Apple new Mac Pro computers

Vitaliy_Kiselev

It is not topic about Hackintosh

bheath

Thanks all. I'm a PC user and work with avid. I have owned a few Imacs, including the first barbie looking one, which I learned to hate - but not too long, because it overheated and cratered. "Faster than salt on a slug" - love that!

Anyway, I'm about to commence cutting a huge docu feature, with every format known to man and about a squillion hours of material. The bosses are urging me towards getting one of these - and they look pretty fun.

But I'd rather spend 7k on a blazing dual xeon pc.

Does anyone think I'll have tech problems communicating with the other cutter's macs? I have macdirive (or something like that) and it seems that avid chokes when I try to use a mac formatted drive on my pc.

I do like usb 3 too, because you can get cables and cheap pdrives at walmart:)

To be clear, I'm considering this cool little mac. The colour matches my lensless eyeglass frames:)

RRRR

@bheath

There will be problems in any case. :) Take care with HD formatting. Use exFAT for drives that will be swapped (in-between systems) and native formatting for your working drive.

I love to work from my WD thunderbolt duo..

By the way: it may be a good idea to set up a protocol of communication anyway. Will you be able to share a server? Will you move disks physically? Will you convert footage / file formats? Is there an absolute need for matching systems? (why would that be?) Let your (collective) desired working situation dictate what to do / choose.

bheath

@RRRR - Thanks! This is exactly what I was looking for. I'm going to do a few tests with a new drive and see how everything communicates. I can see the samll mac being quiet and cool - as in not heating up the room too much.

RRRR

@bheath

No problem! In the end, a good workflow and protocols (rules) for communication will save you a lot more time than the fastest computer.. (even if you have to convert 4/6k files to a useable size) so It´s best to start from how you want to set up the work.

A colleague that does VFX work for some of the biggest Hollywood productions has a 4-5 year old macbook pro that he uses for everything..

bheath

@RRRR - exactly! My pc notebook workstation is 3-4 years old and I can still do most everything if I use dnhd36 as my roughcut. Thanks twice!

Aria

I think people look at computers like the MacPro line in the wrong way. Since when has any company's top of the line workstation computer been cheap? It's not the market niche they're aiming at. Rather than bashing the MacPro for being the high end item that it's always been, people should just use what they can afford and what works best for them. I'm also a long time Mac owner and have built tons of PC's as well. When i've had the money I tended to get a MacPro and when i've been more cost conscious i've built PC's for cheaper, but in reality if looking at the most recent pre built workstations they all cost a lot for the top of the line models no matter if they're PC or Mac. Thank goodness we can get by with less than the top of the line for most amateur work.

I like what they've done with the new MacPro, tho I don't like the way it looks, but who cares? If my money is right i'd have no problem going with the new MacPro, assuming it works as expected. I do plan on working with RAW and 4K down the line so it's gonna cost either way. We've got to see what the new models actually end up looking like from the entry level model to the top. I love the smaller size of the new MacPro. I also like the connectivity as well. It seems like a perfect match for anyone looking at a BMCC 4K and Resolve 10.

kellar42

Base price is going to be $2,999 for a quadcore, $3,999 for six cores. Can't tell through the store yet what a maxed out 12 core with 64GB of Ram and a 1TB flash drive will run.

DrDave

The record holders for video work are almost always dual cpu designs. Not single cpu, dual. So ppl will buy a vastly overpriced kit that is substantially slower. Always amazing. Costs more and yet runs slower. If you want 12 cores, just buy the 6x2 HT chip for $550 and pop it in your mainboard and sail away. With the money you save you can buy a new video camera or a set of primes. If you want real performance get the dual board (which is also "R2", mysteriously enough, of course no one would copy the name) EVGA Classified SR-2.

Another way to look at it is that the computer will be substantially slower than kit which has been available for well over a year at a 300 percent markup. It will also be advertised as being "faster".

kellar42

DrDave, you're free to buy whatever you want. This is the new MacPro thread. I'm excited about a maxed out one running FCPX.

DrDave

My comment is about the the new MacPro, specifically, that in order for it to be "Pro" for video work it should be a dual cpu design, or have one of the newer 12x2=24 Xeons (see below) just like previous version of the "Pro" model were reasonably well-designed 8 core machines, that even though expensive reflected current technology. At the time, they were not the fastest, but they were decent. If the machine is slow, not only in absolute terms but in in speed/price ratio, ppl should be able to read that before they buy it.

Here is some of the latest specs and release date http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/22/mac-pro-2013-launch-date/

I liked the 8 core Mac Pros. Mac can make good designs for video. If you don't want it for video, then even the older machines will be fast enough for photoshop, internet browsing and so on. If you do want it for video work, a six-core ht chip will underperform in a 4K multitrack environment, and will be be problematic even in a four to six cam setup with effects loaded in. I have four core i7s, six core i7s and dual core xeons, and there is a clear winner here in terms of architecture.

