to definitely consider. Thanks Steve!

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 15, 2014 at 4:51:16 pm

[John Rofrano] "If you're saying that the 12 core didn't match the iMac for editing then I really have some re-thinking to do."

Yes, the iMac was faster for editing operation


Return to posts index


Ryan Holmes
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 15, 2014 at 2:10:42 pm

[John Rofrano] "Since we're both coming from a 2008 8-Core Mac Pro, I guess what I'm asking is between a 2010 12-Core Mac Pro and the iMac 5K which would you get for FCP X work?"

John, I just added a new trash can and 5K iMac to my facility. The trash can just came in Thursday so I haven't deployed it yet for day-to-day tasks (the iMac is still "processing" as Apple says). But the Mac Pro was purchased as a "heavy-iron" system for it's ability to do heavy lifting and do it quickly. The 5K iMac is intended for either an audio station computer or a video editor station. We cut mostly ProRes, some RAW, and some 4K. But again for RAW or 4K the Mac Pro gets the nod. For everything else the iMac can handle it.

So it depends on what you need the computer to do. If you're doing single threaded tasks the iMac will perform similarly to a new Mac Pro. Once you get into multi-threaded tasks (like transcoding) or heavy vfx/color grading (GPU tasks) the Mac Pro will excel. But for straight cutting the iMac is fine provided your storage medium is fast enough to feed you the video. Caveat to that though, is that you probably won't find RAW/DNG or R3D files a smooth workflow on an iMac. But for ProRes, DNxHD it should have no problems (again provided your storage is fast enough).

Additionally, I'm not sure of where your deployment is, but in my space the Mac Pro is helpful as it has 2 NIC's built in so one can run to our SAN while the other runs to the house network (this can be overcome on the iMac by using a Thunderbolt to Ethernet dongle). The abundance of Thunderbolt (with separate busses), USB 3, and HDMI ports are also helpful on the Mac Pro for speed and connectivity. The Mac Pro's also feature server-class chipsets, error correcting RAM, and high end GPU's all of which are built to stricter tolerances than the consumer components in a laptop or iMac. This becomes important if the computer is running 24/7/365 and is put under load continually.

Marco Arment has a great write up about the difference between the two computers that may be worth your time:
http://www.marco.org/2014/10/16/retina-imac-vs-mac-pro

Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 15, 2014 at 6:37:35 pm

Ryan thanks. I will check out that article. I'm not working with 4K or RED, just HD.

What's driving me is that I'm currently doing work for Boris FX and Boris has asked me to create a set of Boris TV Episodes on Boris Continuum Complete 9 for FCP X. As you might imagine, there is a lot of GPU processing going on with BCC9 and I want to show the plug-ins in the best possible light. Boris uses OpenGL acceleration so I know I need a good GPU as well enough CPU power to drive it. If I go with a 2010 12-Core Mac Pro the fastest "Mac Edition" GPU is the Radeon HD 7950. I assume the iMac 5K has a newer/better GPU and may give me a better editing experience. Then again... maybe I should just save up and get a 6-Core 2013 Mac Pro with Dual D500's? I wish I could just test this stuff out without having to guess about how everything will perform.

Here are the first 4 Boris TV episodes that have already been released in case your interested what I'm producing. Watch them in HD for a clearer view:

Boris TV, Episode 220: Extruded Text Basics in FCP X, Part I





Boris TV, Episode 222: Extruded Text Basics in FCP X, Part II





Boris TV, Episode 225: Extruded EPS Basics in FCP X, Part I





Boris TV, Episode 226: Extruded EPS Basics, Part II





You can see my Mac really struggling in the last episode once I have 5 3D Objects animated across 7 connected clips with particle smoke in the background all at once. lol

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 15, 2014 at 7:10:42 pm

In my experience, as well as Oliver's, FCPX runs best on the newest generation of hardware, whether that be MacPro, iMac or retina MBP. I edit on both a tube and a rMBP, and I like them both a lot. We still have a few cheese graters, and the difference in UI performance is fairly dramatic.

Of course, if you need giant CPU renders, a chesesegrater will do better than an iMac, but for overall fcpx editing, a new iMac (and of course a new MacPro) will be better.

