-
FCS3 and macbook processor speed – 2.0 GHz? 3+ GHz?
I need some HONEST advice from the pros on this. I’m looking at grabbing a new mac to run FCS 3 on (my integrated graphics card just can’t be tolerated any more) , and I’m wondering about processing speed. I’ve talked to two mac sales reps with contradicting claims. One says that I need at least 3.0 GHz, the other says there is little difference between 2.26 and 2.4 and that I could be fine with either. How important is processing speed in working with HD video on Final Cut Pro ? (Compressed video, i think it’s safe to assume)
2.26 GHz enough? 2.4? 2.0? Do I really need 3 + GHz to run FCP with video files coming from ONE firewire 400 external Hard drive ?
I feel like the attitude at apple is that if you want to do video editing of any kind, you NEED a macbook PRO. But spec for spec, the main differences I see between the MB and MBP are minor. Screen size is one (though not if you buy the 13″ macbook pro), processing speed is another (2.13 GHz to 2.26 GHz difference from the MB to the low end MBP), max ram (6.0 GB compared to 8 GB “actual max” according to mac tracker), and firewire (400 vs 800) – Oh and the shiny aluminum body.
So my question for you gurus out there is: how important is firewire 400 vs firewire 800 for editing HD video off of a hard drive and what is a good processing speed for an amateur video editor on a budget ? Please don’t tell me I’ve spent all that money on FCS3 and so I might as well go overboard on an insanely high end machine to run it. I am on a budget, and the less money spent for my editing functionality the better.
Thanks for any help on this. — jL
-
2 Replies
-
FWIW: FCS2 runs fine on my 2.4Ghz Macbook Pro, late 2008, 4GB RAM, 7200rpm drive. If you want to run Motion or Color remember they prefer to have 512MB or more of video RAM. Can’t really speak to the Firewire 400. My enclosure has a FW800 and eSata port, both work fine with FCS2.
Notes:
– I shoot mostly in HDV & AVCHD, so to keep things speedy, I always use capture to ProRes422. When I upgrade to the new FCS I will use ProResLT.
– If you’re on a budget and are doing AVCHD/H.264 encoding, the Turbo.264 HD Video Encoder is a lot of bang for the buck.
https://www.elgato.com/elgato/na/mainmenu/products/Turbo264HD/product1.en.html -
Hi Jon,
FCS applications have become much more GPU dependent in the last few years. Fxplugs works in the GPU and applications like Motion and Colors relay in the GPU too.
Your speed will depends of the hardware but also of the kind of footage you will work with and the kind of task you want to do.
A MBP is in the limit of what you need to work in HD even if you work with low-data-rate formats (HDV, XDCAM). Even with a MBP you may find that there are tasks that your GPU can not accomplish because the size because the picture is too big or because the bit-depth is too high.
The HDs wouldn’t be my main concern because the bottle-neck is in the CPU/GPU.
but if you intend to work with multilayers, FW800 will work much better.As many others, FC is a professional application and requires some minimum hardware specs, and this is not just because Apple wants to sell MBPs instead on MBs. Is because the software is designed to take advantage of the last developments in GPUs, processors, memory, etc, etc.
Pieces of hardware that are too expensive to mount in a general use computer.
In short, FC and the MBPs are just tools for working (making videos in this case), and you know how expensive good tools cost a. But not expensive at all in the long run.
Cheers,
rafaelCheers,
rafael
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up