Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

3.0 or 2.66 for Mac Pro Configuration?

G

gvdv

macrumors regular
Original poster
Feb 18, 2007
241
0
Hi,
I'm finalizing the specs for my upcoming Mac Pro purchase and wondered what people would advize about choosing a 3.0 or 2.66 processor.

I'll be editing video using FCP (for regular dv; but may go to HD in the future) and recording multitrack audio (never more than 4 tracks at a time) using an RME Fireface 400 firewire audio interface into Logic Pro.

My issue is that I could almot buy the RME for the price saving that buying a 2.66 over a 3.0 processor would give me. Will I really notice the difference in any ways?

I plan to initially go with 4GB RAM and two extra 500GB hard drives.

I would greatly value any advice that people can provide.

Thanks,

GVDV
 
This has been discussed before and again I will say go with the 2.66 ghz model.

I got the 2.66 model and it works just fine for me. It is the best bang for your buck, the 3 ghz costs too much to upgrade to.
 
Hi,
Thanks for your swift reply.

Yes, the money difference is significant to me, but I guess I'm looking specifically for information about how the difference in processor speed might affect my 'workflow', given my needs (I had tried searching for a comparison of the two processor speeds, but couldn't find anything).

Can you tell me what the configuration of your system is, and if you're using it for the same purposes as I will be?

Thanks for your reply,

GVDV
 
barefeats.com has some good benchmark tests and graphs that you may want to go through but if i were you id just go the 2.66 route. youll be able to accomplish more having your RME than you will with just a faster processor.
 
Well I can only talk about FCP editing but the 2.66Ghz model meets my needs nicely. If you are really keen on lowering the rendering time to the bearest minimum then the 3.0Ghz model may make sense but I'm not sure if it is worth the extra expense. I'd be more keen on spending the extra money on RAM and the ATI X1900XT graphics card (for use in Motion and Colour).
 
Most of the chat I see on industry (post/production) boards is either go 2.66 or 8-core. The price jump from 2.66-3.0ghz just doesn't seem to have enough performances gains to make it worth while. Especially if your budget is such that you could get "tricked out" 2.66 or a "low-end" 3.0, but not a "tricked out" 3.0.


Lethal
 
gvdv said:
Hi,
Thanks for your swift reply.

Yes, the money difference is significant to me, but I guess I'm looking specifically for information about how the difference in processor speed might affect my 'workflow', given my needs (I had tried searching for a comparison of the two processor speeds, but couldn't find anything).

Can you tell me what the configuration of your system is, and if you're using it for the same purposes as I will be?

Thanks for your reply,

GVDV
Click to expand...

I have a Quad 2.66 with 3 gigs of ram. It has a 7300 gt graphics card, an extra 320 gig hard drive and an extra 250 gig drive.

I use Final Cut Pro and I edit DV.

I haven't gotten into extensive editing but I can tell you it is fast as hell.
 
I must admit, the fact that I got the 3ghz was strictly due to my mental satisfaction of having "a quad- 3ghz machine." :p :D

Ram will definitely make a difference- to a point. Hard drive read time is a problem when you get to 8 gigs of ram. You won't notice speed gains until you stripe some drives.

And then you turn on the crazy. :p :D
 
killr_b said:
I must admit, the fact that I got the 3ghz was strictly due to my mental satisfaction of having "a quad- 3ghz machine." :p :D

Ram will definitely make a difference- to a point. Hard drive read time is a problem when you get to 8 gigs of ram. You won't notice speed gains until you stripe some drives.

And then you turn on the crazy. :p :D
Click to expand...

I just checked one of your showreel excerpts... How can you get away with using footage ripped from a music video for a massive band, namely Black Eyed Peas?

Rich.
 
I just wanted to thank you all for posting and helping me out with this.

So, thankyou.


GVDV.
 
fatsoforgotso said:
I just checked one of your showreel excerpts... How can you get away with using footage ripped from a music video for a massive band, namely Black Eyed Peas?

Rich.
Click to expand...

Because I don't make money off of it. Or use it in it's entirety. Or advertise that their music/ videos are part of my service. And I don't claim it as original. My lawyer has a cute little list of loop holes. Mostly due to the interaction of a live event and a private video.

Ask yourself, how do DJs get to use any music they want? They can even manipulate it and present it as "their own" mix. The law… ;)

Noticed you are in the UK. I'm willing to bet the laws are much different and probably more stringent. In America, the court starts with- you've done nothing wrong. This party is claiming grievances for ____________. It cost them _____________. And since I paid for the media, and it wasn't my choice for the production, but rather dictated by events as they unfolded in a live situation, the Black Eyed Peas would have no claim that I cost them potential revenue or deprived them of revenue. My production doesn't conflict with their business by the intent of their product.

I don't know how well I am explaining it, that's why I have a lawyer to do the talking.
 
killr_b said:
Because I don't make money off of it. Or use it in it's entirety. Or advertise that their music/ videos are part of my service. And I don't claim it as original. My lawyer has a cute little list of loop holes. Mostly due to the interaction of a live event and a private video.
Click to expand...
If those are the things your lawyer said I'd get a second opinion. Whether or not you used it in its entirety is irrelevant as is whether or not you claim the work as original or not.

