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

Johnnieglance

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Sep 15, 2020
4
0
Hi guys,

I am a video editor and I have owned a Mac Pro 3 GHz 10-Core Intel Xeon E5 (late 2013)since it came out. I was looking at the new models and they are crazy expensive so was considering how far I could take my old mac pro.

I have 2 16gb sticks of ram (32 GB 1866 MHz DDR3) and my graphics card is a AMD FirePro D700 6 GB.

I've changed ram on machines before (which i know is easy) before but never ventured into the deeper workings, but do trust myself to follow instructions competently.

756 was my Single-Core Score and 6007 Multi-Core Score.

Would greatly appreciate anyone who could recommend what I could do to most 'beast mode' this mac and give it a new lease of life.

Thanks in advance

John
 

ReanimationLP

macrumors 68030
Jan 8, 2005
2,782
33
On the moon.
You can max out the RAM using 4x32GB DDR3 ECC RDIMMs. You can get a E5-2697v2 chip to take it to 12 cores. You can also get a Sintech adapter and install a larger NVMe SSD
 

MikkelAD

macrumors regular
Feb 17, 2018
188
33
what I could do to most 'beast mode' this mac and give it a new lease of life.

I guess this answer is not what you was hoping for but here goes!

CPU: You have the 10-core which means almost top performance. 6007 in multi-core score seems a bit low though. The 12-core is a little more potent but not by much. I get 7600 with my machine. I don't know if you had a lot of apps open when testing, but changing CPU doesn't make much sense.

GPU: You already have D700s and if you use Final Cut Pro they should still be 'okay', but other video editing programs only uses one card which of course hurts performance. You can upgrade by getting an eGPU and that will for sure give you a performance boost depending on chosen GPU. But remember it will be limited by the thunderbolt 2 ports and will cost you some money. This became a solution for some trough the years since the Mac Pro 2013 didn't get any upgrades from Apple. Now it's 2020 and in my opinion simply not worth it anymore.

RAM: I guess you can upgrade to 64GB but I doubt that it would make your workflow substantially faster. Most likely not.

SSD: I don't know what SSD you have. The standard models was named SSUAX. Apple later used the SSUBX model in their products. This will give you read/write speeds of around 1500mb/s. This can also be achieved by mounting a NVMe drive with an adapter. It's most likely an upgrade for you in speed and maybe capacity depending on what you got now but improving your workflow - I don't think so.

Soooooooo...

As much as it hurts the Mac Pro 2013(piece of art) is maybe up for retirement? Upgrading diffrent components cost you money and will most likely not be worth it. A couple of numbers will look better on paper but improving your everyday workflow seems unrealistic.

I don't know much about your other hardware/peripherals which of course is important, but maybe it's time to find another solution? I get that you don't want to invest in a expensive Mac Pro 2019 but maybe an iMac could be a possibility?

Again, probably not what you wanted to hear but hopefully it will help you to find a great solution for the future.
 
Last edited:

Johnnieglance

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Sep 15, 2020
4
0
Thanks for your response.
I always work through external ssd drives as I'm moving between projects regularly.(but am aware a raid system would speed that up) I guess this means there's no point me installing a larger ssd as i have available storage on the machine as is? There just isnt a simple portable faster mb/s drive that ive seen that makes sense (I'm using WD my passport SSS's at the moment) doubled with the fact that im jumping between projects quick regularly.

I watched a video on you tube where this chap
demonstrates the process and seemed to be pretty chuffed with his outcome but i think he was updating form quad core and only ends up with a 7444 multi-core score..

By the way I restarted and closed all apps and scored 797 single-core speed and 6244 multi-core.

It's interesting what you say about Final cut vs other apps. I use adobe premier pro and don't think i will be switching back anytime soon. The thing that bugs me most when working on premier is that many codecs in 4k can be laggy which can be very annoying and slow me down considerably.
But it's not even that far off being fine for the job and still feels quite quick along side my laptop which is top spec and brand new. Thats why I thought there may be life in the old boy yet with a cheeky boost.

Maybe you are right and it is time to upgrade.. But it really is a beautiful machine so was being hopeful I guess.

What does one have to spend to buy something as future safe as this was at the moment?

Thanks so much for your help
 

MikkelAD

macrumors regular
Feb 17, 2018
188
33
I always work through external ssd drives as I'm moving between projects regularly.(but am aware a raid system would speed that up) I guess this means there's no point me installing a larger ssd as i have available storage on the machine as is? There just isnt a simple portable faster mb/s drive that ive seen that makes sense (I'm using WD my passport SSS's at the moment) doubled with the fact that im jumping between projects quick regularly.

