PDA

View Full Version : Dragon + Mac Pro



roryhinds
12-22-2013, 01:09 PM
Anyone with a Dragon got a Mac Pro?

It would be interesting to know the transcoding times with a low spec Mac Pro as a Rocket-X alternative.
Would be cool if it works out as the Mac Pro would have multiply uses as a similar cost of a Rocket-X.

Nils Ruinet
12-23-2013, 02:45 AM
Very curious about this too ! Curious to hear which Mac Pro config would be recommended. 8 or 12 cores ? 32 or 64 GB RAM ? D700, obviously.

Christian Moriarty
12-23-2013, 04:44 AM
http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1307-the-first-24-hours-with-apple-s-new-mac-pro-and-final-cut-pro-10-1

Marcos Montenegro
12-23-2013, 05:02 AM
That link is for 4K not 6K dragon. Still impressive to see 18 effects on native R3Ds playing real time with a new Mac Pro.


http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1307-the-first-24-hours-with-apple-s-new-mac-pro-and-final-cut-pro-10-1

AndreeMarkefors
12-23-2013, 07:03 AM
That link is for 4K not 6K dragon.

And it isn't actually playing back 4k either.

I still think it's impressive and I've linked to the same test in other places. The main thing to take away is that you can drop your native clips in FCPX and just edit away. That will be the case with 6k dragon as well.

The key is that they have set playback quality to "better performance" as opposed to "better quality". The latter will force full resolution playback, whereas "better performance" lets FCPX scale the down the resolution actually being displayed in the Viewer. Just like RCP X can debayer at different levels.

This isn't to be frowned upon at all. Quite the opposite: it lets you work as intend with native clips and no fuss. No one will be anywhere NEAR 6k in the viewer window. Viewer fullscreen on 4k external display? Image quality to be determined… might still be good. Don't know if FCPX dynamically scales playback resolution based on Viewer size.

Anyway... just wanted to make sure that people don't think they are playing back 4k with 18 effect layers, full resolution, in real time.

Mark Toia
12-23-2013, 07:40 AM
Ill send these guys a dragon clip... and see what happens. :)

Alain M
12-23-2013, 08:21 AM
Awesome Toia! Great idea

Will Keir
12-23-2013, 08:56 AM
I think if your going to be using Dragon footage you gotta buy the best, max out that Mac Pro, 12 cores or nothing.


Very curious about this too ! Curious to hear which Mac Pro config would be recommended. 8 or 12 cores ? 32 or 64 GB RAM ? D700, obviously.

AndreeMarkefors
12-23-2013, 09:19 AM
I think if your going to be using Dragon footage you gotta buy the best, max out that Mac Pro, 12 cores or nothing.

In sooo many situations 12 cores won't be best though. They're clocked lower at 2.7GHz and boosts up to 3.5GHz single threaded. The 8 core runs at 3.0GHz and boosts up to 3.9GHz.

Looking at performance vs price I think 8-core is the better choice apart from pure rendering machines that constantly loads all the cores.

As we've already seen, the 8-core flies through 4k native RED files if set correctly. Expect similar results with 6k files.

Jeff Kilgroe
12-23-2013, 09:52 AM
Exactly. For everything that runs within 8 cores / 16 threads or less, the 8-core option is 10% faster. Up to 13 % faster in low-thread situations with turbo. The 8-core has less L2 cache per core, but quite a bit more L3 cache per core. The cache on the 8-core is not divisive into separate partitions, which it becomes painfully slow if data needs to shift from the smaller upper-core cache to the lower cores cache.

Deciding which Mac Pro one should get is not an easy task. The 6 core should be a fine system, so should the 8. Even the 12 is a viable option if you have the right software to use it appropriately. For me, I decided on the 8-core, 64GB, 1TB, D700's. To me, this is the "maximum configuration". The 12-core is more niche and for the majority of tasks and users, it will actually perform slower than the 6 or 8 core systems.

roryhinds
12-23-2013, 09:54 AM
utilisation of the cores is dependant on the software being written to take advantage of those cores.

Would be really interested to hear real world reports but I guess waiting for software to catch up is a factor here.
The Rocket-X is $6750
For $6799 you can get a Mac Pro with 8 Core + 32Gb Ram + 512Gb Storage + D700 Graphics.

If this config does what a Rocket-X can do then its a no brainer which tool is a better spend.

Johnny Friday
12-23-2013, 10:03 AM
Slightly Related: MacPro 2009 & Dragon Footage inside RCX:
I've been playing back Dragon footage on my 2009 Mac Pro 2.26ghz dual 4 core, 32GB RAM. I also have a RED ROCKET card, but it's obsolete when Dragon footage is in RCX viewer or timeline....gives a warning that it cannot be used. BUT, with latest BETA 22 build i'm getting 1/4 playback with no issues and 1/2 playback only slightly slower than realtime....I'm pretty impressed with what has been done with software by RED. BUT, would sure like my Rocket to work.....

I'm just now (one day in) working with FCPx new update: 10.1 & compressor 4.1 and very impressed at the speeds i'm seeing on my 2009 MacPro...woW! and now updating the guts of my MacPro for new dual 6 core and new 1333 ram and SSD to make my 4.1 to 5.1 with 48GB RAM in pairs of three as suggested by Jeff Kilgore....that should then give another boost. At moment i'm happy NOT upgrading to the new MacPro since i also have a pile of PCIe devices i would have to figure out how to deal with on the new macpro. So this upgrade in hardware saves me that headache and $$

roryhinds
12-23-2013, 10:20 AM
Yeah it would be interesting to see what the $2999 lowest entry level Mac Pro performs like.
For the money you could purchase 2 Mac Pros for the cost of 1 Rocket X card.

Anyone remember the ICE cards for After Effects :-)

paulherrin
12-23-2013, 12:17 PM
and you could buy 2 pcs for the cost of one macpro
:sifone:

Jean Déraps
12-23-2013, 12:22 PM
With this same performance Paul?

Phil Holland
12-23-2013, 01:13 PM
With this same performance Paul?

Yes.

Jason Diamond
12-23-2013, 01:31 PM
my guess is with this config, I can tell you how I know this soon:

MacPro
8 core 3.0ghz Xeon E5
64gb RAM 1867Mhz DDR3
1TB SSD HD
Dual 6GB AMD Fire Pro D700

rendering TO and FROM the desktop, which is the fastest SSD avail commercially I've been told, and results were same going out to Tbolt1 HD

Dragon 6K is about 8fps rendering out of newest RC-X GPU Build. Now RC-X isn't ideally optimized for these specific OpenCL cards from what I understand so it can only get better.

This is just preliminary info and I hopefully can provide more in depth info very soon.

Brook Willard
12-23-2013, 05:02 PM
Somebody get me one of the new Mac Pros and I'll let you know exactly how many frames per second you'll get...!

Shiblon Wixom
12-23-2013, 05:12 PM
The quad core will probably be in the 12-15 fps range, six-core in the 15-18 fps range, and the 8-core will probably be in the 20-24 fps range, but that's just a guess bases on current equivalent systems.

D Fuller
12-23-2013, 07:36 PM
Anyone remember the ICE cards for After Effects :-)

Yup. I still have one around here somewhere. And a Cosa dongle too. There's $7 grand in 1994 dollars that are museum pieces now.

D Fuller
12-23-2013, 07:42 PM
Yes.

Phil, which PC? If I can really get a PC with the same performance and with slots for half the cost, then switching is a no-brainier. I just can't figure out what PC will do that for me. The high-performance PCs seem to be about the same price.

Will Keir
12-23-2013, 07:43 PM
Wow, i didn't know that. always thinking more money is more performance. thanks for the clarification guys. hope this helps perspective Mac Pro buyers.


For me, I decided on the 8-core, 64GB, 1TB, D700's. To me, this is the "maximum configuration". The 12-core is more niche and for the majority of tasks and users, it will actually perform slower than the 6 or 8 core systems.

Eric Santiago
12-23-2013, 08:09 PM
Yup. I still have one around here somewhere. And a Cosa dongle too. There's $7 grand in 1994 dollars that are museum pieces now.


Wow thats bringing back memories :)

Add an EIAS dongle and you can easily buy a Datsun ;)

roryhinds
12-23-2013, 08:23 PM
yeah I sold one of mine for $50 and I felt bad taking money for it :-)

paulherrin
12-23-2013, 11:04 PM
Yes.

hehe...

Mark Toia
12-24-2013, 03:46 AM
Wow, i didn't know that. always thinking more money is more performance. thanks for the clarification guys. hope this helps perspective Mac Pro buyers.


yes... Very interesting feedback .

Florian Stadler
12-24-2013, 06:40 AM
Remember that Apple controls the QuickTime codec which is severely limited on PC.

I have 1 8 core and 1 12 core on order and will test render speeds with Resolve when I receive them.

richard peterson
12-24-2013, 07:03 AM
Yes.

What is the best cost/performance box in the PC world. I priced an 8 core, 32GB, 2 GPU Boxx system at 8241.00.

