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.
New iMacs With Up to Xeon E3 Processors, 64GB RAM, AMD Graphics, and Thunderbolt 3 Rumored for Late October
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I believe it was actually Apple's fault but don't quote me on it. Nvidia made the actual GPU but Apple's manufacturer did the soldering.
In any case this has happened with both AMD and Nvidia so I wouldn't blame Nvidia.
The sheer power & efficiency benefits you get from Nvidia over AMD are definitely, definitely worth it. I am not a gamer, I mainly use GPU's for small machine learning models, where Nvidia chips (CUDA) are essentially a requirement.
So true , OMG amd is the worst
I had so much trouble with them I really hope no one will ever have to experience the same.
You must not be familiar with intel's naming conventions. While I don't believe the rumor, the E3 Xeons are the same thing as the imac uses now. They are not hotter or faster.
I agree with you in principle on Apple placing discrete graphics in a notebook, but it wasn't limited to NVidia. The 2011 models were one of the worst batches, and they were all AMD.
ok,, so why get a Mac Pro ?? just wait for these new iMac's whenever they are announced. The only thing would be more portable, as least for the moment with the Mac Pro.
Every time Apple gets in new iMac's and new chips potentially added to become more "of a pro", i can see the Mac Pro slowly being pushed off the desk.
Every time Apple gets in new iMac's and new chips potentially added to become more "of a pro", i can see the Mac Pro slowly being pushed off the desk.
Isn't the Mac Pro the device Photographers and creative studios aim for? You shouldn't worry about the $10k price of the pro machine since in the long run it should equal to nothing compared to your job. I expect you make $500-1000 per job.
As a professional video editor using both Premiere Pro CC 2017 and FCPX 10.3.2 every day, I can assure you this is incorrect. In general FCPX is *vastly* faster than Premiere. You don't need to take my word for it. Download the free evaluation copies of each one and try it yourself. Import a few minutes of H264 4k material and try to scrub forward and backward on the timeline using JKL keys. Premiere is so slow and laggy it feels like the keyboard is broken. This is doing back-to-back testing on the same hardware -- a top-spec 2015 iMac 27.
It doesn't make much difference whether Premiere rendering is set to Metal or OpenCL. Setting the program monitor to 1/4 helps a little, but it's still much slower than FCPX.
When scrubbing through 4k H264 video, Premiere's redraw rate on the program monitor is so laggy it's like a slide show -- even on 1/4 resolution. FCPX viewer redraw rate is vastly more responsive.
While doing these simple timeline scrubbing tests, note the CPU level. On Premiere all cores are pegged and the cooling fan runs at high speed -- because it uses resources inefficiently. On FCPX, performance is much more responsive yet the cores are not pegged and cooling fan doesn't kick on high. This is because it's well written and uses resources efficiently.
Then render & export that timeline to H264 and measure how long it takes with each product. On an iMac 27, FCPX is about 4x (that's 400%) faster.
Then stabilize a 5 second clip on each. On my 2015 iMac 27 it takes Premiere CC 1 min 13 sec to stabilize a 5 sec 4k H264 clip. It takes FCPX 20 sec on the same machine.
I actually like some things better on Premiere, but there's simply no question that FCPX is much more responsive at most editing tasks than Premiere is on the same Mac hardware.
Yeah, that'd be great if I were a working photographer. I'm an amateur, SAHM photographer. (But I'm better than 90% of the "pros" out there.)
I could see the "iMac Pro" taking the spot the original entry-level (Late 2013) Mac Pro held - a 4-core Xeon CPU with up to 64GB of ECC RAM and whatever workstation class GPU they can (thermally) shove in there.
The new Mac Pro would then start with a 6-core or 8-core Xeon (going up to 12 and maybe 24 cores), support more RAM (at least 128GB - perhaps 256GB) along with higher-end GPUs.
As analysts go, Ming-Chi Kuo has a better track record than most, but he's not perfect.
And this is yet more proof.
Hey joema2,
I use and have Premiere Pro 2017 on several Macs along with FCPx (Since the day it came out). I am NOT talking about PPRO on Mac. There it is slow. Although for what I am doing (Image Sequences) which aren't even playable within FCPx are MUCH faster in PPRO. I am in PPRO running 4k CinemaDNG RAW "LIVE" with numerous of visual grading on each clip. FCPx can't even import an image sequence and if you import a 4K tiff into FCPx and add ONE effect (Apples Own Color Grade) you can count the second when moving the exposure slider upwards before the result appears on screen.
PPRO 2017 is MUCH MUCH slower on a Mac than on PC which was what I was referring to. Any 2k Dollar Hackintosh or Windows Computer will make any Mac look like a true relic regardless of config.
I do NOT measure ANY software by how fast it is when working directly with a heavily decoded H264 Delivery Format. I would NEVER EVER cut NOR grade in an 8 bit 420 format. I would create intermediaries in 12 bit and grade and cut that. Prores 4444 is a no brainer. And that is NOT slower in PPRO. Any software aiming their core performance at H264 Workflows is clearly aiming at amateurs.
Anyway, FCPx might be able to skim thru' a clip with jkl in a timeline. But since in all the years of getting paid for Videos / Film I have NEVER used H264 for cutting and grading a serious project, I could care less about that "feature"... I care though about adding 6 grading effects to a 4k clip and be able to hit play without stuttering. And PPRO 2017 does that even on Mac. FCPx can't even playback a Prores 4444 60fps 4k video in the timeline with NO effects when running at Higher Quality and that on a screaming fast SSD. Whereas PPRO doesn't even break a sweat and that with 4 effects on it... This example is ProRes 4444 or CinemaDNG 4k. I really don't care about H264 coming off a Canon 5DMKIII as the quality just sucks when graded unless converted to an intermediary. Depends on what you do but for HQ ---- H264 just look awful ! Faded, numb and blurry colors. My clients would NEVER pay for that. When they can have RAW. Latter which PPRO plays and edits NATIVELY !
Haha, that's great.
The new iJet with the slogan "it's so fast, get ready for take off"
You said "Apple's Pro Apps are VERY VERY slow in comparison to Adobe when it comes to rendering", specifically mentioning FCPX. This is a Mac forum, so obviously when making software comparisons the presumption is it's on Mac hardware unless otherwise stated. What you meant is you have devised a non-Mac machine for a specific workflow that runs faster than some other unstated Mac hardware, and described this as a purely software difference.
However I agree with your above statement: Premiere Pro is often slow on Macs, whereas FCPX on the exact same hardware is much faster. But that's not Apple's fault.
FCPX can handle image sequences but normally they are imported via Compressor, or a reference file can be generated via Quicktime 7 Pro. My documentary team sometimes shoots 1 terabyte of image sequences per week for time lapse. FCPX has no problem handling these either as a reference file from QT7 Pro or a transcoded ProRes file from Compressor. The Compressor workflow is discussed here:
This is simply not true as an unqualified statement. I run Premiere on both Windows and Mac, and both Premiere 2017 on both Mac and PC. For most common video editing tasks using H264, FCPX is vastly faster than Premiere on the same Mac hardware, or even on similar PC hardware. This is especially so for scrubbing performance on the timeline and viewer redraw rate when skimming content.
My documentary team recently shot 2.3 terabytes of 4k H264 content in one week, using ten cameras and two drones (simultaneously). Had this been ProRes 422, it would have been about 14 terabytes. Since that must be duplicated in the field for redundancy, make that 28 terabytes. That is not feasible, so it's common for large documentary or news projects to use H264 acquisition.
You can see some examples of professional H264 acquisition here:
ABC News filming three-camera interview in front of White House: https://joema.smugmug.com/Photography/ABC-News-Using-DSLRs/n-BsScJC/
ABC News using GoPro as main camera on interview: https://joema.smugmug.com/Photography/ABC-News-using-GoPro-Session/n-Q775hV/
CNN Moneyline shooting interview H264 with C100 Mark I: https://joema.smugmug.com/Photography/CNN-Moneyline-DSLR-Shoot/n-ffF2JW/i-tQ6Wj4s/A
Fox News shooting news piece using DJI Osmo and GoPro: https://joema.smugmug.com/Photography/Fox-News-using-DJI-Osmo-and/n-pbrJHC/
CBS 60 Minutes shooting field interview with Panasonic HMC-150 (which uses H264): https://joema.smugmug.com/Photography/60-Minutes-using-Panasonic-HMC/n-MFg8L9/
Whether the H264 content is then transcoded to a mezzanine codec for editing is a decision the creative team makes.
FCPX automatically uses ProRes 422 as its rendering codec, regardless of the H264 source material, and regardless of output codec. So in a sense it's always editing ProRes. This isn't like Photoshop editing a JPG image, where the image is recompressed with each save. The FCPX edit commands go to the library and are implemented in a ProRes buffer -- even for H264 source material. The original H264 content is never altered.
I have never seen any proof that transcoding H264 to ProRes before ingest produces better quality when editing on FCPX. Internally it is only editing ProRes anyway -- even if from H264 source content. It is being dynamically transcoded. Transcoding to ProRes before ingest is no different. The main advantage is higher editing performance, not higher quality. There is a lot of loose talk about this and urban legends but no carefully controlled tests which support that transcoding H264 to ProRes before ingest produces better quality for either editing or color correction than just letting FCPX dynamically transcode the render buffer to ProRes during editing.
