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.
The difference between Pro and Consumer.
- Thread starter macgeek2005
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
macgeek2005 said:
I know its not a huge point- but a few people want high-speed scratch disks.
It's really bad in terms of performance to use a FW400 or USB2 bus, or even your internal drive for your media. If you can wing using SATA externals at with the expansion of the PCMCIA/Expresscard or PCI/PCIX/PCIE slots, then you see a significant advantage.
The difference between an iMac Intel and a MBP for video editing is small- the only real thing i notice is the lack of a SATA speed scratch disk.
- I think a lot of the reason that people tell people not to get the consumer models is because in the past; they have gotten the consumer models and felt limited, or wished that they had bought the pro model... Me for example- I'm typing from a iBook G4 1.33Ghz.. It's nothing great in terms of performance- and not worth the thought of editing HD on.
FYI Apple classes the Mac Mini, MacBook and iMac all as consumer products. They MacBook and iMac are better value for money, the Mac Mini is pretty much the runt of the litter serving as a barebones machine.
The MacBook Pro/PowerMac G5 are the Professional and Prosumer machines simply because they (sometimes) are faster, and (always) are more expandable.
jamesi said:
It largely depends on whether or not an application is SMP-enabled, so it can take advantage of both cores. If it can, the dual-core processor is bound to do it far quicker than a faster clocked single-core processor.
A prime example would be an AMD Athlon64 clocked at 3.6Ghz getting beaten by dual-core processors over 1Ghz slower in certain applications.
macgeek2005 said:
No, they didn't. They bought G4 Powerbooks so that if they were travelling and wanted to look at the first cut of footage, they could do so. The Powerbooks were sold as Pro machines when you don't want to lug a Power Mac around with you. And yes, you could import some footage and start playing around with it but when it comes to adding effects and rendering it back out again, you want something with a lot more processor power.
While many amateurs (including myself) bought a Powerbook rather than an iBook a few years ago - that was because the useful life of those machines seemed longer given the graphics cards/BT/Airport they came with, I don't think many video professionals bought them as them as their only computer.
jamesi said:
*Sigh* There's one born every minute.
Anyway, back to the sub-topic:
It's all about market, the Mac Mini, iMac and Macbook are all consumer because they're targeted at a mass market, people who use a computer for basic productivity and sorting out their personal lives.
Prosumer products such as the Powermac are targeted at a much more niche market. They're designed ground-up with creative professionals in mind, and offer way too much power for someone who wants to make an iMovie, or chat on MSN. They're designed with professional use being their master pillar. Generally users where price is second to performance.
I'm reluctant in calling the Macbook Pro a prosumer product, in fact I think its consumer. Sure, professionals use it, but so do average users who enjoy occasional gaming or larger displays.
$.02
There is no way the MBP is a Pro computer, the Pro maybe could use this computer for anything other then video editing, there is not enough processing power in this to do what a video editor needs to do, there is no video editor that could use the MBP as a replacement to a PowerMac, also think about this that Pixar needed how many Computers all hooked together to process just 1 frame.
bbrosemer said:
No the MBP is a pro computer. You are comparing a Desktop vs Laptop. Anyone who uses a laptop can tell you that you have to give up a lot of things to gain portiblity.
Compare laptops to laptops and desktop to desktop. Take the MBP and compare it to pro lv laptops across the board you noticed a trend. It is in the high end there and is comparitly a pro lv computer.
Desktop have always and will always be more powerful than laptops. For very heavy lifting (aka a lot of video editing) desktop are the only way to go. They can put in the extra power and hard drive space.
bbrosemer said:
Can the dell run Final Cut Studio 5
As for your other comments :-
I've been video editing on computers since 95 with avid and since 2000 with final cut; and a macbook or macbookpro is certainly up for editing, and performs as well with FC Studio as my Dual powermac G5 2ghz.
If your comparing Silicon Graphic Workstations rendering stuff from Pixar, then your looking at a totally different job than 'editing'. And to compare somthing that takes maybe 150,000 hours to render in its entirity to a macbook pro and say that the macbook cant do video editing is just plain stupidity and the argument of a moron.