If getting a tube, go for the dual 700s. It's not much more money to get the faster chips.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 16, 2014 at 11:00:17 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "We still have a few cheese graters, and the difference in UI performance is fairly dramatic."
Do you know what GPU the older Mac Pro's are using? There is a pretty good difference between the stock Radeon 5770 and the 5850 that I have. I'm hoping the 7950 will be even better. I never considered putting a non-Mac Edition card in like the 290 but that's an idea as well. In my experience, GPU's can make a big difference and breath new life into an old box.

Here is an interesting article that supports your experience that the new Mac Pro are just plain faster:

Breathing new life into old Mac Pros

The author upgraded a 2012 Mac Pro with SSD's and a Radeon 7950 and it was still slower than a 2013 Mac Pro with D700's and in some cases the iMac 27". Unfortunately, they were comparing an 3.0Ghz 8-core 2013 to a 2.4Ghz 12-core 2012. I think it would have been more fair had they used a 3.06 Ghz 12-core which was the top of the line for 2012's. Oh well. Interesting reading and lots for me to consider.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 16, 2014 at 2:18:10 pm

[John Rofrano] "Do you know what GPU the older Mac Pro's are using?"

I had to replace them over the years, so I can't remember off the top of my head. They were nothing extraneous, just stock or stock-ish.

Rather than spend any more money on them, we just retooled to new hardware. It has been worth it.

I think you cannprobably extend the life of an old MacPro, but with fcpx, I think it takes advantage of newer technologies. I'm not an expert in the technologies, I just know it is a much better experience to edit on newer hardware with X, from a practical, day to day, standpoint. The tubes are also much easier to travel with and allow a much more powerful on set experince than a laptop.

Now outside of fcpx, perhaps this isn't true, and a GPU and SSD upgrade might be worth it.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 16, 2014 at 2:42:48 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Now outside of fcpx, perhaps this isn't true, and a GPU and SSD upgrade might be worth it.
"


Although FCP X can be a little "creaky" on my upgraded 2008 MP, Premiere Pro CC absolutely flies!


Return to posts index

Ryan Holmes
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 15, 2014 at 9:38:15 pm

[John Rofrano] "I assume the iMac 5K has a newer/better GPU and may give me a better editing experience."
Keep in mind that the GPU on an iMac is technically a mobile graphics card. They aren't as robust as what's in a Mac Pro. And that 5K iMac GPU is driving a 5K display...so your performance, as others have stated, may actually be worse until Apple refines the software and drivers further for a smooth user interaction.

[John Rofrano] "You can see my Mac really struggling in the last episode once I have 5 3D Objects animated across 7 connected clips with particle smoke in the background all at once. lol"

This sounds like it would be challenging for many computers! :-)

[Jeremy Garchow] "If getting a tube, go for the dual 700s. It's not much more money to get the faster chips. "

I agree with Jeremy here for sure. It's only $600 more for the D700's over the stock D500's, so get the D700's! That will be well worth the extra money, if you go that route.

Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 16, 2014 at 2:47:07 pm

[Ryan Holmes] "I agree with Jeremy here for sure. It's only $600 more for the D700's over the stock D500's, so get the D700's! That will be well worth the extra money, if you go that route."
OK, so now I have to share with you some of my "perspective". ;-) lol

I purchased my current 2008 Mac Pro 2.8Ghz 8-Core with 16GB Memory, Radeon HD 5870, 256GB SSD, 2TB RAID 0 for $740 on eBay!!! At the time, my NVIDIA Quadro 4000 in my PC Workstation had died and I was contemplating spending (wasting) $800 on another Q4000 when I realize that I could get an entire Mac Pro with an HD 5870 that was just as powerful as the Q4000 for less money than the Q4000 alone! That's when I started thinking about the price advantage of buying the last generation's top-of-the-line and I started thinking about getting the a 12-core 2010 Mac Pro as my next Mac.

