-
iMac Pro thoughts
-
[Oliver Peters] “if the main concern is rendering/exporting within an NLE like FCPX or Premiere Pro, then the iMac Pros will still yield superior results. Although we are mainly talking about a 10-20% bump for the iMP over a decked out iMac.”
This will vary based on the codec and NLE. Some common workflows in FCPX are significantly slower on a 10-core Vega 64 iMac Pro than a top-spec 2017 iMac. I ran these tests yesterday:
Export from 4k Sony XAVC-S, clip length = 10:17
Output = 4k H264 Fast Encode, 2017 iMac 27 = 5:53, 10-core Vega 64 iMac Pro = 7:10
Output = 4k H264 Better Quality, 2017 iMac 27 = 11:25, 10-core Vega 64 iMac Pro = 14:49
Output = 1080p H264 Fast Encode, 2017 iMac 27 = 5:53, 10-core Vega 64 iMac Pro = 4:00So at least the iMac Pro is faster at encoding to a 1080p H264 file, but it’s slower than a 2017 iMac at encoding to a 4k H264 file. FCPX on the iMac Pro is also slower than the 2017 iMac on the H264 decode side, not just encode. This can be seen by how scrubbing an H264 4k timeline is more sluggish on the iMP than the iMac. The iMac Pro is faster at encoding and decoding ProRes.
In Premiere 2018, the iMac Pro is faster than the 2017 iMac at all the H264 encoding tests I’ve done.
-
[Shane Ross] “I have been in exactly ZERO edit bays/cutting rooms that use iMacs.”
Must be an American thing then. Since I don’t see anything BUT iMacs in any of these pictures from major broadcasters (some with HUNDREDS of seats) aside from MacBook Pros that is…
… or in my own editing vicinity. Go figure.
But then I guess it’s an FCP thing? ???? Where you plain don’t need superfluously beefy hardware and slots and racks and what not else just to be able to edit video. This is the 21st century last I checked. I also have no clue why anyone would think they actually needed more an iMac Pro(!), let alone a top of the line iMac just for editing with Final Cut Pro X, unless they cut nothing but 14 camera 6K multi cams all day… but even that is doable with an iMac Pro. ???? So I can only assume it’s just some “cool” or “pro” factor that needs to be nursed by insisting on racks and towers.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook -
[Oliver Peters] “The iMac Pro is definitely better and allows our editors to work natively”
Just edited an 8K RED film in realtime, even with color corrections applied on my iMac Pro. Mind you, NO optimization or proxy or any of that. Merely set to “Better Performance“… which is obviously a completely moot point at 8K.
So what is it I need a Mac Pro for again?
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook -
[Oliver Peters] “I’d say it’s a 20-25% improvement”
Couldn’t disagree more. You must simply not be doing anything very taxing or anything that benefits from the cores and GPUs as much. Or something is just plain wrong with your machine(s). The iMac Pro is a beast from my experience.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook -
[Robin S. Kurz] “You must simply not be doing anything very taxing or anything that benefits from the cores and GPUs as much.”
iMac Pro 10-core Vega 64 vs. Mac Pro 4-core AMD R9. All connected 10GigE to QNAP NAS. Adobe, Apple and Resolve apps.
https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2018/01/06/putting-apples-imac-pro-through-the-paces/
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
I’m tickled that you actually post that article as (I can only assume) an argument to counter what I said, where it fact only confirms exactly what said. Weird. But I guess I should also have said “taxing AND at least barely optimized” to be clear.
It’s a beast clocking in at near TWICE the speeds at tasks that are not only the solely relevant ones (to me and in the context of this forum), but those that are even optimized enough to count to begin with. Because sorry, but trying to use ADOBE apps as a yardstick for speed on modern app and hardware architecture is just amusing to me. ????
Never mind that it doesn’t even vaguely confirm your claim of “20-25% improvement” either. Odd math looking at your own numbers. Numbers that are in fact noticeably worse than mine btw, for whatever reason.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook -
[Robin S. Kurz] “Never mind that it doesn’t even vaguely confirm your claim of “20-25% improvement” either.”
Maybe you should re-read the actual test results. They vary widely depending on application. So this is a generalized average across the board. Most people care about the results with more than simply FCPX. For example, the Compressor and After Effects render/export times were nearly the same between the iMac Pro and iMac.
You could also post some of your own test results in detail to back up what you are saying (with detailed machine specs). And then justify why someone should pay the price for that machine.
BTW – There’s also a good AppleInsider test article linked at the end of the post. More across-the-board results.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
Hi All!
With all due respect, Robin I’m trying to discern what you are saying and/or hardware configuration for which you are advocating. Oliver seems to have laid out a pretty strong case for using the iMac Pro in a shared storage post-production workflow environment (with the caveat that he is exempting projects/apps with tremendously demanding processor and video card needs, like 3D rendering/compositing and the like). Cost vs. Performance vs. Ease of Integration are all pretty clearly defined in his documentation and first-hand experience. And I do not believe that he is a shill for Apple. If you have a difference of opinion, please provide a real-world example of your experience with this gear and what configuration you would recommend.
And I am by no means flame throwing here! Not my style. I would truly like to hear what approach you would take.
Thanks much!
Andrew
-
I posted a few times (above) comparing my 10-core iMac Pro to my late 2013 iMac. Since then, however, my 10-core iMac Pro had significant hardware issues Apple was unable to fix, then I upgraded to an 18-core iMac Pro that had the exact same problems. I returned that and now have a maxed out 5k iMac, and in nearly every case it is outperforming the 18-core iMac Pro. Multicam editing is smoother, playback is smoother, Motion render times are more or less identical, and while both iMac Pros would spontaneously shut down multiple times a day the 5k iMac has never done this.
In fact, before I returned the 18-core machine I compared it to my late 2013 iMac: the 18-core with directly attached OWC Thunderbay 4 drives was MUCH slower at playback and export than the late 2013 iMac accessing media on the same drive… over a network. Working with those iMac Pros for a good 6 months (when they weren’t in for repair), and having compared them to two different iMacs, I have to say that I do not see any benefit to the iMac Pro over a modern 5k iMac, at least using the Pro Apps —unless you are working with 8k footage or 360 video, that’s where that machine will shine.
Gabriel Spaulding
Creator & Director of ACE Enterprizes
Cinematographer | Editor | Motion DesignerHow Can We Help You Tell Your Story?
http://www.aceenterprizes.com -
it pretty clearly shows and corroborates a speed bump when working with mixed format high resolution media both in adobe and fcpx exports, aside from when the dual gpu of the 2013 Mac Pro boosts export performance from mixed media timeline to prores master.
Can’t really see where your attitude comes from here Robin.
Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up