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 :)

New Apple iMAC! Discuss...

I have that setup on a windows laptop but the cpu is 3.1.
In premiere I get RT in 1/4.
 
Kemalettin Sert said:
damn..its so bad!!
Do you think 256GB is enough? because im gonna do copy/paste on Red's SSDs on this macbook and all i need iz space..
And why faster Cpu? does it really matters on R3D. Playback
16GB RAM+Good GPU+2.3hz i7 and SSD sounds like no need Redrocket..
Click to expand...
let me put it this way....if you use the internal ssd for anything other then just system and running apps ( and scratch), get it as big as possible....these things are built like iPads....all about the battery and thickness....nothing is user replaceable.....
since you are spending quite a bit on this (decked out) might as well do the faster CPU....I believe it makes it a little less then 10% faster....anything helps.....
bottleneck is still gpu.....and i get much better performance with 32 ram on my iMac with fcpx then with 16....anything helps.....
 
You can't upgrade the retina models. So max out the specs... If you don't, you'll regret it. You can save a few $$ by going to the 2.6GHz CPU instead of the 2.7GHz. and that's OK, but you definitely want the 512GB SSD for sure, 768GB is best though. Even then, it's still too small to offload and work with R3D stuff right on the system unless you're just editing small commercials on set or something.

16GB RAM is *REQUIRED* and I find that it's not enough sometimes. They really need a 32GB configuration option here!!!

Other than that, the thing is a very nice system, I love mine. The fully integrated approach has its advantages, I don't mind that aspect of it at all, just wish they offered it with more RAM.

If you want something that is better (in some ways), a bit more powerful and configurable with an equivalently good screen (better in some ways), look at the HP EliteBook. The DreamColor screens are not as high resolution, but the color and configurability is awesome.

Why are we talking about this in the iMac thread?

Why u no like OSX? It's a very robust and mature UNIX system.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
You can't upgrade the retina models. So max out the specs... If you don't, you'll regret it. You can save a few $$ by going to the 2.6GHz CPU instead of the 2.7GHz. and that's OK, but you definitely want the 512GB SSD for sure, 768GB is best though. Even then, it's still too small to offload and work with R3D stuff right on the system unless you're just editing small commercials on set or something.

16GB RAM is *REQUIRED* and I find that it's not enough sometimes. They really need a 32GB configuration option here!!!

Other than that, the thing is a very nice system, I love mine. The fully integrated approach has its advantages, I don't mind that aspect of it at all, just wish they offered it with more RAM.

If you want something that is better (in some ways), a bit more powerful and configurable with an equivalently good screen (better in some ways), look at the HP EliteBook. The DreamColor screens are not as high resolution, but the color and configurability is awesome.

Why are we talking about this in the iMac thread?

Why u no like OSX? It's a very robust and mature UNIX system.
Click to expand...


Jeff, on the subject of RAM (albeit a more general question), are there pursasive arguments to be made for opting for 64gbs over 32gbs? I've always thought in 95% of circumstances 32gbs was the 'sweet spot' for usual operations - but as I'm doing my research more and more people seem to say that maxing out a motherboard with the full 64gbs is the way to go...
 
Gary Paul Walker said:
Jeff, on the subject of RAM (albeit a more general question), are there pursasive arguments to be made for opting for 64gbs over 32gbs? I've always thought in 95% of circumstances 32gbs was the 'sweet spot' for usual operations - but as I'm doing my research more and more people seem to say that maxing out a motherboard with the full 64gbs is the way to go...
Click to expand...

Depends on what you're doing and the other system specifications. On a 12-core Mac Pro, 64GB would be the minimum I would use for serious R3D or any VFX or motion graphics workflow. Anything that distributes 64bit processing to all CPU cores, I want nothing less than 4GB per core, plus the ability to compensate for OS overhead and perhaps more than an app or two running at the same time. When it comes to R3D buffering and playback in RC-X, Nuke, AfterEffects, etc.., sure the Rocket handles 5K in near real-time, but it's klunky and somewhat slower than that if you need to scrub back and forth within a clip. In my 16-core Xeon boxes, like the HP Z820, I have at least 128GB. Actually 128GB in my SuperMicro based system and my Z820 has 256GB. 256GB is indeed a bit on the overkill side, but 128GB wasn't enough!!!

For a quad-core notebook, 16GB is too little, IMO. It's serviceable, but for R3D workflow it's very limiting at times when the system is connected to properly capable external storage and I try to really use it. I have a late 2011 27" iMac, which is a quad-core Sandy Bridge i7 CPU and there's 32GB in that system. It seems a good amount for the abilities of that system. My 15" retina MBP is a bit over 15% more powerful than that iMac... Why should it be crippled with half as much RAM. I can indeed max out the 16GB on that system without really trying at all.


Martin Weiss said:
Though you won't be saving money yet.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you could do that. I guess. But at best you can only update the SSD storage and nothing else, void your AppleCare warranty and all that.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Depends on what you're doing and the other system specifications. On a 12-core Mac Pro, 64GB would be the minimum I would use for serious R3D or any VFX or motion graphics workflow. Anything that distributes 64bit processing to all CPU cores, I want nothing less than 4GB per core, plus the ability to compensate for OS overhead and perhaps more than an app or two running at the same time. When it comes to R3D buffering and playback in RC-X, Nuke, AfterEffects, etc.., sure the Rocket handles 5K in near real-time, but it's klunky and somewhat slower than that if you need to scrub back and forth within a clip. In my 16-core Xeon boxes, like the HP Z820, I have at least 128GB. Actually 128GB in my SuperMicro based system and my Z820 has 256GB. 256GB is indeed a bit on the overkill side, but 128GB wasn't enough!!!

For a quad-core notebook, 16GB is too little, IMO. It's serviceable, but for R3D workflow it's very limiting at times when the system is connected to properly capable external storage and I try to really use it. I have a late 2011 27" iMac, which is a quad-core Sandy Bridge i7 CPU and there's 32GB in that system. It seems a good amount for the abilities of that system. My 15" retina MBP is a bit over 15% more powerful than that iMac... Why should it be crippled with half as much RAM. I can indeed max out the 16GB on that system without really trying at all.

**snip**
Click to expand...

Ah I totally understand... currently the system I'm looking at getting (after many headaches, readings and sifting through some of your own awesome posts) is:
i7 3930k Overclocked to a max of 4.6ghz (and an internal liquid cooling system)
32gbs Quad-DDR3 1600mhz RAM
GTX690
SSDs

Maybe I should look at going up to 64gbs though...
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
For a quad-core notebook, 16GB is too little, IMO. It's serviceable, but for R3D workflow it's very limiting at times when the system is connected to properly capable external storage and I try to really use it. I have a late 2011 27" iMac, which is a quad-core Sandy Bridge i7 CPU and there's 32GB in that system. It seems a good amount for the abilities of that system. My 15" retina MBP is a bit over 15% more powerful than that iMac... Why should it be crippled with half as much RAM. I can indeed max out the 16GB on that system without really trying at all.





Yeah, you could do that. I guess. But at best you can only update the SSD storage and nothing else, void your AppleCare warranty and all that.
Click to expand...

i agree...i too have the 2011 imac maxed out and with 16gb ram (the official apple max) things weren't so great (fcpx for example really needed more) put in 32gb and things are fine....i don't understand why the mbps are limited to 16....does not make sense to me.....

as for the replaceable ssd..barefeats did a test http://www.barefeats.com/mbp12fs.html ....i am all for maxing out your gear but that does not seem worth it to me....

i am still hoping for a "pismo" style mbp....swappable bays with batteries, SSDs,....that design was great....i don't need a 1/2 inch laptop to work on....
 
That system will run fine with 32GB. But you will remove all doubt going to 64GB. ;) I would recommend more than 32GB if you can. Just be sure that if you decide to buy 32 now and another 32 later, which can be a good plan, that your motherboard allows you to run with half the slots filled and not compromise the quad channel performance. Then again, RAM is relatively cheap.

Depending on your intended applications, you may do better with an OC'd and water-cooled GTX680, or two. The 690 is pretty good, don't get me wrong, but most apps out there don't support multiple GPUs and you'll get better performance from a single screaming fast GPU as opposed to two at 5% under stock speed glued to the same card.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
That system will run fine with 32GB. But you will remove all doubt going to 64GB. ;) I would recommend more than 32GB if you can. Just be sure that if you decide to buy 32 now and another 32 later, which can be a good plan, that your motherboard allows you to run with half the slots filled and not compromise the quad channel performance. Then again, RAM is relatively cheap.

Depending on your intended applications, you may do better with an OC'd and water-cooled GTX680, or two. The 690 is pretty good, don't get me wrong, but most apps out there don't support multiple GPUs and you'll get better performance from a single screaming fast GPU as opposed to two at 5% under stock speed glued to the same card.
Click to expand...


Ah Jeff- So many words of wisdom (seriously, I appreciate the generosity of your time)
I think I'll be going with the 32gb now 32gb later of RAM, apparently the board I'm looking at will support it. The 690 is a pretty hefty investment, and I was 'dazzled' by the amount of CUDA cores, but on second thoughts the 680 may be a better fit for me.

Do you think in the future there will be more apps that support dual cards? Seems that it would've been a given, particularly as multiple gpus are so used so much in SIL / crossfire etc..
 
I had hopes in getting into a 21" but I found a brand new sealed 2012 Unibody 2.6Ghz for $1700 cash on craigslist.

I'm still not sold on the rMBP, probably sell the Unibody when the new MacPro drops.

I really wish they where more direct as to when the 21 would ship "November" is too broad of a term.
 
Yeah Will I just read that article this morning.

Super drag for those who have their heart set on an iMac.

I'm glad I went with a Unibody MBP nothing is worst than waiting for gear and then it gets pushed and delayed.

I have a feeling that the new Mac Pro is gonna take a long minute. Good thing I have something decent to hold me through.

They where too worried on having 5 million iPad mini for launch and they totally forgot about their desktops? Seems like they're giving Foxconn a hell of a time with these rediculiously impossible designs.
 
all i want is a new cheese grater damn it!
 
paul schefz said:
i agree...i too have the 2011 imac maxed out and with 16gb ram (the official apple max) things weren't so great (fcpx for example really needed more) put in 32gb and things are fine....i don't understand why the mbps are limited to 16....does not make sense to me.....

as for the replaceable ssd..barefeats did a test http://www.barefeats.com/mbp12fs.html ....i am all for maxing out your gear but that does not seem worth it to me....

i am still hoping for a "pismo" style mbp....swappable bays with batteries, SSDs,....that design was great....i don't need a 1/2 inch laptop to work on....
Click to expand...

thanks for the link Paul !!! i might pull the trigger on rMBP 15' next month..
 
I would suggest anyone considering the iMac to think about the Mac Mini. For one, the price. You can get the mini and a 27 inch display for cheaper I think. But the real value here is the fact that in a years time when the new flavor comes out, you get new computer for 700$ and that nice 27 inch screen still looks great. The draw back of the mini is the graphics card. Hopefully the mini will sort itself out in the next gen, and Thunderbolt 2.0 will allow for PCE 3.0 and 20gb/sec so we can run a quadro pro. For me, the Mac mini is an easier route to a next gen Mac Pro when they come out. Avid runs fine on the mini. Redcine preforms like it does on my rMBP.

I should get a few years out of my thunderbolt display, or be able to sell it for decent dollar when the rentina displays come out.
 
The mini is awesome if you can live with the Intel 4000 GPU. And Premiere CS6 actually runs OK on it. Combine with a fast RAID and a few other things, the mini is a nice little workhorse -- it's as fast as an 8-core 2.6GHz 2009 Mac Pro and actually faster than the current (2010+) Mac Pro for certain operations, primarily memory-intensive tasks that don't require a ton of CPU threads or intense CPU computations.

One advantage to the iMac, I may have mentioned it above, is that it can be used as a Thunderbolt display. So it's like having a nice 27" display for that new Mac Pro when it arrives and your display also happens to have a decent computer built in too. Just another angle from which to look at this. Either way, I don't think one can go wrong with either the mini or the iMac. They are both great systems in their own right. IMO, the mini has the advantage at the moment because we can actually buy it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top