Reality struck when I got my MacBook Pro Mid-2012 and it's geekbench score is the same as my 8-core 2008 Mac Pro and in FCP X I can render almost as fast so a 2012 4-core is now as fast as a 2008 8-core. This is why I'm interested in this thread. The question is: can the latest 4-cores compete with the older 12-cores? and how do GPU's change the game? That's what makes it impossible to compare (the CPU/GPU factor). I know the 12-cores will win with highly paralleled tasks like rendering but as I said, I'm really concerned about smooth editing while using GPU accelerated plugging like Boris Continuum Complete which leads me to believe that a sufficiently powerful GPU on a 2010 Mac Pro might fit both needs.

When I came across this thread, it started me thinking about whether it is better to spend $2500 on a 12-Core 2010 Mac Pro or $2500 on an iMac 5K and I'm realizing from this thread that the base iMac 5K with it's Core i5 isn't going to cut it so we're now talking $3200 for an iMac 5K (with Core i7, 16GB memory, Radeon R9 M295X upgrades) which is the same price as a 2013 Mac Pro 4-core 16GB, w/D300's but if you look at the geekbench scores, the 4-core iMac is faster than the 4-core Mac Pro. But geekbench scores don't take GPU performance into account. (I also realize that I'm not counting the fact that the iMac has a stunning 5K display that would cost $2400 all by itself but I'm not working with 4K so it's not something I need at the moment).

So I agree with you and Jeremy that if I "go that route", a 6-core 2013 Mac Pro with D700's is $4600 and I appreciate the fact for $600 more than $4000 it's worthwhile to get the better GPU's but I'm not ready to drop $4600 (twice what I'm planning to spend) on a new Mac Pro unless it's going to give me twice the performance of a 12-Core 2010 Mac Pro. Even if it did, I don't have the $4K to spend anyways. :(

I'm not sure I'm any closer to making a decision other than indecision but this has been a good discussion.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 17, 2014 at 1:59:45 am

Here’s a good score page. This is for CPU ratings, so GPU performance isn't factored in. Notice the single and multicore 64-bit tests.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 17, 2014 at 1:04:51 pm

Yea, those are the geekbench scores I was talking about. I use them all the time to determine the relative performance of the Mac's I'm looking at on eBay. This is one thing I use to tell a fake. If someone says they have a 3.06Ghz Mac Pro that gets 24000 on geekbench I know it's a 2009 because the 2012's get 27000+. Sure enough when I ask they admit it's a 2009 that's had it's firmware flashed and CPU upgraded. For some reason, just making the specs the same doesn't make the computer as fast so other architectural differences between the 2009 and 2010/2012 are at play here (probably front side bus speed and memory speed).

What got me interested in the 2010 12-core is that the 2.93Ghz is third on the 64-bit Multi-Core list below the 2013 2.7Ghz 12-core and the 2012 3.06Ghz 12-core but it's ABOVE all the other 2013 Mac Pro's! So my thinking is I can get a 2010 12-core for $2400 that is still faster than the 2013 8-core which is $6000 almost 2.5x the price!

I realize that CPU power isn't the only thing and the dual GPU's in the 2013's will help the real-time editing performance I'm looking for, but my 2008 Mac Pro already had an SSD drive and the upgraded HD 5870 GPU so I was really impressed with the performance I for got a $740 investment to begin with. I can still add a faster SSD and more powerful GPU but the 2008 doesn't have hyperthreading so it's 8 cores and 8 threads with slower 800Mz memory. The new quad-cores are 4 core and 8 threads with 1600Mz memory which is why they give similar performance. I though having 12 cores and 24 threads with 1333Mz memory would definitely put me over the top for rendering tasks and the 2.93Ghz would help with real-time along with a powerful GPU.

What's also interesting to note is the power of the D-Series GPU's in the new Mac Pros. My Radeon HD 5870 still has more stream processors and compute power than the D500. I understand that the Mac Pro has two D500's and the D700's are even better but it's interesting to note that the D-Series, like all other "professional cards", are weaker than their consumer counterparts. here are the comparative specs:

My Radeon HD 5870 has:
1600 stream processors
153.6GB/s memory bandwidth
2.27 teraflops performance

The D500 has:
1526 stream processors
240GB/s memory bandwidth
2.2 teraflops performance

Getting back to the topic of this thread, it would be interesting to see how the AMD Radeon R9 M295X in the iMac 5K stacks up against these GPUs.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 17, 2014 at 1:23:09 pm

[John Rofrano] "Getting back to the topic of this thread, it would be interesting to see how the AMD Radeon R9 M295X in the iMac 5K stacks up against these GPUs.
"


I'm hoping to get a second look at the retina IMac on Friday, I'll take some 4K material with me to see how that goes.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac - Hard drive used?
on Nov 17, 2014 at 1:52:16 pm

The thing about geekbench scores is, how does that translate to editing in fcpx?

