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 :)

Dragon + Mac Pro

They say it supports 3x 4K displays at once. As for monitoring, they also support BMD and AJA 4K solutions via Thunderbolt.
 
vincent kardasik said:
With the new Mac Pro, can you monitor in 4K out of the box?
I mean with a Mac Pro, its HDMI ports and a 4K TV, can you watch your footage out of Resolve or FCP X on your Ultra HD consumer TV?
Click to expand...

Yes, but only up to 30Hz as a consequence of the HDMI 1.4(I think it is) protocol. People have been hooking up the $500 Seiko(?) 4k UHD TV to it.

For higher refresh rates you have to use one of the 'Thunderbolt 2' ports. It has 6 of them.
 
AndreeMarkefors said:
Yes, but only up to 30Hz as a consequence of the HDMI 1.4(I think it is) protocol. People have been hooking up the $500 Seiko(?) 4k UHD TV to it.

For higher refresh rates you have to use one of the 'Thunderbolt 2' ports. It has 6 of them.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this info Andree.
 
I dont understand all the talk about external enclosures with the new Mac Pro?

Let me see. My Avid/Resolve system had a CUBIX, GTECH esPro 12TB, Avid Nitris and possibly a Digidesign IO box (merging systems).

I would trade that off any day for a system that can get rid of a few of the above.

And by the looks of it, the new specs will be doing just that :)

Its always been like this in the past?

Why is it any different now?

Do people forget or we just dont have enough to complain about?

Should we bring back Windows 2000?

LOL!
 
Phil Holland said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or like, me, you just can't stand the lower quality that Rocket delivers vs software decoding, however subtle.
 
Last edited:
Stock 2013 MacPro 3.5GHz 6-Core D500 vs. 2010 Mac Pro 12-Core 2.66GHz 24GB with a stock Nvidia GTX 780 3GB in both OS X 10.9.1 and 10.8.4.

Percentages shown represent the highest sustained CPU load for each test.

What to exspect:

RED R3D Playback
(1080/24p Project)

2013 Mac Pro (10.9.1)
4K RED (4096 x 2304)
Quarter Good: 24 fps @ 36%
Half Good: 22 fps @ 100%
Half Premium: 11fps @ 100%
Full Premium: 5 fps @ 100%

5K EPIC (5120 x 2560)
Quarter Good: 24 fps @45%
Half Good: 20 fps @ 100%
Half Premium: 8 fps @ 100%
Full Premium: 3 fps @ 100%

6K Dragon (6144 x 3160)
Quarter: 24 fps @ 56%
Half Good: 16 fps @ 100%
Half Premium: 5 fps @ 100%
Full Premium: 3 fps @ 100%

-----

2010 Mac Pro (10.9.1)
4K RED (4096 x 2304)
Quarter Good: 24 fps @ 25%
Half Good: 20 fps @ 50%
Half Premium: 14 fps @ 86%
Full Premium: 7 fps @ 80%

5K EPIC (5120 x 2560)
Quarter Good: 20 fps @ 29%
Half Good: 14 fps @ 62%
Half Premium: 10 fps @ 89%
Full Premium: 5 fps @ 79%

6K Dragon (6144 x 3160)
Quarter: 20 fps @ 30%
Half Good: 15 fps @ 71%
Half Premium: 8 fps @ 86%
Full Premium: 3 fps @ 73%

------

2010 Mac Pro (10.8.4)
4K (4096 x 2304)
Quarter Good: 24 fps @ 21%
Half Good: 24 fps @ 65%
Half Premium: 14 fps @ 89%
Full Premium: 7 fps @ 75%

5K EPIC (5120 x 2560)
Quarter Good: 24 fps @ 25%
Half Good: 22 fps @ 93%
Half Premium: 10 fps @ 88%
Full Premium: 5 fps @ 75%

6K Dragon (6144 x 3160)
Quarter: 24 fps @ 32%
Half Good: 20 fps @ 92%
Half Premium: 7 fps @ 84%
Full Premium: 3 fps @ 76%

http://www.liftgammagain.com/forum/index.php?threads/new-mac-pro-resolve-benchmarks.2256/
 
Last edited:
Frank Glencairn said:
Stock 2013 MacPro 3.5GHz 6-Core D500 vs. 2010 Mac Pro 12-Core 2.66GHz 24GB with a stock Nvidia GTX 780 3GB in both OS X 10.9.1 and 10.8.4.

Percentages shown represent the highest sustained CPU load for each test.

