Thank you. I was going to purchase a used nMac Pro 6,1 but after reading your post I could not afford to replace the GPU when or if it fails. I suspect the small size of the 6,1 case compared to the massive aluminum case of the 5,1 is a contributing factor. It not "form follows function' it's cool looking before cool.
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.
It's like we're waiting for...
- Thread starter aaronhead14
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mac pro
- Sort by reaction score
The TrashcanPro was a version 1 product. Trashcan Pro 1.0. There's always bugs with first generation products. If TrashcanPro 2.0 comes out it will likely have the 1.0 wrinkles ironed out.
Can't tell if serious...
But OK, if we're including gpu from current mbp then we have 1 mobile gpu vs 2 old desktop gpus with decent VRAM.
What's your point?
Last edited:
Fair enough, although it depends on your definition of sufficient. Some folks would like more power.
Sufficient for making one minute cat videos for YouTube, or sufficient for making 2 hour HD videos?
2hr of someone smiling
[doublepost=1490628074][/doublepost]
Sufficient: doing minimal stuff like youtubes.
One more post and then I'm out of here. I don't think we will ever agree.
Great! A faster computer will accomplish this in less time.
False. iPhones film in 4k. Cheap camcorders film in 4k. DSLRs film in 4k. Roku, Amazon Fire, Xbox, and playstation devices all stream media in 4k, some in 4k HDR.
This is why Apple has 5k iMacs and LG makes 5k monitors. So people have room to edit at 4k at 100% with the tool palettes around them.
Even Apple acknowledges that 4k is here, and Apple acknowledges little else about computing needs of the modern professional.
Again, false. This is a real thing I can go to any big box store and buy today.
Here's a 4k blu ray burner. as the headline says, good luck meeting the PC requirements.
https://www.extremetech.com/computi...-ray-burners-pack-4k-playback-16x-burn-speeds
And lastly, performance is not subjective. Needs are. Your needs seem to be lower than many of the people here. Nothing wrong with that.
You keep bringing up how Kaby lake only had a minor improvement over Skylake. This is a distraction.
This is a Mac Pro thread, and there is no skylake Mac Pro. Compare a 4 core 7700k to the Xeon E5 in the $3000 quad core Mac Pro.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-E5-1620-v2-vs-Intel-Core-i7-7700K/m8354vs3647
Spoiler: The 7700k is 46% faster than the quad core Mac Pro. But then overclocking on the 7700k widens the performance gap.
Not only that, a modern 7700k based system has faster ram, access to faster GPUs, and access to faster storage. It will even have intel Optane support.
Great! A faster computer will accomplish this in less time.
False. iPhones film in 4k. Cheap camcorders film in 4k. DSLRs film in 4k. Roku, Amazon Fire, Xbox, and playstation devices all stream media in 4k, some in 4k HDR.
This is why Apple has 5k iMacs and LG makes 5k monitors. So people have room to edit at 4k at 100% with the tool palettes around them.
Even Apple acknowledges that 4k is here, and Apple acknowledges little else about computing needs of the modern professional.
Again, false. This is a real thing I can go to any big box store and buy today.
Here's a 4k blu ray burner. as the headline says, good luck meeting the PC requirements.
https://www.extremetech.com/computi...-ray-burners-pack-4k-playback-16x-burn-speeds
And lastly, performance is not subjective. Needs are. Your needs seem to be lower than many of the people here. Nothing wrong with that.
You keep bringing up how Kaby lake only had a minor improvement over Skylake. This is a distraction.
This is a Mac Pro thread, and there is no skylake Mac Pro. Compare a 4 core 7700k to the Xeon E5 in the $3000 quad core Mac Pro.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-E5-1620-v2-vs-Intel-Core-i7-7700K/m8354vs3647
Spoiler: The 7700k is 46% faster than the quad core Mac Pro. But then overclocking on the 7700k widens the performance gap.
Not only that, a modern 7700k based system has faster ram, access to faster GPUs, and access to faster storage. It will even have intel Optane support.
One more post and then I'm out of here. I don't think we will ever agree.
Great! A faster computer will accomplish this in less time.
False. iPhones film in 4k. Cheap camcorders film in 4k. DSLRs film in 4k. Roku, Amazon Fire, Xbox, and playstation devices all stream media in 4k, some in 4k HDR.
This is why Apple has 5k iMacs and LG makes 5k monitors. So people have room to edit at 4k at 100% with the tool palettes around them.
Even Apple acknowledges that 4k is here, and Apple acknowledges little else about computing needs of the modern professional.
Again, false. This is a real thing I can go to any big box store and buy today.
Here's a 4k blu ray burner. as the headline says, good luck meeting the PC requirements.
https://www.extremetech.com/computi...-ray-burners-pack-4k-playback-16x-burn-speeds
And lastly, performance is not subjective. Needs are. Your needs seem to be lower than many of the people here. Nothing wrong with that.
You keep bringing up how Kaby lake only had a minor improvement over Skylake. This is a distraction.
This is a Mac Pro thread, and there is no skylake Mac Pro. Compare a 4 core 7700k to the Xeon E5 in the $3000 quad core Mac Pro.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Xeon-E5-1620-v2-vs-Intel-Core-i7-7700K/m8354vs3647
Spoiler: The 7700k is 46% faster than the quad core Mac Pro. But then overclocking on the 7700k widens the performance gap.
Not only that, a modern 7700k based system has faster ram, access to faster GPUs, and access to faster storage. It will even have intel Optane support.
And? A $20,000 computer can render things better than a $18,000 computer. You need to draw the line somewhere. Yeah let's be real here. Do I REALLY need to spend $20,000 to just edit 720p footage? No. Come on now. My 2010 Mac Pro does it just fine, and it is still FAST at it too. My $2,500 system is even too overpriced for editing 720p videos.
There are no 4K discs at my local Target. It is not mainstream at this time.
Bleeding edge technology =/= general usage and availability. My point was, when 4K gecomes the standard GO TO video production resolution, I would have already had a new computer anyway. So WHY WHY WHY the heck should I spend $20,000 on a computer NOW when I am still just dealing with 720p footage mostly? By the time we move to 4K the computer will probably be dead anyway.
Having 4K/5K as an option in a high end configuration does not mean it is mainstream. Why aren't all iMac 4K then? Why are 4K monitors so massively expensive vs 1080p ones?
Yes, good job the iPhone can record at 4K. But who can see it? Post it on facebook, how many users will be buffering for a while?
And where is the 4K content? My Target has NONE of those ultra 4K videos. Amazon does. Regarding online streaming, the only thing I am aware of is only a few Netflix shows. Sure some YouTube videos have it too. Why aren't all iTunes downloads 4K? If 4K is so mainstream like you state. Why are there still $700 1080p TVs around?
4K is NOT ready yet. I have a 300mbps internet connection, and sometimes 4K takes some time to buffer. 1080p is instant. Not only that, last time I tried Netflix I could not access 4K from my computer. Why do you think I still need to deal with 720p footage? I have people that can't even download/buffer a 1080p video.
Amazon: 4K Blu Ray 236 results. Standard Blu Ray: 62,700. 4K Blu Ray does not even have 1% of the content as Blu Ray does.
I should have worded it that "4K is not mainstream" instead of "no footage" because I did watch House of Cards in 4K. That is when I had 50mbps internet and it was soo sooo bad though.
Last edited:
You have no idea what are you talking about.....
4k is mandatory minimum for any video work, 6k is mainstream, 8k is already widely adopted.
Big guys shoot film and it gets developed and scanned...
Even soccer mums shoot with IPhone and GoPro 4k
4k is mandatory minimum for any video work, 6k is mainstream, 8k is already widely adopted.
Big guys shoot film and it gets developed and scanned...
Even soccer mums shoot with IPhone and GoPro 4k
You don't have to spend 20K to edit high resolution in post and I would question why you even needed to spend that kind of money unless you were running a lot of multi-threaded apps and needed the highest core dual Xeon available. A modest $4,500 will be enough for a machine that is versatile enough to edit and post in just about any resolution you need, and include CUDA acceleration with at least one high end video card, maybe two if you catch a few on sale.
If you haven't been posting or working with any footage in 4K then I would definitely say you are in the minority of most Post Production today. Just because you don't have to OUTPUT 4K doesn't mean you can't WORK in 4K. Modern cameras have had the ability to capture in higher resolutions than 1080 since at least 2008. Most DP's or Directors will opt to shoot in the highest resolution possible for re-framing or pushing in on certain shots. It's all about flexibility. The benefits of working in higher resolutions than 1080 outweigh the drawbacks unless your hardware can't handle the workload. Your average YouTube channel with 500K subscribers will almost certainly edit and output in 4K if they can. Television Production may never get to 4K as a standard, but who cares at this point. Everyone is downloading their content these days and mixed resolution formats are where we are headed.
I will be sure to check with your local Target before I purchase my next 4K set. Heaven forbid I can't get the discs at your local Target. I guess they're the only distributors of 4K media in the country.
I'm glad you have a post solution that works for you. No one is saying you are wrong for your hardware choices. Matter of fact, they may be all you ever need. For the rest of us, we are looking elsewhere because Apple hasn't kept up with our hardware requirements.
I do not deal with camera recordings. I deal with screen captures for online courses. They capture their screens at 1080p or sometimes 720p. I did do a few 4K things, but even my desktop class i7 and a GTX 1080 was able to handle that.
And I agree with you. But so many people here just blanketly state " the nMP sucks" or "the nMP has horrible performance" when it is just wrong. It is EXACTLY like me saying "the GTX 1080 is a horrible graphics card".
[doublepost=1490636169][/doublepost]
"For any video work" no. See above. Why should I blow up a raw 1080p footage to 4K?
You must have me confused with someone else.
I'm nothing but real, home skillet.
I didn't make that point. I even said it sounds like you have significantly lower needs than everyone. God bless editing videos at 2010 requirements on a 2010 computer. I'm sure it's fine. Really, it seems like you get your work done on it.
You seem determined to convince us that you spent money poorly for your computing needs, which are 3d modeling for video games (?) and editing 720p screen capture videos. Consider me convinced. I agree that you spent too much on your computer.
Ah, but this is not what you said. You said, and I quote: "There are no discs yet that have 4K." which is false. You also said "There is NO 4K footage" which is also false.
There are 4k discs at my local target. Perhaps your target sucks, or perhaps your Target is also stuck in 2010. You'll argue this too, but I won't care.
4k isn't even bleeding edge. Again, you'll argue this. Again, I won't care.
I guess my clients just have greater requirements than you. I'm already there. You seem remarkably unaware of how the software you use works with hardware and unaware of video standards beyond your own work. I can only lead the horse to water.
Have a great Monday. Say hi to 2010 for me.
Dude, read your post!
If it was "I'm doing fine with my rig and I don't need to upgrade it" I wouldn't bother to reply you.
What's next? We don't need 14 stops DR or Zeiss Primes?
If it was "I'm doing fine with my rig and I don't need to upgrade it" I wouldn't bother to reply you.
What's next? We don't need 14 stops DR or Zeiss Primes?
My point, again for the millionth time, is that the nMP is VERY GOOD in certain workflows. JUST like a 20-core low clock speed is better than a quad core higher clock speed in certain workflows.
If you need those things that you mention, then great! But to blanketly state that the "nMP is horrible" is not right.
Your video needs are unique in that they are much, much less than just about everyone else that is complaining in this forum. The nMP sucks for editing in 4K or higher, posting in 4K or higher, and working with any footage higher than 1080 on a regular basis. It's slow, only has 64 gigs of ram, and requires external expansion for things like SAS raids or extra PCI slots. That's the reality of the situation for those of us working in modern Post. That's the main complaint for those of us in modern post and I don't see that changing any time soon.
If you are blowing up 1080 to 4K then you are doing it wrong.
What? Is EVERY video on YouTube 4K? Is EVERY single show/movie on Netflix 4K? 1080p is still the mainstream format.
[doublepost=1490637627][/doublepost]
Where did I say I was blowing up 1080p to 4K?
Who needs primes, just shoot it in BETA! Now where did I put that d5 tape for layback....
[doublepost=1490638145][/doublepost]
Bottom of #114.
"Why should I blow up a raw 1080p footage to 4K?"
Um, yeah, SHOULD is in that statement. I was responding to res0lve when he stated that 4K should be the absolute minimum for any video work. I said "Why SHOULD I blow up 1080p to 4K".
Should =/= what I do. I would never blow up footage to a higher resolution. But I gave a scenario where 4K should NOT be considered the absolute minimum for ANY video work.
Movies that are upscaled to 4K are still higher quality than 2K movies though (at least in home video releases), because of higher bitrates. So even though a lot of 4K Blu-rays are just upscales from the 2K, they're still higher quality because the discs themselves can handle higher bitrate video.
How am I trolling?
I did NOT say I upscale 1080p to 4K. Where did I say that? How is that a troll when I corrected his statement?
[doublepost=1490649681][/doublepost]
But wait, I thought 4K was the standard for a while now? According to res0lve, 4K is the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM you should EVER WORK ON. 6K is apparently mainstream. And 8K is widely adopted now. How are those movies "fake" 4K then? Even the ones from 2016.
Last edited: