New iMacs With Up to Xeon E3 Processors, 64GB RAM, AMD Graphics, and Thunderbolt 3 Rumored for Late October

[cablecartman]

So, no AMD CPU to iMac Pro. Intel must have given Apple deep discounts.

AMD Vega with HBM2 memory would be perfect for iMac Pro.

Somewhere in Cupertino somebody is doing the "Just in case" (or "What if") scenario and has a Ryzen chip running inside either the Mac Pro or iMac Pro chassis.
More power efficient chips, cheaper, and competitive. Just release it and give Intel some more competition on the CPU front.

 

[joema2]

...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 ;-)

I appreciate your perspective. Obviously I would rather have only incoming PreRes material. We have HDMI ProRes recorders but with the volume we shoot it is not worth the expense and complexity. This is especially so because 4k 8-bit 4:2:0 can be transcoded to 1080p 10-bit 4:4:4 (if delivering in 1080 and not cropping). This is like a free 1080p ProRes recorder: http://www.provideocoalition.com/can-4k-4-2-0-8-bit-become-1080p-4-4-4-10-bit-does-it-matter/

...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.

I imported some 2.5k CinemaDNG material from a BlackMagic Cinema Camera into FCPX and it worked just fine. You import the frames, add to timeline, select all, retime and change duration to 1 frame per image. They play just fine with smooth performance and no lag. They can afterward be changed to a compound clip which enables editing as a video clip vs an image sequence.

....And even though RAW is much larger in size than H264 it is SOOOOOOO much better and MUCH more beautiful to look at.

The issue is not RAW video vs H264. Those are different acquisition formats for different applications. For that situation the decision is RAW vs a professional edit-friendly codec like ProRes 4444XQ. High-end Hollywood productions are shot and graded on 4444XQ. There is no visible difference in the final output quality. High-end cameras like the ARRI Alexa and even the BlackMagic Ursa can capture in ProRes 4444XQ.

I also tested some ProRes 4444XQ and 422 material on both Premiere Pro 2017 and FCPX 10.3.2 on a top-spec 2015 iMac 27. FCPX handled these fine, Premiere handled the 422 OK but was a little laggy on the 4444XQ stuff. So from my brief tests FCPX actually handles CinemaDNG better (from a performance standpoint) than Premiere handles ProRes 4444XQ.

....iMacs and Macs in general are having serious performance issues in comparison to a third the price Windows or Hacintosh....

As explained above, I don't see "serious performance problems" but more performance is always welcome, especially on H264 4k. Even on low-compression intraframe codecs more GPU performance is needed for effects.

 

[25ghosts]

I imported some 2.5k CinemaDNG material from a BlackMagic Cinema Camera into FCPX and it worked just fine. You import the frames, add to timeline, select all, retime and change duration to 1 frame per image. They play just fine with smooth performance and no lag. They can afterward be changed to a compound clip which enables editing as a video clip vs an image sequence.

That is exactly how I import(ed) it. And it does NOT work fine. At all. Wont even play back at 25fps. One effect on the clip and everything halts.

In PPRO I can import 4k CInemanDNG RAW or TIFF or Whatever Image Sequence add a myriad of effects and STILL playback realtime.

Anyway, thx for sharing ;-)
[doublepost=1491864831][/doublepost]

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.

CUDA is just a framework as is OpenGL and OpenCL. CUDA work only on NVIDIA. OpenCL works with NVIDIA.

If your app is CUDA only, complaint to the developers of that app and have them port their CUDA code to OpenCL.

BTW - Apple's ProApps mostly run OpenGL version 1.1.

Future (today Counted) will opt in for Metal which will run on any GPU Vendor. OpenGL on Mac is dead and will see no further development in to OS X. OpenCL will slowly vanish as OpenGL and Metal is perfectly capable of doing General Purpose GPU and not just graphics. Metal is the new thing on Mac and that is what the future will hold for Apple Devices.

 

[Ethosik]

That is exactly how I import(ed) it. And it does NOT work fine. At all. Wont even play back at 25fps. One effect on the clip and everything halts.

In PPRO I can import 4k CInemanDNG RAW or TIFF or Whatever Image Sequence add a myriad of effects and STILL playback realtime.

Anyway, thx for sharing ;-)
[doublepost=1491864831][/doublepost]

CUDA is just a framework as is OpenGL and OpenCL. CUDA work only on NVIDIA. OpenCL works with NVIDIA.

If your app is CUDA only, complaint to the developers of that app and have them port their CUDA code to OpenCL.

BTW - Apple's ProApps mostly run OpenGL version 1.1.

Future (today Counted) will opt in for Metal which will run on any GPU Vendor. OpenGL on Mac is dead and will see no further development in to OS X. OpenCL will slowly vanish as OpenGL and Metal is perfectly capable of doing General Purpose GPU and not just graphics. Metal is the new thing on Mac and that is what the future will hold for Apple Devices.

AMD cards perform better than NVIDIA cards with Apple programs. Regardless if NVIDIA cards support OpenCL. It is not as good as AMD cards are.