What to exspect:

RED R3D Playback
(1080/24p Project)

2013 Mac Pro (10.9.1)
4K RED (4096 x 2304)
Quarter Good: 24 fps @ 36%
Half Good: 22 fps @ 100%
Half Premium: 11fps @ 100%
Full Premium: 5 fps @ 100%

5K EPIC (5120 x 2560)
Quarter Good: 24 fps @45%
Half Good: 20 fps @ 100%
Half Premium: 8 fps @ 100%
Full Premium: 3 fps @ 100%

6K Dragon (6144 x 3160)
Quarter: 24 fps @ 56%
Half Good: 16 fps @ 100%
Half Premium: 5 fps @ 100%
Full Premium: 3 fps @ 100%

-----

2010 Mac Pro (10.9.1)
4K RED (4096 x 2304)
Quarter Good: 24 fps @ 25%
Half Good: 20 fps @ 50%
Half Premium: 14 fps @ 86%
Full Premium: 7 fps @ 80%

5K EPIC (5120 x 2560)
Quarter Good: 20 fps @ 29%
Half Good: 14 fps @ 62%
Half Premium: 10 fps @ 89%
Full Premium: 5 fps @ 79%

6K Dragon (6144 x 3160)
Quarter: 20 fps @ 30%
Half Good: 15 fps @ 71%
Half Premium: 8 fps @ 86%
Full Premium: 3 fps @ 73%

------

2010 Mac Pro (10.8.4)
4K (4096 x 2304)
Quarter Good: 24 fps @ 21%
Half Good: 24 fps @ 65%
Half Premium: 14 fps @ 89%
Full Premium: 7 fps @ 75%

5K EPIC (5120 x 2560)
Quarter Good: 24 fps @ 25%
Half Good: 22 fps @ 93%
Half Premium: 10 fps @ 88%
Full Premium: 5 fps @ 75%

6K Dragon (6144 x 3160)
Quarter: 24 fps @ 32%
Half Good: 20 fps @ 92%
Half Premium: 7 fps @ 84%
Full Premium: 3 fps @ 76%

http://www.liftgammagain.com/forum/index.php?threads/new-mac-pro-resolve-benchmarks.2256/
Click to expand...
I am not sure I can tell in which app he played the red raw files? resolve? There is a HUGE difference between rcx and resolve. These numbers look like resolve to me?
Also: this is the high end stock version with the 2 d500?
i have been keeping an eye on the "old Mac Pro" market....but every time i see another price drop, I remember: no TB and probably no chance of ever getting it.....
 
Why is everyone so hung up on Thunderbolt when its not much faster than USB3 and way,way slower than PCIe
 
roryhinds said:
Why is everyone so hung up on Thunderbolt when its not much faster than USB3 and way,way slower than PCIe
Click to expand...

It is - in theory - more than twice as fast as USB3. The thing that many people here and elsewhere tend to overlook is that the speed of any connection is governed by the actual storage device capabilities. If you're using a single drive - or even a two drive Raid 0 stripe set - the speed that storage is capable of delivering is considerably below the capabilities of either USB3 or Thunderbolt, so in that case the interconnect is not the limiting factor. If, however, you're dealing with a large storage subsystem - say, somewhere between 12 and 24 spindles - the extra bandwidth afforded by Thunderbolt (in theory faster than 10Gb Ethernet in a Thunderbolt 2 capable subsystem/connection) can and will deliver much better performance than USB3, which is effectively limited to 5Gb. The other advantage of Thunderbolt is that it supports daisychaining, something you can't get with USB3 (you can use a hub, though) and sometimes very useful for multiple simultaneous transfers.
 
Just popped some 6K files on Mac Pro 2012 12 core in Premiere (GTX 570) No Rocket.

Plays in 1/4 res like butter even with some simple effects and 1/4 res looks more than fine for editing. Will not be an issue (although some of our clients are still stuck with some pretty horrendous old gear, so they might have a problem)
 
M Most said:
It is - in theory - more than twice as fast as USB3. The thing that many people here and elsewhere tend to overlook is that the speed of any connection is governed by the actual storage device capabilities. If you're using a single drive - or even a two drive Raid 0 stripe set - the speed that storage is capable of delivering is considerably below the capabilities of either USB3 or Thunderbolt, so in that case the interconnect is not the limiting factor. If, however, you're dealing with a large storage subsystem - say, somewhere between 12 and 24 spindles - the extra bandwidth afforded by Thunderbolt (in theory faster than 10Gb Ethernet in a Thunderbolt 2 capable subsystem/connection) can and will deliver much better performance than USB3, which is effectively limited to 5Gb. The other advantage of Thunderbolt is that it supports daisychaining, something you can't get with USB3 (you can use a hub, though) and sometimes very useful for multiple simultaneous transfers.
Click to expand...

OK, but it's still not nearly fast enough to fully utilize something like a Rocket X. For that you need PCI.
 
roryhinds said:
Why is everyone so hung up on Thunderbolt when its not much faster than USB3 and way,way slower than PCIe
Click to expand...

Its not only the speed that makes thunderbolt useful but also:
- you can chain the devices. I have 3 8TB drives connected with one thunderbolt cable. Useful
- the thunderbolt cable is a bit better than USB physically so it sits more safe in the computer. Wish it was even more safe though.
- You can also send an image to a display with thunderbolt (haven't used that myself though).
- In Maverick it should be possible to do thunderbolt network. Useful for mega fast network if you sit closer to each other.

Personally I would pick thunderbolt before usb3 in all cases if I had the choice, its just better in every way (except price).

