New Mac Pro user looking to upgrade

[jagaloon]

I ended up getting the trial of FCPX but my OCD got the best of me and I ordered a 3.33ghz xeon w3680 chip last night. The two cpu option while tempting was putting me too close to the cost of the nMP. Actually even getting the w3680 and then opting to get the GTX680 is upwards of a grand already

I know you have to pay to play just wasn't expecting to have to pay so soon I guess.

 

[iamMacPerson]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought when you upgraded to Mavericks, Apple upgraded all the old apps on your drive with the latest and greatest? So it should, in theory, upgrade your FCP7 with FCPX for free. Try going that route and utilizing 64-bit. That would probably be the best way to speed everything up.

 

[jasonvp]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought when you upgraded to Mavericks, Apple upgraded all the old apps on your drive with the latest and greatest?

The only apps that Apple "automatically updates" are the ones inclusive with OS X. That would be things like iPhoto, iMovie, etc. Since Final Cut is not, and has not ever been included with OS X, Apple will not upgrade it for free. It's up to the end user to pay the upgrade cost and do the install him/herself.

 

[Supermacguy]

So what do you think of FCPX, performance wise? I have a MP4,1 (dual cpu) and X is far and away Soooo much more responsive than FCP6/7. I also have go pro videos, and in FCP7 it always requires rendering, but on FCPX, it just works, and fast! The software really does make a difference.

 

[handsome pete]

Wait. I'm not sure you quite understood what he posted. Your GoPro produces h.264 MP4 files, which are sub-optimal for editing just due to the fact that they're compressed to hell and gone. It can be somewhat CPU taxing to edit in it.

You can transcode it to anything, but you'll lose some amount of quality each time you do that. And the question you have to answer is: to what format are you transcoding to, and will doing that plus the time it takes to edit the file and then re-transcode it on export save you anything over just editing the MP4 raw?

Likely: it won't save you a lick of time. It'll more than likely add significant time to the entire process.

It's almost always better to edit natively from an overall time perspective. That includes the time it takes to ingest the footage, the time it takes to edit it, and then the time it takes to export it. If you have to also spend time with transcoding during the ingestion or editing phase, you'll end up with a longer project overall.

You're right in that there will probably not be any gains time wise, but sacrificing some time for transcoding in order to get smooth performance is a no-brainer in my opinion. That is if upgrading the software is out of the question.

Besides, I still contend that h264 is a horrible editing codec despite Premiere and FCPX being able to handle it. Does FCPX even edit it natively or does it still transocde to ProRes in the background?

For larger scale projects that will include multiple streams of video, effects, color grading, etc. I would still recommend transcoding in order to get more latitude that something like 10bit ProRes will provide. So if you can spare the time, transcode. Hell, I'm used to it by now anyway working in Avid for so long.

 

[jagaloon]

Apologies, I've been inner dates with specs and upgrade reviews throat I did not stop to think that handbrake doesn't transcode to anything but mp4.

I think at this point I've worked myself up to the point of "have to have the best upgrades" that I did not stop and realize I would back myself into another corner and that has to do with ram.

Since I have already ordered the w3680 cpu, I came across a article stating that adding 8gb memory modules hinders performance with the w3680 cpu. See: macperformance guide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere-MemoryBandwidth.html At this point I think I would be better off just using what I have till it goes obsolete if heat truly is the case. I have 2gb sticks x 4 already.

Other usage has been the cs6 suite mostly is and Ai.

I think I need to take a step back as I'm overloaded with options at this point almost reminding me of my PC days.

 

[funwithdesign]

Since I have already ordered the w3680 cpu, I came across a article stating that adding 8gb memory modules hinders performance with the w3680 cpu. See: macperformance guide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere-MemoryBandwidth.html At this point I think I would be better off just using what I have till it goes obsolete if heat truly is the case. I have 2gb sticks x 4 already.

The issue is not 8Gb modules. All it means is that if you used one stick of ram, your memory bandwidth will be handicapped. You could add one or two 8gb sticks to your ram and be fine. For example I have 2x8GB and 2x2GB in my system (20GB total)

 

[pertusis1]

Wait. I'm not sure you quite understood what he posted. Your GoPro produces h.264 MP4 files, which are sub-optimal for editing just due to the fact that they're compressed to hell and gone. It can be somewhat CPU taxing to edit in it.

You can transcode it to anything, but you'll lose some amount of quality each time you do that. And the question you have to answer is: to what format are you transcoding to, and will doing that plus the time it takes to edit the file and then re-transcode it on export save you anything over just editing the MP4 raw?

Likely: it won't save you a lick of time. It'll more than likely add significant time to the entire process.

It's almost always better to edit natively from an overall time perspective. That includes the time it takes to ingest the footage, the time it takes to edit it, and then the time it takes to export it. If you have to also spend time with transcoding during the ingestion or editing phase, you'll end up with a longer project overall.

My suggestions:

1. Upgrade your video card to a supported GTX680, or an unsupported GTX780. Either one will work in your Mac Pro, and give you a significant boost in performance, assuming that you:
2. Change out to Adobe's Premiere Pro (either CS6 or CC). A quick file edit on either of them and the software will be able to take full advantage of the kick-ass video card you've just put into the machine.
3. Double your RAM. Eight Gigs really isn't enough.

After you've done those 3 things, check the improvements in the project time. Does the software ingest, edit, and export the video any faster than before? I'll bet a dollar it does, and you've completed it without touching your CPU.

I agree 100%. You have a fast computer. Either a gtx 680 or a 7970 will be a significant performance boost. Also, don't edit in H.264.

 

[jagaloon]

I agree 100%. You have a fast computer. Either a gtx 680 or a 7970 will be a significant performance boost. Also, don't edit in H.264.

See this is what you get when your impulsive I've stopped messing with H.264 as well.

Well this will be the fastest return on a CPU anyone's ever done, after the w3680 shows up it'll go right back and I'll pick up the GTX 680 instead and just stick with the 2.8 quad-core I currently have.

 

[iamMacPerson]

The only apps that Apple "automatically updates" are the ones inclusive with OS X. That would be things like iPhoto, iMovie, etc. Since Final Cut is not, and has not ever been included with OS X, Apple will not upgrade it for free. It's up to the end user to pay the upgrade cost and do the install him/herself.

Oh yeah your right.

 

[Mac Gus]

See this is what you get when your impulsive I've stopped messing with H.264 as well.

Well this will be the fastest return on a CPU anyone's ever done, after the w3680 shows up it'll go right back and I'll pick up the GTX 680 instead and just stick with the 2.8 quad-core I currently have.

I'd do all that and the CPU if you can budget it.

 

[jagaloon]

I'd do all that and the CPU if you can budget it.

I can budget it. Currently fighting with mavericks as a upgrade with my Adobe CS6 suite everything crashes upon opening. Have not had a chance now to demo/try FCPX yet.

 

[jagaloon]

Plugins with my cs suite were causing the crashes with mavericks.

Moving on, I know the gtx 680 by vega was suggested but I found another card that seems more readily available the sapphire Radeon hd 7950 mac edition, there is a 200 price difference.

Would either work or is the gtx still the way to go along with the cpu upgrade?

 

[jasonvp]

Moving on, I know the gtx 680 by vega was suggested but I found another card that seems more readily available the sapphire Radeon hd 7950 mac edition, there is a 200 price difference.

Would either work or is the gtx still the way to go along with the cpu upgrade?

Based on what I've read in these forums, it seems like the 7950 card has been somewhat problematic for various Mac Pro owners. I don't think that feeling is universal; it appears to be a bit of a crap shoot. Others are more than welcome to clarify that for my sake and the sake of the OP here...

If you intend to edit in FCPX, OpenCL is your only choice as far as GPU acceleration. Thus far, AMD-based cards perform better than nVidia ones do for the most part.

If, however, you decide to go with Adobe's editing suite, then CUDA is also an option for GPU acceleration. CUDA means nVidia, and that opens up a world of possibilities available right here through MacVidCards (who's in time out right from the forums right now). He can sell you a flashed GTX770 or GTX780 (non Ti) that should work with the Mac Pro's internal power supply, and give you fantastic CUDA performance.

As of CS6 on the Mac, Adobe is also supporting OpenCL for acceleration. So, you're not forced into the nVidia world with Adobe. Again, though, the choice of available (and trustworthy) AMD cards for the Mac Pro appears to be slim.

It's up to you. Apple has said their direction is OpenCL for GPU acceleration. nVidia will continue pushing CUDA support for OS X, but don't expect Apple to wait for them.

 

[Mac Gus]

Plugins with my cs suite were causing the crashes with mavericks.

Moving on, I know the gtx 680 by vega was suggested but I found another card that seems more readily available the sapphire Radeon hd 7950 mac edition, there is a 200 price difference.

Would either work or is the gtx still the way to go along with the cpu upgrade?

I have the 7950 Mac Edition. I paid 450 for it. You are paying a bit more for the mac edition to not have to have a PC one flashed for you so you can get a boot up screen. I have not had any problems with the card and am using it with FCPX and 10.9 on my upgraded 4,1 -> 5,1 (see my sig). I know that some of the problems with the card is that it is lackluster on 3,1 systems.

You can also get a flashed 7970 for a moderate increase in performance over the 7950 but for the same price or cheaper. If I had to re-do my purchases I would probably just get a flashed 7970, but I didn't know about that when I got the 7950.

If you're doing FCPX on 10.9 in the future I suggest you keep the 6-core. Will make compressor and rendering much faster and should make FCP run more smoothly. There is a lot going on in the background of FCPX as it allow you to edit in formats that you would otherwise have to log-in transfer into FCP7.

 

[jagaloon]

An update. I've gotten the 3.33 hex core chip and swapped it out with my older quadcore.

I've looked at the following upgrades while pushing my "want" for the nMP.

1400 total would get me 24gb of ram, the sapphire card, a owc PCI card with 240gb ram instead of 4-6k for the nMP.

Hopefully this will breathe new life into it and then revisit the nMP after a few revisions.