Creative Communities of the World Forums

The peer to peer support community for media production professionals.

Forums Creative Community Conversations FCPX comparison ’17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro

  • FCPX comparison ’17 Quad iMac to Octo Core iMac Pro

  • Craig Seeman

    December 29, 2017 at 4:05 pm

    Very interesting results by Max Yuryev.
    There’s some typo in his graphs so I suspect he was rushing to get this online.

    Let the debates begin. The “best” option is certainly debatable given the results and your current source and delivery needs.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLF3g2zF3qs

    Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

    This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

  • Tom Sefton

    December 29, 2017 at 7:20 pm

    Would have been nice to see a comparison where footage was optimised to ProRes, or a version editing 1080/4K footage supplied in ProRes/DNxHD via an Atomos/Shogun/Blackmagic recorder (which is very typical).

    It does seem as though the Pro machine does what it says on the tin – if you edit material that is typically delivered to Pro shops (Raw or 6K+ resolution), the iMac Pro comes out on top.

    I’m not sure if the ambiguity over a promised modular Pro machine and high res monitor from Apple, along with full eGPU support has made me decide to wait and see before buying. Anyone else thinking the same?

    Thanks for the link though!

    Co-owner at Pollen Studio
    http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk

  • Craig Seeman

    December 29, 2017 at 8:58 pm

    To add to the interest I’ll toss in Barefeats tests as well. He’s testing more systems including the Late 2013 Mac Pro and a 2010 old Mac Pro.

    IMacPro Running Pro Apps

    Low End iMacPro vs MacPros and iMac

    Extrapolating iMacPro Vega64 GPU Performance

  • Oliver Peters

    December 29, 2017 at 11:49 pm

    A bit of a tangential question, but I’m in the middle of adding some iMac Pros into an environment with standard iMacs and a 2013 Mac Pro.

    A few of these stations also a second, external display, which are repurposed Apple Cinemas with DVI connectors. On the iMacs they work fine connected to the TB2 ports, using a DVI-to-MDP adapter. However, we are trying to figure out how to use these with the iMPs.

    We added a TB2-to-USBC adapter, but that doesn’t work. Is this an issue of one too many adapters? Does the USBC/TB3 spigot even support an external video signal from a monitor that doesn’t specifically have this connection? Or is there a different adapter that we should get that will work?

    Anyone run into this yet? If so, suggestions? Thanks.

    – Oliver

    Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com

  • Craig Seeman

    December 30, 2017 at 3:12 am

    Would USB-C to MiniDisplay do the trick?

    This maybe DVI to USB-C

    Macworld mentions the above for Monitor to TB3 compatibility but it’s actually USB-C

    To clarify USB-C is not USB3. USB-C is the same form as Thunderbolt 3 (may work in TB3 ports which act as USB-C ports). I’m sure you know this. The adaptors I’m pointing to are either USB-C or TB3. Unfortunately many product descriptions use unclear language to differentiate.

    USB-C devices can work in TB3 ports but only as USB protocol. If one needs TB3 the cable/adaptor must be TB3 (which is a management chip built in).

  • andy patterson

    December 30, 2017 at 4:23 am

    That is almost exactly what I would expect. FCPX has an advantage over Premiere Pro when editing h.264/AVCHD. Once you use any other codec FCPX has no advantage over Premiere Pro and in fact can perform worse. I would have expected the iMac to play back Red One R3D files at full resolution and also playback at 8K R3D files in better performance mode. There are PC for $1,200.00 that can playback 4 R3D files at full resolution. Does this mean FCPX has an old and outdated code base? I kid I kid : )

    Never under estimate the power of Intel’s Quick Sync or a $1,200.00 gaming PC.

    The PC below could playback 4K R3D files at full resolution using Premiere Pro as well as 8K R3D files. I admit you might need to drop down to 1/4 resolution for playback of 8K R3D files but the image quality would still look awesome.

    https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100019096%204814%20601190710%20601190711%20601190712%20601300929%20601286690%20601190668%20601195636&cm_sp=Cat_desktop-Computers_1-_-Visnav-_-Intel-Desktop_1

  • Scott Thomas

    December 30, 2017 at 4:28 am

    The DisplayPort stuff is multiplexed on top of the USB with custom silicon. I don’t think garden variety USB 3 chipsets are going to provide that support. I think the device would have to specifically say that that it’s Thunderbolt 3 and/or DisplayPort aware.

    To get an idea of the complexities, check this out… ~/combining-usb-type-c-and-displayport-support-in-portable-implementations/

    And in looking at the page and datasheet, there’s no mention of Thunderbolt 3 anywhere. That’s just DisplayPort and HDCP on top of USB3.

    By trying to simplify everything down to one electrical connection, they’ve opened up a new can of worms.

  • Scott Witthaus

    December 30, 2017 at 11:20 am

    [Oliver Peters] “We added a TB2-to-USBC adapter, but that doesn’t work. Is this an issue of one too many adapters? Does the USBC/TB3 spigot even support an external video signal from a monitor that doesn’t specifically have this connection? Or is there a different adapter that we should get that will work?”

    I am trying to figure out the same thing for my 2017 MBp.

    The adapter mentioned below sounds interesting. As a side note, I also bought a HyoerDrive USBC hub, which provides a bit more elegant solution to various adapters hanging off the machine:

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MUAEI7J/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

    Scott Witthaus
    Senior Editor/Visual Storyteller
    Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
    Professor, VCU Brandcenter

  • Oliver Peters

    December 30, 2017 at 1:42 pm

    CS and ST – This is the TB3 port(s) on the iMP I’m referring to, not the USB3.0.

    The TB3 port use the same connector as USB-C. The adapter that was purchased is an Apple adapter that appears to be TB2-to-TB3 (USB-C connector on the TB3 end). We are going DVI-to-MDP first (using an Apple adapter – the MDP connector and signal is plug-compatible with TB2) and then daisy-chained to that is the TB2-to-TB3 adapter to get us into the USB-C/TB3 ports on the iMP. My suspicion is that this is one too many adapters or they are the wrong type.

    For the time being we’ve repurposed those displays to the regular iMacs where they work fine. The only one right now that I’m trying to connect to one iMac Pro is a Dell that was using a DisplayPort to MiniDisplayPort cable. It also doesn’t work on the iMPs with this Apple adapter. My fear is that the only external displays that work may be the LGs that Apple sells. I hope not.

    https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HKN62/lg-ultrafine-5k-display?fnode=4c

    We are going to try to get another cable for the Dell – maybe HDMI to TB3 – before we give up.

    SW – the DP here has one of those docks. The first one he had broke right away and he had to get a second one. I prefer the OWC docks, but they require external power, which makes them tied primarily to office use. So the side-mounted ones are good for fast, portable connectivity.

    – Oliver

    Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com

  • Neil Goodman

    December 30, 2017 at 3:55 pm

    [andy patterson] “Never under estimate the power of Intel’s Quick Sync or a $1,200.00 gaming PC.

    The PC below could playback 4K R3D files at full resolution using Premiere Pro as well as 8K R3D files. I admit you might need to drop down to 1/4 resolution for playback of 8K R3D files but the image quality would still look awesome.

    https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100...”

    we know already, how could we not – you’ve posted it on every thread in the last couple weeks.

    Please stop trying to turn everything into a PC/MAC debate. People in the market for an Imac Pro at 5,000+ are clearly not looking for a 1200 gaming PC whether it can outperform the IMACP or not.

Viewing 1 - 10 of 39 posts

Log in to reply.

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy