Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Quad 3GHz Mac Pro vs Quad 2.5GHz PowerMac

I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?

Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.
 
Amazing.

However the FCP benchmark is disapointing, but I suppose that it may rise when the x1900 is installed and tested. Still, that photoshop test? I don't think ANYONE expected results that good from a non-UB program. At least I didn't...
 
Felldownthewell said:
Amazing.

However the FCP benchmark is disapointing, but I suppose that it may rise when the x1900 is installed and tested. Still, that photoshop test? I don't think ANYONE expected results that good from a non-UB program. At least I didn't...
Click to expand...

I did...:D

DIE POWER PC...DIE!!!
 
Wow, I'm really surprised by those photoshop tests. When those go universal I'm sure my jaw will drop
 
Felldownthewell said:
Amazing.

However the FCP benchmark is disapointing, but I suppose that it may rise when the x1900 is installed and tested. Still, that photoshop test? I don't think ANYONE expected results that good from a non-UB program. At least I didn't...
Click to expand...

My main interest is in FCP the FCP results.

On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?
 
iGary said:
I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?
Click to expand...

I couldn't say for sure, but I would guess that the current version of FCP was carefully optimized for the G5, and has not yet undergone the same treatment for Intel chips.
 
Danksi said:
My main interest is in FCP the FCP results.

On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?
Click to expand...

Video cards won't make a difference in FCP as of now if that's what you are asking performance wise. If you are using Motion/Games, anything that really feeds off the video card, then I'd go for the higher end video card.

Otherwise I'd go for the 2.6 ghz.
 
FF_productions said:
Video cards won't make a difference in FCP as of now if that's what you are asking performance wise. If you are using Motion/Games, anything that really feeds off the video card, then I'd go for the higher end video card.

Otherwise I'd go for the 2.6 ghz.
Click to expand...

Couldn't it be the harddrive that is the limiting factor in this bnechmark?
 
oh WOW. Considering that a single 1.67 G4 beats a dual 2.0 core duo in photoshop when the core duo has to use rosetta, the fact that the xeon is nearly even is amazing. That thing is going to be amazing when CS3 comes out! :eek:
 
darh said:
Couldn't it be the harddrive that is the limiting factor in this bnechmark?
Click to expand...

When rendering in FCP, it's all about the CPU.

Fast hard drives contribute to real-time effects, but do NOT contribute to rendering.

Ram helps a little bit.
 
FF_productions said:
Video cards won't make a difference in FCP as of now if that's what you are asking performance wise. If you are using Motion/Games, anything that really feeds off the video card, then I'd go for the higher end video card.

Otherwise I'd go for the 2.6 ghz.
Click to expand...

I've not really used Motion yet, just the other apps within FC-Studio.

Just been comparing their iMac 1.9 G5 results with those of the 2.66Ghz Mac Pro numbers... I don't think I'll be disappointed in the performance boost! :D

I guess my main concern is whether or not Apple integrates the individual Final Cut Studio applications more closely, so all of a sudden you'd need a better graphics card to comfortably run the 'editor', rather than just Motion as is the case at the moment.

I think I'll stick to the 2.66Ghz and standard graphics card, as FCP and compressor are more CPU intensive I believe.
 
Danksi said:
I think I'll stick to the 2.66Ghz and standard graphics card, as FCP and compressor are more CPU intensive I believe.
Click to expand...

Premiere Pro, for an example, is starting to use GPU-accelerated effects, I think it's a trend that will soon be coming over to FCP.

I'd get the 2.6 ghz, then add another graphics card in the future if the current one doesn't suffice.
 
FF_productions said:
Premiere Pro, for an example, is starting to use GPU-accelerated effects, I think it's a trend that will soon be coming over to FCP.

I'd get the 2.6 ghz, then add another graphics card in the future if the current one doesn't suffice.
Click to expand...

Good to know. Thanks.
 
Interesting results, definitely makes me want to rob the local bank to buy a 3.0GHz Mac Pro :p

Spotted something amusing when browsing the barefeats page, an ad for the Apple store advertising 'The New Power Mac G5 Quad - Shop Now' ... Not so new now :p
 
Well, we all knew that the G5 isn't a "bad" chip necessarily.. It's older tech, and I think, wasn't really meant for this kind of work (non-server applications).

Preaching to the choir am I?

iGary said:
I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?

Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back