Thread: SHOULD I BUY THE NEW MAC PRO OR A RED ROCKET CARD?

Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Lebanon - U.S.A
    Posts
    105
    I will go with the mac pro 2013 even 2999 will be fine to play back 4 and 5 k 6 core exon and d300 video card.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Lebanon - U.S.A
    Posts
    105
    why what happen if you moving to dragon. Bob?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Member Bob Gundu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Toronto, ON Canada
    Posts
    10,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Tarek salman View Post
    why what happen if you moving to dragon. Bob?
    The old red rocket doesn't work with Dragon footage.
    ___________________________

    VFX, Cinematographer, Photographer
    10 frame handles
    Vimeo
    Instagram
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Bowen View Post
    Keep in mind you can get a 12 Core Xeon on an X79 and install a RRX card.
    Bleh… An alright solution, but you're only saving about $60 vs. using an actual C6xx chipset workstation motherboard rather than a consumer grade motherboard offering Xeon support as a band-aid. Although, one advantage to that approach may be Thunderbolt2 as I think there are one or two X79 boards on the market now with TB2 ports.

    But yes, you can roll together a PC and save a bit vs. a production workstation like an HP Z series or Mac Pro.

    The new Mac Pro or any current 8+ core system is going to render (hehe) the original Rocket card obsolete at this point. Actually that's not true. Installing an original Rocket card in a faster system just gives you that much more power to work with. The real issue with the original Rocket is that it does not support Dragon R3D's and it may never support them. RR-X is a different beast and we also now have GPU R3D decoding as well. However, both the RR-X and GPU support have not been rolled into the SDK for third parties and only work in partially completed form inside REDCINE-X at this time. So there really is no perfect solution at the moment.

    Once those technologies are fleshed out and the SDK is released to the masses, then I think a number of CPU cores will be ideal and beneficial, although GPU acceleration will probably be the primary concern for most since they can pair a few powerful GPUs with a cheaper desktop CPU solution. Adding more CPU cores to the mix via Xeon CPUs and/ or adding a ROCKET-X card will only augment the workflow. I could see workstations with 20+ cores combined with a RR-X card and two powerful GPUs becoming the ideal monster systems where they can shred through bulk 6K R3D transcodes for dailies production or other such tasks.
    - Jeff Kilgroe
    - Applied Visual Technologies, LLC | RojoMojo
    - Just me and my 8K Monstro VV kicking ass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    www.adkvideoediting.com
    Posts
    877
    Actually I have this exact same system at home and the X79 board is $250 to $350 cheaper than the best Dual Xeon board Asus Z9PE-D8 WS board. Also this is the exact same config the Mac Pro is running with a different chipset model but same features. So if the nMPro is not a Band-Aid then how is this a Band-aid? The only reason to get a Dual Xeon board is if you want 2 Xeons or want more than 64GB of ram. Other than that then is no advantage at all to a Dual Xeon Board. I can get the exact same slot configuration in a single Xeon. I can install 2x780TI cards and an RRX card if I want? So please explain how this is not ideal? And yes this significantly cheaper than a 12 Core Mac Pro even with 2x 780TI cards in the X79 system.

    BTW this same configuration plays 4x 4K R3D layers in Premiere at 1/2 Res with a 770GTX 4GB card. I didn't get a 780Ti yet. Not bad for a Band-aid
    Last edited by Eric Bowen; 02-12-2014 at 04:11 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Yes, compared to a dual Xeon board, it's $250 or so cheaper. I wasn't talking about a dual Xeon board, but rather a workstation-class Xeon board, single CPU inferred.

    The X79 chipset has additional support for Xeon CPUs, but it was literally added as an afterthought and lacks full support for ECC registered or buffered RAM, if that's a thing for you. It also lacks full GPIO support and full QPI cycling, which can become an issue for some of the higher-speed 8+ core Xeon chips if you're often running under heavy computational loads. IMO, it would be much better to pair these CPUs with a C602 chipset -- chipset used in the new Mac Pro, HP Z420 and other single-CPU Xeon workstations.

    That said, there are some advantages and disadvantages to each approach:

    X79 boards are consumer oriented and tend to fit better with the enthusiast and gaming crowd. Some of the newer boards have Thunderbolt2, USB3.0 UASP and 802.11ac support.

    C602 boards are typically targeting workstations and more critical computational roles, typically have better QC and tighter tolerances to begin with. I want to say they have superior construction although that's not so much the case these days as the enthusiast motherboards have become quite good. The main issues here are the QPI cycle rate and GPIO. The latter of which is necessary if we want to add one of the upcoming Thunderbolt host adapters. The down-side to the workstation class board is that I'm unaware of any on the market at the moment which offer integrated Thunderbolt or 802.11ac. USB3.0 UASP is coming to several of them by way of firmware updates.

    All things considered I guess I wasn't being totally fair in my assessment above. They are just two different options that achieve balance with different feature sets.
    - Jeff Kilgroe
    - Applied Visual Technologies, LLC | RojoMojo
    - Just me and my 8K Monstro VV kicking ass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    www.adkvideoediting.com
    Posts
    877
    I really don't see how GPIO has any effect on performance or functionality. That is mainly for add on features that are often not even used.

    The QPI Cycle rate difference is for the QPI interconnect path between the CPU's on the Dual Xeon. The 2 CPU's having to sync processing and moderation can add considerable overhead and latency to their performance. That does not come into play at all with the single CPU configuration. All testing has shown the X79 is able to handle the GPU's or other PCI-E cards with as good or better performance as the Dual Xeon which means the QPI rate is more than the required data rate right now. That means it doesn't come into play.

    BTW the warranties on the higher end X79 boards exceed the warranties on most of the Dual Xeon boards except for the Asus which is the same as their WS X79. The QA differences are definitely not there anymore between them.
    Last edited by Eric Bowen; 02-13-2014 at 08:19 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    29
    I am not aware of any x79 motherboards with Thunderbolt (1 or 2). ASUS came out with an add-in card that currently only works with specific ASUS Z87 motherboards. The HP Z820 advertises thunderbolt2 capability, but is stating that it will become available as add-in in early 2014. It was originally due last October. So for users who want power (6 core CPUs and above) plus thunderbolt, the new Mac Pro is your only option at the moment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Montreal - Toronto - NYC
    Posts
    1,706
    12 core Mac Pro 2012 with good GPUs is faster (proven through many tests) and way way cheaper (ebay). In the future, you can endlessly upgrade the GPU end (unlike the new Mac Pro).

    This is the first time ever I have seen a computer company release a new product that is actually slower and more expensive than older offerings. I find it utterly outrageous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Senior Member jimhare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Posts
    3,768
    Robert, aren't those "tests" based on software that hasn't yet been optomized? We all know Premiere is currently slower, but I thought that optomized programs like FCP-X were screaming in comparison.

    If that's the case it's an unfair assessment to say it's slower since when we get a few updates the entire playing field will change.

    If I've missed some info, please let me know as I'm keeping a close eye on this. I'm not here to defend the trash can, just really want one so looking for the correct info.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts