Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by 3dflyboy1, Jul 15, 2011.
HD video editing, 3D modeling, specialized computing, ALL at the same time...it wil eat your CPU... that's the most intense I can imagine.
This being the key part of the statement....you obviously don't know what an HD post-production workflow is like...we use that power.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
professional video editing/professional audio/professional graphic design/industrial design? In these fields vast amounts of processing power is required To not only manipulate large amounts of data and processing, but also do it at a rate that makes the user money. Just because you don't use computers to their potential it doesn't mean that it is impossible.
If I won the lottery I'd have five of them doing handbrake encodes
It can be used
My wife is the producer and editor of a TV so she is constantly editing HD clips and working with other programs that suck the life out of the CPU. We also use the computer for gaming and school (it opens Microsoft Word really fast When you have a work flow that as demanding as editing HD footage, running AUTO CAD (3D rendering), etc you benefit from the added power. Yes you can run it on an i5 or maybe even an i3 but who wants to wait. When you think about a company do you pay employees to work or wait for there computers to process the graphic or design? Buying to products allow faster workflows ->more projects can get complete -> more clients because you have openings -> more money.
Being an old mainframer when only people with security clearances could use the "internet", I can remember the days when 4M of RAM was a "insanely powerful" machine.
How did they make movies and do video editing and image processing ten years ago? And is there anything really "better" about what we're able to do now with the newer machines?
There are uses in physics models, weather models, complex mathematics, biochemistry and so forth which could not possibly begin to run on a system with so little CPU power. Just look at the K Computer built for the RIKEN Advanced Institute for Computational Science with 548,352 cores at 10 Peta Flops. This is with raw CPU power not cheating with GPU's that only have very specialized uses.
I could see a physics professor having one of these Mac Pro's working for weeks on one problem.
Yes? Video editing and audio and certainly eat all that power.
As a developer I could eat all that power compiling code. I'm sure when Apple compiles OS X nightly they have a bunch of 12 core Mac Pros doing that work.
This. A million times over. To the people who insist that iMacs are good enough.
I currently am, and do every day.
I render projects faster, getting them to my clients faster, which opens my time for more clients thus making me more money....it's pretty simple.
Did a PowerMac G4 from 2003 really render the video you were dealing with then slower than a Mac Pro renders the video you're dealing with now? How big is the difference?
Having worked in video, this would be a big yes. Video software is still demanding speeds that hardware hasn't yet met. And at the rate video is increasing resolution, it could take a long while for hardware to catch up.
I use all 24 cores all the time
Rendering... need I say more?
Of course, but what if we just didn't increase resolution beyond a certain point? A PowerMac G4 renders 640x480 just fine. Probably better than a current top-of-the-line Mac Pro renders 4K.
That's like saying why play video games on the top of the line mac pro when you could simply buy an atari and play Pong
Resolution goes up for a reason.
People aren't any happier now than they were twenty years ago. In fact, it seems to be the opposite.
I'm just playing devils advocate here, and asking some questions that I think aren't asked enough.
At work I have a dual-quad Xeon Dell (2.5GHz). It takes it the guts of a working day to do one HD project render from Premier Pro. I can queue two or three in one day, start them rendering and have to use another machine the following work day.
So, next year I'm looking towards a Mac Pro with as many cores as I can get. Compared to the Dells, the Mac actually works out cheaper...
My workflow on my Mac Mini was so slow that I only ran the automator job right before going to sleep or right before leaving for work. When I woke up or got home, I'd have the results done. Depending on the size of the job, it would take maybe 5 to 10 hours. So yes, sometimes it wasn't even done by the time I woke up.
Particularly frustrating was if I screwed up the parameters or something goes wrong during the automator job... that's a whole calendar day lost. And if I fail to fix the problem correctly a few times in a row, that's almost a whole week lost. Good thing it's not how I make money!
On my Mac Pro the exact same job takes about 12 minutes.
Also, when transcoding in Handbrake, it's pretty cool seeing every single core pegged while the computer still remains 100% responsive. And I only have four cores. I think it would be pretty neat to see all cores pegged on a 12 core beast. Eventually I'm going to drop a hexacore in mine.
I do computational fluid dynamics... and let me say straight off the bat, the the so called 'maxed out mac pro' would HARDLY be able to visualize my 2-D data sets, let alone actually compute them.
Huge yes, but I wasn't working in broadcast level HD in 2003, I was a sophomore in college shooting MiniDV on a Canon GL2. But I can tell you that when the MacBook Pros went from 2.8Ghz dual core i7 to the current 2.3Ghz quad core i7's, my render times for my weekly 25 minute show went from 1.5 hours to 45 minutes with all the filters. My Mac Pro does it in 25. I've done some SD shows on my old Dual 1Ghz Power Mac G4 back in the day and I would wait over night for a show to render.
You must have really special softwares.