For those who are fed up with Apple...

[Brian Boyer]

Brain,

The point you're making is ludicrous. There IS NO business reason for Avid to drop Mac support. It's as simple as that.

I'd say more than fifty percent of the professional post houses I've been in LA are Mac based. And b/c you can run Unix scripts in the Mac OS, people love the Mac OS and hardware, and other excellent software programs run on the Mac OS (including FCP) this isn't changing. You are asserting that IF it made business sense for Avid they will drop Mac support. But there IS NO business reason for Avid to drop Mac support, b/c the very clients that Avid sells to are heavily invested in Mac.

You're quite simply raising an issue that doesn't exist.

Aw...it's absolutely precious how you leap to Avid's rescue. Well, fear not brave Knight. The keep is not under attack.

I honestly don't think you understand the point I was trying to make. Maybe I should use shorter sentences. I never claimed there was currently a reason for Avid to drop Mac support. Why you keep insisting I am is puzzling. You're defending Avid when there was never any attack made. I simply used them as one example of a company that had wavering support of the Mac platform at one time in order to make an entirely different point. It was not meant to reflect Avid's current state of affairs or their foreseeable future. My comments were directed at people who felt they could no longer trust Apple in a professional capacity because of the way they handled the release of FCPX, FCPX itself and the FAQ about FCPX. Some, like Christoffer, were suggesting, almost encouraging people to switch to another application under the notion that Apple had betrayed some sort of trust and the future of their pro products and even their OS is in jeopardy. FOR THOSE PEOPLE, I brought up Adobe and Avid to illustrate how I think leaving over Apple's current course of action, citing trust issues, would be a rather weak reason given the competition's positions in years past.

Peter, to sum up my point another way, imagine I said the following to those people:

"You can't trust Apple anymore over basically one major FCP transgression in 13 years and are prepared to run to the competition? Well, Adobe actually killed Premiere for a while and even the stalwart Avid got wishy-washy on the Mac at one point, so you might want to find a more substantial reason to justify your switch. Most of these pro companies have done something to make some people nervous or question their commitment to the platform over the years. But, Adobe Premiere is still around and SO IS AVID, so your distrust in Apple over FCPX may be unwarranted. There are no guarantees. But, in my opinion, Apple's faux pas is a minor one when considering the bigger picture."

You may not agree with my take on the Apple situation but I hope now you understand that it had nothing to do with attacking Avid's current or future commitment to the Mac.

Even if you don't, I'm not going to try to explain it to you any further.

So much for shorter sentences.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Jeff, the thing is that there IS an Apple indoctrination, almost on a religious scale. Some are defending Apple and FCPX like they were on a lawyer payroll for Apple.
I do not know why this is, maybe they are in love with the design and "ease of use" that I agree Apple is indeed having. But in a professional point of view I have never understood this "bond" to Apple.
EVEN at a big post production facility that is based upon FCP7 have I received critique for using Avid instead of FCP7 because it's a little trickier for them in the rest of the post workflow.

You're definitely right about that. I'm an Apple fan myself, but no fanboy. I quit Apple many years ago, when they started struggling in various ways. When I jumped back on the Apple train was with the return of Jobs and the adoption of NextStep and its reincarnation as OSX. The BSD unix foundation was a big deal to me. I'm an old-school unix geek and always felt right at home working on SGI and Sun workstations. In a rational, professional perspective, some of the fanboy zealotry makes no logical sense. But I do understand it's there and for many, just the thought of taking another NLE for a trial run, would be a violation of their fanboy code. I guess I can't explain why some people are this way... They just are. I personally wanted to love FCPX. I was there for the intro at the NAB SuperMeet and I thought it looked promising then. It looks promising now, even after I bought it. It just doesn't do what it needs to do for me (and many others) to use it in our professional workflows. Bummer. I applied for a refund. And mostly because that's the best way I know to tell Apple that I'm not happy with their product. If/when they release a new version, I'll read the reviews first, then buy if I think it will offer something usable. I bought FCPX this time only minutes after it was released. I really like Apple and most of their products, iOS development has been my bread and butter (and very lucrative, too) for the past two years. FCPX was a goof... Apple knows that now. I'm sure they will fix it in due time.

If just to alleviate anyone's fears, I'm running FCP on Lion Preview and I have no issues whatsoever.

Yes, bad example on my part... Or is it. We don't know what's going to happen down the line. And yes, I have Lion running on a few partitions and systems here. And its very stable and a very nice update to OSX. So far everything I've tried runs well within the confines of the hardware I'm running it on. I haven't installed it on my Mac Pro with the Quadro 4000's and Resolve, for example. I'm running it on an iMac I use as my software development system and on another Mac Pro. The GM seed is out now, so we should see public release soon. Possibly this next week.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Christoffer - the more I see you go on your relentless witch hunt against Apple, going so far as to call them a "s$@t company" (really? last I checked they were the #1 tech company on earth right now) and what is clearly the best, most stable operating system (which by the way is being RADICALLY improved with Lion) as "unstable" ... the more I think you have some strange personal vendetta and perhaps even an imbalance of some sort.

Yes, we get that FCPX is missing features ... yes, we get that this offends you .... and yes, we get that this affects your business and livelihood. How many times can you keep saying the same thing before it gets old?

Geez man. Chill out. You don't like Apple, don't buy their stuff. It's as simple as that.

And if you need an outlet for your seemingly endless frustration -- start an Apple hate blog. You might even be able to make a few bucks to compensate for the horrendous amount of money that Apple (and FCPX) seems to be costing you right now ....

Sorry to be so blunt, but I would guess even those who agree with you (which I partly do) are skipping your posts that essentially say the same thing over and over again with slightly different words.

Well said, Anthony! +1

 

[Patrick Tresch]

Avid DS is about to die because Media Composer keeps getting better...

Hello Christoffer,

Are you an DS operator?

Pat

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Hello Christoffer,

Are you an DS operator?

Pat

Since I work with both Media Composer and then do online in DS I would say yes. And it always feels like I could just finish most stuff in MC instead.

Well said, Anthony! +1

You really seem to contribute to a thread all the time, good job.

 

[András Puiz]

Interesting discussion. There is a lot of FUD going on about Apple's professional focus, now that Xserve is dead; OS X is becoming "iOS-like;" and FCPX just happens to lack some high-end features.

We'll all see where FCPX is going; if you're looking for a new solution today, it's probably not going to cut it (no pun intended) for a lot of users.

I wouldn't worry too much about OS X. I know it's becoming "iOS-like," but that does not mean dumbing it down; it means applying some glaringly obvious iOS lessons to the Mac. And by the way, auto-save and versioning are much more important features for pros than for consumers, as they are essentially about preventing users from losing their work. (Adobe InDesign has had a similar feature since forever, and let me tell you how grateful I've always been for that when using it in with my team in a truly demadning professional setting, working on weekly publications on extreme deadlines, and having experienced data loss due to crashes with good old QuarkXPress before switching to Adobe.)

As for the viability of the Mac as a hardware platform, I also wouldn't worry too much. PC sales are down, while the Mac is up. Some may argue that the iPad craze is a fad; I happen to disagree and to think that it's a major shift in computing. At the end of the day, Apple sees the iPad (and other tablets) as the ultimate consumer device, and the Mac (and other PCs) as the ultimate pro device, as the workhorse.

I'd definitely watch Apple's pro hardware offerings in the future. Mac Pro seems to be here to stay; if that one goes away, there will be time to panic. Until then, Avid and Adobe would be foolish to migrate away from the only segment of the PC market which has been displaying very stable growth lately.

 

[Gary Paul Walker]

I'm making the jump from FCP to Adobe not because of the angst towards FCPX, or the tarnishing of a percived creative 'brand', but rather because its the best decision for what I want to do.
I'm running an old Mac Pro (2x 2.66 dual core processors - so yes, that old) with FCS2. Now I need more and after trying all that I can try, the cost / benifit of it all means that I'm moving to Adobe CS5.5 and building a PC.

I love Macs, the OS is great, the software tends to run like a dream - and yes there's an argument to be made for the Unix side. But for people like me, who are not just 'moving' but are also starting a total upgrade in anticipation of 3k + resolution, Macs can seem a little prohibitive in terms of pricing and the ability to upgrade in a few years time.

I totally respect the opinions that people have regarding the Pros and Cons of, well, ANYTHING to do with Mac/PC & FCP & Sony, Avid, Adobe.. But theres also a large community of users who are looking at the cost of a Scarlet and are looking for the best (and future-proofed) system to be compatible with that.

And (at the risk of being shouted at), my friend posed a curious question last night:
"If Apple are making Final Cut more consumer-friendly with FCPX, will they adopt the same attitude with Mac Pros by allowing a greater ability to upgrade?"
First I said 'yes', than after a thought I said 'no'. And finally I rested on 'I dont care'

 

[Kujtim Ereqi]

"You can't trust Apple anymore over basically one major FCP transgression in 13 years and are prepared to run to the competition? Well, Adobe actually killed Premiere for a while and even the stalwart Avid got wishy-washy on the Mac at one point, so you might want to find a more substantial reason to justify your switch. Most of these pro companies have done something to make some people nervous or question their commitment to the platform over the years. But, Adobe Premiere is still around and SO IS AVID, so your distrust in Apple over FCPX may be unwarranted. There are no guarantees. But, in my opinion, Apple's faux pas is a minor one when considering the bigger picture."

From time to time companies kill some of their software. That happens for a lot of reasons.. I don't know about Avid, but old Premiere was not killed by Adobe, but by Final Cut.. Adobe just buried it.. It was a logical step for editors and also it was logical from a marketing point of vew, and I believe few Mac users really missed it..

The reason why people complain is that FC7 was in a very good position when it was discontinued.. All were waiting for a better program (I mean old good features + new good features) .. That did not happen. That does not mean it will not happen in the future. Its possible that FCX could turn to be the best NLE software in next 2-3 releases. Time will tell it.. It can even turn to be the best move Apple has made for FC..

.. But for the time being FCX could be a logical move from a marketing point of view, but certainly it's not logical to many FC users who will miss FC7 features and looks and can't afford to wait for the "future"..

 

[Terry VerHaar]

...

And (at the risk of being shouted at), my friend posed a curious question last night:
"If Apple are making Final Cut more consumer-friendly with FCPX, will they adopt the same attitude with Mac Pros by allowing a greater ability to upgrade?"
First I said 'yes', than after a thought I said 'no'. And finally I rested on 'I dont care'

I promise not to shout! :001_smile: Actually, I'd like to ask a sincere question...

A couple times in the last week I have had PC fans comment that the Mac just isn't suitable for serious computer users because you can't tweak and customize it enough to meet your needs. Now, I really don't know anything about the guts of a PC but exactly what does this mean? With a Mac Pro, you can install your own RAM, install and configure your own hard drives easily, and you can install hardware cards into the 4 available slots. On the software side, you have access to the UNIX core through Terminal, you can easily write custom "macros" with Automator or dig deeper with AppleScript. And, if you are hard core, my understanding is that working with the Developer Toolkit is not all that hard for the truly dedicated computer geeks out there. So, the question I have is, what is it about a PC that takes it beyond these capabilities and makes it "more suitable" for the hardcore computer user? Honestly, I am not arguing anything here - I am genuinely curious.

P.S. I know a lot of people build their own PCs but these aren't really the guys I am talking about. That seems to be a rather small minority, I would think. And, I guess there are those that build "Hackintoshes" as well, anyway.

 

[Kujtim Ereqi]

I'm mainly a PC user, but I really respect Mac computers.. 4 years back we bought a Mac Pro. It's still there working as a horse..

I don't think those PC fans mean that MAC is not upgradeable at all. Of course you can upgrade the hardware.. But the pace and the level of the ability to upgrade is decided by Apple. For example In the PC world if you need a fifth slot you can find it. In Mac word you have to wait for Apple or buy an extender.. The same happens with Graphic cards. You have less options in Mac Word compared to PC World..

For many users these "good sides" of PC mean nothing, compared to what MAC offers to them in general.. For some others the freedom to upgrade without limits, is more important..

It's a personal decision and taste..

P.S. Some of those fans could be just fanboys..

