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

Help me Pick out my new to me mac pro

Lil Chillbil

Lil Chillbil

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 30, 2012
1,325
104
California
Ok so I was wondering which mac pro when fully upgraded would work nicely for editing videoo in 1080p and still have enough juice left to power thru a few webpages open to flash heavy websites at the same time. I am thinking either a quad core or a 6 core, though I can afford an 8 core if you guys think it will be worth it for the extra speed boost
 
If you are only editing 1080p you would be much better off with one of the new 27-Inch BTO iMacs (you'd want the i7 and GTX 680MX with 2GB VRAM options).

Any Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge Quad-Core i7 based system will work very well for video editing. Main thing is to make sure you have an SSD to work off either via TB or USB3.0, or internally.

Until the Mac Pros are updated (assuming they ever get an update!) the iMacs are a much better bet.
 
seveej said:
Are you working under a (tight) budget constraint?

RGDS,
Click to expand...

very tight indeed, all I have to work with is $2000

----------
24Frames said:
If you are only editing 1080p you would be much better off with one of the new 27-Inch BTO iMacs (you'd want the i7 and GTX 680MX with 2GB VRAM options).

Any Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge Quad-Core i7 based system will work very well for video editing. Main thing is to make sure you have an SSD to work off either via TB or USB3.0, or internally.

Until the Mac Pros are updated (assuming they ever get an update!) the iMacs are a much better bet.
Click to expand...

I already have a core 2 duo imac, I absolutely hate its expandability, plus i'm a man who loves big things that go vrmmm when they are working hard on making the bacon

can I get something like that for 2 grand ?
 
Lil Chillbil said:
Ok so I was wondering which mac pro when fully upgraded would work nicely for editing videoo in 1080p and still have enough juice left to power thru a few webpages open to flash heavy websites at the same time. I am thinking either a quad core or a 6 core, though I can afford an 8 core if you guys think it will be worth it for the extra speed boost
Click to expand...

A quad core won't even break a sweat with 1080p. Flash is a whole different thing. You may need a 12-core for that! I mean really... my iPhone can edit 1080p without any trouble! But open a few flash sites... forget it. :p :D
 
Lil Chillbil said:
very tight indeed, all I have to work with is $2000

----------



I already have a core 2 duo imac, I absolutely hate its expandability, plus i'm a man who loves big things that go vrmmm when they are working hard on making the bacon

can I get something like that for 2 grand ?
Click to expand...

Nice thing about 2009 Mac Pro is that you can upgrade one of them to be FASTER than anything available from Apple right up to today.

I just did it myself.

4,1 to 5,1 flash from Netkas site and you can literally turn any 2009 into a 12 core at 3.33 or 3.46. (I paid $1,500 for 2 @ 5680) Apple Mac Pro RIGHT NOW in 2013 maxes out at 3.04 @ 12. (For just $6,199) Your 2009 can magically run RAM at 1,300 Mhz, just like new one.

Try that with a 2009 iMac or Mini.
 
Lil Chillbil said:
I already have a core 2 duo imac, I absolutely hate its expandability,
Click to expand...

I know that feeling. I've had me a 27" iMac (sold it a year ago). There's something inherently wrong with a machine, which you cannot open without suction cups.

Lil Chillbil said:
plus i'm a man who loves big things that go vrmmm when they are working hard on making the bacon

can I get something like that for 2 grand ?
Click to expand...

Hmmm...
Honestly, (can't attest for any other MP than the one I currently have) this big box makes faar less noise under any stress level above 25% than either my previous iMac or my MBP i7Q. Also it does not heat up (the only component which reaches heat levels required for protein denaturation is the northbridge chip - an that is fairly small for bacon...) . If you want noise and heat, a Mini might be your best bet (especially as you really put some bacon on top of it... :D)

Seriously, 2 grand (whether euros, dollars or pounds) will get you a nice used 4,1 Mac Pro (see post ^), one or two nice displays and some upgrades (SSD & RAM). Furthermore, you can update the CPU's later.

My MP 3,1 (and I can't say whether it'll do what you'd ask of it - haven't tried) and display cost me ≈ 800 € and I'm happy as a bunny who's been left in a grocery overnight. I know It's a technological dead-end - but my needs are different...

RGDS,
 
seveej said:
I know that feeling. I've had me a 27" iMac (sold it a year ago). There's something inherently wrong with a machine, which you cannot open without suction cups.



Hmmm...
Honestly, (can't attest for any other MP than the one I currently have) this big box makes faar less noise under any stress level above 25% than either my previous iMac or my MBP i7Q. Also it does not heat up (the only component which reaches heat levels required for protein denaturation is the northbridge chip - an that is fairly small for bacon...) . If you want noise and heat, a Mini might be your best bet (especially as you really put some bacon on top of it... :D)

Seriously, 2 grand (whether euros, dollars or pounds) will get you a nice used 4,1 Mac Pro (see post ^), one or two nice displays and some upgrades (SSD & RAM). Furthermore, you can update the CPU's later.

My MP 3,1 (and I can't say whether it'll do what you'd ask of it - haven't tried) and display cost me ≈ 800 € and I'm happy as a bunny who's been left in a grocery overnight. I know It's a technological dead-end - but my needs are different...

RGDS,
Click to expand...


Well all I need for my pro to do in the average work week is import over 8 hours of 1080p video, edit said video downgrade said video to 480p, export to the desktop and burn 150 dvds all the while constantly playing itunes credence clearwater revival
 
Hi Lil Chillbil. I guess a 2009 quad 2.66ghz Mac Pro may be fine for your needs and budget. Average they sell for $1300 to $1500 depending on the specs. And you can add SSD using your remaining budget.
 
Macsonic said:
Hi Lil Chillbil. I guess a 2009 quad 2.66ghz Mac Pro may be fine for your needs and budget. Average they sell for $1300 to $1500 depending on the specs. And you can add SSD using your remaining budget.
Click to expand...

yeah i've pretty much now come to that conclusion, i'll just take the 160 gig ssd out of my imac and put back in a regular hdd, and use the rest of the money on filling up the remaining hdd bays and upgrading the graphics card since I already have 3 aluminum apple cinema displays all 17 inch and an apple keyboard and mouse,


one more question will the 2009 mac run snow leopard?
 
Lil Chillbil said:
yeah i've pretty much now come to that conclusion, i'll just take the 160 gig ssd out of my imac and put back in a regular hdd, and use the rest of the money on filling up the remaining hdd bays and upgrading the graphics card since I already have 3 aluminum apple cinema displays all 17 inch and an apple keyboard and mouse,


one more question will the 2009 mac run snow leopard?
Click to expand...

Yes the 2009 will definitely run Snow Leopard. Because Lion was released only on July 2011 unless I am mistaken. So any Mac Pro before the Lion release can run Snow Leopard. I am still using Snow Leopard and not in a hurry to use Mountain Lion. But I have a separate HD that runs Mountain Lion for testing compatibility purposes
 
Last edited:
And did you also buy the heatsinks for the dual? From what I gather the heatsinks from the 09 are different than the 2010 version. Unless you found a way to make use of the westmere processors with the same 09 heatsinks, this is news to me because I thought there were differences between the 09's heatsinks and 10's.

Maybe I am wrong.. But I never owned a Dual Processor Mac Pro.. as mine have all been Single Quad-Core.

MacVidCards said:
Nice thing about 2009 Mac Pro is that you can upgrade one of them to be FASTER than anything available from Apple right up to today.

I just did it myself.

4,1 to 5,1 flash from Netkas site and you can literally turn any 2009 into a 12 core at 3.33 or 3.46. (I paid $1,500 for 2 @ 5680) Apple Mac Pro RIGHT NOW in 2013 maxes out at 3.04 @ 12. (For just $6,199) Your 2009 can magically run RAM at 1,300 Mhz, just like new one.

Try that with a 2009 iMac or Mini.
Click to expand...
 
Lil Chillbil said:
Ok so I was wondering which mac pro when fully upgraded would work nicely for editing videoo in 1080p and still have enough juice left to power thru a few webpages open to flash heavy websites at the same time. I am thinking either a quad core or a 6 core, though I can afford an 8 core if you guys think it will be worth it for the extra speed boost
Click to expand...

Any of them will do. From the first MacPro1,1 (2006) to the unreleased 2013 MacPro6,1.

No really! All of them are nice when fully upgraded.
  • They can all be fitted with cutting edge video cards.
  • They can all accept 64GB of RAM and few models even more.
  • They can all be fitted with at least 8 fast processor cores.
  • They can all be configured with 5-drive RAID0 (for around 1GB/s I/O)
  • And all will still have a port free to add in an SSD Boot volume
  • All of them have fast enough architectures to smoothly handle multiple 1080p streams + FX.
    This last one is dependent on file format and software package more than anything.


What differences there are mostly show up in CPU-centric operations looking something like this:
  • 1GB file import and conversion
    2006: 5 min.
    2012: 2 min.

  • Render & Save FX ladend layered project
    2006: 10 min.
    2012: 4 min.

  • Project feels and handles very smoothly (few lags)
    2006: 5 layers, 10 FX
    2012: 7 layers, 12 FX

  • Simple 3D FX Rendering MAYA / LW3D / C4D / MAX / Modo (5k polys)
    2006: 1 FPS
    2012: 3 FPS

  • Complex 3D FX Rendering MAYA / LW3D / C4D / MAX / Modo (3 million polygons)
    2006: 3 Min Per Frame
    2012: 1 Min Per Frame

  • Photorealistic full scene 3D animation (Caustics, Radiosity, DOF, Motion blur, 20 million polygons, etc)
    2006: 45 min
    2012: 14 min.

And like that... But for cuts and transition video editing with some color correction, maybe a mask or two, text & logo overlay, and a few FX the 2006 and the 2012 are virtually the same speed. The 2012 might feel a hair more responsive but probably not enough to be measurable.

rabidz7 is probably right. While I have not owned a G5 like that, if it can take 24 or 32GB of RAM... with the card he has in there, it would likely be a very decent HD editing box. I think the only problem is that he's stuck with older versions of some fairly nicely upgraded software packages. Still, some of the software i was using to edit video with 4 or 5 years ago is more similar than different to their modern counterparts.


.
 
Last edited:
Tesselator said:
rabidz7 is probably right. While I have not owned a G5 like that, if it can take 24 or 32GB of RAM... with the card he has in there, it would likely be a very decent HD editing box. I think the only problem is that he's stuck with older versions of some fairly nicely upgraded software packages. Still, some of the software i was using to edit video with 4 or 5 years ago is more similar than different to their modern counterparts.
.
Click to expand...
It can take up to 64 GB of ram, BUT only have 16GB accessible without mods that involve new north bridges. Anyway, a mac pro would be good for editing. I suggest a 2009 octo core.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back