Do I need an i9 iMac? I only work with SD video...

[editor999]

Currently have a 2010 6 core x 3.46ghz Mac Pro with 32GB ram


My most demanding task is rendering out large uncompressed SD (Pal or NTSC) files that are up to 150GB in size into mp4

Maybe one or two effects, ie basic colour correction. sharpening and maybe a couple of audio tweaks

Will getting an i9 iMac revolutionise my workflow in any way?

 

[ruslan120]

I’d imagine it can just chew through tasks faster. With editing large amounts of simple video you just need more RAM instead of a system upgrade (probably).

 

[Fishrrman]

i5 will probably do just fine.

 

[priitv8]

If you export into MP4 then I assume you encode into AVC/H.264?
Any iCPU that supports Intel Quick Sync will dramatically increase your export speeds.
Indeed, your software needs to support it as well.
FCP, Compressor and HandBrake do, for example.

 

[profcutter]

The only thing a faster cpu and GPU would do for you is if you want to do multiple layers of effects in real time. Compressing to mp4 will happen much faster, but if you’re working off of ssd’s, particularly the newer ones that follow the NVME spec (blade drives) you’ll be able to run multiple layers with effects in real time. In effect, an i9 is probably overkill, unless you see your workflow changing to 4K or better.

 

[throAU]

Currently have a 2010 6 core x 3.46ghz Mac Pro with 32GB ram


My most demanding task is rendering out large uncompressed SD (Pal or NTSC) files that are up to 150GB in size into mp4

Maybe one or two effects, ie basic colour correction. sharpening and maybe a couple of audio tweaks

Will getting an i9 iMac revolutionise my workflow in any way?

No you don't need an i9.

I have worked with HD video occasionally on my dual core i5 Macbook Pro 13" from 2015. Sure the final export takes a while, but the "working with" the video is OK.

... and HD is 4x the pixels to work with than SD.


That said, the size of the files you're working with, an i9 will crunch through them faster. To be clear, sounds like your big workload is "transcoding" more than editing?

 

[editor999]

All I really do is export huge uncompressed (some are 180GB) .mov SD files into h264 AVC mp4

And I hate waiting for it

How much faster will the top end i9 with 64GB do the job, over my 6 core 3.46 GHZ 2010 Mac Pro?

I don't want to get an i5 if it's just a little better - if I'm going to fork out the money and have to look at that ugly glary iMac screen, I want it to be worth my while

ALSO

If it's mostly CPU doing this kind of export, then should I just get a Mac mini i7 with 64GB ram instead?

 

[MandiMac]

All I really do is export huge uncompressed (some are 180GB) .mov SD files into h264 AVC mp4

And I hate waiting for it

How much faster will the top end i9 with 64GB do the job, over my 6 core 3.46 GHZ 2010 Mac Pro?

I don't want to get an i5 if it's just a little better - if I'm going to fork out the money and have to look at that ugly glary iMac screen, I want it to be worth my while

ALSO

If it's mostly CPU doing this kind of export, then should I just get a Mac mini i7 with 64GB ram instead?

You will probably shove off a few minutes of waiting time, but nothing revolutionary.
Beware that the Mac mini uses processors of lower wattage, so the comparison wouldn't be fair. The Mac mini hasn't got a proper cooling solution too, so you'd be better of with an iMac. An i9 processor is overkill in relation to the costs - but OTOH you're the first person that calls an iMac screen "ugly glary". Interesting.

 

[editor999]

I say that because I work as a video professional - I don't want to see window and light/lamp reflections on my images.

I see how it's a very pretty screen for recreational use, but I want a matte screen ideally.

Once upon a time, MacBook Pro could be ordered with matte option for these exact reasons..I think the iMac Pro should have this option by the way - they missed an opportunity

Believe me, I'm not the only one who hates it

 

[MandiMac]

I see. Let's do this the other way round: Is this the only thing you're using that computer for, and what is your budget?

 

[editor999]

Budget maybe $4,000 USD max

I don't want to spend it all, but I will if I have to and if it will reduce my wait times by at least 30%

I have 2 x nice 2K LCD screens which is plenty resolution for me - I'll be setting the 5K iMac to 2K anyway, plus I have keyboard and mouse - so really I'm just considering the damn thing for its CPU

yes, that's all it's for - transcoding massive files to small files in FCPX

(I'd otherwise use premiere on a PC, but sometimes am dealing with ProRes so I need the Mac for that)

 

[MandiMac]

yes, that's all it's for - transcoding massive files to small files in FCPX

Okay, then this below is the most important part:

If you export into MP4 then I assume you encode into AVC/H.264?
Any iCPU that supports Intel Quick Sync will dramatically increase your export speeds.
Indeed, your software needs to support it as well.
FCP, Compressor and HandBrake do, for example.

If you're really doing it each day every day, you can justify going for the i9 processor. Add RAM at your own pace (check Activity Monitor for memory pressure).
[automerge]1580732127[/automerge]
I just saw that @MacRS4 did promote his own video (interesting from 7:20 onwards, video export): Maybe he can help out with your specific questions?

 

[profcutter]

I wonder if I might be worth your time to bring one of your files as a test to an Apple store and find the highest spec non-Mac pro they have on the floor and test it for yourself. Maybe try on an iMac Pro vs an iMac and just fine how long it takes to transcode. Alternatively, ask someone on here if they have an i9 iMac to transcode a clip that you provide for them and give you the time it took. Most folks on here are quite helpful in that regard. I’d do it myself, but my machines are too old to be of use for you.

 

[priitv8]

yes, that's all it's for - transcoding massive files to small files in FCPX

Forget about crunching this on CPU! Go for Quick Sync accelerated encode and you save a lot of time!
For example, using a simple DVD rip I get on my i9 average encoding speed of 300fps. With QS I get 467fps.
The change is even more dramatic with UHD encodes into HEVC.