Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Best New Mac Pro for RED workflow?

Terry VerHaar

Terry VerHaar

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
7,013
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Location
Marin County, CA
There are clearly some well-informed computer geeks (and I mean that in the nicest way!) in the RED crowd, so I am hoping to get some good advice. I am currently editing in FC Studio 2 on a G5 Mac tower and have been waiting for the new Mac Pros to upgrade both my machine and my FC Studio. I have an Intel MacBook Pro running Snow Leopard so I have already been fooling around with some R3D files.

The question is, now that the specs are known, which Mac Pro model gives me the most bang for the buck when dealing with REDcine-X and with R3Ds in Final Cut and Color? Are the many cores going to help much, if at all? Would I be better off buying the low end Mac Pro and putting the $2500 savings into a Rocket card?

I understand that processor speed is going to matter a bit but the real question is whether getting the increased number of cores is worth the incremental cost. I am not in a high volume situation and anything will be a huge improvement over the G5 but, is there a "sweet spot."

Thanks in advance for the help. :beer:
 
Never buy the top of the range Macs Terry, as you pay over the top for very little gain. In the current line-up I went with a Dual Quad 2.26 with 16GB RAM and haven't regretted it once. It definately gives most bang for the buck in the current line-up

I'd size up the new models and go for the equivalent to the current 2.26 - seems that this may be the dual 8 core although we'll have a much better idea once the pricing and options become available online.

Hope this helps!

Adam
 
Adam Jeal said:
Never buy the top of the range Macs Terry, as you pay over the top for very little gain.

...

Adam
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input, Adam. I have also avoided the top of the line in the past as I completely agree with you - it's never really worth it. My current G5 is a dual 2.0 model but the PPC chips were single cores so I haven't yet had to make a decision based on multi-cores. Trying to figure out if 4, 8 or 12 really makes a difference. In any case, I will probably stay away from the top of the line processor, however many cores I end up with.
 
Terry, if price is still an issue, you could also look at picking up one of the current machines 2nd hand. Sure the processors aren't as fast but, that aside, for Red work, they're still fine. There's certainly no quantum leap with the new machines. We recently bought five new machines and I've been dreading yesterdays announcement in case I was going to have to trade them in so quickly. No problem, I'm sticking with what we have.
 
Yep I would go for a kitted refurb or well spec'd 08/09 machine, save money and theres not a huge amount to be gained in the new updates for your money.
 
Thanks for the input but I think I haven't yet phrased my question well...

Price is always an issue but in this case, it is not about the absolute price. It's more about the price-value curve.

I guess what I am trying to ask is how, and how much, the multiple cores effect performance. Are 8 cores twice as "good" (fast?) as 4? Are 12 that much better/faster? And specifically in dealing with R3D files, can REDcine-X, FCP, OSX/SL actual put these cores to use today? (If not, is there an expectation that they are likely to within a year.)

Maybe a more fundamental question is "exactly what area of performance is enhanced by multiple cores." I understand what a faster chip will do and I can grasp what a larger cache or more RAM will do. But I am not clear that multiple cores help unless the software takes specific advantage of them. Or, am I missing the point altogether?

Sorry to be so thick. :w00t: And thanks for your patience.
 
there are several multi threaded solutions, but it really depends on what you're doing. Editing, unless 64 bit has a cap on the use of your cores so it's a mute point until 64 bit fcp comes out, unless you are going the adobe route. The biggest benefits are with 3d, and vfx work. In those case ram and cpu, you wanna get as much as you can get especially if you do a lot of that kind of work. So the real questions is, what do you want to do on this system? Simple tossing around with r3d's, and transcoding with rocket? Or do you have other things in mind, more or less? that's what you gotta ask yourself.
 
Tom.Wong said:
there are several multi threaded solutions, but it really depends on what you're doing. Editing, unless 64 bit has a cap on the use of your cores so it's a mute point until 64 bit fcp comes out, unless you are going the adobe route. The biggest benefits are with 3d, and vfx work. In those case ram and cpu, you wanna get as much as you can get especially if you do a lot of that kind of work. So the real questions is, what do you want to do on this system? Simple tossing around with r3d's, and transcoding with rocket? Or do you have other things in mind, more or less? that's what you gotta ask yourself.
Click to expand...

Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks!

So, no - nothing fancy. No heavy VFX, no 3D in my near future. Final Cut Pro editing (the 64 bit note is very helpful), mostly on short (30 min or less) pieces and some work in Color. Otherwise, I intend to get Scarlet when it's available and, thus, will want to take advantage of a reasonable speed in putting R3Ds through the various Mac workflows. I don't see myself getting a RED Rocket card initially as I think, for most projects, I can afford to wait for final renders and can monitor at less than full rez.

Seems like the old "split the difference" might be the way to go here. Eight cores will let me take better advantage of a 64-bit FCP if/when it arrives, while not overspending for a marginal speed bump. Maybe?

Again, thanks.

Terry
 
The biggest thing multiple cores will help you with is rendering, if you do your renders using a multi-core aware program, like Clipfinder. You also need to make sure you've got enough RAM to support that.

Personally, I'm dubious as to how much, if any, benefit there will be to more than, say, 4 cores if/when a 64-bit FCP comes out. I just can't see any task in the editing workflow needing that many processors. RAM, on the other hand, can make or break you. You'll get more benefits from a mid-range processor and a buttload of RAM than you will with a super-duper 12-core monster with only 4GB of RAM.

Splitting the difference is probably the best way to go, especially if you're willing to buy second-hand. There are going to be a LOT of octo-macs (8-cores) on the market in the next month as people get ready to trade up to the latest and greatest. You should be able to get one for a pretty good price, and your savings will allow you to load it up to the gills with RAM.
 
Ben Brainerd said:
The biggest thing multiple cores will help you with is rendering, if you do your renders using a multi-core aware program, like Clipfinder. You also need to make sure you've got enough RAM to support that.

Personally, I'm dubious as to how much, if any, benefit there will be to more than, say, 4 cores if/when a 64-bit FCP comes out. I just can't see any task in the editing workflow needing that many processors. RAM, on the other hand, can make or break you. You'll get more benefits from a mid-range processor and a buttload of RAM than you will with a super-duper 12-core monster with only 4GB of RAM.

Splitting the difference is probably the best way to go, especially if you're willing to buy second-hand. There are going to be a LOT of octo-macs (8-cores) on the market in the next month as people get ready to trade up to the latest and greatest. You should be able to get one for a pretty good price, and your savings will allow you to load it up to the gills with RAM.
Click to expand...

So you don't think the newer architecture of the new 8-cores will be of any significant value over the older ones? Old 8 core faster than new quad-core for these types of things? Not trying to be pesky here, but trying to understand whether the newer configs offer much. I waited several months for this release. It would be ironic, and a bit annoying, if it didn't yield any benefit! :ohmy:
 
I disagree with the basic outlook of these comments.

I don't think you should start by looking at the machine at all, but rather at your business.

What is your budget, your financing, and your replacement/upgrade cycle.

Based on your reported configuration (dual 2.0 G5) I'm going to guess that you have a 5 year plus upgrade cycle.

That being the case, I would in fact buy at or near the top of the line.

Case in point... I bought a dual G5 2.7 way back when. I am still using it, right now in fact, and getting return on investment. Over five years, the difference in cost is negligible compared to earnings.

Over the five years the improved performance of the 2.7 over the 2.0 has been worth hundreds of hours of my time. It has also saved me a few deadlines.

Its a narrow margin. The upcoming top of the line 12 core Mac Pro is advertised as 20-30% faster than the current 8 core 2.93. I think you can realistically expect a 10-15% gain from multiprocessor aware applications, or in heavy multitasking use.

I think the sweet spot for people like us who plan on hanging on to the machine is the dual 6 core 2.66. I'd follow the traditional Apple advice and buy it with minimum ram and HD options, then add those yourself after market. I would get the fastest available video card when it ships, and buy a third party RAID if you need it. I would buy top of the line... but I need to add in a lot of peripherals. I want a Red Rocket and a BlackMagic Decklink Studio 3D.

I do thin that the slightly newer system architecture is worthwhile.

For what it is worth I am following a new strategy- 3.5 computers.

The fastest MacBook Pro I can afford. Mostly studio work, but some limited personal use.

An iMac for all my non-studio work- email, web, iTunes whatever. (I'd buy a Mac Mini... but I will not invest in Core 2. I need to look at least at Core i5)

A very solid Mac Pro (probably the one I recommended above, if I were buying now... I'm not though, I'll come back to this.)

Finally an iPad. Yeah yeah, its a toy. But it does a lot of the web stuff I need to do, plus email. A good deal in all as a complement to my MacBook Pro for mobile work.

Why am I picking these computers: To keep my "real" studio computers free for work. That's right, I'm buying some cheap computers so I can comfortably idle my more powerful computers. I find that often I procrastinate on doing "real work" because I have other things going on- applications I should close to free up memory and processing power etc.

OK... why am I not shopping for a Mac Pro despite having such an antiquated machine? Because I expect another update on a realtively short time scale. I expect a Lightpeak equipped Mac Pro with the next generation of Xeon processors and potentially a new enclosure and more PCI slots before next summer. On my 5 year plus upgrade cycle that's worth waiting for.

So, I'll focus my purchasing on the other machines for the time being.

That said, I may have a need for one more machine- a DIT cart computer.

That will probably end up being a relatively cheap Windows 7 based machine with a RED Rocket and a good video card. (Maybe usable as a Mercury enabled Premiere CS5 computer in studio if needed.)
 
I think the cores will be very helpful for those who use compressor a lot for any type of transcoding. But beyond that I would say the 8-core is great if you don't have to do any serious rendering where you can actually take full advantage of the cores then don't go with the new one. 8 cores work great and when using a red rocket the difference between the 8 and 12 probably won't be that much
 
Quite frankly, for what you're doing, you only need the base model. For the price of a top-end Mac Pro, you can buy TWO - that's right, TWO - stock Mac Pros. And that's the dual quad machine, not the dual hex machine, which will almost definitely cost even more. As I see it, buying a Mac Pro with anything but the base processor is totally not worth it (sorry to disagree, Alexander).

For your needs, a quad core will be great. More cores will not help you much. They will speed long renders, but if you're only working on short projects like you say, and are willing to wait for renders (ie. overnight, or in a day or so), then four cores will be more than adequate.

Make sure to get at least twice as many gigs of RAM as you have processor cores, but don't buy it from Apple - buy it from a third party. Much cheaper - I have used and liked Other World Computing (no affiliation). Each core typically needs about 2 gigs of RAM. 8 gigs for a quad should be fine.

Also, don't buy hard drives from Apple.

I'm afraid that the new Mac Pro announcement is in the "ironic and annoying" category for you - the new models offer little to nothing for your needs. The stock video card is nicer, if that's any consolation...
 
I really think that the REDRocket is central to working with RED footage, it really makes a big difference to the way you work, to the speed, for me what ever configuration you end up going with, the Rocket is the single most important addition (this is if you are really going to be working a lot with RED), another would be a very fast disc array, I am very happy with MaxX Digital Evo 4K 16TB, look them up. A Rocket + fast disc array and a good MacPro (does not need to be top of the line, but have plenty of RAM) take you all the way....
 
There really is a big differnce between one and two processors when rendering. As mentioned, Compressor can be set up to take advantage of more cores.

BUT, if you are on a budget, I'd rather go for an older MacPro (the 8x2,8 was the best priced MacPro ever...) + a Rocket if you mainly work RED material. I'd definitelly have gone with a cheaper Pro and a Rocket card if buying new. The price will be about the same as for the top of the line machine...
 
Thanks to everyone who has contributed comments here. I got a lot from it and hope others did as well. I have owned probably about 30 Macs since 1984 and I certainly have developed an approach to purchasing them, but always value the input of others as the landscape shifts.

Like many people here, I never recommend buying RAM or upgrading hard drives from Apple, as they tend to overcharge for the "convenience." And, I always stay away from the very top end models as the incremental performance is never worth the premium price. For the last 10 years or so, I have used both a desktop and a laptop and I tend to upgrade them on an alternating basis so each gets about 3-4 years of use before being retired. It'll be interesting to see how an iPad fits into this. I haven't purchased one... yet. Might wait on that for the next iteration. For now, my iPhone is good enough. :laugh:

The 5 years since my last desktop upgrade is a a stretch since I kept waiting for this latest bump which took almost an extra year to come. Like many people here, I am also a bit disappointed that the revision wasn't a bit more substantial but I really can't go without an Intel processor in my desktop any longer. FWIW, I am probably going to go with a mid-range dual quad core machine and maybe I'll shorten my upgrade cycle a little if the next iteration of machines is more drastic.

Again, thanks for the help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top