FCP 7 uses 1-2 cores, almost no GPU acceleration and 4GB RAM max.
FPC X makes much better use of a Mac Pro.
Your comment doesn't make much sense.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Reveals 2012 Final Cut Pro X Update with Multichannel Audio Editing, RED Support and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
FPC X makes much better use of a Mac Pro.
Your comment doesn't make much sense.
Your correct in my opinion. The software is what it is, but HOW Apple rolled out FCPX was a disaster as evidenced by the firestorm on the net following the reality versus what Apple implied.
For certain the rollout of FCPX is a dead horse, but it's still relevant while Apple reintroduces features that it didn't include when FCPX was first released.
Yes, Apple threw the pro users under the bus with FCPX, but you would NOT have heard so much complaining by the high-end user if Apple released FCPX as FCX-Express and told the high-end user that the high-end features they count on to run their businesses would be back in FCProX soon.
But Apple knew, IMO, that they would sell a lot of copies to the masses by calling it Pro and the masses would be happy with it. And they were right.
I actually really like FCPX, but Apple created expectations for the Pro user the way they introduced it, and IMO were disingenuous, if not deceitful by showing a FCP7 project in X implying that it would in fact open in X.
When FCPX was released and the reality of what wouldn't work for the high-end user hit, Apple disenfranchised many users that for years were the loyal customers who typically referred Apple products to others. Before the iPod/iPhone, PowerMacs and FCP created the halo effect for Apple.
Some say, well you can still use FCP7 so why the complaints? The complaints came from the situation Apple created where high-end users COULDN'T upgrade to FCPX, and combined with the expectations that the introduction (NAB 2011) created, had those users looking for alternatives to fill their workflow needs for the future. Another painful reality hit when you needed to expand your business and increase the number of workstations for new and ongoing projects. You could NOT buy FCP7 to expand your business. What do you do with ongoing projects that require a collaborative workflow, need to export XML or audio to other workstations, etc?
It was Apple that forced many business owners to look elsewhere.
Two main reasons:
1. Because it's nearly 2-year-old technology that is still being sold at a cutting edge premium price. Especially now that the Sandy Bridge Xeons are on the scene, the value scale is just way off.
2. Much more importantly, we want our investments to make sense. If I buy a Mac Pro and use Apple Pro software (Logic, Final Cut, OSX, etc.), I want to know that professionals have a future with this platform and with these tools over the next several years. I will want continued integration and upgrades. I will want further development (hardware and software) to continue, and in the process continue along a technological path that will make my job easier and my workflow more capable. Of course, I'll pay for each of those things as we go (software upgrades, etc.), but I need to know that they're planned and will be delivered and that I'm not just out there on my own with something that has no future.
Releasing a new Mac Pro will help give reassurance to all of us who are currently very unsure of which proverbial basket is best in which to place our current (and future) eggs. Sure I can get Apple hardware that works great right now. But that won't necessarily be the case 2-3-5 years down the road- which is where Pros are looking.
For what it's worth, even just 5 years ago it would have been downright silly for Pros to feel like they may not have a future with Apple. But many are genuinely wondering that right now (be it for hardware, OS, or software reasons). An appropriate new Mac Pro would go a long way towards helping us end the speculation and allow us to continue investing in an Apple-centric workflow with confidence.
Final Cut Pro X reminds me of iMovie 08 when it first came out. iMovie 08 was a completely rethought video editing application that had a lot of missing features from the previous iMovies. It was hated by many, so much that Apple allowed you to download iMovie 06 HD, because of the complaints.
Final Cut Pro X is like tearing down your house to rebuild the foundation. You're going to lose a lot at first, but in the long run it's going to be better.
Final Cut Pro X is like tearing down your house to rebuild the foundation. You're going to lose a lot at first, but in the long run it's going to be better.
I respectfully disagree.
There is always room for more power.
If FCPX can't use it... Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture or any other high-end software will.
Don't be naive.
I agree whit you totally...
Why do peoples who do fine with iMac try to convince us that we don't need Mac Pro?? Doesn't make sense!
Even a jam-pack (ram and ssd)Mac Pro seem to be sluggish at time! So don't try to convince us!
Last edited:
Too bad the more dated an editor appears, the better it is. Avid is the most dated of the bunch.
----------
Dang you're high.
With the mature emergence of OpenCL 1.1/1.2 and it's upcoming 2.0 release not far behind, along with Ivy Bridge and the AMD 7000 series of GPGPUs most assuredly going into new Macs, combined with Final Cut Pro leveraging GCD/OpenCL a 2 x16 baseline Mac Pro with up to 7970s and their combined 6GB DDR5, 64 compute units (4096 Stream Processors) in Crossfire would silence all kinds of people wanting a heavy duty workstation solution from Apple.
LLVM/Clang 3.1 targeted release is May 14th.
WWDC is going to have a lot of information for everyone about the software and hardware futures.
LLVM/Clang 3.1 targeted release is May 14th.
WWDC is going to have a lot of information for everyone about the software and hardware futures.
They list "mac", and if you look at the pictures they're clearly using Apple cinema display, and I really don't think they're using a Mac Mini.
There's far too much of a need for Apple to discontinue their Mac Pros. I'm also sure that they know that if they did, they'd lose their professional customer base, making all their work on FCP X a big waste.
Also, do you really think they expect people to edit RED on an iMac? Really?
Being able to choose a monitor that works best for you and your work is another reason people want a Mac Pro, and it's a big one (it's half the equation basically). Sure, you can hook one up to an iMac or MacBook, but that's a compromise solution and shouldn't be the only one IMHO.
And we need an update because most people don't want to buy a new computer with last-gen technology, even if on paper it looks fine. We want the cool new stuff, especially when it's priced at premium.
No offence but he is right and you are wrong.
See benchmarks -
http://www.barefeats.com/fcpx01.html
MBP is almost as fast as 6 core Mac Pro in most of the benchmarks. Also the iMac even beats the mac pro in half of the benchmarks.
The iMac and MBP cost less than half the price of that mac pro over here.
Mac Pros aren't needed anymore.
Last edited:
They need to release a kickass new update to Logic Pro as well, or at least take care of some of the very terrible bugs that have been in the program for well over a year... I think Apple made a mistake by purchasing all of these professional apps. They perhaps have bit off more than they can chew.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
So (and maybe I just missed this), any clue about WHEN this 2012 version of FCPX will be released? At NAB? After? If there is nothing nearly definitive, best (logical) guess?
Say wha?! As an owner of a 15" Quad Core MacBook Pro and a 12-Core Mac Pro, there is NO WAY I can do on the MacBook Pro's what I can on my Mac Pro, especially with time (which is crucial in film) and HD rendering. No way. I tried and my notebooks fans went into high gear, and I aged 50 years.
Both with 3D rendering and video rendering, it's mostly done on CPU, not GPU. It's quite recent that some apps have been taking advantage of the GPU to help on certain rendering jobs using Open CL or CUDA. But for many years now, render farms consisted of CPU's.
Or try http://www.red.com/search?query=mysterium+resolution and admit non-real time is just fine.
I see the one I used before is not on the website for immediate shipment. Several times the resolution and a higher frame rate. One wonders who bought them all . . . .
Just Rocketman
You don't need a Mac Pro to make sure your future is certainly protected by Apple. You only need Apple to offer you some kind of machine to do your job, which may or may not be a Mac Pro anymore.
I wonder if Thunderbolt will replace the need for high power Open CL or CUDA internal graphics cards as opposed to the mobile graphics in MBP and iMacs, third party broadcast display support cards, 32GB of ram, oh and those other 6 cores?
But hey... if it works then great!