/Andreas
 
I'm on the same page with Mike about the common fallacy, promoted by vendors who certainly know better, that a fast interface somehow makes drives faster. The fastest 7200 RPM spinning drives I've seen in the general marketplace (2TB SATAIII Seagate Barracudas) top out around 200MB/s on test benches - I've yet to exceed sustained writes over 160MB/s on any single HDD in real world usage over eSATA, from any vendor. I have not used the Raptors due to cost and noise concerns, with SSDs getting cheaper I probably never will.

Speaking of which, I recently picked up a Samsung 840 Pro EVO 1TB SSD that can both read and write at over 500MB/s. Couldn't get over 270MB/s on the cheese grater's internal drive bays - evidently they are stuck in SATAII land. Couldn't get over 280MB/s over USB3. Did 550MB/s over TB1 no problem.

FWIW its easy to point at the things the nMP could be better at, especially when comparing it to bomber builds. On the flip side, the direction Apple is going - smaller, lighter, quieter, more energy efficient, internal flash storage, leveraging GPU resources, etc is compelling - at least to me.

Cheers - #19
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
I'm on the same page with Mike about the common fallacy, promoted by vendors who certainly know better, that a fast interface somehow makes drives faster. The fastest 7200 RPM spinning drives I've seen in the general marketplace (2TB SATAIII Seagate Barracudas) top out around 200MB/s on test benches - I've yet to exceed sustained writes over 160MB/s on any single HDD in real world usage over eSATA, from any vendor. I have not used the Raptors due to cost and noise concerns, with SSDs getting cheaper I probably never will.

Speaking of which, I recently picked up a Samsung 840 Pro EVO 1TB SSD that can both read and write at over 500MB/s. Couldn't get over 270MB/s on the cheese grater's internal drive bays - evidently they are stuck in SATAII land. Couldn't get over 280MB/s over USB3. Did 550MB/s over TB1 no problem.

FWIW its easy to point at the things the nMP could be better at, especially when comparing it to bomber builds. On the flip side, the direction Apple is going - smaller, lighter, quieter, more energy efficient, internal flash storage, leveraging GPU resources, etc is compelling - at least to me.

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

Internal flash storage is not exactly pro friendly. I would fill that drive to 100% in a half-day of Epic shooting, and less than a half day with Arri Raw. WHat do I care about lighter? The thing never leaves my studio - EVER.

Get a simple USB3 or ESata Raid card and you are all set to go with more than enough drive speed to handle just about any footages. It's not the drives that slow us down, it's everything else, and it seems that the trash can is matching a cheese garter for double the price. I could care less what my computer looks like - and I have never met a pro who bought computers based on aesthetics - that's kind of like buying a camera dolly based on paint color. As for the few dollars of electricity, I could care less about that either. Just give me performance and flexibility and huge, cheap, easy to change drives and the ability to use any PCI cards I want.
 
Robert Ruffo New said:
Internal flash storage is not exactly pro friendly. I would fill that drive to 100% in a half-day of Epic shooting, and less than a half day with Arri Raw. WHat do I care about lighter? The thing never leaves my studio - EVER.

Get a simple USB3 or ESata Raid card and you are all set to go with more than enough drive speed to handle just about any footages. It's not the drives that slow us down, it's everything else, and it seems that the trash can is matching a cheese garter for double the price.
Click to expand...

Clearly you've already made up your mind. That's fine. But I don't see any point in your apparent continuing efforts to convince everyone else here to see it the way you do. Because they don't, and they won't. And they have their reasons, just like you do. You're not going to buy one. Fine. We understand. Now, why not just let it go?
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
Speaking of which, I recently picked up a Samsung 840 Pro EVO 1TB SSD that can both read and write at over 500MB/s. Couldn't get over 270MB/s on the cheese grater's internal drive bays - evidently they are stuck in SATAII land. Couldn't get over 280MB/s over USB3. Did 550MB/s over TB1 no problem.

FWIW its easy to point at the things the nMP could be better at, especially when comparing it to bomber builds. On the flip side, the direction Apple is going - smaller, lighter, quieter, more energy efficient, internal flash storage, leveraging GPU resources, etc is compelling - at least to me.

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

This is very interesting. I wonder what internal data transfer speeds can be achieved on the nMP.
 
M Most said:
Clearly you've already made up your mind. That's fine. But I don't see any point in your apparent continuing efforts to convince everyone else here to see it the way you do. Because they don't, and they won't. And they have their reasons, just like you do. You're not going to buy one. Fine. We understand. Now, why not just let it go?
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I was just thinking: what can possibly be a reason for telling everyone what you DON'T like? If people stick to pushing what works for them instead, the sharing experience becomes so much better.

And honestly, when someone describes something as "clunky", that other people obviously can make fly, then they are only mirroring their own inability and/or lack of understanding.

This post contributes very little too. But since the slandering has gone on to some length, possibly misinforming many users who take any written word at face value, I'll just leave it as a "one post feedback".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top