Doesn't Final Cut Pro X take advantage of ATi's discrete GPU? If it does would that mean the dual core i7 with the 6630m has an advantage over the quad core i7 for video rendering or no?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
cuad-core i7+3000HD or dual-core i7+AMD Radeon 6630
- Thread starter jonjon1
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But then you need to see if the graphics is more beneficial than the benefit of the quad processor for encoding... I too am at a loss right now as I do a lot of iMovie work for personal stuff. I used to do more prof work with fcp but since I don't do that anymore, I went from a Mac pro to a 2009 Macmini which I now am upgrading...
Sorry. How said something about Revit? Or did I miss reading it? In my case I use programs like Archicad, Autocad and Artlantis Studio for renderings!
I believe im really confuesed after all the different opinions about which one is better! I guess I rather go for the quad core i7 with Intel HD3000.
It doesnt make any sense!!! The most expensive Mini should at least have the same graphics than a cheaper one!!! And I woundt have these problems!
You trade off the discrete GPU for a far more powerful CPU. If you're specifically talking about CPU intensive tasks like image/design/video renderings I believe you will be better off with the better CPU (Quad Core i7)
Look at the applications you are going to be using. Research the app to see if it is primarily GPU or CPU dependent and whether or not it effectively uses multiple threads. If it's a CPU heavily threaded app, then get the quad-core. If it is GPU intensive, get the top desktop with the Radeon.
I had the same question.
In regards to CAD. I've read that final rendering, 2D drawings and wireframes are CPU intensive. Previewing (ie rotating the model in open GL is GPU intensive). Apparently, Artlantis does not make much use of the GPU, only when setting up the scene in viewports. Some rendering software do use GPU but not many at this stage. The mini is not set up for rendering so I guess there needs to be a compromise. If final rendering time is important to you, I would go with the Quad.
In regards to CAD. I've read that final rendering, 2D drawings and wireframes are CPU intensive. Previewing (ie rotating the model in open GL is GPU intensive). Apparently, Artlantis does not make much use of the GPU, only when setting up the scene in viewports. Some rendering software do use GPU but not many at this stage. The mini is not set up for rendering so I guess there needs to be a compromise. If final rendering time is important to you, I would go with the Quad.
I plan to run win 7 media centre via HDMI on my plasma screen whilst at the same time run osx lion on an led screen via thunderbolt. Not sure if this is possible using parallels?
If it is possible which would be better quad core with intel graphics, or dual core with dedicated graphics?
If it is possible which would be better quad core with intel graphics, or dual core with dedicated graphics?
They're talking about the server edition of the mini, which features a quad-core i7 processor and the Intel HD3000 graphics.
Yes, I realized that after I posted, hence the edit.
Ah sorry XD I didn't even notice the edit until you mentioned it. I didn't mean to seem like a jerk about it.
Finalcut Pro X + Motion
Actually is a bit of a Dilemma if one would use BOTH Final cut and Motion.
The i7 Dual + AMD Graphic would be for sure slower than the Quad in the encoding process, but by far much more efficient in real time activities with motion (and even previews within AVCHD files, am I right?)
The i7 Quad + Intel Graphic would encode much faster, but will have performance issues in Motion, I guess...
Or is it the real time preview in Motion and Final cut relying on the CPUs?
Actually is a bit of a Dilemma if one would use BOTH Final cut and Motion.
The i7 Dual + AMD Graphic would be for sure slower than the Quad in the encoding process, but by far much more efficient in real time activities with motion (and even previews within AVCHD files, am I right?)
The i7 Quad + Intel Graphic would encode much faster, but will have performance issues in Motion, I guess...
Or is it the real time preview in Motion and Final cut relying on the CPUs?
Last edited:
Also remember that FCP-X encodes in the background, so you won't notice the rendering as much anyway. Keep that in mind. It's really a tough call. That HD3000 card is just a piece of garbage....but the quad core processor is nice to have.
Graphics Card
I use artlantis a lot it requires a dedicated graphics card in their minimum requirements the quad would be better for rendering though.
I use artlantis a lot it requires a dedicated graphics card in their minimum requirements the quad would be better for rendering though.
I understand this, but I'm still not sure that the Dual+Amd will perform better than the Quad+Intel, within Real Time tasks.
I mean, two additional processor should have more power than the AMD card...
I think you should by the quad-core i7 + HD3000 server, if you do need a professional display card, then you can wait a thunderbolt external display card.
My sentiments exactly. cpu>gpu in all cases when talking double the cores cpu. And knowing that thunderbolt will provide an ultimate answer that blows away the dedicated gpu in high end minis anyways in near future.. I will want to be working with the i7 quad for sure.
Of course if you expect to be perfectly satisfied with the AMD Radeon/ dual core i7 and never plan to expand using thunderbolt or require better processor performance for the life of the machine, no need to fork out more for the server. All the folks who state how bad the HD3000 sucks, are graphics professionals, intensive gamers and movie makers who should be working on a high end 27" iMac or Mac Pro anyways. All of which have four multi threaded processor cores minimum.
I haven't tried Final Cut X but I found that Final Cut Pro felt more useable on my old '09 2.66 C2D 9600m GT MBP in comparison to my 13" i5 MBP. I don't do a lot of video editing though so my experience is limited.
So, based on my limited experience... I would probably end up getting the dual core / ATI combo for video editing (if it had to be a Mini)
0.02
So, based on my limited experience... I would probably end up getting the dual core / ATI combo for video editing (if it had to be a Mini)
0.02
You go straight to the point: the mini server will be faster in the encoding process, but could be that will be less usable, due to the graphic card, which affects the speed of the workflow.
It would be nice if two owners could do a comparison with a standard set of instructions in motion...
That makes sense. IMHO, speed of workflow is much more important. I don't mind walking away from my computer for encoding... forces you to take a break
This solution shouldn't be too far away.. Sony's price is whacked tho.
Apple's would be too
Lets hope for some good alternatives.
On that note, I know it would be very niche and I doubt it would ever happen... but I would be all over a 27" cinema display that had a xGPU built in for the ultra portable Macs.
Apple's would be too
Lets hope for some good alternatives.
On that note, I know it would be very niche and I doubt it would ever happen... but I would be all over a 27" cinema display that had a xGPU built in for the ultra portable Macs.
Actually with the slim build of displays these days, all the manufacturers could afford a little space in design for thunderbolt xGPUs. May take some time.. but here's hoping any thunderbolt device will drive any make display regardless of graphics limitations placed in compact pc's. Won't be very cheap for a while I'd imagine. A 40" 3000x4000 resolution ACD + internal dedicated gpu with one thunderbolt in, multiple thunderbolt outs may be an affordable reality some day.
Get to work on it Apple!
*awakens from dream*