Erik Lindahl
Forum Replies Created
-
The new eGPU should replace the original one with the original price. It’s what the original one should have been. Not a 2 year old GPU.
This new one now is waaaaaaaaay too overpriced and inflexible in terms of upgrades.
-
I find the idea of eGPU compelling. Sadly, the performance hit is quite noticeable from the tests I’ve done with a 2018 MBP. Also app-support is quite sketchy – and the cost overhead is substantial.
Really, the MacMini is quite a dissapointment for video-professionals. Premiere, FCPX and Resolve really loves a fast GPU. The latest and greatest MacMini have a very sad chip. I don’t see how they couldn’t have added a small VEGA-model in there. Intel even has the 4-core + Vega bundle.
No clue what Apple is thinking there. They have a 10 GbE option but no dGPU?
The new MacMini will replace our current server very well however. It’s almost a perfect replacement there.
-
I think DaVinci Resolve can use both the internal and external GPU. Not sure that’s always (or ever) the best practice for performance.
I can do some tests! 🙂
-
Very impressive. As of version 14 performance got tons better. This is definatly the most interesting development of any app / system.
-
I wouldn’t say it’s that hard, but it will be very dependent on “your workflow”. Then again all these tests are more and more becoming very workflow / app / format dependent.
A lot of people seeing a 5K iMac beating an iMac Pro by a decent margin is often due to the fact they are using h264 footage as source and destination format. For me that’s very very uncommon. What’s however common is say rendering from / to ProRes while at the same time transcoding from ProRes to h264-references.
I also wouldn’t think it’s that uncommon for a FCPX to have a number of films exporting in the background while editing and having background rendering on.
At the end of the day a “real world” test by my self on say 10 of my latest projects might or might not be relevant to user X, Y or Z on the net.
-
I’d also add a lot of the reviews so far don’t test multitasking performance. I frequently will have multiple apps up at the same time doing rendering / transcodes / professing. Here and 8- or 10-core machine will have a huge up vs a 4-core machine. I would imagine as you go higher up the core-scale and lessen the per core performance things don’t always keep scaling.
-
This is exactly the case. For the short film we did I couldn’t figure out when or why it behaved like that.
– Some clips had the entire source clip in a compound clip with source clip TC, with just the given section in the active timeline. These I could de-compose but they still cause head-aches.
– Some clips had the entire source clip in a compound in another compound with reset TC. These where a mess to deal with.
When you try to media manage a project like this Resolve simply takes EVERYTHING since, technically, every bit of media is used (given only in un-nessasy compound clips).
I’ve never seen this odd behaviour from any other editor but I’ve seen it from the last 3 FCPX shot shows cut by 3 different editors. Likely a FCPX / Resolve or FCPXML “feature” / “bug”. Edits do translate very well BUT this causes serious head-aches for a lot of workflows.
-
AV output via a video interface is pretty much broken. Very laggy and almost unusable for anything but play-though of a final edit.
-
De-compose compound clips work sometimes and sometimes not. Also if you get a 20 min short film where every single clip is a compound clip and a lot of them even have compounds with-in compounds and you want to send clips to VFX… iiiiish!
-
I wonder if they’re going to sort out the compound clip nightmare when sending edits to apps like Resolve.
Also… FIX THE GA-DAMMED A/V OUT! FCP CLASSIC HAD THIS IN THE 1990’s!