David Kudell
12-24-2013, 08:01 AM
The Mac Pro is only going to get better when more software is optimized to take advantage of it. Our shop has a bunch of older Mac Pros and we were debating going PC next round, but when it comes down to it, we spend 8-10 hours a day working on these things, and do we really want to use Windows when we enjoy Mac OS much better? Sure a maxxed out PC might eek out a few extra fps but the new Mac Pro looks to be no slouch, and I know I'll enjoy and be comfortable staying on MacOS.

Also, Jarred's Dec Dragon thread (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?110014-December-Dragon-Update/page10) has a lot of good info on Rocket-X and PC vs Mac Pro thoughts, and the Rocket-X sounds to be so powerful that even running in a Thunderbolt 2 chassis you're going to get a big boost in speed if you want the ultimate setup.

paul schefz
12-24-2013, 08:16 AM
i thought for sure that i would get on elf the new mac pros but now...looking at the first tests, i mean yes of course the 8 core system is fast....but everything i see with fcpx...not sure i see a difference between that and my 2013 top imac....if you are working on non 4k monitors i really don't think the "better quality" vs "better performance" will be a big difference....
and even the 8core (or 12 core) systems won't run 6k 70fps at full....for that kind of performance one needs a rocketX anyway and that in turn is likely to bring THAT kind of performance (or the best possible over TB2) to any mac with TB2....
of course an ideal set up would be both but since i don't need fast render times i just don't see that being a necessity....
the only real problem i have now is that apple really laid an egg with putting out the 2013 imac without TB2....i guess they knew what they were doing....
btw: the base new mac pro system gets beaten by the top imac in benchmarks....

Sean Connery Smith
12-24-2013, 02:12 PM
I seen pc places doing Dual Xeon, same Xeon E5 Chip also. So I am debating.. Just boot drives are SSD not flash storage and no thunderbolt. Saw 12 core system around 5K with a Quadro NVIDIA card. You can do a search for digitalstormonline they have a few flavors.. Not sure if they have a 6core but that go 12, 24, and 32.

Thing is i have PCI FIbre cards connected to old Apple 14 bay RAID. So if I get the new Mac I have to add on at least another $1000 for a 2 slot magma expansion case so for that reason i might as well go the pc route. For dual gpus you can just add another card in you can use those GTX 780 cards as they have the CUDA cores and run them in dual mode. Premiere sees Merc Playback Engine with it.

Someone said something about the RCX using GPU's now.

Billy Jim
12-24-2013, 03:54 PM
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/12/24/apples-new-mac-pro-a-better-value-than-the-sum-of-its-parts

Blair S. Paulsen
12-24-2013, 04:02 PM
I have never seen a major revamp that didn't require a few weeks, often months, before all the parts started working smoothly together. I know everybody (including me ;-) is in a lather right now about the new MacPros, but I really don't expect solid benchmarks on the new platform for at least a couple of months. Complex systems typically perform only as well as the weakest link - which is often more about integration between components than the theoretical capabilities of individual parts. I anticipate a lot of driver revisions in the next 60 days.

Cheers - #19

AndreeMarkefors
12-25-2013, 04:45 PM
Out of curiosity I loaded OffHollywoods Dragon clips into my 6-core Mac Pro to see what kind of real time performance I would get. Project is native Dragon-files at the resolution that Mark provided.

Any banding in the video is from screen capture and compression. In FCPX everything renders perfectly.


https://vimeo.com/82691196

roryhinds
12-27-2013, 01:17 PM
I know PC's will be faster and better suited to heavy work compared to the new Mac Pro.

My original post was a search to see if the Mac Pro could be an alternative to a Rocket-X, to do Dragon transcodes as its a small form factor that can be easily transported, plugged in and run on location. If you set up screen sharing you could have it so you don't even need a separate monitor and can connect to the "can" via Apple's remote desktop to set up transcodes and keep your footprint low.

M Most
12-27-2013, 04:25 PM
I know PC's will be faster and better suited to heavy work compared to the new Mac Pro.


No, you don't. And neither does anyone else because nobody has used it for that type of work yet. Not to mention that there are different configurations of the new Mac just as there are different configurations of PC's. This statement is misleading and rather simplistic, considering that there is no such thing as one PC or one Mac Pro. Not to mention that specs do not tell the story when so much of what enables performance in our kind of work is tied up in design, underlying bus structure, interconnects, subsystems, OS tuning, application tuning, and many, many other factors. Time, testing, and experience will ultimately reveal the facts regarding specific performance of these different systems on specific formats of files and specific applications. There is no point to drawing any conclusions without those facts.

Phil Holland
12-27-2013, 04:39 PM
My original post was a search to see if the Mac Pro could be an alternative to a Rocket-X

This is a question that doesn't have an answer that works for everybody in reality because of one major flaw.

Basic answer.

Is the new Mac Pro faster than previous Mac Pros? Yep.

Is it going to transcode faster or on par than a system equipped with a Red Rocket-X? Nope.


However, I'll play devil's advocate. Depending on your specific workflow and needs it might be all you desire or want. It also might not.

roryhinds
12-27-2013, 04:41 PM
You can build a PC with 2 x CPU's and your choice of nVidia cards, with PCIe connections for storage and the like. I'd say its safe to say as these Mac Pro's are only single CPU and no nVidia that a custom build PC would be faster and better.

paul schefz
12-27-2013, 04:53 PM
This is a question that doesn't have an answer that works for everybody in reality because of one major flaw.

Basic answer.

Is the new Mac Pro faster than previous Mac Pros? Yep.

Is it going to transcode faster or on par than a system equipped with a Red Rocket-X? Nope.


However, I'll play devil's advocate. Depending on your specific workflow and needs it might be all you desire or want. It also might not.
the real problem is that there is no way to utilize the full rocketX speed on any new/existing mac system....external box over TB is the only choice which means at best we are only getting a fraction of what the rocketX can do....
jarred mentioned that the rocketX is at about 30% right now (in beta? alpha?) and realistically that might be all that can be expected over TB anyway...
i would like to know what a rocketX in box (A,B or C) via TB 2 (or 1, but that is less important) can do....
i guess a maxed out mac pro with rocketX should solve met problems? but again: realistically how many frames (or how many more) does one get for an extra 7500$ (rocketX+box)...

roryhinds
12-27-2013, 05:00 PM
Yeah I think if you're going the Rocket-X route then you will have to go with a machine with PCI to get the full advantage of investing in a Rocket.
TB2 is a lot slower than PCIe. Having a Rocket-X with a new Mac Pro would be a very restricted way of working with the card.

Brian Merlen
12-27-2013, 05:24 PM
the real problem i see is apple could very well not update these things as often as say, their very popular laptops and tablets... the gpu makers may not get down with the form factor to offer third party card options. the technology will march on and what looks like a great machine today will one day be a circa 2008 clunker equivalent, the way she goes.

that all being said i think hackentosh is a good option cuz u get osx and the slots. its a win win. you dont need the trash can form factor, so dont get it. mediaworkstations.net and http://eurocom.com/

both got some cool options, plus jeff showed me boxxx and some other brand in another thread i started. i think any hackentosh that can get you more GPUs, internal rocket x, stuff like that will be better then a mac pro, potentially if one buys the right stuff. but my point is 2 years from now the right stuff will cost a lot less. you can get the hackentosh bare bones now and throw the rocket x or several titans in later. plus bigger and bigger vram models for PC are going to just keep coming out.


there are a lot of unknowns with apples release dates and if other gpus will/if ever be available. there is not going to be a way to add a rocket x. these are things one must consider, and by all means abandoning oxs for me is not an option. so i gotta consider hacking it, or getting a rMBP or new Mac pro trash can, but i just don't really like the lack of slots. i might need those things potentially. so it makes slot options seems more attractive to me always versus apples current offerings. i gotta say i am super bummed there is no slot, no way to run external GPUs, its just a bag of hurt. and i love apple, i want this functionality so we can have options. its a shame they can't just make the mini bigger and add 2 pci slots even that wont be in the way of one another and could hold 2 double wide 16x pci 3 slots. thats all a lot of people want i think lol!

Neil Cronin
12-27-2013, 05:24 PM
This is a question that doesn't have an answer that works for everybody in reality because of one major flaw.

Basic answer.

Is the new Mac Pro faster than previous Mac Pros? Yep.

Is it going to transcode faster or on par than a system equipped with a Red Rocket-X? Nope.


However, I'll play devil's advocate. Depending on your specific workflow and needs it might be all you desire or want. It also might not.

There is one other variable that a lot of people are either unaware of or are ignoring -- We are at an inflection point for software's reliance on CPUs compared to GPUs. Today my mac can show me 5K Epic footage at 24pfs realtime without breaking a sweat, whereas the same exact machine 2 years ago had to work hard to edit 1080p, spinning up fans and chugging along.

The explosion of mobile over the last 5 years has thrown an astounding amount of computer science at running stuff on GPUs, and generally making stuff much more efficient due to power constraints of phones.

http://83-136-248-155.uk-lon1.host.upcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Screen-Shot-2013-07-18-at-7-18-5.07.35-PM.png

All of these advances are almost directly portable to editing/coloring machines. Apple seems to be ahead of the game here, but there's no reason lots of gaming-derived graphics breakthroughs can't happen on windows or android, further pushing everyone along into a world where the CPU is less and less important.

I wouldn't underestimate where dual D700s might be in 6-12 months due to OS/library/framework updates over that time.

-n

Phil Holland
12-27-2013, 05:38 PM
While I applaud the shear design aesthetic of the new Mac Pro and it will indeed be that sexy little trashcan that might impress certain types of individuals that you're using the latest and greatest I'm somewhat not fond of the stray away from standard form factor and accessories. This is more or less my criticism for a lot of the Mac mindset.

Out of the box good performance and looks pretty darn nice.

However, straying away from standards in this particular case with things like USB 3.1 and Sata 3.2 mother boards and devices on the somewhat soon-ish horizon is only going to repeat the history of the previous Mac Pro. You can't easily upgrade or swap out components. It's just as simple as that. New processors are also part of this equation.

I have to use Macs, PCs, and Linux boxes in my world. But the reality is I'm a PC guy. Because everything I do has to work with everything and I don't want to wait years to make an upgrade that might be rather significant to my workflow.

While it is impressive that the optimized new FCP can handle 4K 8:1 REDCODE Raw the way it does, it always concerns me when I see people thinking about "jumping ship" from systems and NLEs based off of one web video without testing it out themselves.

I feel I need to be clear here. If your all "Mac'd up" I'm not saying jump ship. Go for this Mac Pro because it's the best you're going to be able to get and that's that if you need more performance. However, it's good to be aware of a systems limitations as well as it's strengths. Personally I don't care if my editing and color suite looks like a rotting yak carcass with worms sticking out of it as long as it does what it need to do :)

Bob Gundu
12-27-2013, 05:50 PM
Some good points Phil. But as has been demonstrated by Apple, it's not just about hardware but more about how the software and hardware can play together. Naturally Apple has the upper hand with FCPX integrating with their hardware. I'm OK with being 80 percent as fast as the others guys as long as it all works well together. Apple has been that for me.I just edited 6K footage on my laptop without transcoding.... yikes!

Phil Holland
12-27-2013, 05:52 PM
Bingo Bob. Love the OS even.

Neil Cronin
12-27-2013, 05:56 PM
You can't easily upgrade or swap out components. It's just as simple as that. New processors are also part of this equation.


I think you are missing my point -- With my same exact 2-year-old machine, today I am reviewing medium-sized FCP projects with 100% Epic 5K footage, and they are playing back realtime. The only thing that even attempted to do that two years ago was Cine-X, and I got maybe 4fps out of it if I was lucky (and willing to endure the sonic blast from the fans :), and that was with none of the features of an NLE. I didn't have to swap out any components to get this. I have no plans to buy the new trashcan, because I have no immediate need for it.

True enough that new processors are important, my point was they are becoming drastically less important.



While it is impressive that the optimized new FCP can handle 4K 8:1 REDCODE Raw the way it does, it always concerns me when I see people thinking about "jumping ship" from systems and NLEs based off of one web video without testing it out themselves.


I totally agree, but I expect similar improvements with Premiere et al over the same time frame. FCP doesn't use anything that is secret. It seems like Red is using similar techniques and getting similar results. I do think that Windows and the MS dev tools are behind Apple in this regard, but there is no technical reason they can't catch up. MS has plenty of areas where they are far far ahead of Apple. This isn't an MS vs Apple thing, this is a "what is the next 5 years of computer advancements" thing. Apple seems ahead, and is delivering that prowess to machines that are older than any camera I have.



I feel I need to be clear here. If your all "Mac'd up" I'm not saying jump ship. Go for this Mac Pro because it's the best you're going to be able to get and that's that if you need more performance. However, it's good to be aware of a systems limitations as well as it's strengths. Personally I don't care if my editing and color suite looks like a rotting yak carcass with worms sticking out of it as long as it does what it need to do :)


Aesthetics are a nice-to-have for sure, and totally besides the point for sure.

-n

Johnny Friday
12-27-2013, 06:24 PM
Editing DRAGON 6k footage in FCPx 10.1 on mavericks with a 2009 MacPro; 32gb RAM and Nvidia 4000 card (not ideal gpu)....Playback in RCX is great by the way....in FCPx it's having some problems with stuttering.....(all before rendering in the timeline)---after a render i can playback just fine. But skimming the timeline and trying to do real edit work is a bit of a pain.....and slowing me down by 40% (by not having realtime playback). My RRcard is useless with Dragon footage, but if i go back to 4k or 5k footage with my RR card.....all is good. So, now upgrading my internal components for dual 6 core and 48GB 1333 ram......I'm going to wait and see how things play out with new MacPro....i like my PCIE slots and i think 60vs 40Gb speeds vs. TB2....but even with TB2 , my TB PCIE box is only 20Gb speed.

Paul Harb
12-27-2013, 07:32 PM
All those years waiting for Apple to update their pro line of computers I would sit and think, "If only it were way smaller and couldnt be upgraded and made all my hardware investments obsolete"

Just like waiting for the 64bit version of FCP I kept thinking " if only they got rid of tracks, lost the source monitor, and dumbed everything down because after 10 years of mastering the software it was just too complicated." Its razor sharp clear engineers and the marketing dept who dont have to actually work with these products are making decisions.

Apple has reverted back ironically to the place Jobs himself admitted almost destroyed them...closed and proprietary. History will eventually repeat itself, it always does.

I still love OSX, so I see a hackintosh in my future.

Richard Luke
12-27-2013, 08:38 PM
Looks like the CPU is removable

http://www.macrumors.com/2013/12/27/new-mac-pro-confirmed-to-have-removable-cpu/

M Most
12-28-2013, 07:01 AM
You can build a PC with 2 x CPU's and your choice of nVidia cards, with PCIe connections for storage and the like. I'd say its safe to say as these Mac Pro's are only single CPU and no nVidia that a custom build PC would be faster and better.

You might, but I wouldn't. It's not going to be either faster or better running Final Cut because it can't. Same with Autodesk Smoke. It's also not going to be faster or better when scripting batch operations, performing file searches on large storage, or doing a number of other things that Windows simply doesn't do very well, unless you're talking about running Linux (but i don't think you are).

Like I said, "better" depends on a lot of things, including but not limited to what you're trying to do and what you plan to use in terms of software to do it. Any comparison of systems from Apple to those from just about anyone else must take this into account because things like CPU specs are only a part of a much bigger picture, and overall performance can vary greatly with different tasks.

Terry VerHaar
12-28-2013, 07:10 AM
The only way to break new ground is to get off the beaten path. If you want to compete on a safe, evolutionary basis, you stick rigidly with standards. If you want to attempt to move to higher ground, revolutionize the way things are done, you do things differently and, yes, you risk failure. Time will tell.

AndreasOberg
12-28-2013, 01:22 PM
I have been a PC guy forever (well since Amiga) and its always great to be able to upgrade. I always built my computers myself, had a dual CPU already 15 years ago. So upgradability is something I really appreciate.
However a few things I noticed are:
- If you buy state of the art equipment you usually don't need to upgrade in a very long time. More like 4 years. Yes new graphics card would be the exception.
- When you do need to upgrade you need to switch almost everything. You need new motherboard, new memories, new harddrives, new graphic cards and new power supply, probably a new case as well.
- It takes a LOT of time to get a PC up and running fully functional.

If you bear this in mind then its not so bad with the Mac Pro that it can't be upgraded. Many things can be connected to it with the thunderbolt. The biggest thing we miss is a very fast Rocket connection and being able to switch to a better GPU. The things I miss in the current Mac Pro are
- 2 CPU. I think I would rather have 2x8 core or maybe 2x12 cores. 4x8 would of course be even better but hard to get those mother boards.
- More memory. 64 will be ok, but I had planned to get much more. If you use 8GB rams the price is not so bad for 16 of them.
- Rocket possibly, however very costly
- Possibly more graphic cards, but 2 expensive ones is still very good.

So in summary I will miss some things but I think for 3 years I will be pretty fine with the Mac Pro that we have today. I will also appreciate the transportability because it basically becomes a very portable computer for travel.
And yes, with PCs. Dear Lord. I'm good at putting them together but I only had ONE that worked flawlessly. Almost every other had had some kind of problem, that is something I really like with Mac. And yes FCPX is for me a major step forward in editing compared to anything I have seen before.

/Andreas

Frank Glencairn
12-28-2013, 01:48 PM
Doesn't look good: http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

Manfred Lopez
12-28-2013, 01:49 PM
...Dear Lord. I'm good at putting them together but I only had ONE that worked flawlessly. Almost every other had had some kind of problem, that is something I really like with Mac. And yes FCPX is for me a major step forward in editing compared to anything I have seen before.

/Andreas

I completely agree. What I look forward to the most is the combination of Final Cut and the new Mac Pro. I think Apple has done something incredible here and we're just beginning to see the payoff of a long roadmap embarked upon a few years ago when they decided to start from scratch with both the software and hardware. This integration is only going to get better. With PC's I could¡t care less if I get better performance on a couple of aspects of the equation if everything else is not tightly integrated and stable or if it does't inspire creativity.

Manfred Lopez
12-28-2013, 01:59 PM
Doesn't look good: http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

Actually doesn't look that bad in the multi-core tests for both 32 and 64 bits.

Frank Glencairn
12-28-2013, 02:10 PM
Not much reason for someone with a fullsize mid2010 or mid2012 MacPro to buy a new 6 core MacPro IMHO

Reminds me on the disaster Apple was facing, when they tried to market a micro workstation with central vertical thermal core, the last time (Apple Cube).
Folks looked at it and found no real reason to buy it over a fullsize MacPro

paul schefz
12-28-2013, 02:25 PM
Doesn't look good: http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
what doesn't look good? multi core numbers look pretty good to me...and there are no numbers for the 8 core in the 64bit multi core tests....
and honestly i care less and less about specs and numbers...between resolve, fcpx and rcx i see huge differences in how for example red raw just plays back...so these days software plays a huge role...if a machine (or some software) is optimized for certain software (or machine) it makes a huge difference....

and AMEN to everything andreas said above....i don't even have a problem buying a new system every 2 or 3 years, especially when it takes about an hour to completely replicate the old one and start working right away...as it does now with OSX time machine....and the old system sells for 30-40% less then what i paid for it...and it just works...well... for the time i have it....

i guess it turns out the cpu is replaceable in the new mac pro? who cares... would i really put a 2016 cpu in a 2014 box?

paul schefz
12-28-2013, 02:32 PM
Not much reason for someone with a fullsize mid2010 or mid2012 MacPro to buy a new 6 core MacPro IMHO

Reminds me on the disaster Apple was facing, when they tried to market a micro workstation with central vertical thermal core, the last time (Apple Cube).
Folks looked at it and found no real reason to buy it over a fullsize MacPro

i think TB alone would be a pretty good reason....

whenever i hear disaster and apple i remember the reaction (mostly ballmer's actually) to the first iphone....

Neil Cronin
12-28-2013, 02:38 PM
Not much reason for someone with a fullsize mid2010 or mid2012 MacPro to buy a new 6 core MacPro IMHO

Reminds me on the disaster Apple was facing, when they tried to market a micro workstation with central vertical thermal core, the last time (Apple Cube).
Folks looked at it and found no real reason to buy it over a fullsize MacPro

It entirely depends on what you are going to be doing with it. Final Cut Pro and eventually Premiere and Resolve will be way way faster on a stock trashcan compared to a 2010/12 mac pro. Things like 3D games, Photoshop or XCode or Excel, probably not so much.

The raw CPU clock speeds are not much faster on the new mac pro compared to 2010/12. What you are paying for is much faster IO, much faster GPU(s), multiple UHD outputs, energy efficiency, and a smaller box. If that stuff is not valuable to you, keep your 2010/12. That's what I'm doing.

The future of software is in the GPU, not the CPU, so I am happy to see this somewhat-lateral CPU step, even if there is not much immediate value in it for most people as of today. In a year, OSX, NLEs, and a lot more will be way faster on this hardware than they are today, simply by getting on the train of modern software libraries and techniques. The trashcan will most certainly become more valuable and useful to more people over the next year because of software updates alone.

-n

Frank Glencairn
12-28-2013, 02:48 PM
It entirely depends on what you are going to be doing with it. Final Cut Pro and eventually Premiere and Resolve will be way way faster on a stock trashcan compared to a 2010/12 mac pro.

ProRes will be pretty fluid as long as you don't go with full resolution (r3d),
Premiere not so much, the AMD support isn't there for now, but that may change with future updates.
When it comes to rendering out files from Premiere, a fullsize 2010 MacPro is still 25% faster than the new $8000 MacPro


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26cqeqem2Ew

Eric Santiago
12-28-2013, 02:49 PM
Not much reason for someone with a fullsize mid2010 or mid2012 MacPro to buy a new 6 core MacPro IMHO

We just replaced a dozen cheese graters with 6 12-Cores.

AndreeMarkefors
12-28-2013, 02:53 PM
Not much reason for someone with a fullsize mid2010 or mid2012 MacPro to buy a new 6 core MacPro IMHO

My 2010 6-core Mac Pro has a few internal bays, but that's it.

It's restricted to 3Gb/s over internal SATA and has USB2 for connectivity. Graphics is ATI 5870 with 1GB.

I could pimp it to internal RAID SSDs over PCIe and get up to 1700 MB/s speeds, but that will cost me. I can throw in another card for USB3 and look at 3rd party graphics, including NVIDA Titan. It's all possible, but it's not cheap.

Once you go above a few thousand, it makes more sense to me to invest in new technology.

Neil Cronin
12-28-2013, 03:05 PM
ProRes will be pretty fluid as long as you don't go with full resolution (r3d),
Premiere not so much, the AMD support isn't there for now, but that may change with future updates.
When it comes to rendering out files from Premiere, a fullsize 2010 MacPro is still 25% faster than the new $8000 MacPro


Yes, exactly. For most people, the fastest mac you can get for doing stuff this afternoon would probably be a 2012 mac pro maxed out. The trashcan is an expensive lateral step for most people and most software that exists as of today. OSX and Final Cut are leading the charge on using the hardware in the trashcan for obvious reasons, but it's a train that everyone will be on eventually. I don't know what the roadmap is for Premiere (Adobe took literally years to move Photoshop off of Carbon, so who knows), but there is no technical reason Premiere couldn't be just as finely tuned as Final Cut is today.

Again, in 6 months to a year, the trashcan will be an entirely new machine, even if Apple doesn't change the hardware at all.

-n

Frank Glencairn
12-28-2013, 03:05 PM
Once you go above a few thousand, it makes more sense to me to invest in new technology.

And than you have to buy all those external boxes, a external SSD RAID, an external I/O card andwhatnot.

But to each his own.

AndreeMarkefors
12-28-2013, 03:17 PM
And than you have to buy all those external boxes, a external SSD RAID, an external I/O card andwhatnot.

But to each his own.

Some might have to, yes. In my case, internal 1TB will be good for two simultaneous projects. That would be the work drive. Then I'd pick up a RAID5 shell and dump my current "legacy" drives into that.

But it's like you say: everyone decides based on their own needs.

I think Mac Pro 2013 will be fine. Both OS X and FCPX (if we're discussing video) are up to date, if not ahead of the hardware curve. Blackmagic is onboard last I heard. Dual D700 will push Resolve in the right direction once it's optimized.

Eric Santiago
12-28-2013, 03:24 PM
We have this discussion every time something new from Apple comes out.

Gets really boring and the same conversation pops up.

It just came out.

Just like most new tech, give it time itll find traction and most of us will find a use for it :)

Frank Glencairn
12-28-2013, 03:39 PM
S.. In my case, internal 1TB will be good for two simultaneous projects. That would be the work drive.

What? You are hosting your material on the system drive? And 1 TB is good for two projects + the System files?

Okay,I understand.
Looks like we are working with very different material on very different projects.
Just one of our typical projects can easily get over 4 TB.

And yeah, call me paranoid, but working from a system drive is a huge no-go here.
We have RAIDs just for source material, RAIDS to render to, drives for audio, stills, graphics andwahtnot and a SSD for cache.
Plus a ton of drives and mobile RAIDS for backups.

paul schefz
12-28-2013, 08:05 PM
posted this in the fcpx thread as well...
http://www.barefeats.com/tube02.html
comparing fcpx 10.09 to 10.1 ....same machine...huge difference....it would be hard to make such a difference with hardware...and this was a free software update....

roryhinds
12-28-2013, 08:08 PM
With all the talk on Final Cut, I guess Apple have succeeded.

Who uses Final Cut anymore?

Mike P.
12-28-2013, 08:27 PM
At $300 I think people bought FCPX just to test and then years later it's finally in a decent spot (it's arguably the fastest to work with, making it great for smaller projects, but still missing things that higher end projects would need).

paul schefz
12-28-2013, 09:08 PM
With all the talk on Final Cut, I guess Apple have succeeded.

Who uses Final Cut anymore?

i don't think fcpx got a fair treatment when it came out...and it makes no sense to discuss it's pros and cons....but with literally 100s mill of people using imovie on iOs and osX and kids growing up on it....and apple lowering the price to 300 (i would not be surprised to see that drop to 99 in the future) it will be the step up software for a LOT of people....most of them probably not pros but that is not the point....
adobe going the other route and driving people away and not really even making pros happy with the subscription based system...i don't see that user base widening....
fcpx was faster, leaner and much easier and just got a lot faster (or made a lot of machines a LOT faster...for free)....and apple is working hard to bring pros back...and from what i can tell it is working....

Will Keir
12-28-2013, 09:34 PM
Are there any tests online comparing speed on the old and new Mac Pro using R3Ds?


This is a question that doesn't have an answer that works for everybody in reality because of one major flaw.

Basic answer.

Is the new Mac Pro faster than previous Mac Pros? Yep.

Is it going to transcode faster or on par than a system equipped with a Red Rocket-X? Nope.


However, I'll play devil's advocate. Depending on your specific workflow and needs it might be all you desire or want. It also might not.

Nick Morrison
12-28-2013, 10:42 PM
This is a question that doesn't have an answer that works for everybody in reality because of one major flaw.

Basic answer.

Is the new Mac Pro faster than previous Mac Pros? Yep.

Is it going to transcode faster or on par than a system equipped with a Red Rocket-X? Nope.


However, I'll play devil's advocate. Depending on your specific workflow and needs it might be all you desire or want. It also might not.

This at least gives life to the idea of just adding a RR-X to your "older" 2012 Mac Pro tower.

Meaning, the older towers aren't necessarily obsolete yet, and can still play a meaningful role in Dragon workflow.

AndreeMarkefors
12-29-2013, 12:39 AM
What? You are hosting your material on the system drive? And 1 TB is good for two projects + the System files?

And yeah, call me paranoid, but working from a system drive is a huge no-go here.

I guess it's the nature of the beast Frank: cameras can be used for many things. I mostly do scripted doc work that results in films shorter than 10 minutes.

Surely it would be a shame, now that Apple has made an effort to design a 1200MB/s system drive, to only host documents on it? I put my MacBook Pro to good use too, and that also only has a single drive. No problem at all.

My current Mac Pro has data distributed over several drives, but that is more load splitting over several SATA channels since the performance isn't there. I do agree that it has some management/organizational benefits.

As for working from a system drive... well this is a Mac, not a PC after all... =) Just joking.. Don't we all welcome system crashes? Those are the opportune moments to do a fresh install, including housekeeping, from a backup. That said, I have never had a computer crash on me (self built PC, or Mac)...

Anyway… for work I think a Mac Pro with 1TB and a Pegasus2 RAID would work well. The Pegasus also reaches 1200MB/s over Thunderbolt 2 with SSD. I'd use normal hard drives though.

Frank Glencairn
12-29-2013, 01:54 AM
Anyway… for work I think a Mac Pro with 1TB and a Pegasus2 RAID would work well. The Pegasus also reaches 1200MB/s over Thunderbolt 2 with SSD. .

Back in the early 90es I melted out some of the dividers of my Power Macintosh 8100, with a red hot glowing screwdriver to accommodate additional drives (the chassis was plastic back than, and so tight you could not get there with a saw or Dremel.

We than wrote some code to strip the extra drives to a RAID 0.
I think we where some of the first guys in Germany, that where able to play out full PAL at 25p, with the Radius VideoVision I/O card, instead of having a script, that records a frame a time on the Betacam recorder, which took forever and was killing the Betacam mechanics every 2 months.

Back than we where happy to get something like 10 MB/sec out of our self striped RAID, no you get 1200MB/s out of the box - amazing times.

AndreeMarkefors
12-29-2013, 10:11 AM
Back in the early 90es…

Those were the days.

I don't remember ever having to put a glowing screwdriver through anything, but I've built my fair share of PCs through the years. Since the days of the Voodoo 3dfx 3D-accelerator through the last water cooled, over clocked construction that had a CPU that was sanded down by hand to be absolutely flat for better cooling.... =)

Sure was a lot of fun, but in retrospect it was more about the technology and computers themselves than the stuff I wanted to create WITH the computers. Once I reached the turning point and focused more on output was about the time when Macs were a viable option. Made the switch with the first MacBook Air (kept PC as workstation), and I've never looked back since.

I totally understand people who build PCs though.

paul schefz
12-29-2013, 11:06 AM
cut my first video on premier on a quattro 660av (that thing had video inputs on the front!) in 92....HD was 240mb....it was magical...

Rocco Schult
01-02-2014, 07:56 AM
I found myself not updating too much in any of the professionally used boxes I bought in dozens for the various post facilities I worked for.
When a machine is outdated, it is. There is not much to do. Occasionally we swapped CPUs, some NICs or HBAs, but overall this was way under 10%.
Get it when you need it, use it.
When it is outdated, it does' matter if it was a PC or a Mac.


the technology will march on and what looks like a great machine today will one day be a circa 2008 clunker equivalent, the way she goes.


However, straying away from standards in this particular case with things like USB 3.1 and Sata 3.2 mother boards and devices on the somewhat soon-ish horizon is only going to repeat the history of the previous Mac Pro. You can't easily upgrade or swap out components. It's just as simple as that. New processors are also part of this equation.

Nawaf Alsabhan
01-05-2014, 03:10 AM
It's a shame apple doesn't even sell new 2012 mac pro's anymore.
I'd get a 2012 mac pro, but not having thunderbolt add-on is a problem to me, due to investing in thunderbolt external hard drives. It seems silly to me to get the new mac pro, and have everything externally, seems like you'll end up with a bigger desk, plus the mess of cables and enclosures.
My main problem is that I love OS X, but it seems like I can't buy anything that just works the way I want it. Mac Pro 2012 doesn't have TB, Mac pro 2014 can't Pcie, and hackintosh's, well, those are very risky, with lots of troubleshoots.
I really don't want to get windows..

If i end up needing to get a hackintosh, what Cpu and Gpu would you guys recommend? The Titan seems to work great with Dragon R3D's from the tests I've seen.

vincent kardasik
01-05-2014, 03:35 AM
With the new Mac Pro, can you monitor in 4K out of the box?
I mean with a Mac Pro, its HDMI ports and a 4K TV, can you watch your footage out of Resolve or FCP X on your Ultra HD consumer TV?

Shane Betts
01-05-2014, 03:59 AM
They say it supports 3x 4K displays at once. As for monitoring, they also support BMD and AJA 4K solutions via Thunderbolt.

AndreeMarkefors
01-05-2014, 06:09 AM
With the new Mac Pro, can you monitor in 4K out of the box?
I mean with a Mac Pro, its HDMI ports and a 4K TV, can you watch your footage out of Resolve or FCP X on your Ultra HD consumer TV?

Yes, but only up to 30Hz as a consequence of the HDMI 1.4(I think it is) protocol. People have been hooking up the $500 Seiko(?) 4k UHD TV to it.

For higher refresh rates you have to use one of the 'Thunderbolt 2' ports. It has 6 of them.

vincent kardasik
01-05-2014, 06:42 AM
Yes, but only up to 30Hz as a consequence of the HDMI 1.4(I think it is) protocol. People have been hooking up the $500 Seiko(?) 4k UHD TV to it.

For higher refresh rates you have to use one of the 'Thunderbolt 2' ports. It has 6 of them.

Thanks for this info Andree.

Eric Santiago
01-05-2014, 08:45 AM
I dont understand all the talk about external enclosures with the new Mac Pro?

Let me see. My Avid/Resolve system had a CUBIX, GTECH esPro 12TB, Avid Nitris and possibly a Digidesign IO box (merging systems).

I would trade that off any day for a system that can get rid of a few of the above.

And by the looks of it, the new specs will be doing just that :)

Its always been like this in the past?

Why is it any different now?

Do people forget or we just dont have enough to complain about?

Should we bring back Windows 2000?

LOL!

Robert Ruffo New
01-07-2014, 05:01 AM
This is a question that doesn't have an answer that works for everybody in reality because of one major flaw.

Basic answer.

Is the new Mac Pro faster than previous Mac Pros? Yep.

Is it going to transcode faster or on par than a system equipped with a Red Rocket-X? Nope.


However, I'll play devil's advocate. Depending on your specific workflow and needs it might be all you desire or want. It also might not.

Or like, me, you just can't stand the lower quality that Rocket delivers vs software decoding, however subtle.

oliver imfeld
01-07-2014, 05:17 AM
@RRN: rocket delivers lower quality than software decode? please elaborate !
thx
o

Frank Glencairn
01-07-2014, 05:30 AM
Stock 2013 MacPro 3.5GHz 6-Core D500 vs. 2010 Mac Pro 12-Core 2.66GHz 24GB with a stock Nvidia GTX 780 3GB in both OS X 10.9.1 and 10.8.4.

Percentages shown represent the highest sustained CPU load for each test.