I know, "the numbers don't lie" but sometimes, they don't tell the entire truth.

I like looking a barefeats.com for different tests as a lot of them are related directly to professional video applications including FCPX.

http://www.barefeats.com

http://www.barefeats.com/imac5k4.html

http://www.barefeats.com/tube05.html


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 15, 2014 at 5:05:37 pm

A bit off topic but how does Resolve run on the new 5K model?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 15, 2014 at 5:16:32 pm

I dropped by the Apple Store to dispose of a bad MBP battery and took the chance to check out the 5K Retina iMac. Retina display, like all, doesn't give you more real estate if set for "best for display". You just get a higher-resolution image because of pixel density.

They had FCP X and some 4k footage. Of course the 1080 was fine, especially since it was all ProRes or ProRes Proxy. The 4K was ProRes and they had some multicam clips. With the angle viewer open it quickly dropped frames on a quad layout. Generally all playback on most of the demo timelines was smooth, but a number of times it still took about :01 to start playing from when you hit the space bar or J. I think it had a 1TB SSD internal drive.

Definitely a nice machine, but I'd only jump on it now if I had a 4K job to do (assuming it wouldn't be too effects heavy). Loaded with the CalDigit T4 or one of the Promise arrays would run you about $6K total with the larger amount of storage. Expensive, but a lot cheaper than the Tube or even the HP Z1G2. And of course you get the screen, which looks great.

My gut feeling is that X runs a lot better on the iMac than an older MP, of course, but still not as optimized as it could be.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Nicholas Kleczewski
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 15, 2014 at 9:23:04 pm

I have to agree with Oliver. I just returned from an Apple store and while the screen is beautiful, i was not impressed with the UI performance of the iMac 5k at all. Completely granted, it was an i5 base model. But there was minute lag on the stock 1080p projects and very very bad lag on the 4k footage. To the point where id say it'd be very difficult to do real precision editing with, without pulling out your hair in the process.

They obviously didn't have the 4k project loaded on the base model Mac Pro, but even the identical 1080p projects that are loaded on both ran noticeably better than the iMac. Basically nothing shocking to report given what they are intended for, I just worry people will buy the iMacs with false sense what they can accomplish.

In my experience, an older Mac Pro is rejuvenated since 10.1's GPU enhancements. Just need the right video card. Throw a 280X or 680 or above and I feel like it screams right along side a new Mac Pro. Of course FCPX just has the memory leak issues that make you have to restart that no computer fixes.

I'm in the process of purchasing a 2010 12-core MacPro for $1600 off eBay. Putting in at least one 6GB 280X (comparable in theory to a single D700) card for about $350 with external power for $100. Putting in the Apricorn dual SSD card which gives 800 MB's, with 2 Crucial 960GB SSD's, total cost for everything $900 (could have done 2 500's for under $600). Cheap USB 3 card so at least i have some decent I/O ability. So Ill be in for about $3k with this little experiment. Ill have the opportunity to run this set up along side a 8 core D700 nMP and report any positive findings there. It is by no means an Apples to Apples comparison, but a upgraded new 12 core with similar specs plus the 2nd D700 runs $8199.

Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 15, 2014 at 11:04:29 pm

[Nicholas Kleczewski] "I have to agree with Oliver. I just returned from an Apple store and while the screen is beautiful, i was not impressed with the UI performance of the iMac 5k at all. Completely granted, it was an i5 base model. But there was minute lag on the stock 1080p projects and very very bad lag on the 4k footage. To the point where id say it'd be very difficult to do real precision editing with, without pulling out your hair in the process.

They obviously didn't have the 4k project loaded on the base model Mac Pro, but even the identical 1080p projects that are loaded on both ran noticeably better than the iMac. Basically nothing shocking to report given what they are intended for, I just worry people will buy the iMacs with false sense what they can accomplish.
"


I would only worry if someone purchased the i5 model, which is not good enough, the i7 with 4GB card is a different beast entirely.