Exactly. There really isn't much to upgrade in terms of storage and especially in your situation. Sadly external thunderbolt 2 enclosures never really hit the market...

demonstrates the process and seemed to be pretty chuffed with his outcome but i think he was updating form quad core and only ends up with a 7444 multi-core score..

Just as the video shows upgrading the CPU is not a dangerous and really demanding proces. It can be done quite easily but I simply don't think it's worth it for you. A little higher multi-core score won't help your video editing to my knowledge.

It's interesting what you say about Final cut vs other apps. I use adobe premier pro and don't think i will be switching back anytime soon. The thing that bugs me most when working on premier is that many codecs in 4k can be laggy which can be very annoying and slow me down considerably.
But it's not even that far off being fine for the job and still feels quite quick along side my laptop which is top spec and brand new. Thats why I thought there may be life in the old boy yet with a cheeky boost.

I'm not a video editor myself but I think that's the basis of it. Your D700's would be 'okay' in Final Cut Pro but when programs can't take advantage of dual GPUs(which is many of them) the age of the machine shows.

Maybe you are right and it is time to upgrade.. But it really is a beautiful machine so was being hopeful I guess.

The machine is beautiful engineering but a great succes it never became. With those specs you can most likely sell it a get a pretty good price if it's in good condition too. Otherwise keep it as a piece of Apple history :)

What does one have to spend to buy something as future safe as this was at the moment?

That's the tricky part. I think a whole lot of people would say that "future safe" is pretty much a city in Russia. It's 2020 the technology is moving so fast. I don't know if you got your own business and depend a whole lot on your system for income but if you are I think the general advise is: "Buy what you need but can afford".

Apple Silicon Arm Macs is more or less around the corner which makes everything more difficult. Had it been 1-2 years ago I think the iMac Pro would have been a great choice for you in terms of a good complete package. Given the fact that the iMac 2020 is available a lot of people are of the opinion that the iMac Pro has too few advantages to justify the considerably higher price.
Although I would argue that if you really like the 'space grey'-theme and better cooling of the iMac Pro a used or refurbished one can still be a good choice. Furthermore buying any laptop or a Mac mini won't make much sense in terms of performance boost either...

As far as I'm aware the generel advise is: If you are a professional and depend a whole lot on your machine for income and can utilize the expandability the Mac Pro 2019 is for you. It's expensive but you will find the money for it. Otherwise the iMac 2020 is a great all-in-one solution that is a lot more affordable and therefor can be changed in 2-3 years when something really really exciting has been released by Apple.
 
Last edited:

th0masp

macrumors 6502a
Mar 16, 2015
851
517
There's nothing future-safe from Apple right now. They did announce a platform shift after all. Not before scam.... selling the most expensive Mac Pro ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flint Ironstag

tpivette89

macrumors 6502a
Jan 1, 2018
536
294
Middletown, DE
CPU: You have the 10-core which means almost top performance. 6007 in multi-core score seems a bit low though. The 12-core is a little more potent but not by much. I get 7600 with my machine. I don't know if you had a lot of apps open when testing, but changing CPU doesn't make much sense.

OP has only 2 sticks of RAM installed... if he were to add an additional 2 sticks at 16GB each (for a total of 64gb), his scores would improve. He is only running 2 sticks when the CPU calls for best performance in 4 channel mode.

Altering the fan control software and closing all other running applications besides Geekbench would also improve scores.

A 2690 CPU using all 4 RAM sticks should score in the 6800 - 7000 multi-core range.

Also, if one wanted to improve GPU performance, you can always add a eGPU via TB2. There are good workarounds to do this, and I have personally done this with success on my old 6,1 using a Vega 64 and a Razer Core X box. Performance was much improved over the stock D-series cards.
 

MikkelAD

macrumors regular
Feb 17, 2018
188
33
OP has only 2 sticks of RAM installed... if he were to add an additional 2 sticks at 16GB each (for a total of 64gb), his scores would improve. He is only running 2 sticks when the CPU calls for best performance in 4 channel mode.

Altering the fan control software and closing all other running applications besides Geekbench would also improve scores.

A 2690 CPU using all 4 RAM sticks should score in the 6800 - 7000 multi-core range.

Also, if one wanted to improve GPU performance, you can always add a eGPU via TB2. There are good workarounds to do this, and I have personally done this with success on my old 6,1 using a Vega 64 and a Razer Core X box. Performance was much improved over the stock D-series cards.

That is very true. Like I said, he can optimise a little bit both in terms of CPU,RAM and SSD. He can even boost the GPU performance a considerable amount by spending a good chunk of money on a eGPU setup like you.

In my opinion it all leads to the same result = Upgrades that most likely won't give him the "aha" experience of a new fast machine and therefor it's simply not worth it. From what I can understand topic-starter has been using the machine probably the last 7 years and has gotten good use out of it.
I see no reason not to find a new fast but yet affordable solution for him if it doesn't completely ruin his existing setup by changing the machine...
 

Johnnieglance

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Sep 15, 2020
4
0
Thanks so much for all your input guys. I'm, as yet, undecided what to do. I may add the extra ram as it's simple and there are times when i run multiple programs simultaneously, so it might help in some circumstances. I dont think I am brave enough to switch to the new mac pro yet with all this silicon talk..
 

MikkelAD

macrumors regular
Feb 17, 2018
188
33
Thanks so much for all your input guys. I'm, as yet, undecided what to do. I may add the extra ram as it's simple and there are times when i run multiple programs simultaneously, so it might help in some circumstances. I dont think I am brave enough to switch to the new mac pro yet with all this silicon talk..

It's of course still hard to guide you when you don't give us more information about your current setup :)

That being said, it sounds like an iMac isn't something you are interested in using for maybe 2-3 years. If that is the case and you won't utilise the Mac Pro 2019 plus it's expensive the choice seems pretty simple:

If you can benefit from 64GB RAM, then sure upgrade it at a low cost but otherwise ride it out with your current system and accept that you most likely will have to wait for 2-3 years or even more before a suitable solution for you gets offered by Apple...
 

MikkelAD

macrumors regular
Feb 17, 2018
188
33
What more info about the current setup would help you guide me?

Well, if you got three expensive monitors and a crap load of peripherals for external storage and maybe a HUB, that has to be considered?

Shifting to an iMac or the Mac Pro 2019 could make some of that "useless" and you would have to sell it?

Nothing more than that :)
 

vett93

macrumors 6502
Jul 27, 2014
279
40
California
I have the same CPU as yours, but with 64GB of RAM. On Geekbench 5, its multi-core score is 7248. The single-core score is 793.
 

RailroadXX

macrumors newbie
Jul 19, 2016
12
2
There's nothing future-safe from Apple right now. They did announce a platform shift after all. Not before scam.... selling the most expensive Mac Pro ever.
"Most expensive Mac Pro ever"? That perspective is all relative, relative to the model, use, lifespan of the machine.

E.g. Early 2008 Mac Pros (8-core, 3.0GHz, etc) we purchased were $3,500 each (sans tax, AppleCare), new and that was with an Apple business account discount. So, compared to a 2019 Mac Pro 8-core with today's dollar equivalency...comparable. Those 2008 Mac Pros (as well as a couple 2010s, 2012s) are still in use (although on a very limited basis) and, despite a legacy OS (10.13.6) and third-party apps cutting corners to no longer provide support that legacy OS, those Mac Pros still perform better than the Mac Pro Late 2013s our needs forced us to buy.

Although not a proponent of the current Apple C-Level (poor decisions, fumbled marketing, products, designs, etc) given our positive, very favorable experience with those now ancient battleships (2008 Mac Pros) we would say the 2019 Mac Pros are well worth the investment, for business users (including SOHO users)
 

wmosx

macrumors newbie
Dec 26, 2020
8
2
12 Core 2.7GHZ 128GB, D700 with 2TB Sabrent Rocket NVME. Akitio Tian Node egpu with AMD WX8200.

Davinchi Resolve /Fusion and Houdini recognizes and utilizes all gpu's and memory, below are some GeekBench Scores
 

Attachments

  • NMP61.png
    NMP61.png
    32.8 KB · Views: 350
  • WX8200VSD700's.png
    WX8200VSD700's.png
    144.9 KB · Views: 384

Flint Ironstag

macrumors 65816
Dec 1, 2013
1,334
744
Houston, TX USA
There's nothing future-safe from Apple right now. They did announce a platform shift after all. Not before scam.... selling the most expensive Mac Pro ever.
I seem to remember Schiller saying "this is it. this is the form factor for the next 10 years" - something close - about the 6,1! No doubt the list goes on. ?
 

RailroadXX

macrumors newbie
Jul 19, 2016
12
2
I seem to remember Schiller saying "this is it. this is the form factor for the next 10 years" - something close - about the 6,1! No doubt the list goes on. ?
...and a whole lot of the standard circus performance hype as well (Schiller). In response to this guy's comment about the amazing accessibility of the 2013 Mac Pro, Schiller parading around onstage, the large screen in the background showing the 6.1 rotating ("ooh, aaah, ohhh beautiful, amazing...") one corporate user (IT staff) stated, "Yeah, and he didn't show that amazingly designed 'accessibility' with any of the cables or power cords plugged in!"

When this first arrived at the stores, an Apple Store representative pointed that out to us (pointing to it from across the room; he seemed reticent to approach this thing...we now know why) he said they (the store) refer to it as the "trash can". In hindsight, appropriately named.

1620442028346.png
 
Last edited:
  • Angry
Reactions: MisterAndrew

MisterAndrew

macrumors 68030
Sep 15, 2015
2,895
2,390
Portland, Ore.
The 6,1 does have amazing accessibility. Lift the cover off and the RAM and SSD are right there. Try to do that with an iMac or Mac mini. I don’t think you can lift the cover off a 7,1 tower with the cables connected either. Only the rack mount version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: loby and wmosx

FrankG72

macrumors newbie
May 14, 2021
11
4
Hi guys,

I am a video editor and I have owned a Mac Pro 3 GHz 10-Core Intel Xeon E5 (late 2013)since it came out. I was looking at the new models and they are crazy expensive so was considering how far I could take my old mac pro.

I have 2 16gb sticks of ram (32 GB 1866 MHz DDR3) and my graphics card is a AMD FirePro D700 6 GB.

I've changed ram on machines before (which i know is easy) before but never ventured into the deeper workings, but do trust myself to follow instructions competently.

756 was my Single-Core Score and 6007 Multi-Core Score.

Would greatly appreciate anyone who could recommend what I could do to most 'beast mode' this mac and give it a new lease of life.

Thanks in advance

John
Hi John.

Late to the party, but I am also a video editor & have just made all the upgrades I could in one go and thought I would share my experience. I don't put a lot of stock in synthetic benchmark tests, so will just give you some anecdotal evidence from using the machine over the past week.

Before upgrades my 6,1 was a 2X D700 w. 32Gb of RAM & 6 core CPU. I put in 64Gb of RAM (about $300), a 12 core CPU (about $100 on Ali Express, but amusingly they sent me 2 CPU's and don't want to pay for shipping to return the extra one) and an Aura Pro X2 NVME for about $300. Note, these prices are in New Zealand dollars, given I live on the bottom of the world, so I expect you can find all these things a lot cheaper in the US - except probably that CPU. It was a bargain.

I'll add here that I use thunderbolt 2 RAID arrays and an AJA IO for monitoring to a 4K broadcast monitor, so the GPUs aren't being particularly taxed anyway. Thunderbolt drives were the Mamin reason for upgrading to this machine from my far more pleasant to run 5,1 as clients were bringing in large volumes of material on LaCie RAID arrays & I needed to be able to access them.

Okay, so my thoughts on a 6,1 with these upgrades;

It's not a hell of a lot better, but it is better.

Premiere (which is in my opinion a pretty poor piece of editing software) is running a LOT better. I'm cutting a film at the moment shot Arri RAW and playback is a lot better. I use overlays with TCiP/file name/slate identifiers & footage has some baked in Arri LUTs, at times this would struggle if those overlay layers were turned on, but now it seems quite content. Haven't stretched it in Avid yet, which would be the system of choice, but doubt I would see much in the way of performance increase as Avid is a fairly streamlined piece of software and pretty much cuts-only.

Media encoder is running super well. A while back they seemed to have added support of the multi GPU's, and with the extra RAM & CPU cores, outputs now happen at about 2x playback speed vs the close to 1x they were averaging on this current edit before upgrading. Always hard to tell exactly what this means as every output is heavily dependant on FX used, and most importantly, the camera codec, but on this particular project it's zinging after the upgrades.

After Effects is going a lot faster now as well - this is in large part because of the doubling of RAM capacity, and After Effects Is super thirsty on memory, but I am noticing a nice bump with the 12 cores. After Effects is in the process of beta testing multicore rendering, and using that feature sees a really complex animation render chopped down by more that half the output time now. A 3 minute clip that took 1 hour to render out previously at last try completed in 24 minutes. Adobe seem to be struggling a little bit with vector layers moved in 3D space and there are hanging issues, but when this feature goes release I expect to see some big improvements in my workflow.

Thermals the single biggest thing I notice with all these cores is that the machine now runs a lot cooler. At times when rendering or outputting I was getting the fans revving right up - it's now running super quiet & the intel power gadget reports the CPU's barely getting warm. New thermal paste & a dust have no doubt contributed to this, but it means the machine is running a lot more stably.

Having said all the above, and given it's a while since you started this thread, I expect you've already made some sort of movement on this. Despite everything I have said above, in many ways I have to agree with everyone else and say it's probably time to think about an iMac. Personally I intend to stick with my Mac Pro until the ARM Mac pros come out (2022? Maybe), because I don't really like the form factor of the iMac. Interested to know if you would up buying one - I have used them fairly extensively, and there is good and bad IMHO - Media encoder, for instance, flies on an iMac as it can take advantage of acceleration courtesy of the chipset used having code written specifically for it.. the bad would be that, despite all the apparent benefits, the Mac Pro still handles footage better when working, and it renders AE comps faster too. Maybe this is a cache thing, I'm no expert, but the 6,1 still feels much more confident and stable when editing or animating/compositing, even if it renders slower/similar speeds. But maybe that's just me. I threw some money at my Mac I might have been better of throwing elsewhere, but it still feels like a good machine. But it's long in the tooth and I expect to only really get another year out of it before frustration drives me to a grungier machine. It's my livelihood, so if there are no ARM pros out next year, will probably look at a 16 core Mac Pro & buy some aftermarket RAM.

As a final note, upgrading the trashcan was really easy. Even the CPU. I watched a few YouTube videos, including the one you posted, and it's a lot less painful that I expected.
 

FrankG72

macrumors newbie
May 14, 2021
11
4
After Effects is going a lot faster now as well - this is in large part because of the doubling of RAM capacity, and After Effects Is super thirsty on memory, but I am noticing a nice bump with the 12 cores. After Effects is in the process of beta testing multicore rendering, and using that feature sees a really complex animation render chopped down by more that half the output time now. A 3 minute clip that took 1 hour to render out previously at last try completed in 24 minutes. Adobe seem to be struggling a little bit with vector layers moved in 3D space and there are hanging issues, but when this feature goes release I expect to see some big improvements in my workflow.
As a post-script to the above, I thought I would run a quick test to see just how much better After Effects is running, so I ran a project from December through the latest release of the AE beta. What was (at last output) a 1h 6min render completed in 36 min 52 sec. So that's a lot faster. After Effects (and in particular this build) doesn't stretch the GPU at all, so this is all CPU. Adobe say that you need about 2Gb of RAM per thread, and the RAM was maxing out at about 83% used (by default the minimum you can leave for the system & other apps is 6Gb, so that's where the other 17% was going). At the most complex part of the comp, where there are 1000's of 2D illustrator files moving around, the CPU was stretched pretty hard, and the temp gauge got up to about 80 Celsius.

This is all a bit rubbery however; a lot of this improvement is because the AE beta renders multiple frames simultaneously (seeming to max out at 6 no matter the CPU), but without the bump in RAM there is no way the machine would have been able to reach this level of utilisation. Adobe software is clunky and buggy, and results for this type of test are really variable - looking at my render queue I also see the same comp rendering out at 1hr 30+, up to 1hr 50+, but I am unsure what changes I had made since those renders (largely reducing the size of the project by dumping unused elements & streamlining).

I guess my final thought for you if you still have that machine bumping around is RAM is probably going to make more/quite considerable difference for video in a multithread environment than another 4 CPU threads, but the CPU can also be had super cheap (with a big bump in cache size). Running off of Adobe's suggested 2Gb/thread, your 10 cores could easily use 40Gg + 6Gb for system, so another 32 Gb of RAM could make a bit of a difference for you.
Oh, and meant to say, the NVME upgrade was worth it too, apps open a lot faster it seems, and the system feels more responsive - although (caveat) as others have pointed out, it's not going to be like a new, modern machine, just the best possible version of what is quite an old piece of tech now. Having said that, I have spend about $700NZ for quite a bump, and I also get to sell my old RAM & CPU, which should net me a few hundred $ back - so all up, worth it IMHO.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2021-05-15 at 13.02.41.png
    Screen Shot 2021-05-15 at 13.02.41.png
    13 KB · Views: 170
  • Screen Shot 2021-05-15 at 12.42.45.png
    Screen Shot 2021-05-15 at 12.42.45.png
    83.4 KB · Views: 208
  • Screen Shot 2021-05-15 at 12.45.01.png
    Screen Shot 2021-05-15 at 12.45.01.png
    83.7 KB · Views: 176
Last edited:

Robb365

macrumors newbie
May 15, 2021
8
2
I currently have the 4 core 3.7 GHz model and use all Adobe software after effects, premiere, photoshop and illustrator. I have had to migrate most of my heavy duty video work and 3D workspace rendering in photoshop to 2017 MacBook Pro ( I think it’s running the i5 or i7 processor) I upgraded the RAM on the Mac Pro to 64 Gb and saw little to no difference.

Based on my research, I don’t totally understand how an upgrade to the 12 core CPU will be helpful. My understanding is that single core speed compared to my current 4 core processor would be slower. Since Adobe has stopped supporting multithreading, I would basically be installing a new CPU that would slow down my machine. If I am missing something, please let me know because I really don’t want to stop using this machine but can’t wait 17 hours to render something that my laptop can do in 1 hour.
 

FrankG72

macrumors newbie
May 14, 2021
11
4
I currently have the 4 core 3.7 GHz model and use all Adobe software after effects, premiere, photoshop and illustrator. I have had to migrate most of my heavy duty video work and 3D workspace rendering in photoshop to 2017 MacBook Pro ( I think it’s running the i5 or i7 processor) I upgraded the RAM on the Mac Pro to 64 Gb and saw little to no difference.

Based on my research, I don’t totally understand how an upgrade to the 12 core CPU will be helpful. My understanding is that single core speed compared to my current 4 core processor would be slower. Since Adobe has stopped supporting multithreading, I would basically be installing a new CPU that would slow down my machine. If I am missing something, please let me know because I really don’t want to stop using this machine but can’t wait 17 hours to render something that my laptop can do in 1 hour.
I don't think Adobe has stopped supporting multi-threading. Try running your apps with activity monitor open and check out the activity on each of your cores/threads. If you look at the attachments on my post above with the After Effects render, all threads are running & cranking pretty heavily (and I'm getting render times in After Effects beta that are half the time in older versions/prior to upgrading).

I'm not an expert, but I don't know if clock speed is necessarily a reliable indicator of performance. I upgraded from 6 to 12, and performance has boosted considerably despite the clock speed being quite a bit slower. By all accounts the 4 core is not a great processor, so I would expect that boosting to a 12 would make quite a bit of difference, and a 2nd hand CPU can be had really cheap. It's worth me asking at this point, if your performance is really bad, if you have tried all the other usual things like reinstalling OS etc? Years worth of junk files can really slow down a machine. I would have thought that your Mac Pro would be able to beat a 2017 laptop.
 
Last edited:

Robb365

macrumors newbie
May 15, 2021
8
2
I don't think Adobe has stopped supporting multi-threading. Try running your apps with activity monitor open and check out the activity on each of your cores/threads. If you look at the attachments on my post above with the After Effects render, all threads are running & cranking pretty heavily (and I'm getting render times in After Effects beta that are half the time in older versions/prior to upgrading).

I'm not an expert, but I don't know if clock speed is necessarily a reliable indicator of performance. I upgraded from 6 to 12, and performance has boosted considerably despite the clock speed being quite a bit slower. By all accounts the 4 core is not a great processor, so I would expect that boosting to a 12 would make quite a bit of difference, and a 2nd hand CPU can be had really cheap. It's worth me asking at this point, if your performance is really bad, if you have tried all the other usual things like reinstalling OS etc? Years worth of junk files can really slow down a machine. I would have thought that your Mac Pro would be able to beat a 2017 laptop.
This is what I read: https://community.adobe.com/t5/afte...stills-so-slow-in-the-new-mac-pro/m-p/6170783.

To summarize, the settings that allowed for multiframe rendering have been discontinued. As shown directly below, you can see where it allowed for rending multiple frames simaltaniously. In the picture directly below the first one, my settings do not provide this feature.
Screen Shot 2021-05-15 at 5.24.04 PM.png
Screen Shot 2021-05-15 at 5.23.00 PM.png
 

FrankG72

macrumors newbie
May 14, 2021
11
4
Quicksync only works for H.264 in Premiere/Media encoder however. If the issue is slow filter processing in Photoshop (?) that's something else.

 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.