Ask yourself, how do DJs get to use any music they want?
Click to expand...
Because a license fee is paid to the appropriate performing rights organization(s) such as ASCAP or BMI.


Lethal
 
Well I use the MacPro in my sig for Final Cut Studio apps, ProTools, and Adobe Lightroom and my machine just screams.
I edit multiple camera shots in Final Cut (DV), add graphics with Motion and Lightroom, and I use a little of Soundtrack Pro
for larger movies. I also use Compressor, Garageband and a little iMovie for my church's podcasts, and burn DVD's with DVD Studio Pro.
In between this work, I also recored and edit audio in ProTools. I originally wanted the 3Ghz quad but now I'm glad I didn't spend
the extra money on that one. I'm very, very happy with my baby!
 
4God,
Thanks for your reply.

Killr_b and LethalWolfe, I appreciate your initial intent to contribute to this thread, but if you want to have a private converation in which you take issue with each other or respond to the other taking issue, please do it privately or in another thread as it isn't relevant to the question(s) that I asked. (E.G., LethalWolfe, not one iotum of what you said had anything to do with this thread; Killr_b, in responding to LethalWolfe's criticism in this thread you departed from the theme/purpose of what is being discussed here).

GVDV
 
LethalWolfe said:
If those are the things your lawyer said I'd get a second opinion. Whether or not you used it in its entirety is irrelevant as is whether or not you claim the work as original or not.


Because a license fee is paid to the appropriate performing rights organization(s) such as ASCAP or BMI.


Lethal
Click to expand...

Sorry GVDV. I'm done.

I am strongly behind my trust in my lawyers. No details required.
 
gvdv said:
4God,
Thanks for your reply.

Killr_b and LethalWolfe, I appreciate your initial intent to contribute to this thread, but if you want to have a private converation in which you take issue with each other or respond to the other taking issue, please do it privately or in another thread as it isn't relevant to the question(s) that I asked. (E.G., LethalWolfe, not one iotum of what you said had anything to do with this thread; Killr_b, in responding to LethalWolfe's criticism in this thread you departed from the theme/purpose of what is being discussed here).

GVDV
Click to expand...
Hey, don't leave fatsoforgotso out of this his/her post started this tangent. ;)

On a more serious note, have you thought about video monitoring solutions? For SD it's not too bad but for HD it will take a bit bigger bite out of your wallet.


Lethal
 
LethalWolfe said:
Hey, don't leave fatsoforgotso out of this his/her post started this tangent. ;)

On a more serious note, have you thought about video monitoring solutions? For SD it's not too bad but for HD it will take a bit bigger bite out of your wallet.


Lethal
Click to expand...

Hi Lethal,
Thanks for the response.

Good question about video monitoring; I had previously thought that I would go with a Dell that I've seen discussed here (haven't got the model number to hand right now), but then thought that the $699 price tag is unrealistic for me right now, so would probably go with the Acer Acer AL2216 Wbd 22" Widescreen Flat Panel Display for now.

I know that this monitor only has a resolution of 1680 x 1050, and I would like to have a monitor with 1920 x 1200 resolution, but I don't think I can stretch my already empty wallet to that right now.

Do you have any recommendations?

Thanks,
GVDV
 
Monitoring is the tricky part as computer monitors aren't good for monitoring video as they don't display video the same way TVs do. For SD monitoring you can use your camera as a DAC (digital-to-analog converter) to feed an SD monitor (computer->firewire->camera->s-video->monitor). El Cheapo SD broadcast monitors start around $600. But at the very least use a TV and calibrate it as best you can by eye. Even if it's not color accurate you'll get a better idea of how the image looks (especially text and graphics) viewing it on a TV than you will on a computer monitor.

HD is a bit more hassle because you can't monitor an HD signal via firewire and HD equipment costs more than SD. Probably the cheapest HD solution is to get the BlackMagic Intensity card (it's HDMI in/out) and an HDTV w/HDMI. Now, since it's just a consumer HDTV it won't be supper accurate or anything, but it will be better than nothing. The cheapest solution to get close to b'cast accurate monitoring on a budget is a 23" ACD ($899) and the Matrox MXO ($999).

But I wouldn't worry about too much about stuff you may or may not need in the future. Technology is always getting better and cheaper so my advice is only buy what you need when you need it.


Lethal
 
Given that you're probably going to keep this machine for 3 or so years, spend the money and get the 2-quads. Render time will cost you how much over the years?

I doubt you'll need more than 4GBs of RAM. the difference between the duals and quads are huge. I believe that gap will be huge following the next few updates.

IMHO, stick with 4GBs & get the the 3.0. (RAM not from Apple)
 
Hi Folks,
Thanks for the replies......

Afraid I definitely can't stretch to the 2 quads - just can't afford that although I'd love to.

I had decided to go for the 2.66 and 5GB RAM (the basic 2x512MB + 4GB third party) but then an acquaintance who is a professional (film) cameraman told me that he thinks that the 3.0 would result in noticeably improved performance than the 2.66. Once again, though, money will probably mean that I stick with the 2.66.

Thanks for all the help.

GVDV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back