Which Mac Pro for FCP?

I'm considering purchase of a new Mac Pro, hoping that it would allow more real-time playback of our DVPro 50 edits and faster rendering and compression. I'm also considering purchase of a video card for export to DVCAM and Beta SP. Can anyone help us with advice on what kind of configuration would be best? Thanks in advance.

Hi Gerret,
I would opt for the base Mac Pro model over the higher clocked BTO models and put the saved money into adding more memory and- storage.
The card choice absolutely depends on your (input/output connection) needs.
Some DVCAM decks have Firewire in/outs so this would require no card at all.
If you really only need SD i/o then Blackmagic is the only remaining vendor to offer SD-only cards.
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/sd/
Depending on the video i/o interfaces on your deck(s) there are two cards available for PCIe machines (like the Mac Pro):
$595 DeckLink SP (analog only)
$895 DeckLink Extreme (analog + SDI)
AJA has the external Io / Io LA / Io LD boxes available.
I can only talk about the Io though. It has great quality, a plethora of in/outputs but sets you back quite a bit, moneywise.
http://www.aja.com/html/productsIoIo.html
http://www.aja.com/html/productsIoIoLAD.html
Maybe you should consider getting a HD capable card, though.
Blackmagic's HD cards start at only $100 more than the SD-only DeckLink Extreme and you would be 'future-proof' then (if that's possible at all
Best regards, Oliver

Similar Messages

New Mac Pro for FCP - should I do 8 cores or faster clock?

I'm setting up a FCP station to replace a 2.3 GHz dial G5 and I'm wondering which would be better - an 8-core 2.26 GHz or a 4-core 2.93 GHz Mac Pro.
Right now the G5 is most likely to choke up when rendering/auto rendering within FCP.
Based on price and the trends in parallel processing, I'm guessing I should go with the 8-core, but that old-school MHz addict in me keeps second guessing. I'd appreciate any advice/insights!

American Flannel wrote:
I heard the new four core mac pro dusts my 2.8ghz 8 core in benchmarking
That's not exactly true. I've been doing some research in the past 24 hours and it seems that the benchmarks (like Geekbench) in which the new 4-core "dusts" the previous 8-core are those which include memory tests. Memory tests will run much faster on the new Nehelems because they use faster RAM.
But the early 2008 8-cores are scoring higher on some benchmarks which score single and multi threaded tasks and don't get hung up in cumbersome RAM tests.
As for the current 4-cores versus the current 8-cores, it seems that the 2.96 GHz 4-cores are beating the more expensive 2.26 8-core procs in single-threaded operations. In FCP, only Compressor is optimized for multithreading, so I'm guessing the real benefits of the extra cores won't be visible until both snow leopard and a new version of FCP.
Why a new version of FCP? Because from what I've gleaned, Grand Central will not make single-threaded operations run better, but will give developers tools to more easily utilize parallel processing. So it would seem FCP will need a significant upgrade to take advantage of what 10.6 has to offer. Don't know if it'll be a .5 or a full version upgrade, but I'm betting on one of them.
Please don't take this as gospel... if I'm wrong about any of this, I'd love to hear a contrary opinion.
Message was edited by: Rey Mo

Over from PC...Need help configuringing my Mac Pro for FCP

Just made the move a few weeks to Mac. Bought a Mac Pro ( and 2 Samsung T240 monitors) and am upgrading components for use with FCP. I have been editing for about 10 years (mostly volleyball highlight films and fishing videos) in Premiere Pro. I am currently using the Sony Vx-1000 but will be purchasing either the Sony EX-1 or HVR-Z7U to shoot and edit in HD while still doing some work in SD. I do maybe two or three 40 minute videos per year and some other shorter projects. I edit mainly for friends and family....not as a business. Here are the upgrades which I will be doing:
1. Add 6 GB Ram to the already 2 GB's for a total of 8 1GB chips
2. Install a Decklink HD Extreme card
These is where I need advice:
STORAGE...
I am reading lots about external hard drives for editing. I am assuming that FCP would be on the operating system drive and the scratch disk(s) would be firewire (800) drive(s). I also read somewhere that Time Machine is not designed to back up video editing machines. I do not know if that is true with the smaller amount of work that I do. That would probably change how my storage is set up if Time Machine will not be backing up my files.
Overall I am a recreational editor and but would like a system that is current for editing in High Defintion (and I guess Standard Definition at times.)
Any advice would be much appreciated and I am really looking forward to the "Mac Experience"
Thanks
Kirk

Thanks for that Nick and Jerry.
I now think that the external hard drive posts that I was looking at were for machines that did not have the capability of adding internal hard drives.
I actually have ordered a 1TB Samsung HD103UJ SATA2 32M (as per the Barefeats tests). Hoping that it would be a suitable internal dive.
For the small amount of editing I do I am guessing that doing a raid would not be all that necessary.
And Nick, I do not think that I was looking for a bootable drive for Time Machine, just something that has a copy of my video clips from my different projects in case I have some sort of hard drive incident. I understand how running Time Machine during editing would not be a good idea, but would it be ok to use it to back up my video files if I just ran it each night after editing. I am taking it that FCP has an auto save feature also for my projects backups.
I had actually already ordered a Iomega Prestige 1 TB USB 2.0 3.5-Inch Hard Drive for the time machine drive. Should I be getting a firewire drive for that instead of USB?
This is a brave new journey.....but I am really enjoying it.
Thanks agian
Kirk

2010 Mac Pro for FCP work: ATI 5770 or 5870? performance vs. fan noise

I'm planning to swap my old Mac Pro (2006 2 x 2.66 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon, 4 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT) for a 2010 Mac Pro model, because I need more speed for video (FCP 7, Color, Magic Bullet Looks) and photo (Lightroom 3, Photo Shop CS5) work. I'm thinking of the 6-Core (3.33 GHz) Mac Pro with 24 GB RAM and ATI Radeon 5870. I read a first review which said, that the 5870 is VERY noisy (fans), and now I'm little afraid. Is the 5870 really that loud, and will it bring clear advantages over the ATI 5770 (I dont't do 3D work yet)? I'd really appreciate your help. Thanks in advance.

