Planning a Mac for Video Editing

[pratikjain134]

Hey, I am new to this forum & I'm really happy to find such in depth Mac related forums

As the title suggest's I am planning to buy a new MAC machine for my personal use & I am really confused with iMAC(21.5inch NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M model) & the Mac Mini (2.8GHz Intel Iris Graphics model)..These models fit into my budget so...

I work as a Video Editor on softwares like Final Cut Pro 7,After effects CS 6, Adobe Photoshop and some 3D softwares like MAYA and Cinema 4D...

Currently the iMac I am using in my work area is as follows :-

2.66 Ghz Intel Core i5
6GB 1067 MHz DDR3
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB

which works decent enough for our work pipeline..So I'm also comparing this model with the Mac Mini..Also I would like to add that I bend a lot towards Mac Mini as I get the option of buying a wired keyboard mouse and a Monitor of my own choice. Though my biggest concern is performance in terms of rendering things and encoding videos. Will the Iris Graphics work as good as this ATI Radeon HD 4850 and the Nvidia GT750M?

Cos apart from the GPU rest things seems to be fine in terms of CPU and RAM(These are almost same as far as I know)..In fact I will be getting a 1TB Fusion drive in the MAC mini which will be an added advantage..I am also planning in future to get a good RAID system say around 4TB for my work purpose..But that's latter part.

So please guys help me out figure this baby Cheers..

 

[Altis]

Something to consider is that the CPUs aren't really as comparable as you might suspect.

The iMac with 750M uses a quad-core, desktop-grade i5 CPU (I believe it's the 4570S), while the Mac Mini uses laptop-grade dual-core (4308U).

Video work is one of the tasks that makes best use of quad-core CPUs that can withstand ongoing periods of high demand, in addition to better overall performance due to greater TDP ratings and more cache.

 

[pratikjain134]

Thanks for that Cpu information then Mac mini totally rules out of my picture I guess...
So is the iMac which I'm planning to buy fair enough for my work?

 

[Altis]

It really depends on how much you're willing to spend.

For video editing, the 27" makes a ton more sense since 1080p fits within the 1440p screen, leaving room for toolbars around the video at native resolution.

Of course, it all comes down to money. It's $300 more to get the base 27" which also comes with a slightly faster CPU, but the screen real estate will provide a much better workflow. Another $200 gets you the better GPU which video editing utilizes as well as a slightly better CPU again. Getting more RAM and the i7 quad is the best option, but now we're at like $2400.

It's tough to know where the limit is. If you're making money with the computer, I'd advise to invest in one that's worthwhile in the long run the first time round.

In all honesty, I don't really know why people use Apple for video editing as the specs that you really want cost a fortune with Apple. You can get a killer PC (i7 4790K, 16GB 2400 MHz RAM, desktop grade graphics card instead of laptop grade used in iMacs) etc for around $1000-$1200 depending on the card and the Dell 27" 1440p U2713HM for another $600. It would outperform all the current iMacs, but then you give up your software suite for something like Adobe's.

Good luck!

 

[AppleFan360]

In all honesty, I don't really know why people use Apple for video editing as the specs that you really want cost a fortune with Apple. You can get a killer PC (i7 4790K, 16GB 2400 MHz RAM, desktop grade graphics card instead of laptop grade used in iMacs) etc for around $1000-$1200 depending on the card and the Dell 27" 1440p U2713HM for another $600. It would outperform all the current iMacs, but then you give up your software suite for something like Adobe's.

That's a valid point but it's almost like comparing Apples and Oranges (no pun intended). Windows OS and Mac OSX are two completely different beasts thus the performance vs hardware specs are different.

I agree that an upper end Windows PC with good specs and good software is great for video but, like you said, Mac video editing software has its benefits which many editors enjoy. It all comes down to choice I guess.

 

[Altis]

That's a valid point but it's almost like comparing Apples and Oranges (no pun intended). Windows OS and Mac OSX are two completely different beasts thus the performance vs hardware specs are different.

I agree that an upper end Windows PC with good specs and good software is great for video but, like you said, Mac video editing software has its benefits which many editors enjoy. It all comes down to choice I guess.

The benefits of Apple in this case are small compared with the performance gains you'd get on a PC if you're on a budget. The only software OP mentioned that's Mac-specific is Final Cut Pro.

The rest of the software would be run a lot faster on a much cheaper PC while providing a nearly identical in-suite experience.

I just toss it out there as an idea worth considering. If I only had $1500 for a video editing computer, it sure wouldn't be a Mac. If I had $2500 or $3000, it'd be different.

 

[AppleFan360]

The benefits of Apple in this case are small compared with the performance gains you'd get on a PC if you're on a budget. The only software OP mentioned that's Mac-specific is Final Cut Pro.

The rest of the software would be run a lot faster on a much cheaper PC while providing a nearly identical in-suite experience.

I just toss it out there as an idea worth considering. If I only had $1500 for a video editing computer, it sure wouldn't be a Mac. If I had $2500 or $3000, it'd be different.

But then again, you have to look at reliability. When I was editing on a PC, I would always have issues with the PC locking up in the middle of an editing project. Not all the time, but it happened and it was real annoying. Never had that happen with my Mac.

 

[Altis]

But then again, you have to look at reliability. When I was editing on a PC, I would always have issues with the PC locking up in the middle of an editing project. Not all the time, but it happened and it was real annoying. Never had that happen with my Mac.

Perhaps, though I honestly think that with a few good practices this isn't really an issue since Windows 7 matured (I can't speak for 8/8.1 as I simply can't stand them). I only see Windows problems as a result of all the crap software that people install that'll bring a modern computer to its knees. It seems there is an endless barrage of that stuff that sneaks its way onto PCs, but it can be avoided.

I've had my fair share of spinning beachballs, force quits, and reinstalling OS X to fix odd bugs. It's a toss up and a dice roll no matter which way you go.

 

[pratikjain134]

I've been using Windows for my entire life but from the past 3 to 4 years since I have started using MAC, I really cannot work on Windows its just not made for me..I am sure to go ahead with Apple Mac and not windows. In fact I am selling my current windows RIG already

Sure the 27inch iMac kills it all, totally agree to that...Let's see guys I will have to really make up my mind and spend wisely..Will keep you guys in loop the day I get it..

 

[Celerondon]

Altis is Correct About the Cost Thing But...

But then again, you have to look at reliability. When I was editing on a PC, I would always have issues with the PC locking up in the middle of an editing project. Not all the time, but it happened and it was real annoying. Never had that happen with my Mac.

This was my PC video editing experience as well. Despite the inexpensive hardware the lockups and poor performance really crushed some editing sessions. For video, a nice thing about Macs is the factor that bugs my Windows pals the most. The locked down nature of Mac hardware provides limited configurations for the operating system and applications to work with. The similarly tight nature of OS X completes the package.

I don't know if others experience this, but it seems like similar video software runs better on a Mac. It also appears that less computer will get you farther down the path. Around this forum most would agree that a late model i7 Quad Core (QC) mini is a decent video platform. A QC mini is no Mac Pro but for moderate work, it will do the job for much less money. The impressive thing for me is that i5 minis running Mountain Lion or older software do okay with video as well. The i7 QC minis are much faster but the i5 minis still work. Older low powered PCs with similar OS and RAM limitations never work as well for me. Like Hackintosh setups, configuration and performance are very provisional. Change one thing and it's "back to the lab again".

I think that the difference in price between Macs and Windows machines purchases something tangible and useful. How many times has a Hackintosh owner boasted about his stellar hardware and specs but then, in the same breath or line of text, explained how he seldom runs OS X on the monster any more?