What to exspect:

RED R3D Playback
(1080/24p Project)

2013 Mac Pro (10.9.1)
4K RED (4096 x 2304)
Quarter Good: 24 fps @ 36%
Half Good: 22 fps @ 100%
Half Premium: 11fps @ 100%
Full Premium: 5 fps @ 100%

5K EPIC (5120 x 2560)
Quarter Good: 24 fps @45%
Half Good: 20 fps @ 100%
Half Premium: 8 fps @ 100%
Full Premium: 3 fps @ 100%

6K Dragon (6144 x 3160)
Quarter: 24 fps @ 56%
Half Good: 16 fps @ 100%
Half Premium: 5 fps @ 100%
Full Premium: 3 fps @ 100%

-----

2010 Mac Pro (10.9.1)
4K RED (4096 x 2304)
Quarter Good: 24 fps @ 25%
Half Good: 20 fps @ 50%
Half Premium: 14 fps @ 86%
Full Premium: 7 fps @ 80%

5K EPIC (5120 x 2560)
Quarter Good: 20 fps @ 29%
Half Good: 14 fps @ 62%
Half Premium: 10 fps @ 89%
Full Premium: 5 fps @ 79%

6K Dragon (6144 x 3160)
Quarter: 20 fps @ 30%
Half Good: 15 fps @ 71%
Half Premium: 8 fps @ 86%
Full Premium: 3 fps @ 73%

------

2010 Mac Pro (10.8.4)
4K (4096 x 2304)
Quarter Good: 24 fps @ 21%
Half Good: 24 fps @ 65%
Half Premium: 14 fps @ 89%
Full Premium: 7 fps @ 75%

5K EPIC (5120 x 2560)
Quarter Good: 24 fps @ 25%
Half Good: 22 fps @ 93%
Half Premium: 10 fps @ 88%
Full Premium: 5 fps @ 75%

6K Dragon (6144 x 3160)
Quarter: 24 fps @ 32%
Half Good: 20 fps @ 92%
Half Premium: 7 fps @ 84%
Full Premium: 3 fps @ 76%

http://www.liftgammagain.com/forum/index.php?threads/new-mac-pro-resolve-benchmarks.2256/

Bob Gundu
01-07-2014, 07:14 AM
BTW, here's a good recap of FCPX in 2013. Our very own REDUSER Chris McKechnie is mentioned in the article.
http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1312-final-cut-pro-x-2013-a-year-in-review

paul schefz
01-07-2014, 08:45 AM
Stock 2013 MacPro 3.5GHz 6-Core D500 vs. 2010 Mac Pro 12-Core 2.66GHz 24GB with a stock Nvidia GTX 780 3GB in both OS X 10.9.1 and 10.8.4.

Percentages shown represent the highest sustained CPU load for each test.

What to exspect:

RED R3D Playback
(1080/24p Project)

2013 Mac Pro (10.9.1)
4K RED (4096 x 2304)
Quarter Good: 24 fps @ 36%
Half Good: 22 fps @ 100%
Half Premium: 11fps @ 100%
Full Premium: 5 fps @ 100%

5K EPIC (5120 x 2560)
Quarter Good: 24 fps @45%
Half Good: 20 fps @ 100%
Half Premium: 8 fps @ 100%
Full Premium: 3 fps @ 100%

6K Dragon (6144 x 3160)
Quarter: 24 fps @ 56%
Half Good: 16 fps @ 100%
Half Premium: 5 fps @ 100%
Full Premium: 3 fps @ 100%

-----

2010 Mac Pro (10.9.1)
4K RED (4096 x 2304)
Quarter Good: 24 fps @ 25%
Half Good: 20 fps @ 50%
Half Premium: 14 fps @ 86%
Full Premium: 7 fps @ 80%

5K EPIC (5120 x 2560)
Quarter Good: 20 fps @ 29%
Half Good: 14 fps @ 62%
Half Premium: 10 fps @ 89%
Full Premium: 5 fps @ 79%

6K Dragon (6144 x 3160)
Quarter: 20 fps @ 30%
Half Good: 15 fps @ 71%
Half Premium: 8 fps @ 86%
Full Premium: 3 fps @ 73%

------

2010 Mac Pro (10.8.4)
4K (4096 x 2304)
Quarter Good: 24 fps @ 21%
Half Good: 24 fps @ 65%
Half Premium: 14 fps @ 89%
Full Premium: 7 fps @ 75%

5K EPIC (5120 x 2560)
Quarter Good: 24 fps @ 25%
Half Good: 22 fps @ 93%
Half Premium: 10 fps @ 88%
Full Premium: 5 fps @ 75%

6K Dragon (6144 x 3160)
Quarter: 24 fps @ 32%
Half Good: 20 fps @ 92%
Half Premium: 7 fps @ 84%
Full Premium: 3 fps @ 76%

http://www.liftgammagain.com/forum/index.php?threads/new-mac-pro-resolve-benchmarks.2256/
I am not sure I can tell in which app he played the red raw files? resolve? There is a HUGE difference between rcx and resolve. These numbers look like resolve to me?
Also: this is the high end stock version with the 2 d500?
i have been keeping an eye on the "old Mac Pro" market....but every time i see another price drop, I remember: no TB and probably no chance of ever getting it.....

roryhinds
01-07-2014, 09:50 AM
Why is everyone so hung up on Thunderbolt when its not much faster than USB3 and way,way slower than PCIe

M Most
01-07-2014, 09:58 AM
Why is everyone so hung up on Thunderbolt when its not much faster than USB3 and way,way slower than PCIe

It is - in theory - more than twice as fast as USB3. The thing that many people here and elsewhere tend to overlook is that the speed of any connection is governed by the actual storage device capabilities. If you're using a single drive - or even a two drive Raid 0 stripe set - the speed that storage is capable of delivering is considerably below the capabilities of either USB3 or Thunderbolt, so in that case the interconnect is not the limiting factor. If, however, you're dealing with a large storage subsystem - say, somewhere between 12 and 24 spindles - the extra bandwidth afforded by Thunderbolt (in theory faster than 10Gb Ethernet in a Thunderbolt 2 capable subsystem/connection) can and will deliver much better performance than USB3, which is effectively limited to 5Gb. The other advantage of Thunderbolt is that it supports daisychaining, something you can't get with USB3 (you can use a hub, though) and sometimes very useful for multiple simultaneous transfers.

roryhinds
01-07-2014, 10:08 AM
exactly, there is the theory and the reality.

Robert Ruffo New
01-07-2014, 10:41 PM
Just popped some 6K files on Mac Pro 2012 12 core in Premiere (GTX 570) No Rocket.

Plays in 1/4 res like butter even with some simple effects and 1/4 res looks more than fine for editing. Will not be an issue (although some of our clients are still stuck with some pretty horrendous old gear, so they might have a problem)

Robert Ruffo New
01-07-2014, 10:42 PM
It is - in theory - more than twice as fast as USB3. The thing that many people here and elsewhere tend to overlook is that the speed of any connection is governed by the actual storage device capabilities. If you're using a single drive - or even a two drive Raid 0 stripe set - the speed that storage is capable of delivering is considerably below the capabilities of either USB3 or Thunderbolt, so in that case the interconnect is not the limiting factor. If, however, you're dealing with a large storage subsystem - say, somewhere between 12 and 24 spindles - the extra bandwidth afforded by Thunderbolt (in theory faster than 10Gb Ethernet in a Thunderbolt 2 capable subsystem/connection) can and will deliver much better performance than USB3, which is effectively limited to 5Gb. The other advantage of Thunderbolt is that it supports daisychaining, something you can't get with USB3 (you can use a hub, though) and sometimes very useful for multiple simultaneous transfers.

OK, but it's still not nearly fast enough to fully utilize something like a Rocket X. For that you need PCI.

AndreasOberg
01-08-2014, 01:32 AM
Why is everyone so hung up on Thunderbolt when its not much faster than USB3 and way,way slower than PCIe

Its not only the speed that makes thunderbolt useful but also:
- you can chain the devices. I have 3 8TB drives connected with one thunderbolt cable. Useful
- the thunderbolt cable is a bit better than USB physically so it sits more safe in the computer. Wish it was even more safe though.
- You can also send an image to a display with thunderbolt (haven't used that myself though).
- In Maverick it should be possible to do thunderbolt network. Useful for mega fast network if you sit closer to each other.

Personally I would pick thunderbolt before usb3 in all cases if I had the choice, its just better in every way (except price).

/Andreas

Blair S. Paulsen
01-08-2014, 05:26 AM
I'm on the same page with Mike about the common fallacy, promoted by vendors who certainly know better, that a fast interface somehow makes drives faster. The fastest 7200 RPM spinning drives I've seen in the general marketplace (2TB SATAIII Seagate Barracudas) top out around 200MB/s on test benches - I've yet to exceed sustained writes over 160MB/s on any single HDD in real world usage over eSATA, from any vendor. I have not used the Raptors due to cost and noise concerns, with SSDs getting cheaper I probably never will.

Speaking of which, I recently picked up a Samsung 840 Pro EVO 1TB SSD that can both read and write at over 500MB/s. Couldn't get over 270MB/s on the cheese grater's internal drive bays - evidently they are stuck in SATAII land. Couldn't get over 280MB/s over USB3. Did 550MB/s over TB1 no problem.

FWIW its easy to point at the things the nMP could be better at, especially when comparing it to bomber builds. On the flip side, the direction Apple is going - smaller, lighter, quieter, more energy efficient, internal flash storage, leveraging GPU resources, etc is compelling - at least to me.

Cheers - #19

Robert Ruffo New
01-08-2014, 06:56 AM
I'm on the same page with Mike about the common fallacy, promoted by vendors who certainly know better, that a fast interface somehow makes drives faster. The fastest 7200 RPM spinning drives I've seen in the general marketplace (2TB SATAIII Seagate Barracudas) top out around 200MB/s on test benches - I've yet to exceed sustained writes over 160MB/s on any single HDD in real world usage over eSATA, from any vendor. I have not used the Raptors due to cost and noise concerns, with SSDs getting cheaper I probably never will.

Speaking of which, I recently picked up a Samsung 840 Pro EVO 1TB SSD that can both read and write at over 500MB/s. Couldn't get over 270MB/s on the cheese grater's internal drive bays - evidently they are stuck in SATAII land. Couldn't get over 280MB/s over USB3. Did 550MB/s over TB1 no problem.

FWIW its easy to point at the things the nMP could be better at, especially when comparing it to bomber builds. On the flip side, the direction Apple is going - smaller, lighter, quieter, more energy efficient, internal flash storage, leveraging GPU resources, etc is compelling - at least to me.

Cheers - #19

Internal flash storage is not exactly pro friendly. I would fill that drive to 100% in a half-day of Epic shooting, and less than a half day with Arri Raw. WHat do I care about lighter? The thing never leaves my studio - EVER.

Get a simple USB3 or ESata Raid card and you are all set to go with more than enough drive speed to handle just about any footages. It's not the drives that slow us down, it's everything else, and it seems that the trash can is matching a cheese garter for double the price. I could care less what my computer looks like - and I have never met a pro who bought computers based on aesthetics - that's kind of like buying a camera dolly based on paint color. As for the few dollars of electricity, I could care less about that either. Just give me performance and flexibility and huge, cheap, easy to change drives and the ability to use any PCI cards I want.

M Most
01-08-2014, 07:21 AM
Internal flash storage is not exactly pro friendly. I would fill that drive to 100% in a half-day of Epic shooting, and less than a half day with Arri Raw. WHat do I care about lighter? The thing never leaves my studio - EVER.

Get a simple USB3 or ESata Raid card and you are all set to go with more than enough drive speed to handle just about any footages. It's not the drives that slow us down, it's everything else, and it seems that the trash can is matching a cheese garter for double the price.

Clearly you've already made up your mind. That's fine. But I don't see any point in your apparent continuing efforts to convince everyone else here to see it the way you do. Because they don't, and they won't. And they have their reasons, just like you do. You're not going to buy one. Fine. We understand. Now, why not just let it go?

Manfred Lopez
01-08-2014, 07:21 AM
Speaking of which, I recently picked up a Samsung 840 Pro EVO 1TB SSD that can both read and write at over 500MB/s. Couldn't get over 270MB/s on the cheese grater's internal drive bays - evidently they are stuck in SATAII land. Couldn't get over 280MB/s over USB3. Did 550MB/s over TB1 no problem.

FWIW its easy to point at the things the nMP could be better at, especially when comparing it to bomber builds. On the flip side, the direction Apple is going - smaller, lighter, quieter, more energy efficient, internal flash storage, leveraging GPU resources, etc is compelling - at least to me.

Cheers - #19

This is very interesting. I wonder what internal data transfer speeds can be achieved on the nMP.

AndreeMarkefors
01-08-2014, 01:19 PM
Clearly you've already made up your mind. That's fine. But I don't see any point in your apparent continuing efforts to convince everyone else here to see it the way you do. Because they don't, and they won't. And they have their reasons, just like you do. You're not going to buy one. Fine. We understand. Now, why not just let it go?

Agreed.

I was just thinking: what can possibly be a reason for telling everyone what you DON'T like? If people stick to pushing what works for them instead, the sharing experience becomes so much better.

And honestly, when someone describes something as "clunky", that other people obviously can make fly, then they are only mirroring their own inability and/or lack of understanding.

This post contributes very little too. But since the slandering has gone on to some length, possibly misinforming many users who take any written word at face value, I'll just leave it as a "one post feedback".

AndreeMarkefors
01-08-2014, 01:30 PM
Speaking of which, I recently picked up a Samsung 840 Pro EVO 1TB SSD that can both read and write at over 500MB/s. Couldn't get over 270MB/s on the cheese grater's internal drive bays.

It's unfortunate if that came as a surprise—but I'm sure it does for many.

There are however many options that let you use the internal bays in a pre-2013 Mac Pro via PCIe add-on cards. You can reach speeds up to 1800MB/s, but that won't be cheap of course. One popular simple solution is OWC's Accelsior E2 cards. They cost about $700 for 480GB, gives you around 800MB/s and two external eSATA ports. You can also buy another one of those Samsungs and put them on a Tempo SSD Pro card as RAID0 for decent speeds.

Blair S. Paulsen
01-08-2014, 01:59 PM
It's unfortunate if that came as a surprise—but I'm sure it does for many.

I deserve that. Just because SATA III has taken over the last couple of years doesn't mean that Apple saw any reason to update that controller in the 2010 or 2012 MPs since those bays were intended for 3.5" spinning drives that generally top out at least 50MB/s below SATA II throughput limits.

I've been looking at the Accelsior E2 card as part of the final freshening of my beefiest cheese grater. Even after I get my hands on a nMP, there will be plenty of times when its tied up or in the field and I'll have to get things done on the ol' tower. With the nVivia Quadro 4000 and RedRocket installed its not a total dog, just crumming that once Dragon footy becomes my primary source media that RR stops helping :-(. That is NOT meant as a dig at RED, technology moves fast and supporting older hardware stops making sense at some point, just noting it.

Cheers - #19

Christopher Barrett
01-08-2014, 02:29 PM
I dropped an Accelsior into my 12 Core. Nice speeds.

Manfred Lopez
01-08-2014, 02:43 PM
I'm still trying to figure out what the internal data-transfer speed will be for the nMP. This article points out that there was a difference in ssd performance for the previous generation depending on what capacity you had in your machine. I hope this is not the case for the new ssd's in the nMP.

http://www.thessdreview.com/daily-news/latest-buzz/hard-lesson-learned-new-release-apple-products-containing-lesser-performing-sandisk-128gb-ssds/

Will Keir
01-08-2014, 10:17 PM
That's what I'm hoping and will test the theory, :)


Tthe older towers aren't necessarily obsolete yet, and can still play a meaningful role in Dragon workflow.

Alain M
01-09-2014, 09:32 AM
Regardless of what performance similarity we can see between the 2012 Mac Pro vs 2013 Mac Pro we all know that the new and future route is with the new Mac Pro...It is hard to swallow for us always a new trend, a new concept...bottom line is that the new Mac Pro is gonna kick ass, and that's gonna be the end of the story and a new story begins...

my 2 cents

Robert Ruffo New
01-09-2014, 10:40 AM
Clearly you've already made up your mind. That's fine. But I don't see any point in your apparent continuing efforts to convince everyone else here to see it the way you do. Because they don't, and they won't. And they have their reasons, just like you do. You're not going to buy one. Fine. We understand. Now, why not just let it go?

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything - I'm venting my frustration at Apple for following what appears to be the reverse of Moore's Law, by offering less power for more money, several years later,. and hiding that in some supposedly attractive new case.

I'm also trying to point out facts and draw attention to hard measured figures - which are more meaningful than "this is new" "it looks sexy" or "it's the future".

Maybe consumers for example embrace MP3s as new and better than CDs, but it's important that pros know that it is actually quite a poor sound recording format, and worse than older CD. In the same way, New Mac Pros might look nifty to consumers and technically clueless "artistic types" but if you buy one looking for more actual power than a 2010 Mac Pro - in useful terms like fps of RAW rendering - you will likely be very disappointed, especially if your 2010 model had many good GPU cards in it internally or externally via a PCI out-box. I am very disappointed by this fact as I was really hoping to be able to buy something significantly faster for our shop.

I know many tiny businesses for whom this is a major investment - so for some of those I'm also issuing a warning - be careful as this may be a total waste of your tight money in a still very tough production economy.

if you have a problem with my above listed agendas, no offense but I don't really care.

Robert Ruffo New
01-09-2014, 10:50 AM
Agreed.

I was just thinking: what can possibly be a reason for telling everyone what you DON'T like? If people stick to pushing what works for them instead, the sharing experience becomes so much better.

And honestly, when someone describes something as "clunky", that other people obviously can make fly, then they are only mirroring their own inability and/or lack of understanding.

This post contributes very little too. But since the slandering has gone on to some length, possibly misinforming many users who take any written word at face value, I'll just leave it as a "one post feedback".

Rigorous technical inquiry requires looking at pros and cons and evaluating alternatives. This includes mentioning what you "don't like". An engineer, when evaluating cement, will in fact mention when that cement breaks, fails, and other negatives. Otherwise that engineer is a dangerous idiot.

Pitfall sharing is warning and is extremely useful. I have saved myself a lot of grief by reading/hearing about other people's horror stories and complaints about various products for cinematography - and even potential staff hires. I'm glad they didn't have a yoga-class attitude of only focussing on the positive.

I don't see how my observations on rendering benchmarks reveals any lack of vision, understanding or inability on my part. This is a thread about computer gear, not some hippie group hug.

Bob Gundu
01-09-2014, 10:56 AM
I guess I'm the only one who loves the smaller footprint of the Mac Pro and the fact that it uses 70 percent less energy. I have a tower too and it's a huge hunk of metal. To think about the transport, material, and disposal costs, it really is sad. Tides have to shift. It's made in the USA. Lets give them some credit for this. They hit the ground running, even if you feel its the at the same pace as before. People are usually the bottlenecks I find.

D Fuller
01-09-2014, 11:12 AM
People are usually the bottlenecks I find.

Never were truer words spoken.

Jason Diamond
01-09-2014, 11:56 AM
I currently have this config MacPro I'm writing a detailed article for Studio Daily about.

- 8 core E-5 3ghz, 64GB RAM, 1TB internal SSD, Dual D700's 6GB RAM each -

Yesterday Tom Wong and I spent all day hammering the box through a multitude of apps and file formats. I will publish a matrix of performance for all of that with a larger article.

Here's my findings for 6KHD Dragon:



EPIC DRAGON 6KHD 5:1
5568 x 3132
3m2s length
23.98
REDCINE-X 22.1
PRORES 422 FULL DEBAYER
9fps
HALF GOOD DEBAYER 13fps



This was using the internal 1TB SSD which BMD speed Tested at 1GB/s R/W as the Read Disk and a 4xSSD TBolt1 Raid as Write Disk which BMD speed Tested at 750MB/s R/W

I can tell you right now that RC-X is the fastest of all the apps software/GPU only. As far as I know RC-X has zero optimization for the D700's so with this being the low threshold of performance we can only expect better in the future I'd hope.

Bob Gundu
01-09-2014, 12:36 PM
Thanks Jason. Thats the same configuration I have coming. So the big question is, what are the external TB enclosure vendors up to with performance for the RR-X?

Paul Harb
01-09-2014, 01:12 PM
Don't want to get into one of our debates Bob ;) however I never once looked at my tower in anticipation of an upgrade and thought...I wish it were way smaller and more energy efficient. Im not saying these things aren't good, of course they are....but on the list of a power user...those things are at the very bottom of that list.

Industrial design is crucial in the brutal world of a production whether it be on a feature set or live events. I used to tour a lot with rock bands as a video director traveling every day to a new city, packing and unpacking all my gear (the editing system being only one piece of a live event camera and playback system for a tour), moving these shock mounted racks into and out of semis every day and that bumpy travel for 100's of miles. I couldn't imagine putting this non industrial design through that kind of abuse. Im sure someone will come up with some design to be able to rack mount this thing, but it will be goofy and thats not even taking into the account you are going to have a hell of a time doing proper dressing with all your io's and consumer grade Thunderbolt cables and connections that are by they way at the moment not even lockable.

I would also carry a laptop which was great for portability and would go with me to my hotel every night so I could work....so from my perspective the design is odd in the sense that its priced and has the horsepower for someone like me, but it doesn't have the design for someone like me...I think there are a lot of people like me that are Macheads that are in the same boat scratching their heads when they look at this design.

Again I don't want to argue, but hopefully this perspective makes some sense...its not everyones perspective and I hope these kinds of issues have solutions because after FCPX and now this Im at a crossroads with Apple at this point and I know Im not alone.


I guess I'm the only one who loves the smaller footprint of the Mac Pro and the fact that it uses 70 percent less energy. I have a tower too and it's a huge hunk of metal. To think about the transport, material, and disposal costs, it really is sad. Tides have to shift. It's made in the USA. Lets give them some credit for this. They hit the ground running, even if you feel its the at the same pace as before. People are usually the bottlenecks I find.

Bob Gundu
01-09-2014, 01:34 PM
Indeed we have different reasons for gear Paul. When I was a Flame/Inferno artist those crazy fridge size SGI servers needed its own room. When I worked at Alias|Wavefront, I had to have a PC, Mac, and a linux box on my desk. I worked at IMAX for years with a supped up Linux machine too under my desk. For the last 2 years I gave a nice laptop a try doing Maya, Nuke, FCPX, Mocha... wow... serious progress. Its takes a lot of effort to get people to go another direction, but once that happens, you can work on making it better.

Will Keir
01-09-2014, 09:30 PM
Thanks for the numbers Jason. Truly, they do seem low for the New Mac Pro. It will be good news when more optimizations takes place.

So if you want to place a RRX card into that trash can, how's it gonna work?


I currently have this config MacPro I'm writing a detailed article for Studio Daily about.

- 8 core E-5 3ghz, 64GB RAM, 1TB internal SSD, Dual D700's 6GB RAM each -

Yesterday Tom Wong and I spent all day hammering the box through a multitude of apps and file formats. I will publish a matrix of performance for all of that with a larger article.

Here's my findings for 6KHD Dragon:



EPIC DRAGON 6KHD 5:1
5568 x 3132
3m2s length
23.98
REDCINE-X 22.1
PRORES 422 FULL DEBAYER
9fps
HALF GOOD DEBAYER 13fps



This was using the internal 1TB SSD which BMD speed Tested at 1GB/s R/W as the Read Disk and a 4xSSD TBolt1 Raid as Write Disk which BMD speed Tested at 750MB/s R/W

I can tell you right now that RC-X is the fastest of all the apps software/GPU only. As far as I know RC-X has zero optimization for the D700's so with this being the low threshold of performance we can only expect better in the future I'd hope.

Jason Diamond
01-10-2014, 11:08 AM
So if you want to place a RRX card into that trash can, how's it gonna work?

It's gonna be a TB2 enclosure of some kind. expansion chassis or whatever ends up being avail. It's been stated here on the boards that even TB2 won't max out the cards full x16 abilities but even if the card performs around 60fps or so with Dragon its way better than the current options for even regular MX Epic. Awaiting enclosures and Rocket-X of course to do the real math :)

Eric Santiago
01-10-2014, 11:40 AM
I tell yaa, tech for this new computer is moving faster than previous new Apple products.

Some vendors didnt even finalize drivers for nearly a year back in the day.

I experienced this with tech as old as NUBUS :P

These are great times for getting new gear :)

Paul Harb
01-10-2014, 05:24 PM
Again, I can't imagine spending all that cash on a RRX card just to put it in a TB2 external chassis that will not let its full potential be utilized. Seems a bit counter intuitive to me.


It's gonna be a TB2 enclosure of some kind. expansion chassis or whatever ends up being avail. It's been stated here on the boards that even TB2 won't max out the cards full x16 abilities but even if the card performs around 60fps or so with Dragon its way better than the current options for even regular MX Epic. Awaiting enclosures and Rocket-X of course to do the real math :)

Will Keir
01-10-2014, 06:10 PM
If you can't get full performance from a TB2 enclosure, can you get full performance in a PCIe slot in the older Mac Pros?

Which one makes better use of the card?


It's gonna be a TB2 enclosure of some kind. expansion chassis or whatever ends up being avail. It's been stated here on the boards that even TB2 won't max out the cards full x16 abilities but even if the card performs around 60fps or so with Dragon its way better than the current options for even regular MX Epic. Awaiting enclosures and Rocket-X of course to do the real math :)

Bob Gundu
01-10-2014, 06:13 PM
If you can't get full performance from a TB2 enclosure, can you get full performance in a PCIe slot in the older Mac Pros?

Which one makes better use of the card?

Performance from the card is going to be way better from the older macPro tower.

Medavoym
01-10-2014, 06:30 PM
Performance from the card is going to be way better from the older macPro tower.

Would a Hackintosh solve both problems?


- it can take a RRX card inside, using its absolute full potential

- you can also use Thunderbolt (the lack of it on the older Mac Pro being the major disadvantage)

- not to mention a Hackintosh is much cheaper than both.


Are people generally staying away from Hackintoshes? I understand the potential problems when upgrading etc.
But if you only run the important softwares on it - Avid/FCPx/DaVinci/Redcine etc - not a myriad of other programs - it seems to be a worthy option, me thinks.

Michael Kowalczyk
01-29-2014, 05:17 PM
I have a Hackintosh with 2 RED Rocket X's in it and get around 80-85fps with 5K footage, 55-60fps 6K. I expect these numbers to jump when I get my hands on the new Rocket firmware....

C.H.Haskell
06-09-2014, 05:28 AM
Not sure what 20013 model mac pro this is but i was just told

12 fps in6k rendering and 30p playback

Would love to see some more numbers like this. With my workflow, I am leaning towards a trashcan mac (instead of a rocketX) based on my current performance and the ability to cut 4k native R3Ds using my laptop (MBr) with FCPX is nothing short of F&*(ing magic.

Love to see more numbers like the ones I posted above cause I think thats what the OP was hoping to see from this thread. Cheers.

Brian Merlen
06-09-2014, 06:16 AM
I want to know about full debayer encodes with a variety of codecs/aspect ratios on the nMP...that is what interests me the most, full debayer encoding speeds