APPLE FINAL CUT PRO: Apple Final Cut Pro X FCPX Debates FCP Legacy FCP Tutorials

Re: New Xeons for next year

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index   •   Read entire thread

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New Xeons for next year
on Oct 21, 2012 at 12:40:47 am

[Walter Soyka] "Apple was not selling eight-year-old processors six years ago. Until this year, hasn't Appe offered the best of the current generation of Intel CPUs at each Mac Pro refresh?"

True. I think they have offered the best, I don't know for sure. They might have offered only an 8 core when a 12 core was available at one time. We can get in to the Apple-not-being-concerned-with-the-speediest-procs-on-the-market conversation again, if you'd like? ;)

For the most part, they offer the newest proc technology until now.

[Walter Soyka] "Apple chose to sit this round out, and I don't think it's hard to see why people -- long-time customers -- who were hoping to upgrade this year might be upset about their options."

I'm a long time customer. When we buy machines, we buy big, usually fully maxed out. To do that right now, even with cheaper third party updates (RAM hard drives, etc), your'e looking at approaching 10 thousand bucks, times two machines.

The way I look at it, Apple just told me to save 20 grand by not releasing the latest processor. They didn't kill the MacPro line, so they are keeping that channel open. Tim Cook said something is coming. Without coming out saying that I should wait, they have told me to wait.

[Walter Soyka] "GPU matters way more now to editors than than they did in 2006. GPGPU (general purpose computing on graphics cards) didn't exist before, so if Apple only offered crummy cards, the only folks who would really notice were 3D artists who could actually benefit from better OpenGL performance. There were a handful of GPU-processing systems in 2006 (this was one of the things I liked best about Motion!), but the majority of video processing was happening on the CPU (and Apple offered competitive CPUs)."

Yes, it matters more if you use certain programs. Not all applications are so dependent on ultra fast and expensive GPUs.

[Walter Soyka] "After Effects does need RAM. Gobs of it. 2-4 GB per CPU core. Without a load of RAM, Ae can't feed all those sizzle cores fast enough."

I didn't say more RAM wouldn't help, I just said it's not going to significantly speed up Ae renders. More RAM make Ae run longer (longer RAM previews, et al) not faster.

[Walter Soyka] "You are absolutely right that Ae itself is still largely CPU-oriented, but if you do use the ray-tracer, the speed difference between CPU and GPU is enormous. Also, there are a few really important plugins that leverage the GPU: GenArts Sapphire (CUDA), Video Copilot Optical Flares & Element 3D (OpenGL), Mettle ShapeShifter AE and FreeForm Pro (OpenGL & OpenCL). I have been advising Ae artists to ignore their GPUs for years, but that's shifting now and I think the importance of the GPU in this context will continue to grow over foreseeable future."

Yes I pointed out where Ae uses the GPU. The other plugins you mention are GPU enabled, true, but those are plugins, and a few them are almost applications in their own right. If you use those plugins, you'll want a decent GPU.

We are now reliant on a specific hardware if your application relies on Nvidia.

[Walter Soyka] "You do have additional options available on the PC side, like faster components and better support, but technology change is cross-platform, and your hardware "investments" will depreciate fast no matter what you buy."

Better support?

Yes, PCs have ALWAYS offered more. Always for ever and ever, that's what I was saying.

Posts IndexRead Thread 

Current Message Thread:

© 2019 All Rights Reserved