Regarding the current line of Macs, which of the two is best for Final Cut Pro X? The cheapest Mac Pro with a 27" display ($3499) or a fully-tricked out iMac ($3649)?
Regarding the current line of Macs, which of the two is best for Final Cut Pro X? The cheapest Mac Pro with a 27" display ($3499) or a fully-tricked out iMac ($3649)?
an iMac is a nice computer but if your serious about video editing, its not even worth considering it for the job. Its a desktop with laptop internals so your better off getting an Macbook Pro and adding a 27" display... My next purchase will be a Mac Pro im not a proffesional videographer but after working on one ill never use an iMac for rendering/editing..let alone purchase one.
I think it's important that we dispel this continuing myth that iMacs have laptop internals. This may have been the case with the earlier iMacs, but since the iMacs Late 2009 time frame they run the same processor, chipset etc. as a PC desktop would. The only remaining parts that would be considered "Laptop parts" is the graphic card, DVD drive and memory. The only one of these that would effect performance would be graphic card. All else would not. (even though its laptop memory the speed is identical to desktop memory) And base off another about Engadget testing 4k files on a iMac that didn't even have the i7 core processor. Of course there will be workloads that the Mac Pro will excel at over the iMac. But with this current of iMacs as well as Macbook Pros, that gap has shrunk significantly. And with the professional video and audio vendors supporting thunderbolt in the future, there will be fewer reasons for the extra cost of a Mac Pro.
You mention that the graphics card is that of a laptop but what about the AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB GDDR5 chip? Is this still considered a laptop chip? Not that it matters to me personally, just wondering what your take is on this card.
Not really. As already mentioned, the only real laptop components the current iMacs use are the graphics cards, DVD-drives and the RAM modules (which are the same speed as normal ones, though). In the 27" model, you can get the fastest consumer CPU Intel currently makes and the machine can be upgraded to 16gigs of RAM for as little as $200.Its a desktop with laptop internals so your better off getting an Macbook Pro and adding a 27" display...
It's the fastest mobile graphics chip AMD currently makes, mainly targeted at "desktop replacement laptops".You mention that the graphics card is that of a laptop but what about the AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB GDDR5 chip? Is this still considered a laptop chip? Not that it matters to me personally, just wondering what your take is on this card.
an iMac is a nice computer but if your serious about video editing, its not even worth considering it for the job. Its a desktop with laptop internals so your better off getting an Macbook Pro and adding a 27" display... My next purchase will be a Mac Pro im not a proffesional videographer but after working on one ill never use an iMac for rendering/editing..let alone purchase one.
Final Cut Pro X looks amazing...can't wait for that.
jnash since you are not a professional videographer would you mind taking advice from some one is? Save your $$$ and buy a new iMac and then buy the new Final Cut.
Guys, I use FCP on location on my MacBook Air 2.13 core duo w/ 4GB - mostly for the built in SD reader because I shoot on my Nikon D7000. So I'm working with 1080P footage. It works fine. The render can be slow, but not much slower than my 2006 Mac Pro. Saying this, the iMac i7 would blow this out of the water. I too am looking to upgrade my Mac Pro to the new 8 core... but the iMac i7 looks so scrumptious....
Regarding the current line of Macs, which of the two is best for Final Cut Pro X? The cheapest Mac Pro with a 27" display ($3499) or a fully-tricked out iMac ($3649)?
In the long run the iMac is not going to last as long as a MacPro specially a recent one. You cant upgrade what you want with the iMac. Were still using the G5 cheese graters at work along with a dozen MPs. One single iMac for browsing since the video card cant handle what it used to be for. If your looking at serious video editing, dont waste your time on the iMac.If the question is whether the top iMac is better than the bottom Mac Pro then I would probably answer yes the iMac will be better just because it is a great machine. The Mac Pro would be better if you maxed it out but that is too expensive so the bottom line is I would research benchmarks and pull the trigger (gut instinct tells me the iMac will be better 3.4Ghz). That's coming from a 2x2.93 12 core user btw.