Andy Patterson
Forum Replies Created
-
It is good to be able to still use it today with just a simple upgrade.
-
[Joe Marler] “Your thread title asked about a 2009 Mac Pro”
I could have opted for 2010. I just opted for 2009. I was just curious what modifications people had done.
[Joe Marler] “For a 2012 Mac Pro, the fastest GeekBench 4 GPU numbers are around 145,000-150,000, again using the GTX-980Ti. By contrast a 2013 New Mac Pro with dual D700s produces about 94,000 per card or 188,000 total. So from a GPU standpoint, a D700 2013 Mac Pro is still faster than anything you can easily build using a single GPU that will run on macOS. I have seen claims that people got a Hackintosh running using dual nVidia GPUs, but it’s apparently not straightforward, and I don’t know well FCPX would use that.”
I wonder if someone might say FCPX and Premiere seem to work better with dual CPUs instead of dual GPUs. Who knows?
[Joe Marler] “So even though the 2013 Mac Pro is three years old, it still looks faster than most of the upgraded 2009 or 2012 Mac Pros — from both CPU and GPU standpoints. There could still be a good reason to upgrade an older Mac Pro, assuming there is macOS driver and software support and it has demonstrated performance benefit on FCPX.”
I know some people need the PCIE slots. I think others might like internal RAID configurations.
-
[Gabe Strong] “These guys are all upgrading older MacPros and offer help on
how to do it for less tech savvy people. I ended up upgrading to
a six core 3.46GHZ processor, a 980Ti graphics card with 6GB of
VRAM. Also installed SSDs, including a couple on an internal
PCI card for some real speed. This setup is really fast.
I wrote more about it on my blog here:”Cool. It is good to get some extra use out of the system. I think some people miss the internal storage options and PCIE slots.
-
If you like the older Mac Pro and can upgrade it yourself to keep up with your editing needs I say go for it. I was hoping to hear from more people. Some might install an AMD graphics card and find FCPX works a little better than Premiere. Others may opt for Nvidia and say Premiere seems to work better. I am sure different hardware will give different results. It will be interesting to see if anyone has added a Blu-ra burner or SAS RAID controller card. I don’t doubt some one has went from a quad core CPU to a six core CPU.
-
I see people’s opinion’s very from user to user about the old Mac Pro Vs the new Mac Pro. That is why I started a new thread about upgrading the older 2009 Mac Pros. Perhaps FCPX works better with dual AMD GPUs and Premiere Pro works better with two CPUs and one Nvidia GPU. With the older Mac Pro you have more options and that maybe why people get such different results. Having said that different laptop configurations will yield different results.
-
[Karan Shah] “The section I am talking about is 1:25 into the video!”
Lay out you text and key-frame with the crop tool. You may want to use separate layers for each line of text.
-
Let Adobe know they need to rewrite the code from scratch. There are to many bugs to worry about fixing them.
-
I think the original post fits in OK. Some people may not be aware of all the options.
-
[Ronny Courtens] “Three our four years later when you upgrade why not be able to use the older system to create a system like the Jellyfish (for the 5%)?
I have no time to keep responding to this, but you really should not confuse a bunch of drives in a chassis with a high-performance shared storage solution.”
I know it is shared storage on a network but the ATX hardware could be reused. That Jellyfish has a mATX form factor with 8 SATA drives. In the end it uses common PC hardware. That is not to say it does not have very unique features or that the software involved is not state of the art. I have never said otherwise. I am not knocking the Jellyfish system. I am saying with the old Mac Pro you could configure your own hard drive system. Now you must use 3rd party solutions. I am not saying the old Mac Pro running a RAID would be like the Jellyfish. I am saying there is a reason some people are still using their old Mac Pro. It does seem like some Mac users like using rackmount systems. Perhaps they don’t need to as you stated below.
[Ronny Courtens] “A gigantic waste of time and money, but I posted the pics because I found they have been very creative in trying to solve a problem that does not actually exist.”
There will always be new technology making things obsolete. Thanks for post the images.
-
[Tom Sefton] “How was a link to a great piece of tech that enables smaller production companies to compete with bigger firms on shared editing projects been swung around so you can bang on about Apple’s non upgradable parts policy?? How..!!!??? Is this actually Steve Woz posting through an alter ego on the cow, venting his spleen about the direction his company took, angry that billions of people have chosen to trust one firm to build them something that works instead of fiddling around with parts and building a super computer for less money? The fools!!!”
I read the article and seen the Jellyfish and made a few comments. I stated if they travel with it wouldn’t a rackmount system be better. Did you not look at the photo Ronny Courtens posted with the rackmount unit? I know several places that have rackmount gear. My comments are fair to make.
[Tom Sefton] “If you think you can build something like this and write the code to leverage the performance from the drives whilst making it plug and play, and easy to use, and put it in a different rackmount case that fits in a different bloody box and doesn’t have a handle on top to make it easy to carry, and get 5 colleagues or co-workers to work at the same time as you to test performance, then go ahead. Come back and write your findings here.”
I am simply asking questions and stated when hard drives are in a RAID you will get great performance. I even said the throughput of the Jellyfish was good.
[Tom Sefton] “If it works better than this one perhaps you can start selling it to people and offer a warranty and tech support and can build up a list of clients that trust you with their data and their business. Why stop there – maybe you could get yourself a rotary kiln and produce the purest aluminium around, meaning you can reduce weight whilst building a more fuel efficient and powerful car engine.”
I asked valid questions. All you have to do is say “yes rackmount solutions are offered or no they are not”. Someone else posted a photo of rackmount gear for the Mac Pro helping to prove my point and validate my question about rackmount gear.
[Tom Sefton] “When exactly in my working week am I supposed to learn how to build all of these things – the hackintosh that is less than a Mac Pro and the shared raid, and the internal raid? I want to do my job.”
You posted a link and I asked a few questions. I did not say you should build your own server system.
[Tom Sefton] “I want to do my job. I want to buy something that works immediately and has a warranty and that someone else has used and found reliable. It’s all getting a bit silly with the DIY angle now – if you can’t see the value in a product like this from a small company, then what exactly is your point?”
I asked a few simple questions. As I have stated before some people like the fact that with the old Mac Pro you could configure your own RAID system. Now you have to go external and buy from a third party company with a much higher cost involved. Some people don’t like doing that. It is worth mentioning.