2012 Mini i7 2.3 vs 2008 Mac Pro

Discussion in 'Digital Video' started by waloshin, Mar 10, 2017.

  1. waloshin macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #1
    The 2008 mac pro is a quad core not the dual quadcore. Both systems would have 16 GBs of ram.

    Would I see a performance increase or decrease using a Mac Pro mentioned above for editing SD and some HD in FCPX 10.3 compared to my Mini?

    Or would a egpu through my thunderbolt 1 on my 2012 Mac mini be the best solution for FCPX?

    Thanks
     
  2. waloshin thread starter macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #2
    After sleeping on it. I realized I would have to spend $100+ on a second xenon, $100+ to get 16 GBs of ram.

    In the end a Egpu would make more sense with my Mini I would be using a lot less power and an Egpu can be used with other macs when I upgrade in the future.

    Though how effective would a egpu be with thunderbolt 1 in FCPX?
     
  3. ColdCase, Mar 11, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2017

    ColdCase macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Location:
    NH
    #3
    Thunderbolt 1 is capable of carrying 4 PCIe Gen1 lanes (or x4.1). Thunderbolt 1 gives you about 50% bandwidth of TB2.

    What Video card do you intend to use (in either machine)

    The $300 2x2.8 Quad Core (8 cores) 2008 Mac pro I picked up a couple months ago is much snappier than my mini with everyday tasks, but I have not tried an eGPU approach. The MacPro will way out perform the mini+eGPU, given the same graphics card. Most noticeable while editing.

    I think eGPUs only make sense if you want to only use one machine, like a laptop, for everything.

    You may want to check some of the gaming forums for eGPU performance comparisons while waiting for someone with more direct knowledge jumps in here.
     
  4. waloshin thread starter macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #4
    Thanks for the reply I am looking at a ATI R9 270 or a AMD Radeon HD 7950.
     
  5. chrfr macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    #5
    In actual CPU performance, my quad 2.3 Mini is nearly as fast as my 8 core 2.8 2008 Mac Pro for things like running Handbrake, for instance. I would expect the Mini to be significantly faster than a 2008 quad core Mac Pro.
     
  6. waloshin thread starter macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #6
    How would the Mac Pro Quad with a HD 7950 do in FCPX compared to the Mini.
     
  7. 4God macrumors 68020

    4God

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Location:
    My Mac
    #7
    That Mac Pro setup would smoke the Mini.
     
  8. waloshin thread starter macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
  9. RCAFBrat macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal, QC
    #9
    Couple of things to consider:

    (1) that the mini will perform well at some tasks, as suggested by chrfr, might be related to it's CPU having Quicksync which is dedicated core for video trans-coding - therefore high performance in this area is not necessarily an indication that the CPU is more or less powerful than another, but given this is a video forum it may be important to you

    (2) if cost is an issue, have you factored in the price of an eGPU enclosure

    I don't pretend to know a lot about Mac Pro GPU compatibility but the three that you mention are not very expensive compared to the Thunderbolt eGPU enclosures I found online - it seems to me that with the new Nvidia Pascal series in the wild it might be worthwhile looking for a cheap GTX 970 or higher Maxwell for that Mac Pro instead of eGPU plus enclosure - OSX drivers are available from Nvidia

    I did look into eGPU solution about 2 years ago for my son - he has a Late 2012 iMac loaded but the GPU is not very powerful and he needed better for rendering in Blender - there really weren't any decent options at the time so I ended up building a Linux based computer for him that he is very happy with (need to add a second GPU though - GTX 970 is probably twice as fast as the iMac and GUI is super smooth even with big projects but he wants better)

    At least there are a couple of decent options available today for eGPU, but not necessarily cheap and they seem to be Thunderbolt 3, which I hope is backwards compatible if you pursue the eGPU path
     
  10. waloshin thread starter macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #10
    I g
    I plan to use a better GPU in the Mac Pro I will look at an Egpu in the future when they are cheaper and supported.
     
  11. waloshin, Mar 15, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2017

    waloshin thread starter macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #11
    I am looking to connect a Asus R9 280X what do I need to make sure this runs without destroying my Mac Pro?

    Could I use 2 SATA to 1 8 pin and the 6 pin from the motherboard?
     
  12. ColdCase macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Location:
    NH
    #12

Share This Page