Dragon + Mac Pro

[Brian Merlen]

the real problem i see is apple could very well not update these things as often as say, their very popular laptops and tablets... the gpu makers may not get down with the form factor to offer third party card options. the technology will march on and what looks like a great machine today will one day be a circa 2008 clunker equivalent, the way she goes.

that all being said i think hackentosh is a good option cuz u get osx and the slots. its a win win. you dont need the trash can form factor, so dont get it. mediaworkstations.net and http://eurocom.com/

both got some cool options, plus jeff showed me boxxx and some other brand in another thread i started. i think any hackentosh that can get you more GPUs, internal rocket x, stuff like that will be better then a mac pro, potentially if one buys the right stuff. but my point is 2 years from now the right stuff will cost a lot less. you can get the hackentosh bare bones now and throw the rocket x or several titans in later. plus bigger and bigger vram models for PC are going to just keep coming out.


there are a lot of unknowns with apples release dates and if other gpus will/if ever be available. there is not going to be a way to add a rocket x. these are things one must consider, and by all means abandoning oxs for me is not an option. so i gotta consider hacking it, or getting a rMBP or new Mac pro trash can, but i just don't really like the lack of slots. i might need those things potentially. so it makes slot options seems more attractive to me always versus apples current offerings. i gotta say i am super bummed there is no slot, no way to run external GPUs, its just a bag of hurt. and i love apple, i want this functionality so we can have options. its a shame they can't just make the mini bigger and add 2 pci slots even that wont be in the way of one another and could hold 2 double wide 16x pci 3 slots. thats all a lot of people want i think lol!

 

[Neil Cronin]

This is a question that doesn't have an answer that works for everybody in reality because of one major flaw.

Basic answer.

Is the new Mac Pro faster than previous Mac Pros? Yep.

Is it going to transcode faster or on par than a system equipped with a Red Rocket-X? Nope.


However, I'll play devil's advocate. Depending on your specific workflow and needs it might be all you desire or want. It also might not.

There is one other variable that a lot of people are either unaware of or are ignoring -- We are at an inflection point for software's reliance on CPUs compared to GPUs. Today my mac can show me 5K Epic footage at 24pfs realtime without breaking a sweat, whereas the same exact machine 2 years ago had to work hard to edit 1080p, spinning up fans and chugging along.

The explosion of mobile over the last 5 years has thrown an astounding amount of computer science at running stuff on GPUs, and generally making stuff much more efficient due to power constraints of phones.

All of these advances are almost directly portable to editing/coloring machines. Apple seems to be ahead of the game here, but there's no reason lots of gaming-derived graphics breakthroughs can't happen on windows or android, further pushing everyone along into a world where the CPU is less and less important.

I wouldn't underestimate where dual D700s might be in 6-12 months due to OS/library/framework updates over that time.

-n

 

[Phil Holland]

While I applaud the shear design aesthetic of the new Mac Pro and it will indeed be that sexy little trashcan that might impress certain types of individuals that you're using the latest and greatest I'm somewhat not fond of the stray away from standard form factor and accessories. This is more or less my criticism for a lot of the Mac mindset.

Out of the box good performance and looks pretty darn nice.

However, straying away from standards in this particular case with things like USB 3.1 and Sata 3.2 mother boards and devices on the somewhat soon-ish horizon is only going to repeat the history of the previous Mac Pro. You can't easily upgrade or swap out components. It's just as simple as that. New processors are also part of this equation.

I have to use Macs, PCs, and Linux boxes in my world. But the reality is I'm a PC guy. Because everything I do has to work with everything and I don't want to wait years to make an upgrade that might be rather significant to my workflow.

While it is impressive that the optimized new FCP can handle 4K 8:1 REDCODE Raw the way it does, it always concerns me when I see people thinking about "jumping ship" from systems and NLEs based off of one web video without testing it out themselves.

I feel I need to be clear here. If your all "Mac'd up" I'm not saying jump ship. Go for this Mac Pro because it's the best you're going to be able to get and that's that if you need more performance. However, it's good to be aware of a systems limitations as well as it's strengths. Personally I don't care if my editing and color suite looks like a rotting yak carcass with worms sticking out of it as long as it does what it need to do

 

[Bob Gundu]

Some good points Phil. But as has been demonstrated by Apple, it's not just about hardware but more about how the software and hardware can play together. Naturally Apple has the upper hand with FCPX integrating with their hardware. I'm OK with being 80 percent as fast as the others guys as long as it all works well together. Apple has been that for me.I just edited 6K footage on my laptop without transcoding.... yikes!

 

[Phil Holland]

Bingo Bob. Love the OS even.

 

[Neil Cronin]

You can't easily upgrade or swap out components. It's just as simple as that. New processors are also part of this equation.

I think you are missing my point -- With my same exact 2-year-old machine, today I am reviewing medium-sized FCP projects with 100% Epic 5K footage, and they are playing back realtime. The only thing that even attempted to do that two years ago was Cine-X, and I got maybe 4fps out of it if I was lucky (and willing to endure the sonic blast from the fans , and that was with none of the features of an NLE. I didn't have to swap out any components to get this. I have no plans to buy the new trashcan, because I have no immediate need for it.

True enough that new processors are important, my point was they are becoming drastically less important.

While it is impressive that the optimized new FCP can handle 4K 8:1 REDCODE Raw the way it does, it always concerns me when I see people thinking about "jumping ship" from systems and NLEs based off of one web video without testing it out themselves.

I totally agree, but I expect similar improvements with Premiere et al over the same time frame. FCP doesn't use anything that is secret. It seems like Red is using similar techniques and getting similar results. I do think that Windows and the MS dev tools are behind Apple in this regard, but there is no technical reason they can't catch up. MS has plenty of areas where they are far far ahead of Apple. This isn't an MS vs Apple thing, this is a "what is the next 5 years of computer advancements" thing. Apple seems ahead, and is delivering that prowess to machines that are older than any camera I have.

I feel I need to be clear here. If your all "Mac'd up" I'm not saying jump ship. Go for this Mac Pro because it's the best you're going to be able to get and that's that if you need more performance. However, it's good to be aware of a systems limitations as well as it's strengths. Personally I don't care if my editing and color suite looks like a rotting yak carcass with worms sticking out of it as long as it does what it need to do

Aesthetics are a nice-to-have for sure, and totally besides the point for sure.

-n

 

[Johnny Friday]

Editing DRAGON 6k footage in FCPx 10.1 on mavericks with a 2009 MacPro; 32gb RAM and Nvidia 4000 card (not ideal gpu)....Playback in RCX is great by the way....in FCPx it's having some problems with stuttering.....(all before rendering in the timeline)---after a render i can playback just fine. But skimming the timeline and trying to do real edit work is a bit of a pain.....and slowing me down by 40% (by not having realtime playback). My RRcard is useless with Dragon footage, but if i go back to 4k or 5k footage with my RR card.....all is good. So, now upgrading my internal components for dual 6 core and 48GB 1333 ram......I'm going to wait and see how things play out with new MacPro....i like my PCIE slots and i think 60vs 40Gb speeds vs. TB2....but even with TB2 , my TB PCIE box is only 20Gb speed.

 

[Paul Harb]

All those years waiting for Apple to update their pro line of computers I would sit and think, "If only it were way smaller and couldnt be upgraded and made all my hardware investments obsolete"

Just like waiting for the 64bit version of FCP I kept thinking " if only they got rid of tracks, lost the source monitor, and dumbed everything down because after 10 years of mastering the software it was just too complicated." Its razor sharp clear engineers and the marketing dept who dont have to actually work with these products are making decisions.

Apple has reverted back ironically to the place Jobs himself admitted almost destroyed them...closed and proprietary. History will eventually repeat itself, it always does.

I still love OSX, so I see a hackintosh in my future.

 

[Richard Luke]

Looks like the CPU is removable

http://www.macrumors.com/2013/12/27/new-mac-pro-confirmed-to-have-removable-cpu/

 

[M Most]

You can build a PC with 2 x CPU's and your choice of nVidia cards, with PCIe connections for storage and the like. I'd say its safe to say as these Mac Pro's are only single CPU and no nVidia that a custom build PC would be faster and better.

You might, but I wouldn't. It's not going to be either faster or better running Final Cut because it can't. Same with Autodesk Smoke. It's also not going to be faster or better when scripting batch operations, performing file searches on large storage, or doing a number of other things that Windows simply doesn't do very well, unless you're talking about running Linux (but i don't think you are).

Like I said, "better" depends on a lot of things, including but not limited to what you're trying to do and what you plan to use in terms of software to do it. Any comparison of systems from Apple to those from just about anyone else must take this into account because things like CPU specs are only a part of a much bigger picture, and overall performance can vary greatly with different tasks.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

The only way to break new ground is to get off the beaten path. If you want to compete on a safe, evolutionary basis, you stick rigidly with standards. If you want to attempt to move to higher ground, revolutionize the way things are done, you do things differently and, yes, you risk failure. Time will tell.

 

[AndreasOberg]

I have been a PC guy forever (well since Amiga) and its always great to be able to upgrade. I always built my computers myself, had a dual CPU already 15 years ago. So upgradability is something I really appreciate.
However a few things I noticed are:
- If you buy state of the art equipment you usually don't need to upgrade in a very long time. More like 4 years. Yes new graphics card would be the exception.
- When you do need to upgrade you need to switch almost everything. You need new motherboard, new memories, new harddrives, new graphic cards and new power supply, probably a new case as well.
- It takes a LOT of time to get a PC up and running fully functional.

If you bear this in mind then its not so bad with the Mac Pro that it can't be upgraded. Many things can be connected to it with the thunderbolt. The biggest thing we miss is a very fast Rocket connection and being able to switch to a better GPU. The things I miss in the current Mac Pro are
- 2 CPU. I think I would rather have 2x8 core or maybe 2x12 cores. 4x8 would of course be even better but hard to get those mother boards.
- More memory. 64 will be ok, but I had planned to get much more. If you use 8GB rams the price is not so bad for 16 of them.
- Rocket possibly, however very costly
- Possibly more graphic cards, but 2 expensive ones is still very good.

So in summary I will miss some things but I think for 3 years I will be pretty fine with the Mac Pro that we have today. I will also appreciate the transportability because it basically becomes a very portable computer for travel.
And yes, with PCs. Dear Lord. I'm good at putting them together but I only had ONE that worked flawlessly. Almost every other had had some kind of problem, that is something I really like with Mac. And yes FCPX is for me a major step forward in editing compared to anything I have seen before.

/Andreas

 

[Frank Glencairn]

Doesn't look good: http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

 

[Manfred Lopez]

...Dear Lord. I'm good at putting them together but I only had ONE that worked flawlessly. Almost every other had had some kind of problem, that is something I really like with Mac. And yes FCPX is for me a major step forward in editing compared to anything I have seen before.

/Andreas

I completely agree. What I look forward to the most is the combination of Final Cut and the new Mac Pro. I think Apple has done something incredible here and we're just beginning to see the payoff of a long roadmap embarked upon a few years ago when they decided to start from scratch with both the software and hardware. This integration is only going to get better. With PC's I could¡t care less if I get better performance on a couple of aspects of the equation if everything else is not tightly integrated and stable or if it does't inspire creativity.

 

[Manfred Lopez]

Doesn't look good: http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

Actually doesn't look that bad in the multi-core tests for both 32 and 64 bits.

 

[Frank Glencairn]

Not much reason for someone with a fullsize mid2010 or mid2012 MacPro to buy a new 6 core MacPro IMHO

Reminds me on the disaster Apple was facing, when they tried to market a micro workstation with central vertical thermal core, the last time (Apple Cube).
Folks looked at it and found no real reason to buy it over a fullsize MacPro

 

[paul schefz]

Doesn't look good: http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

what doesn't look good? multi core numbers look pretty good to me...and there are no numbers for the 8 core in the 64bit multi core tests....
and honestly i care less and less about specs and numbers...between resolve, fcpx and rcx i see huge differences in how for example red raw just plays back...so these days software plays a huge role...if a machine (or some software) is optimized for certain software (or machine) it makes a huge difference....

and AMEN to everything andreas said above....i don't even have a problem buying a new system every 2 or 3 years, especially when it takes about an hour to completely replicate the old one and start working right away...as it does now with OSX time machine....and the old system sells for 30-40% less then what i paid for it...and it just works...well... for the time i have it....

i guess it turns out the cpu is replaceable in the new mac pro? who cares... would i really put a 2016 cpu in a 2014 box?

 

[paul schefz]

Not much reason for someone with a fullsize mid2010 or mid2012 MacPro to buy a new 6 core MacPro IMHO

Reminds me on the disaster Apple was facing, when they tried to market a micro workstation with central vertical thermal core, the last time (Apple Cube).
Folks looked at it and found no real reason to buy it over a fullsize MacPro

i think TB alone would be a pretty good reason....

whenever i hear disaster and apple i remember the reaction (mostly ballmer's actually) to the first iphone....

 

[Neil Cronin]

Not much reason for someone with a fullsize mid2010 or mid2012 MacPro to buy a new 6 core MacPro IMHO

Reminds me on the disaster Apple was facing, when they tried to market a micro workstation with central vertical thermal core, the last time (Apple Cube).
Folks looked at it and found no real reason to buy it over a fullsize MacPro

It entirely depends on what you are going to be doing with it. Final Cut Pro and eventually Premiere and Resolve will be way way faster on a stock trashcan compared to a 2010/12 mac pro. Things like 3D games, Photoshop or XCode or Excel, probably not so much.

The raw CPU clock speeds are not much faster on the new mac pro compared to 2010/12. What you are paying for is much faster IO, much faster GPU(s), multiple UHD outputs, energy efficiency, and a smaller box. If that stuff is not valuable to you, keep your 2010/12. That's what I'm doing.

The future of software is in the GPU, not the CPU, so I am happy to see this somewhat-lateral CPU step, even if there is not much immediate value in it for most people as of today. In a year, OSX, NLEs, and a lot more will be way faster on this hardware than they are today, simply by getting on the train of modern software libraries and techniques. The trashcan will most certainly become more valuable and useful to more people over the next year because of software updates alone.

-n

 

[Frank Glencairn]

It entirely depends on what you are going to be doing with it. Final Cut Pro and eventually Premiere and Resolve will be way way faster on a stock trashcan compared to a 2010/12 mac pro.

ProRes will be pretty fluid as long as you don't go with full resolution (r3d),
Premiere not so much, the AMD support isn't there for now, but that may change with future updates.
When it comes to rendering out files from Premiere, a fullsize 2010 MacPro is still 25% faster than the new $8000 MacPro