Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Video

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old May 10, 2011, 06:12 PM   #1
macaddict23
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: MacVille, USA
Mac Pro or iMac for Final Cut Pro X?

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)?
__________________
Think Different.
macaddict23 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2011, 06:15 PM   #2
jnash
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Michigan
Send a message via AIM to jnash
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaddict23 View Post
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.
__________________
Macbook Pro 13" 2.26GHz C2D /320 GIG/ 4GBDDR3
Macbook Pro 15" 2.2GHZ i7 /500 GIG (WD BLK) / 8GBDDR3
iPad2 16 GIG
www.PaysoProductions.com
jnash is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2011, 06:37 PM   #3
aramosc
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Also the resale value of mac pros vs. imacs is very large. you will be able to sell your mac pro in a few years for pretty good money and the imac will be worth around 1000. That being said before I switched to a Mac Pro I had an iMac 24" that used and loved for 2 years. The imacs are great computers and are a pleasure to work on. and with the addition of thunderbolt it makes it a much more tempting purchase.
aramosc is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 02:35 PM   #4
Soura2112
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
A lot depends

IMO it's how much editing will you be doing, such as size of the projects and if you will be working on many jobs at the same time. I only say this due to hard drive space. I was in a similar situation recently. I needed to upgrade my G5 and looked at all options. What sold me was cores and mainly hard drive bays, plus I really liked my G5 over an IMac we have, though an IMac is a great machine don't get me wrong. I keep a lot of info on my hard drives so I need the bays and internal drives are cheaper and faster, i just trust internal drives over external in life span (just in my experience, I'm sure others have different views). Though for a iMac it certainly takes up less room and looks very sleek.
Also we really don't know everything about FCX yet, as long as your at 64bit then your good, which you are with both machines. Though I recall hearing in the FCX demo the cores in a Mac Pro will be used well, correct me if I'm wrong cause I'm not 100% sure.
Again I really think it comes to hard drive space. My 1Tb first drive is down to 200GB because I have tons of pictures, music, movies, etc, the other bays run my large FC projects.
Though I can only really talk about Mac Pros and my 2008 Mac Book pro for I only have edited on those 2 machines, I never installed FC on the iMac in our house, which is why I advice on Hard Drive space (well I edited on the old iMacs in 2005 at school, except those were very small hard drive days), Everything about the new iMac looks amazing, especially the model your speaking of.
I love my Mac Pro, I have the newest model and if I were you I may want to wait a bit from the rumors going around, such as size of the machine to Thunderbolt, if that's a big deal for you. Last year I was getting fed up waiting for a new Mac Pro and almost just went with an i7 iMac, then at last the new Mac Pro came out and I got the 8 core. I also prefer 2 DVD bays.
IMO it's all about hard drive space, since both machines your looking at are very fast. I feel your frustration in making the choice, it can be a hard choice especially at those prices.
Feel free to ask questions, and I will try to help....While others may have much better advice, people here helped me a lot in pretty much the same problem.
Soura2112 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2011, 03:43 PM   #5
zblaxberg
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
FCPX hasn't been released yet so no one really knows the spec requirements just yet
zblaxberg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2011, 10:18 AM   #6
elisedriver
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
^ this is probably the most sensible reply I've seen on this board.


The tech specs are unknown - with some people saying FCPX is more like FC Express, some people saying it far exceeds FCP 7. Until the facts are out, nobody knows.

Of course, which future proofs the most is a common question :

Basic entry level or top end specification?

What's your driver - cash flow ? Productivity ? What's your timeline for replacement / ROI ? Is money really not the object ? Is bragging rights over having something the underlying reason ?

What do you use currently - and regardless of which system you purchase, would you be happy still using that product until FCPX has been out a while and all the bugs and issues are ironed out ?
__________________
EliseDriver
iPhone 4 : 32Gb Black || Macbook Unibody 2.4Ghz / 4Gb || MacMini 2Ghz
dpollard.co.uk || Vimeo HD Video
elisedriver is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2011, 10:45 AM   #7
nealgillis
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2011
In defense of the iMac

I've been thinking about this a lot too, and while we have no idea what the requirements will be for FCPX, I'm confident the iMac will be a great machine for running it.

Aside from the obvious multi-processor speed benefits offered by the Mac Pros, one of the reasons editors gravitated towards them has always been their expandability. The addition of Thunderbolt ports to the new iMacs almost makes this a moot point. Sonnet, Matrox, LaCie, and other pro-grade hardware makers are adopting Thunderbolt, and have some pretty nice things on the way.

There's a good thread over on CreativeCOW about this very debate: http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/8/1131070

I'm doing a lot of video work on a 17" MBP right now, and had always planned on upgrading to a Mac Pro this summer. More and more, I'm thinking that a pimped-out iMac may actually be the better way to go.

Last edited by nealgillis; May 12, 2011 at 11:01 AM.
nealgillis is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2011, 10:57 AM   #8
andrei.barbuta
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Romania
Updated!

What I have heard regarding to your questions is this:
1. FCP X will be able to run from a Mac mini to a Mac Pro the difference will be made by the sources that you use. For example if you edit a 720p or even 1080p on a Mac mini (i'm taking into account a 2011 update with Sandy Bridge) I think it will be ok. But if you have ambitions for 2K or even 4K then obviously the hardware will need to meet those demands.
2. I read in a iMac 2011 review (Engadget i think) of the 27" high-end stock model that they threw at it 2K and it performed pretty decent enough, but obviously he who NEEDS to edit 2K and beyond will buy Mac Pro first of all because he affords too, and will probably go for the 12-core version too.

My conclusion is that the iMac will do just fine from a consumer to semi-professional editor up to and including 1080p clips and on occasion that you will need to edit 2K and beyond material then you'll probably wiggle through. But when you reach that stage, you'll probably have the money to buy a Mac Pro anyway.

The resale value of the iMac is pretty good. Who knows maybe you'll hire an assistant editor if your business works out, and he'll be able to work on your "old" iMac without any problem in the next 2 years.

Just my thoughts.

Update and correction, it was 4K not 2K so basically WOW:
This is from the Engadget review:
"In fact about the only the only thing that really caused a stutter was trying to edit a 4K video clip in REDCINE -- it was still workable, but we had to view it at half-res to get the preview render looking smooth. Hardly a deal-breaker."
...you can read the whole thing here: http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/09/a...g-2011-review/

Last edited by andrei.barbuta; May 12, 2011 at 11:07 AM. Reason: Update and correction
andrei.barbuta is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2011, 12:39 PM   #9
LethalWolfe
macrumors Demi-God
 
LethalWolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles
As a couple of other people mentioned, ThunderBolt closes a lot of the gaps between the iMac and the MacPro. Sure the MacPro will be faster, but that doesn't mean the iMac won't be fast enough for your needs.


Lethal
__________________
Looking For Lenny - documentary about comedian Lenny Bruce's timeless impact on stand-up comedy & Free Speech.
Netflix, iTunes, Amazon
LethalWolfe is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2011, 03:04 PM   #10
Soura2112
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Not till june

Yes the best answer so far is we really don't know what the specs for FCX will be, and I can't wait to hear more, all I know is from the video and blog. Though I have been waiting so long I will probally buy it day 1.... Well I like to research apps so maybe day 3, lol.

Also it depends on what you throw at it. I was in the middle area, it's a serious hobby and a side business. Of course everything I use with my Mac Pro is not just FC, so I guess that also depends your purchase.

Basically the same from my last post, I love expandability, that simple. Though I wish they would have had thunderbolt out for 2010 Mac Pros. it's not huge for me but the option is nice.

I know this doesn't help much, just being in your shoes not long ago I want to help like others did for me.
Soura2112 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2011, 03:21 PM   #11
Feynman
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
I know I am going to be purchasing one of the new iMac 27" machines to be running Final Cut Pro X.

A quad core, 3.4 GHz i7 with 8 GBs of memory, 2 TB drive with a 256 GB SSD, will be a pretty sweet editing station.

Until our needs grow, this machine will be more than enough horsepower
Feynman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2011, 03:39 PM   #12
TigerT
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2011
Re: iMac having laptop internals

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnash View Post
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.
TigerT is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2011, 04:03 PM   #13
Feynman
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerT View Post
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.
Feynman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2011, 07:09 PM   #14
sl1200mk2
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feynman View Post
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.
Yes, it's specifically a mobile graphics solution, albeit a higher end one targeted at laptop gaming machines. It's still a powerful chip, but about half the raw capability of the current generation (single chip) high end desktop cards. That said, it's more than powerful enough for "most" users needs outside of hardcore gamers, intensive 3D rendering, etc.
__________________
15" 2.4Ghz MacBook Pro 4GB RAM; 32GB iPhone 4; 16GB iPad
sl1200mk2 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2011, 09:00 PM   #15
sth
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The old world
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnash View Post
Its a desktop with laptop internals so your better off getting an Macbook Pro and adding a 27" display...
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.

Anyway, I totally agree that the Mac Pro is still the best choice for anyone who does video production for a living.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Feynman View Post
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.
It's the fastest mobile graphics chip AMD currently makes, mainly targeted at "desktop replacement laptops".
Performance-wise it's about as fast as some of the upper-mid-range desktop graphics cards, so it's actually quite powerful.
__________________
Survived "Waiting for Arrandale" ^^

Last edited by sth; May 12, 2011 at 09:07 PM.
sth is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2011, 09:18 PM   #16
Celtic Chick
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2011
Final Cut Pro X looks amazing...can't wait for that.
Celtic Chick is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 13, 2011, 12:26 AM   #17
macnews
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Idaho
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnash View Post
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.
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. I edit on both iMacs, MacBook Pros and Mac Pros. All can do the job and yes, a Mac Pro can do somethings faster. But for a lot of what I need and based on the new specs of the iMacs, they appear to be able to handle FCP (old version) rather well. When the new version of Final Cut comes out, while we don't know the official specs I would be VERY surprised if it didn't run just as well on the newly released iMacs. That is my opinion.

Regarding hard drive "upgradability" - if you are a true video editor then forget buying a computer because you can upgrade your hard drive. This is now more true than ever with Thunderbolt. With video you burn through hard drive storage and the last thing you want is changing out hard drives all the time OR having a drive fail and you lose a project. I just looked up and a base Mac Pro runs $2400 but I would want it to have at least 4GB of ram and 2TB HD. That puts me around $2800 (not buying RAM from Apple) and no monitor. An iMac, upgraded to core i7 2.8Ghz comes stock with 4GB of RAM, upgrade to 2TB and I'm at $1850. Buy an additional monitor for $170, then add in a Drobo FS with 4TB of hard drive space (2 drives) for $850 puts me at $2870.

So lets review:

1. Mac Pro with some basic RAM and HD upgrades - $2800

2. 21" iMac with core i7 upgrade, same HD upgrade as Mac Pro, standard ram, additional 21" monitor and a Drobo FS with 4TB additional storage and I'm at $2870

I'll take option #2. I did leave off the $299 price of Final Cut X since that is the same for both.
macnews is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 13, 2011, 07:38 AM   #18
zblaxberg
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
I edit in Final Cut Pro 7 on a quad core 27" iMac. 1080p HD video is not an issue. In all honesty the only thing anyone should be saying right now is that the Final Cut Pro X program will be utilizing multiple cores so the more processing cores you have, the better off you will be but I don't understand why anyone can pass judgement on this question because Final Cut Pro X is just an incomplete program right now. Apple has not finished it and there is no way anyone can choose the best specs for it. Just know that it will be taking advantage of multiple cores and I'm sure it'll be utilizing any extra ram so that it can render video in the background. Mac Pros are nice, I have one at work but for days when I edit from home my iMac does the job. Point being- spend a lot more money on a mac pro (don't forget you have to buy a monitor and speakers or) or buy an iMac with a built in monitor and fairly decent quality speakers for a lower price. Don't base it off of Final Cut Pro X. There are no specs released for it yet. Buy knowing that you will want it to last you the next few years. These computers have been able to edit video for years now it's just down to which one can do it faster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic Chick View Post
Final Cut Pro X looks amazing...can't wait for that.
Was this post really necessary? The OP asked a question looking for an answer.
zblaxberg is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 13, 2011, 10:24 AM   #19
mBox
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Future Proof