 

[Kaku Ito]

If just to alleviate anyone's fears, I'm running FCP on Lion Preview and I have no issues whatsoever.

Thanks for that info. How are the video i/os working?

 

[Patrick Tresch]

Since I work with both Media Composer and then do online in DS I would say yes. And it always feels like I could just finish most stuff in MC instead.

So you know how nesting and container works, the advantage of seemless transition between node compositing and editing, no transcoding needed while importing, no resolution restriction... But if you don't need anything else than MC go for it.

Pat

 

[Subhadip Sen]

I promise not to shout! :001_smile: Actually, I'd like to ask a sincere question...

A couple times in the last week I have had PC fans comment that the Mac just isn't suitable for serious computer users because you can't tweak and customize it enough to meet your needs. Now, I really don't know anything about the guts of a PC but exactly what does this mean? With a Mac Pro, you can install your own RAM, install and configure your own hard drives easily, and you can install hardware cards into the 4 available slots. On the software side, you have access to the UNIX core through Terminal, you can easily write custom "macros" with Automator or dig deeper with AppleScript. And, if you are hard core, my understanding is that working with the Developer Toolkit is not all that hard for the truly dedicated computer geeks out there. So, the question I have is, what is it about a PC that takes it beyond these capabilities and makes it "more suitable" for the hardcore computer user? Honestly, I am not arguing anything here - I am genuinely curious.

P.S. I know a lot of people build their own PCs but these aren't really the guys I am talking about. That seems to be a rather small minority, I would think. And, I guess there are those that build "Hackintoshes" as well, anyway.

I am not a programmer or a developer, merely a post-production guy who wants the best of his hardware. Most of my reasons are largely to do with the flexibility and options available. The ability to choose exactly the right components, the right balance, rid of bottlenecks for MY usage. Not Apple's "typical" usage. Here are some things that count as a bonus:

1. Ability to choose your platform. We know Intel is the performance leader, but AMD has a history of offering some incredible value for money across the board. AMD's strategy of offering more cores per dollar means it falls behind in less multi-threaded apps, but this is a big deal for video post-production, which is "embarrassangly multi-threaded". AMD's next-gen FX 8-core CPUs are round the corner, (16-core or 32-core dual-socket Opterons releasing this month) and they just seem tailormade for multi-threaded rendering tasks. I will take a long hard look at AMD's FX CPUs and perhaps even the Opterons. And of course, the AMD platform will always be a lot cheaper - the performance/$ will always be attractive relative to Intel. What if someone needs absolute top-of-the-line performance? A 40-core Intel platform or a 64-core AMD platform? No, the Mac Pros are just very restrictive.

Even if I don't want AMD, I need the ability to choose a Core i7 CPU! Yes, Xeon has its advantages, but none are applicable to my work, which revolves around Adobe CS5. In fact, the Core i7 990X, which costs $999 is extremely competitive with the top Xeon CPU(s) available in the Mac Pro. (As demonstrated here: http://ppbm5.com/Benchmark5.html). (A $1200 option upgrade over and above the $5k starting price!)

Beyond the CPU, there's a huge array of motherboards available - both for desktop and server CPUs. Each has their own features that may appeal to different users. With the Mac Pro, you have no choice.

2. AMD Eyefinity - Here's something that is interesting to me, the ability to drive 4 or more monitors. Haven't found a solution for Mac Pro.

3. Expansion. There's just not enough room for expansion. It may be enough for most, but certainly not for everyone. What we have is just 1 single PCI-e X16 slot (at least one graphics slot is always occupied). Most entry-level enthusiast motherboards have 3, and personally, that should be the bare minimum. The other two are x4 slots. (once again, two is not enough)

Similarly 4 hard drive bays is not enough when entry level $60 motherboards and $40 cases come with 6 SATA ports/bays! Of course, one would want to invest in a RAID card (far better and more numerous options on PC, anyway), but then your slot is gone!

Finally, there's just more options for hardware upgrades on a PC - and this applies to well beyond PCI slot upgrades.

4. Ability to overclock - Overclocking makes a big difference. I currently use a Core i7 2600K mainly. While stock clocked at 3.4 GHz, I can take up to 4.9 GHz. This results in a huge boost in performance, and subsequently, a huge drop in render times.

5. Graphics cards support - The choice in terms of graphics cards is enormous, while only a handful (and dated) graphics cards are qualified for Macs. Yes, some of these graphics cards can be flashed, but this comes with dubious driver support. (as it is Mac OS X drivers aren't given enough attention by both NVIDIA and AMD, for the supported cards).

6. The PC Industry keeps moving ever so rapidly. I like to be in touch with the latest hardware. I can upgrade to a new product as soon as it released. Apple's ~15 month release cycle means there is always a waiting period. No one wants to buy a HD 5770 (2 years old!) when a HD 6870 has been out for 9 months. And the month after the new Mac Pros are out AMD will release HD 7870. These are major upgrades which can significantly increase productivity. Perhaps the GPUs are not the best of examples. How about the LGA1567 platform? There's simply no upgrade path as that Mac Pro motherboard just supports a single socket. You can't just upgrade to a new platform/motherboard. You have to wait.

7. Price. One can build a similarly performing machine for 1/3rd the price. This may not matter to many out here, but this is the clincher for a lot of us.

I know there are workarounds and solutions for some of these issues, but really, there's an easier alternative. I have left out extensive upgrades, which are also much easier on an open PC.

Finally, this is just a personal view, and I am sure many of these benefits will not be applicable to many REDUsers.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

@Subhadip - Thanks very much for such a clear and thorough response. It's comforting to know that I am personally not missing anything that is key to my needs but equally good to understand what others are talking about when they express their preference for the "flexibility" of the PC platform. Again, thanks for the info. :thumbup1:

 

[M Most]

@Subhadip - Thanks very much for such a clear and thorough response. It's comforting to know that I am personally not missing anything that is key to my needs but equally good to understand what others are talking about when they express their preference for the "flexibility" of the PC platform. Again, thanks for the info. :thumbup1:

One's needs are often based on the software one is running. All the water cooling and new processors in the world won't help you if you happen to be using software that doesn't require them and doesn't take advantage of them. If you're doing basic editing, you don't need overclocked i7's. On the other hand, if you're doing some rather heavyweight CGI work, things like more GPU's and cards that support very large texture maps might be just the ticket. And it's not inappropriate, provided you've got the knowledge and experience to get under the hood and troubleshoot when those Frankensteined boxes require it.

For many of us working with "standard" applications, such as Avid Media Composer, DaVinci Resolve, After Effects, Photoshop and the like, Macs are very nice because they represent a pretty good value (today, not necessarily true a few years ago), they use reliable components, they're "customizable enough," they support many applications we happen to use, and they are running a Unix based OS, which allows for scripting, a lot of useful command line utilities a lot of us are used to from both the Unix and Linux world, and access to a lot of open source software a lot of us happen to use, many of the things you already mentioned. If you leave the religion out of the conversation - as we, thankfully, seem to be doing here - platform choices are all about needs. They're not always about having the largest beast on the block. They're about what happens to be important to **you**.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Yeah,

I just want to echo that stability is more important than outright performance. One of the reasons why the Mac has become so popular is that it is not as configurable, and therefore doesn't experience the hard to pin down conflicts that can happen w/ PC's.

This is why you'll see a lot of HP workstations in post houses running Windows. They are over priced vis a vis a home build PC, but they are rock solid and well tested by the software providers.

 

[Gary Paul Walker]

I promise not to shout! :001_smile: Actually, I'd like to ask a sincere question...

A couple times in the last week I have had PC fans comment that the Mac just isn't suitable for serious computer users because you can't tweak and customize it enough to meet your needs. Now, I really don't know anything about the guts of a PC but exactly what does this mean? With a Mac Pro, you can install your own RAM, install and configure your own hard drives easily, and you can install hardware cards into the 4 available slots. On the software side, you have access to the UNIX core through Terminal, you can easily write custom "macros" with Automator or dig deeper with AppleScript. And, if you are hard core, my understanding is that working with the Developer Toolkit is not all that hard for the truly dedicated computer geeks out there. So, the question I have is, what is it about a PC that takes it beyond these capabilities and makes it "more suitable" for the hardcore computer user? Honestly, I am not arguing anything here - I am genuinely curious.

P.S. I know a lot of people build their own PCs but these aren't really the guys I am talking about. That seems to be a rather small minority, I would think. And, I guess there are those that build "Hackintoshes" as well, anyway.

Ha! Well Terry, I have yet to see you shout in any post.

Here's my main thinking, behind why I'm making the switch...
If you bought adobe cs1 - theres an upgrade path to cs5.5 (over time)
If you bought FCS - theres an upgrade path to FCS 3
If you bought...well, you see where I'm going with this.

I bought a 2009 Mac Pro, 8 gb RAM (DDR2) and two 2.66 Dual-Core processors. As upgradable as software seems to be, (what better way to encourage brand loyalty), I'm very limited by my options for the Mac because I can't upgrated to quad-core processors and DDR3 RAM. A PC would give me the ability to uprgrade progressivly without buying a new system every 3 years or so.

Don't get me wrong - the approach is going to be the one that works for me. Everyone is going to have their opinion, a lot of people live and die by the Developer Toolkit and automation, but for my uses I don't find any of the useful. Maybe one day I will and I might want to make a switch back, or use both PC and Mac concurrently. Right now, I want the ability to keep up to date with the latest processors and card and not be locked in on one machine that (post Scarlet-purchase) I can ill-afford to completely replace the moment the Intelbods release a new processor that they've had under their desk for a year or so.


To be honest, it doesn't matter what approach we all take, but rather the end result. I doubt anyone will spot the difference betwixt a FCS & Premier Pro project on the screen. People should take the tech and workflow seriously, and tailor it to their circumstances and needs, rather than trying to keep up with a certain wave of opinion. I dislike FCPX, but I'll bet someone will edit a kick-ass film on it, and none of us will be watching it complaining that the Magnetic Timeline and 'new approach to editing' ruined an otherwise-solid third act.

Of course, I'm open to a change of mind.

 

[Gary Paul Walker]

I am not a programmer or a developer, merely a post-production guy who wants the best of his hardware. Most of my reasons are largely to do with the flexibility and options available. The ability to choose exactly the right components, the right balance, rid of bottlenecks for MY usage. Not Apple's "typical" usage. Here are some things that count as a bonus:

1. Ability to choose your platform. We know Intel is the performance leader, but AMD has a history of offering some incredible value for money across the board. AMD's strategy of offering more cores per dollar means it falls behind in less multi-threaded apps, but this is a big deal for video post-production, which is "embarrassangly multi-threaded". AMD's next-gen FX 8-core CPUs are round the corner, (16-core or 32-core dual-socket Opterons releasing this month) and they just seem tailormade for multi-threaded rendering tasks. I will take a long hard look at AMD's FX CPUs and perhaps even the Opterons. And of course, the AMD platform will always be a lot cheaper - the performance/$ will always be attractive relative to Intel. What if someone needs absolute top-of-the-line performance? A 40-core Intel platform or a 64-core AMD platform? No, the Mac Pros are just very restrictive.

Even if I don't want AMD, I need the ability to choose a Core i7 CPU! Yes, Xeon has its advantages, but none are applicable to my work, which revolves around Adobe CS5. In fact, the Core i7 990X, which costs $999 is extremely competitive with the top Xeon CPU(s) available in the Mac Pro. (As demonstrated here: http://ppbm5.com/Benchmark5.html). (A $1200 option upgrade over and above the $5k starting price!)

Beyond the CPU, there's a huge array of motherboards available - both for desktop and server CPUs. Each has their own features that may appeal to different users. With the Mac Pro, you have no choice.

2. AMD Eyefinity - Here's something that is interesting to me, the ability to drive 4 or more monitors. Haven't found a solution for Mac Pro.

3. Expansion. There's just not enough room for expansion. It may be enough for most, but certainly not for everyone. What we have is just 1 single PCI-e X16 slot (at least one graphics slot is always occupied). Most entry-level enthusiast motherboards have 3, and personally, that should be the bare minimum. The other two are x4 slots. (once again, two is not enough)

Similarly 4 hard drive bays is not enough when entry level $60 motherboards and $40 cases come with 6 SATA ports/bays! Of course, one would want to invest in a RAID card (far better and more numerous options on PC, anyway), but then your slot is gone!