Mac makes great computers, and I look forward to a dual-cpu design from them, or what is presumably a few months away, a new chip platform. see below.

The dark horse here is whether the rumored10 and 12 core chips from intel (not 6x2 ht but 12 core) will be made available to plug in to this computer. That would be a real money maker for Apple (and intel), so I think it is a strong possibility. You buy the expensive machine, then get an expensive upgrade. However, at this point it is speculation, and there is also the possibility that microcode changes would make buying a revised MB a better choice if you want to go the 12 core route. So there may be a good reason, if you are buying a Mac for video, to hold out for the latest chip. Or get a dual cpu system for higher performance at a lower cost. At least wait and see if the new chip is real, and if it indeed is a plug-in option or whether you will need a new computer to run it.

Such a machine would be presumably faster than the custom 24 thread boxes you can buy on eBay http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mac-Pro-DaVinci-RESOLVE-3-33GHZ-12-24-CORE-96GB-RAM-SSD-GTX-580-3GB-CARD-5k-4k-/151142551688?_trksid=p2054897.l4275

If you can buy it on eBay, it is at most 4-6 months away from appearing in a retail store.

Looking at the Xeon die, the three by five architecture to me implies a 15 core possibility as well: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7285/intel-xeon-e5-2600-v2-12-core-ivy-bridge-ep

A 15 core with hyperthreading for 30 virtual cores would be some serious "Pro", and 12x2 would be as well.

Most of the new Mac Pro kit is AMD based. Most of the Video pros use Nvidia. That may not matter with the new software, but a lot of us do not want a workstation based on AMD architecture.

As for your "buy whatever you want" comment, that's pretty much true for everyone, isn't it? So since it is true for everyone, make an informed decision.

kellar42

For some of us, Apple hardware and Apple software together simply provide the best overall editing experience. I want to use FCPX, which I consider the most forward thinking thing to happen to editing in years. I've used it on a hackintosh and don't care for the experience, no matter if on paper I'm getting better specs for less money.

So for me, it's exciting when Apple releases by far and away it's most powerful editing computer, ever, and I'd like to know the price for the 12 core 64GB model. I'll be sure to keep in mind that you don't feel it counts as 'pro' for video work.

Not trying to be a jerk or total Apple fanboy...it's just every-time a mac is announced, some talks about how underpowered it is in comparison to something you can build yourself. I think we understand that by now. The rub is if I choose the Mac anyways, I'm not making an 'informed decision' or being 'professional'.

DrDave

If you had read my post, you would have seen that I recommend holding out for for a 12x2 h/t or 15x2 h/t version. That's not what they are offering right now. A 12x2 Xeon costs $2500, it's easy enough to figure the difference when it becomes available.

Apple is figuring based on models that most people will be early adopters and get the lower spec machine for the higher price. They rely on uncritical assessments of the hardware. A savvy online community would result in better first generation products that are more competitive on basic tasks.

The fact is, most people do not need anything better than an i5 or an i7. 99 percent of the population needs nothing more. But video editors need something more.

As for being underpowered in relation to the competition, the current hexacore offering is decidedly that, and if people are, as you say, posting that the current Mac is underpowered , and it is in fact underpowered, well I suppose the only reason it could possibly be annoying is that it might be true. After all, if it weren't true, why would it be annoying?

My experience is that the vast majority of professional could care less what other people think.

Consider the i7 six core. Introduced around March, 2010, it is more than three years old in its basic configuration. Three years is an eternity in CPU land. Three years is recycle time.

But another fact is that if they offer a 12x2, it will be right on competitive edge. These processors are really a new design, offering some serious computer power for video editing. But that isn't what they are offering right now, but it also is what they probably, hopefully will offer. So I'm recommending not being an early adopter in this case, and holding out for something which is seriously faster.

What do you recommend?

kellar42

I read your post. The tech specs state there will be a 12 core version at launch, they just don't have the store options up yet, though I sense it's not the 12x2 option you are talking about. They usually only refresh product lines like this once a year, so I won't be 'holding out' that long, I'll be early adopting with the best they offer.

And if you'd read my post you'd see I wasn't debating your underpowered (for the price) label, just saying that some people want to run Mac only software on Mac hardware, and this is the way to do it. Nothing annoying about that. Only annoying that I can't be allowed to buy my overpriced, underpowered machine and love every minute of using it without being endlessly told how underpowered it is, and how it's not actually professional. Thanks, heard ya the first time, and folks like you last year, and the year before that, etc.

So for FCPX users wanting to maximise their editing experience starting in December, I recommend getting a souped up Mac Pro and look forward to cutting on one. I don't begrudge @DrDave his opinions at all, but I look forward to talking with some people on the Mac Pro topic who wish to discuss what is actually being offered with regards to Apple's newest Mac Pro.

DrDave

This Mac Pro costs $3500 and has 24 cores (12x2). http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=871879&Q=&is=REG&A=details

I'm curious whether you would buy or recommend the new one which has 12 cores (6x2) over the old one with 24 cores for less money.

kellar42

The new one.

http://www.bbalser.com/images/Mac_Pro_Performance.png

(Baseline for this is an old 12 core)

jleo

Three Mac Pros just escaped and attacked London! Exterminate!

Nice video on assembly though:

DrDave

That's an interesting chart. I will have to assume they pulled a few strings to get those numbers.

According to your interpretation of the chart, some of those filters will run 4-6 times faster on a 24 core machine than a twelve core machine, when one would expect them to run faster on the 24 core machine than the twelve core machine. You could of course overclock your hexacore to be competitive, but it would only pull even. That's assuming that the "baseline" machine is 24 cores, which is unlikely.

More likely (although the chart doesn't say, it simply compares unidentified systems) is that the "baseline" is a quad core machine with no h/t enabled. They could then claim that the filters were running four times faster on an 8 core system WITH h/t enabled. The filters of course will not run four times faster, since that is the reality of hyperthreading, but they could claim that.

They could also be fudging the graphics cards by using different ones in the reference platforms. Some of those filters could be using GPU cycles instead of CPU cycles.

Suppose this is the case, and the software has a version of the Mercury engine ala Mac, that leverages the GPU? There has been quite a bit of speculation that there is a code rewrite in the works for AMD chips in the GPUs for the new Mac Pro. Well, in that case you would get the same performance increase by upgrading the graphics cards. Much cheaper, and then you would have thousands left over.

I will bet one Tostada that 4-6 times is a total fantasy, unless they are fudging the data by using an underpowered GPU machine as the baseline. I don't expect to collect, but I will dine anyways.

However, dining aside, the 12 core HT version, which is not yet for sale on Macs, will outperform the 12 core one that is available, probably by about 30 percent, if properly optimized. This is because the single chip architecture is slightly better at allocating tasks than the dual chip architecture, plus there is a slightly higher clock speed in the die shrink, as well as other optimizations. In terms of your graph, you could then change the 4-6 to 0.3.

Of course, I could be totally wrong. Apple may have a real surprise in store and I will await the real benchmarks. There won't be very many benchmarks, if you search for Mac Pro Benchmarks they are scarce, but someone will post them eventually.

Since the chip for the twelve core xeon (24 virtual core) version (available now for servers) starts at $2500, I'm guessing at launch that the 12/24 core system--which is what you want for video editing--will go for $5600. A CUDA card for the mercury engine would run $100-$200, but then you are stuck with Adobe.

You could also for about the same price buy two of the $2500 chips and have 48 cores. Yup, forty-eight cores, in a dual CPU rig. That would be a Mac I would buy tomorrow, if I could afford it.

kellar42

I didn't do the interpreting. That comes from the FCP.co forums and a few of those guys have been muttering about Apple working closely with post-houses much the same way the Blackmagic guys mentioned how well Resolve works with the new Pro.

I think part of the reason I don't build a PC (other than not having FCPX) or use Hackintoshes is I stay up on too much tech to try and stay up on the computing side as well. It's a pretty safe bet that the best new Mac will run my Mac software better than anything else in a turnkey package. It will certainly be faster than an old Mac Pro...my iMac is faster than my producer's $9,000 2009 Mac Pro, especially running FCPX. Everything you are saying may well be true, or mean something really important that would save me money, but it's not really going to chance anything for me, nor is it specifically relevant to the discussion of the new Mac Pro.

andrevanberlo

there might be good news, there is speak of the GPU's being replaceable. http://www.macrumors.com/2013/10/25/graphics-cards-in-new-mac-pro-may-be-user-replaceable/

this is also interesting, an insight in cores vs GHz: http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20131022_2-brief-notes-on-new-2013MacPro.html

Starting in 2014 I have a lot of audio and video work to edit and I wanna do streaming of live lessons using 3 cameras(GH3) and wirecast + 3 intensity pro's. Telestream website says I need an 8 core for that, I wonder if it could be done with a 6 core. I've been looking at building a hackintosh but I simply don't have the time to dive in and then hope everything will be fine. There are some pretty nice builds but the ones i'm looking at aint cheap either.

And which video cards to choose. D300, 500, or 700. It would be nice if someone could say for whom these D700;s are meant. Someone who works solely with 4k video, heavy grading? Compositing? One thing to me is fairly certain, Apple does build FCPX around that workstation so I'm sure it will be utilizing every bit of RAM, core, GPU...