Mac pro is insanely overpowered!!!

NeverhadaPC

macrumors 6502
Oct 3, 2008
410
2
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.
 

TheAnalogue

macrumors member
May 12, 2011
56
0
Clearwater, Fl
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.
 

afrye707

macrumors newbie
Mar 26, 2009
13
0
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.
 

osxabsd

macrumors member
Sep 28, 2009
41
0
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. :D
 

StephenCampbell

macrumors 65816
Sep 21, 2009
1,038
52
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?
 

velocityg4

macrumors 601
Dec 19, 2004
4,778
1,349
Georgia
I acknowledge that there are a lot of specialized computing uses out there. I was just wondering if it's actually possible to use all that processing power. It seems a bit extreme to have a computer with those maxed out specs...I'd be scared to touch the thing lest it become sentient and try to eat me. lol :D
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.
 

goMac

macrumors 604
Apr 15, 2004
7,062
1,086
I acknowledge that there are a lot of specialized computing uses out there. I was just wondering if it's actually possible to use all that processing power. It seems a bit extreme to have a computer with those maxed out specs...I'd be scared to touch the thing lest it become sentient and try to eat me. lol :D
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.

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.
This. A million times over. To the people who insist that iMacs are good enough.
 

MovieCutter

macrumors 68040
May 3, 2005
3,342
2
Washington, DC
I acknowledge that there are a lot of specialized computing uses out there. I was just wondering if it's actually possible to use all that processing power.
I currently am, and do every day.

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?
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

StephenCampbell

macrumors 65816
Sep 21, 2009
1,038
52
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?
 

goMac

macrumors 604
Apr 15, 2004
7,062
1,086
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.
 

StephenCampbell

macrumors 65816
Sep 21, 2009
1,038
52
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.
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.
 

Nyalotha

macrumors member
May 27, 2011
76
0
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 :p

Resolution goes up for a reason.
 

StephenCampbell

macrumors 65816
Sep 21, 2009
1,038
52
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 :p

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.
 

HellDiverUK

macrumors 6502
Oct 24, 2009
460
0
Belfast, UK
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...
 

ActionableMango

macrumors G3
Sep 21, 2010
9,510
6,744
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.
 

itsmrjon

macrumors regular
Jun 11, 2011
122
0
Chicago
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.
 

MovieCutter

macrumors 68040
May 3, 2005
3,342
2
Washington, DC
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?
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.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.