Last edited:
Hi joema2,
of course with news this is a diff. story. But news does not look good - it looks cheap and an iPhone would do. Within CNN news (Not from within the studio) the field broadcasts are not exactly high quality nor are the shots you link to. The trees branches are full of H264 chroma errors etc. Color looking numb. But that is ok for news which are fast and totally uninteresting tomorrow but for the stuff which has value in the foreseeable future I would never shoot H264. Hard Drives are SO cheap today and if you can afford to shoot with 10 Cams surely you can afford to bring the drives to store the colors ;-)
Anyway, we shoot RAW which is basically only as large as a one full component before debayering and thus a great format if you have the workflow. And might I add the app that can cut and work with it natively. I dare you to import CinemaDNG into FCPx and try to work with it natively Trust me it aint working. In PPRO you can work natively with it. And even though RAW is much larger in size than H264 it is SOOOOOOO much better and MUCH more beautiful to look at. Still RAW is much cheaper (Hard Disk Wise) than shooting the stuff on Celluloid. And looks almost as good if you know your post production.
Anyway, the discussion I began stemmed from the fact that iMacs and Macs in general are having serious performance issues in comparison to a third the price Windows or Hacintosh.
I am NOT disagreeing with the fact that shooting RAW in the news world would not be feasible. But then again - news as of 2017 are really NOT worth watching. News today are blueprints to depression and teaches terrorists how to attack people with lorries and get their names on the front page if they do it. But that is again a diff. discussion.
of course with news this is a diff. story. But news does not look good - it looks cheap and an iPhone would do. Within CNN news (Not from within the studio) the field broadcasts are not exactly high quality nor are the shots you link to. The trees branches are full of H264 chroma errors etc. Color looking numb. But that is ok for news which are fast and totally uninteresting tomorrow but for the stuff which has value in the foreseeable future I would never shoot H264. Hard Drives are SO cheap today and if you can afford to shoot with 10 Cams surely you can afford to bring the drives to store the colors ;-)
Anyway, we shoot RAW which is basically only as large as a one full component before debayering and thus a great format if you have the workflow. And might I add the app that can cut and work with it natively. I dare you to import CinemaDNG into FCPx and try to work with it natively
Trust me it aint working. In PPRO you can work natively with it. And even though RAW is much larger in size than H264 it is SOOOOOOO much better and MUCH more beautiful to look at. Still RAW is much cheaper (Hard Disk Wise) than shooting the stuff on Celluloid. And looks almost as good if you know your post production.Anyway, the discussion I began stemmed from the fact that iMacs and Macs in general are having serious performance issues in comparison to a third the price Windows or Hacintosh.
I am NOT disagreeing with the fact that shooting RAW in the news world would not be feasible. But then again - news as of 2017 are really NOT worth watching. News today are blueprints to depression and teaches terrorists how to attack people with lorries and get their names on the front page if they do it. But that is again a diff. discussion.
Brilliant. We want WORSE displays, not better! Please listen Apple.
And the 21.5" lost it because the RAM it uses is produced only in a soldered format.
Whatever the new iMac is, and I'll almost certainly be buying one to replace my 2009 iMac, I hope above all that Apple makes it rock-solid reliable quality above all else. If there's one reason I buy Apple it's this longevity. Because even when I get my shiny new iMac later this year, I'll still have an eight-year old machine that most of the time still does a great, if slightly slow, job and has never missed a beat. If the new model still works okay after eight years, it'll be a proper iMac. I also really think they should make the base model a 24 inch 4K. I'll have my credit card at the ready if I can get a 24 inch 4K iMac with 32GB of RAM, a 2TB SSD and decent processor and graphics without remortgaging the house. I hope Apple are using all this extra time to give us something special. Can you imagine the moaning if they don't?
Apple uses Metal over OpenGL or Vulkan, or already dead Mantle. No reasons to use OpenCL instead CUDA, which Pros widely need.
I don't like to buy beer, when I'm asking for water.
I don't like to buy beer, when I'm asking for water.
To everyone complaining about lack of CUDA. Do you guys know that Apple apps use OpenCL? Why would Apple build a computer that HURTS their professional programs and HELPS their competition?
If you need CUDA support, just get a windows PC. FCPX uses OpenCL. They will not release a Mac with worse performance just to benefit their competition Premiere Pro.
If you don't use Apple programs, and NEED CUDA, why are you using a Mac to begin with? I have a Windows PC with a NVIDIA card when I need to use CUDA. I have a Mac with AMD when I need to use FCPX.
If you need CUDA support, just get a windows PC. FCPX uses OpenCL. They will not release a Mac with worse performance just to benefit their competition Premiere Pro.
If you don't use Apple programs, and NEED CUDA, why are you using a Mac to begin with? I have a Windows PC with a NVIDIA card when I need to use CUDA. I have a Mac with AMD when I need to use FCPX.