You also have to ask yourself where you will be in a year or two.
MacPro is always an obvious choice if you have to consider tech such as eSATA, SAS, graphics card upgrades, FC, etc...
Our oldest MacPro 1,1 is still working with Avid and Protools.
Our oldest Macs are G5s and their doing fine as print/media duplication workstations.
I personally would get an iMac if Thunderbolt peripherals were out no later than summer. But my only concern is attaching another 27inch to the iMac due to the graphics card offerings. For FCS/FCX not a concern, but I also deal with After Effects and Maya.
For offline and field we use a 2010 MBP. Runs Avid MC 5.5 flawless considering we use Avids DNxHD220 as base format.
mBox is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 13, 2011, 10:40 AM   #20
handsome pete
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by macnews View Post
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.
First off, I want to echo what others have mentioned by saying that the original question is virtually impossible to give a qualified answer at this point since so little is known about FCPX.

Having said that, it really comes down to personal preference and the scope of video work you will be doing.

An iMac might suit you fine, but I cannot fathom using one for the work I do. The connectivity and expandability alone won't allow it, despite what Thunderbolt brings to the table.

As for FCPX, I think I'll probably be an early adopter seeing the price and I don't do as much freelancing anymore. But for my full time gig I imagine I'm going to be on FCP6/7 for a while to come.
handsome pete is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2011, 01:27 PM   #21
FreshKosose
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
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....
FreshKosose is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2011, 03:16 AM   #22
arjen92
macrumors 65816
 
arjen92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Below sea level
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreshKosose View Post
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....
I agree, Final Cut Pro doesn't need that much power. You guys are all talking about 3D etc, but as far as I know (yes, I didn't read the entire thread, so I'm sorry if I'm giving a stupid answer) he only asks about Final Cut X. Even though we don't know the specs yet I assume it will run just as fast as Final Cut Pro on my 13.3" macbook pro.

So the only problem with buying an iMac would be the hard drives. I edit in prores, which is not that intensive on the processor, but takes up a lot of hard drive space. So maybe you wanna go for a cheaper iMac but a huge thunderbolt external hard drive (preferably a RAID one).
__________________
i7, 16GB RAM, 4TB RAID, GTX660 | Macbook Pro 2010
arjen92 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2011, 07:19 PM   #23
Zwhaler
macrumors 603
 
Zwhaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaddict23 View Post
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)?
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.
Zwhaler is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2011, 07:36 PM   #24
mBox
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zwhaler View Post
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.
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.
Great for home or admin staff
mBox is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Video

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Professionals Successfully Push Mac Pro to Absurd Limits With 558-Day Video Timeline in Final Cut Pro MacRumors Mac Blog Discussion 113 May 27, 2014 01:59 AM
Apple Updates Final Cut Pro X with 2013 Mac Pro Compatibility, 4K Content MacRumors Mac Blog Discussion 106 Jan 1, 2014 07:50 PM
final cut pro X on and imac rdsii64 iMac 2 May 3, 2013 09:12 PM
iMac vs Mac Pro? For using after effects and final cut annasmithnz iMac 5 Mar 12, 2013 04:26 PM
Converting XML from Final Cut Pro 7 to Final Cut Pro X and visa versa MacintoshMan Digital Video 1 Oct 11, 2012 04:24 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:44 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC