If you want to do professional video editing I wouldn't seriously consider anything slower than the 2.8GHz i7 model iMac. With 8GB of RAM it should be pretty good actually. For editing with Final Cut Pro this is a good low budget machine. It is closer to the 3.4GHz 27" model in CPU performance than you would expect, 64bit Geekbench scores 10,731 for the 2.8 vs 12,524 for the 3.4 model. Complete list
here
Which do you think would be more ideal for professional level editing, like music videos, special effects editing, using action essentials and playing back without any glitches in the mercury playback:
Mac Pro with One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon Nehalem , 3GB (3x1GB) , ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB
OR
27' iMac with 3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7, 16GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM, AMD Radeon HD 6970M 1GB GDDR5
Thank you for helping in my selection. I'm not an expert in these matters, all I know is that I want to edit raw, native DSLR footage without any problem during playback in mercury playback in Adobe premiere while having applied Action Essentials or special effects. Which ever machine gives me the most flexible editing would do, if the iMAC can deliver that than it would be great saving the money from buying the Mac Pro.
----------
If you're going to use Premiere Pro CS5.5, want to playback DSLR footage natively, and are looking at the cheapest models of Mac, you're going to continue to be disappointed at the performance. A 13" MacBook is not the way to go.
Mac Mini, iMac or MacBook Pro are not the best choices. These models limit the amount of RAM, HD size and no option for CUDA processing on NVIDIA. A MacPro with an NVIDIA card (like the Quadro 4000) and plenty of RAM (like 16GB or more) is what you should be looking at.
While operating on underpowered Macs, you do have a couple of options.
- Transcode to a lighter weight codec, as others have mentioned.
- Right-click on the Program monitor and choose Playback Resolution>1/2
Which do you think would be more ideal for professional level editing, like music videos, special effects editing, using action essentials and playing back without any glitches in the mercury playback:
Mac Pro with One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon Nehalem , 3GB (3x1GB) , ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB
OR
27' iMac with 3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7, 16GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM, AMD Radeon HD 6970M 1GB GDDR5
Thank you for helping in my selection. I'm not an expert in these matters, all I know is that I want to edit raw, native DSLR footage without any problem during playback in mercury playback in Adobe premiere while having applied Action Essentials or special effects and be able to use Final Cut pro. Which ever machine gives me the most flexible editing would do, if the iMAC can deliver that than it would be great saving the money from buying the Mac Pro.
----------
I think a lot of people are a bit misinformed on how MPE in Premiere CS5/5.5 actually uses CUDA. Hardware-enabled MPE (CUDA mode) is mostly for rendering effects. But actual video transcoding with AVC and H.264 codecs is still entirely CPU based. There's actually a really good write-up on this
here. The article also explains how to hack non-Adobe supported CUDA cards to work with MPE.
But with that in mind, I would venture to say that hardware MPE would make very little real world difference in the OP's situation. CPU cores and RAM would make a much bigger difference than buying an $800 graphics card.
iMacs can go up to 16GB of RAM and the i7 models are actually quite fast, so I wouldn't totally count them out. The 2011 MBPs also have a 16GB RAM ceiling and available quad-core i7s. Yes, these are not Mac Pros and they will have limited expansion, but they're also a heck of a lot cheaper, and the OP might not even need a Mac Pro.
Which do you think would be more ideal for professional level editing, like music videos, special effects editing, using action essentials and playing back without any glitches in the mercury playback:
Mac Pro with One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon Nehalem , 3GB (3x1GB) , ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB
OR
27' iMac with 3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7, 16GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM, AMD Radeon HD 6970M 1GB GDDR5
Thank you for helping in my selection. I'm not an expert in these matters, all I know is that I want to edit raw, native DSLR footage without any problem during playback in mercury playback in Adobe premiere while having applied Action Essentials or special effects and be able to use Final Cut pro. Which ever machine gives me the most flexible editing would do, if the iMAC can deliver that than it would be great saving the money from buying the Mac Pro.
----------
+1. A Mac Pro is nice but is seriously overkill for allot if you think about it...Side note I just upgraded my 2010 MBP 13" to 6GB's of RAM about 4 hours ago and holy crap what a difference! Video encoding seams a bit slower, most likely from the loss of dual channel (which I will get back when I go with a full and even 4x4 8GB's of memory, wish I could go higher than 8 as bigger is better with RAM) but FCP X doesn't freeze up, multitasking is a breeze and it doesn't eat my CPU up like crazy like it did with 4GB...My MBP is a Core 2 Duo too so its nothing crazy. As for the iMac's..yeah they are very nice. Working on a 27" iMac i7 with 8GB's of RAM editing some <10minute DSLR 1080p footage is pretty straight forward with little glitches here and there but nothing too bad. I don't have much experience with video editing but I can say the iMac is a great computer...allot of people (at least what I've seen outside of the forums around here) act as if the Mac Pro is like a regular old desktop but very powerful instead of a tool for serious power users who most likely need the machine for a job or what not.
EDIT: Screenshot of my activity monitor (exporting H.264 1080p to ProRes, while compressing a separate HD H.264 file)...I'm still browsing safari with multiple tabs open...very pleased.
Which do you think would be more ideal for professional level editing, like music videos, special effects editing, using action essentials and playing back without any glitches in the mercury playback:
Mac Pro with One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon Nehalem , 3GB (3x1GB) , ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB
OR
27' iMac with 3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7, 16GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM, AMD Radeon HD 6970M 1GB GDDR5
Thank you for helping in my selection. I'm not an expert in these matters, all I know is that I want to edit raw, native DSLR footage without any problem during playback in mercury playback in Adobe premiere while having applied Action Essentials or special effects and be able to use Final Cut pro. Which ever machine gives me the most flexible editing would do, if the iMAC can deliver that than it would be great saving the money from buying the Mac Pro.
----------
Nate, rendering is more of a CPU than RAM job. YOu should have showed a screen grab from your CPU load.
But you are right, FCP X seems to put less strain on the CPU while rendering compared to FCP Classic. Seems the involvement of the GPU helps a lot in this case***.
***In FCP Classic I had short clips (20 to 30 seconds) rendered out in Motion. 'twas faster than Final Cut or Compressor, due to the GPU use.
----------
That 27" iMac seems to be a beast.
I had budgeted for a Mac Pro for next year, but I think I'll go the iMac plus a TB cluster route. Much cheaper with no big speed difference.
Which do you think would be more ideal for professional level editing, like music videos, special effects editing, using action essentials and playing back without any glitches in the mercury playback:
Mac Pro with One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon Nehalem , 3GB (3x1GB) , ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB
OR
27' iMac with 3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7, 16GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM, AMD Radeon HD 6970M 1GB GDDR5
Thank you for helping in my selection. I'm not an expert in these matters, all I know is that I want to edit raw, native DSLR footage without any problem during playback in mercury playback in Adobe premiere while having applied Action Essentials or special effects and be able to use Final Cut pro. Which ever machine gives me the most flexible editing would do, if the iMAC can deliver that than it would be great saving the money from buying the Mac Pro.