 

[chrispl0]

View attachment 695151 How cool would it be for Apple to release the Mac Mini for standalone purchase/use and then create identically-sized modules for CPU upgrade, RAM upgrade, optical drive upgrade? They all just stack on top of one another magnetically, and communicate via a metal ring that runs along the top edges of each stackable component? There would be the Mac Mini (base) but add a few stacks on and you've got a full-fledged Mac Pro!

[doublepost=1491916946][/doublepost]Or/Plus, a Alexa style one thats also a powerful router and TC. Stackable, add one t then add another maybe 3T this time etc.

 

[NKumarT100]

The Touch Bar is one of the main reasons I ordered a new MacBook Pro. Lot of people who complain don't realise that for those of us who have the use of only one arm, using keyboard shortcuts is not always an option.

 

[Kcetech1]

The Touch Bar is one of the main reasons I ordered a new MacBook Pro. Lot of people who complain don't realise that for those of us who have the use of only one arm, using keyboard shortcuts is not always an option.

Dragon Dictate? my father inlaw has limited mobility of one arm after a stroke and flys through things with it ( windows version but I assume the Mac version is about the same )

 

[NKumarT100]

Dragon Dictate? my father inlaw has limited mobility of one arm after a stroke and flys through things with it ( windows version but I assume the Mac version is about the same )

That is an option, but it's expensive in India. Apple products are too, but my work picks up most of the tab.

 

[dimensional]

[doublepost=1492395232][/doublepost]Ugh, PLEASE no Xeon! That is just added expensive for no benefit to most people who don't need 12 cores.

PLEASE make a desktop mac with (1) a top of the line consumer DESKTOP graphics card (preferable nVidia 1080 or but top-of-the-line DESKTOP AMD card would work too), (2) maxed out core i7 CPU, (3) support for an EXTERNAL monitor, NO built-in monitor!

 

[Joe The Dragon]

Somewhere in Cupertino somebody is doing the "Just in case" (or "What if") scenario and has a Ryzen chip running inside either the Mac Pro or iMac Pro chassis.
More power efficient chips, cheaper, and competitive. Just release it and give Intel some more competition on the CPU front.

NMP2 amd epyc with dual video cards (full X16 each) + room for quad M.2 slots and 6 TB3 buses with more pci-e left for other stuff.

 

[jjjoseph]

Somewhere in Cupertino somebody is doing the "Just in case" (or "What if") scenario and has a Ryzen chip running inside either the Mac Pro or iMac Pro chassis.
More power efficient chips, cheaper, and competitive. Just release it and give Intel some more competition on the CPU front.

Yeah, but then no thunderbolt... So how can Apple do that?

 

[Amcmo]

Yeah, but then no thunderbolt... So how can Apple do that?

There are third party thunderbolt 3 chips, in fact if I am correct Apple will be using one in the Xeon iMac.

Also interesting timing Intel making the licence free shortly.

See AppleHQ.news / @applehqnews for suggestion to Apple on an AMD powered 'fat' iMac. Nvidia would be great, though FCP makes specific use of AMD and runs faster than with Nvidia on Hacs.

 

[jjjoseph]

There are third party thunderbolt 3 chips, in fact if I am correct Apple will be using one in the Xeon iMac.

Also interesting timing Intel making the licence free shortly.

See AppleHQ.news / @applehqnews for suggestion to Apple on an AMD powered 'fat' iMac. Nvidia would be great, though FCP makes specific use of AMD and runs faster than with Nvidia on Hacs.

Supposedly even with the License, AMD will be required to have some intel inscrutions inside of their chips, and Intel will probably charge a lot for the license. IMHO that would destroy AMD's bottom bargain pricing.

I am not one who takes sides based on a brand, I am only loyal to what works and is rock solid. I do commercial film and tv production and Intel and Nvidia has always been ahead of AMD in both GPU and CPU. Gaming is a diff market, as well as data mining and other markets that AMD seems to do well in.

I know a lot of people are super pumped on what AMD is putting out there, but Intel has more cash, more company value and more resources than AMD. Nvidia, has way more R&D towards the future of the GPU than AMD's GPU division..

A company like AMD can start to make waves because high end engineers can jump to AMD and get more money resources and probably have more fun designing future architecture... But if INTEL wanted to be as cheap as AMD they could. If we go into a recession companies like Intel and Nvidia will always do better because they have more product market share. Predictions are recession in 2018/2019. How will AMD fare during that tech hiccup?

I am not a fan of Apple Final Cut Pro X, so AMD inside of Apple hardware has no appeal to me, and I think the XEONS are great CPU's and work great, why get rid of them.. We have to wait and see if Threadripper and VEGA amount to a complete upset of the market or just another cheaper gaming option. It is still too early to tell, but for me I would choose an XEON over Threadripper/Ryzen and Nvidia/Pascal over VEGA for anything professional. If it is for gaming, it doesn't matter, I would build a complete AMD system, CPU and GPU any day. BUT if my income is dependent on a rock solid hardware.. Apple with Intel and Nvidia all the way.