Finally, there's just more options for hardware upgrades on a PC - and this applies to well beyond PCI slot upgrades.

4. Ability to overclock - Overclocking makes a big difference. I currently use a Core i7 2600K mainly. While stock clocked at 3.4 GHz, I can take up to 4.9 GHz. This results in a huge boost in performance, and subsequently, a huge drop in render times.

5. Graphics cards support - The choice in terms of graphics cards is enormous, while only a handful (and dated) graphics cards are qualified for Macs. Yes, some of these graphics cards can be flashed, but this comes with dubious driver support. (as it is Mac OS X drivers aren't given enough attention by both NVIDIA and AMD, for the supported cards).

6. The PC Industry keeps moving ever so rapidly. I like to be in touch with the latest hardware. I can upgrade to a new product as soon as it released. Apple's ~15 month release cycle means there is always a waiting period. No one wants to buy a HD 5770 (2 years old!) when a HD 6870 has been out for 9 months. And the month after the new Mac Pros are out AMD will release HD 7870. These are major upgrades which can significantly increase productivity. Perhaps the GPUs are not the best of examples. How about the LGA1567 platform? There's simply no upgrade path as that Mac Pro motherboard just supports a single socket. You can't just upgrade to a new platform/motherboard. You have to wait.

7. Price. One can build a similarly performing machine for 1/3rd the price. This may not matter to many out here, but this is the clincher for a lot of us.

I know there are workarounds and solutions for some of these issues, but really, there's an easier alternative. I have left out extensive upgrades, which are also much easier on an open PC.

Finally, this is just a personal view, and I am sure many of these benefits will not be applicable to many REDUsers.

Ignore what I wrote...
What Sunhadip said!

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

but this is a big deal for video post-production, which is "embarrassangly multi-threaded".

I pretty much agree with all that Subhadip said, except this... There's also plenty of software, which is embarrassingly NOT multi-threaded.

AMD offers some compelling solutions. They don't hold up performance-wise to the top Intel offerings, as much as AMD and their loyal followers want to claim that they do, but they often provide very good performance for the money. In most real-world situations, especially render-farms and computational computing, it's not so much about the number of cores or the GHz, etc.. It's partially about the up-front purchase price and the rest is about the amount of compute power per watt of energy consumed. AMD's 8-core CPUs look promising and seem like they will be priced well. We shall see... Intel is already shipping 8 and 10 core Xeon CPUs. The 10-core chips are incredible. And so is their price tag!

 

[Subhadip Sen]

I pretty much agree with all that Subhadip said, except this... There's also plenty of software, which is embarrassingly NOT multi-threaded.

AMD offers some compelling solutions. They don't hold up performance-wise to the top Intel offerings, as much as AMD and their loyal followers want to claim that they do, but they often provide very good performance for the money. In most real-world situations, especially render-farms and computational computing, it's not so much about the number of cores or the GHz, etc.. It's partially about the up-front purchase price and the rest is about the amount of compute power per watt of energy consumed. AMD's 8-core CPUs look promising and seem like they will be priced well. We shall see... Intel is already shipping 8 and 10 core Xeon CPUs. The 10-core chips are incredible. And so is their price tag!

Of course, plenty of software struggle to scale beyond 2 threads, but here are some which tend to utilize plenty of threads - Adobe CS5, Vegas Pro 10, X264, Cinema 4D, etc. I am just saying that (well developed) software dealing with images tend to be more multi-threaded than other intensive apps like, for example, gaming. Certainly most of the software I use for post-production are heavily multi-threaded.

There's no doubt that AMD hasn't held the performance crown since 2006, and the gap has continued to widen. There's a substantial gap between 6-core i7s and Phenom II X6. Neither do I expect 8-core FX to eclipse Sandy Bridge E. But I am certain it will offer great value for money, especially for multi-threaded applications. Same applies to the server side of things. 16-core Bulldozer Opterons will be no slouch and will cost a fraction that of 10-core Xeons.