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 16, 2014 at 1:20:44 am

[Nicholas Kleczewski] "I'm in the process of purchasing a 2010 12-core MacPro for $1600 off eBay. Putting in at least one 6GB 280X (comparable in theory to a single D700) card for about $350 with external power for $100. Putting in the Apricorn dual SSD card which gives 800 MB's, with 2 Crucial 960GB SSD's, total cost for everything $900 (could have done 2 500's for under $600). Cheap USB 3 card so at least i have some decent I/O ability. So Ill be in for about $3k with this little experiment."
I don't know where you are finding a 2010 12-core Mac Pro for $1600 (I can't seem to find "original"ones for less than around $2400) but I am very interested in how your experiment works out as that's exactly what I was thinking of doing. Since you have a real 8 core D700 nMP to compare it too, I'd really like to know how close it comes.

BTW, you know there are a lot of "Frankin-macs" on eBay. People take 2009 Mac Pro's and flash the firmware to make 'em look like 2010's and upgrade the processors and try and pass them off as the real thing. You can usually tell because they have slower memory and GPU's than what came stock. (The base GPU on a 2010 was the 5770 so any Mac claiming to be a 2010 with a GTX-120 is a 2009 frankin-mac) I usually ask them for the serial number and then look them up on the Apple Care web site and I can tell right away if they are really 2010's or not. The 2009's with firmware updates benchmark significantly lower even though the specs seem the same. Just FYI in case you didn't know because $1600 for a 2010 Mac Pro seems very cheap.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Rick Lang
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 15, 2014 at 5:55:40 pm
Last Edited By Rick Lang on Nov 15, 2014 at 5:56:13 pm

David, I don't think Peter Chamberlain has commented on the iMac 5K 2014 yet, but as you probably know the recently updated Configuration Guide for Mac does not recommend a tricked-out iMac 2013 for 4K. He recommends a minimum of an 8-core Mac Pro with dual D700 GPUs for 4K. This iMac 5K at maximum configuration may well prove to be on the borderline of acceptable for ProRes 4K footage if not a lot of post effects. Especially for short work that can use the 1TB internal flash storage. The renders for h.264 deliverables will be accelerated by the Intel Quick Sync feature, but I have been told that is only used for a single-pass.

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 15, 2014 at 6:56:00 pm

Thanks for the info Rick. I currently have a mid 2012 Mac Pro, guess time to upgrade to the new model.


Return to posts index

Rick Lang
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 15, 2014 at 10:15:03 pm

The 8-core new Mac Pro should be able to digest your raw 4K CinemaDNG in DaVinci Resolve. For those who have the option of working on both the iMac 5K and the new Mac Pro, I do think the iMac would be a pleasure to use as the FCP X edit machine,

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 16, 2014 at 3:33:05 pm

Edit on a loaded MacPro and you may change your mind...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 16, 2014 at 8:49:31 pm

[Mitch Ives] "Edit on a loaded MacPro and you may change your mind..."
...would you care to elaborate? ;-)

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 17, 2014 at 4:44:19 pm

The 5K iMac will no doubt be a desirable thing, but we shouldn't confuse it with a Mac Pro. I've worked with it at Apple... I like it, but it's not like my "loaded 8" new MacPro.

Why... there are a lot of differences. The nMP has dual GPU's and the D700's are very quick. The iMac doesn't have that. Bus speeds on the front side, etc. have differences. The nMP has three separate TB controllers, so I can keep the disk array on a separate one, other drives on one, other things on the third. Makes a big difference. These are just a few.

To make the new iMac really useful, you'll need to max it out... at which point it isn't cheap. The difference in price pretty much disappears, other than the fact that you save the cost of the monitor.

Should people always choose a nMP over the iMac. Of course not. But let's recognize the differences.

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 17, 2014 at 5:05:02 pm

Obviously a mid-high range nMP is going to be faster but

[Mitch Ives] "To make the new iMac really useful, you'll need to max it out... at which point it isn't cheap. The difference in price pretty much disappears,"

That's true for the lower spec models, but your 8 Core with dual 700's and 1TB flash is $3000 more than the iMac!


Return to posts index

John Rofrano
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 17, 2014 at 6:49:34 pm

[Steve Connor] "That's true for the lower spec models, but your 8 Core with dual 700's and 1TB flash is $3000 more than the iMac!"
Yes, but if you want to compare equal systems the iMac 5K with 4.0GHz 4-core Core i7, 16GB RAM, 256GB SDD, and AMD Radeon R9 M295X is $3200 while a comparably speced 2013 Mac Pro 3.7GHz 4-core Core i7, 16GB RAM, 256GB SDD, and Dual AMD D300's is $3100 so the difference in price does disappear, other than the 5K monitor which when you think about it makes even the maxed out the iMac 5K an absolute steal! I get it that the nMP has 3 TB channels so it has far greater bandwidth capacity. Different beasts at a similar price.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com



Return to posts index

Nicholas Kleczewski
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 17, 2014 at 7:00:44 pm

Thats precisely what scares me in people buying iMacs. you slipped and said "compare equal systems"
There is nothing remotely equal about a 4-core iMac and a 4-core Mac Pro except the words "4-core" and "Mac" Mac Pro's are not i7's, they are Xeon, completely different chip. Dual even 300's will be more powerful than the M295X even if it wasn't driving a 5k display. which it is, so you have to account for it basically driving more than 4 1080p video screens before its even started.

Then future proof and expandability have value. iMac, nothing. Mac Pro, so far everything but the GPU's are upgradeable. But who knows, the design allows for at least the idea of buying new GPU boards from apple in the future, however unlikely.

Get the iMac if you love the admittedly beautiful screen. There is no other reason that makes the investment comparable.

Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 17, 2014 at 7:05:35 pm
Last Edited By Steve Connor on Nov 17, 2014 at 7:06:27 pm

[Nicholas Kleczewski] "There is nothing remotely equal about a 4-core iMac and a 4-core Mac Pro except the words "4-core" and "Mac" "

Spec wise perhaps but in real world usage ...... http://www.barefeats.com/imac5k4.html

iMac 5K is not far off the nMP


Return to posts index

Nicholas Kleczewski
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 17, 2014 at 7:18:18 pm

Sure render times are one aspect. One could make an argument in today's speedy world of processing that render time differentials don't have the importance they once did. If that were true a 2010 Mac Pro properly outfitted would beat them all. I'd be more interested in input lag time and real-time performance. Both of which I was not impressed with on the base model granted the 295 should be a fair amount better.
Also I/O... I'm a full time editor and Resolve colorist, it'd be pretty difficult for me to run a full pro set up on just 2 thunderbolt ports. Many would want at least one more screen, then video IO then storage and unfortunately daisychaining with thunderbolt doesn't work so well at least in my experience.
Although with that new LG ultra widescreen Ive got coming my way maybe dual monitors can finally take a hike! :)

Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 17, 2014 at 7:24:55 pm

[Nicholas Kleczewski] "Also I/O... I'm a full time editor and Resolve colorist, it'd be pretty difficult for me to run a full pro set up on just 2 thunderbolt ports."

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the iMac 5K is a great Resolve workstation! But as an edit station it seems to be very useful. I'll have more thoughts on Friday when I've thrown some 4K at one



[Nicholas Kleczewski] "I'd be more interested in input lag time and real-time performance. Both of which I was not impressed with on the base model granted the 295 should be a fair amount better. "

RT seemed to be very good, at least on the HD project I was editing. Again I don't think anyone would suggest using the base model for serious editing.


Return to posts index

Nicholas Kleczewski
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 17, 2014 at 7:26:37 pm

Well let's just agree to, agree then shall we! :)

Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 17, 2014 at 7:28:59 pm

[Nicholas Kleczewski] "Well let's just agree to, agree then shall we! :)"

Surely that can't be right? Am I on the right forum? :)


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: FCPX on 5K iMac
on Nov 18, 2014 at 11:46:45 am

[Steve Connor] "That's true for the lower spec models, but your 8 Core with dual 700's and 1TB flash is $3000 more than the iMac!"

And a Mercedes cost more than a Ford... I'm not sure we've made any process in this discussion.

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

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