Our showroom unit arrived 8/24.
Set it up and loaded it with my demo content. Motion rendering is noticeably faster.
I have yet to thrash it hard, but it's certainly no louder than its predecessor as far as I can tell.
EDIT: I see that you are in Germany. Where exactly?

Imac vs mac pro for FCP?

Hello folks,
Well, my G5 apparently needs a new logic board. I could cry, or be happy at the excuse to get a new computer... I chose the latter!
Bottom line, what is the consensus regarding imac vs mac pro.
I will be using FCP a lot, that's what I do for a living. However, I rarely run other applications at the same time. Occassionally LiveType or Photoshop, but that's about it. No Motion, no After Effects, etc.
I feel that an imac will suffice nicely and that the mac pro is overkill in both cost and amount of computer. It's like getting an Indy car and driving 40 MPH!
Thoughts? Thank you.
Eric P

hmmm, interesting. Of course the mac pro would be better, no doubt. But for my purposes I still wonder if it's worth the cost.
As for Kevan D's inquirey for more info, yes I work with FCP for a living, at least 50% of my work week maybe more is editing. However, silly little ol' weddings have become the vast majority of my work and they will continue to be for at least a few more years I believe. In that time I do not see HD being a factor in my area. So for the forseeable future I expect to be working soley with SD. That bit of info may change some of your minds to thinking that an imac will suffice.
I admit, that's my hope because I would have to take out a loan for the mac pro, and again, I'm just not certain it's worth it for my purposes. On the other hand, I didn't ask the question so that I could hear what I "wanted", I do want honest opinions from other professionals like yourselves. If the experience is that an imac just isn't worth it then so be it.
As far as expandability (is that anything like drinkability??), I understand that, but again for my purposes I suspect that by the time I need to expand to HD or to using the full benefits of a mac pro, a new computer (and equipment) will be in the order anyway. Does that make sense?
Thanks again,
Eric

Which Mac Pro for Bootcamp / Aperture 2

Im planning on buying a Mac Pro from apple's refurb store. Was wondering if it is worth it to pay $400 more for the eight core 2.8 vs the quad core 2.8? I'll mainly use the computer for Aperture 2.0 to work with 10-14mb RAW files, Windows Vista on bootcamp and the usual office 2008 / safari / itunes. Will I have an advantage in terms of speed by buying the 8 core model?
In both cases I plan to have 8GB Ram and a WD 640GB Caviar Blue drive and the ATI 3870 gradually.

http://www.barefeats.com/octopro3.html - 8 vs 4-core
http://www.barefeats.com/harper10.html - Motion 3 RAM Preview graphics
If you wanted to upgrade to 8-core later, it would cost more, not supported, and you might have to buy a pair of cpus, I'd spend the $400.

Which Mac Pro for print and which for web

My department is going to be purchasing new computers in the next month. I want to make an informed decision on which ones to buy.
We have both print and web designers. All will be getting new computers. However, I think that print and web probably have different technical needs.
So, of the three available: Quad-Core, 8-Core and 12-Core...which is best for which medium?

You could get along fine with an iMac.
You could wait and be forced to use Lion compliant apps
Do you need heavy grapic cabability you probably want 24GB RAM, not 8-12 cores but fastest single cpu available. Or even stock 4-core 2.8 (you don't want more and slower though like 2.4 or 2.6 or even 2.93GHz models).
Mac Performance Guide Reviews

Which Mac Pro? More cores=slower speeds? And most of us know the speed matters or FPU for music and I don't understand the faster is for the least amount of procs. And while I get the whole rendering thing and why it makes sense.

Which Mac Pro? More cores=slower speeds? And most of us know the speed matters or FPU for music and I don't understand the faster is for the least amount of procs. And while I get the whole rendering thing and why it makes sense.
The above is what the bar says. It's been a while and wondered, maybe Apple changed the format for forums. Then got this nice big blank canvas to air my concerns. Went to school for Computer Science, BSEE, even worked at Analog Devices in Newton Massachusetts, where they make something for apple.
The bottom line is fast CPU = more FPU = more headroom and still can't figure out why the more cores= the slower it gets unless it's to get us in to a 6 core then come out with faster cores down the road or a newer Mac that uses the GPU. Also. Few. I'm the guy who said a few years ago Mac has an FCP that looks like iMovie on Steroids. Having said that I called the campus one day to ask them something and while I used to work for Apple, I think she thought I still did as she asked me, "HOW ARE THE 32 CORES/1DYE COMING ALONG? Not wanting to embarrass her I said fine, fine and then hung up. Makes the most sense as I never quite got the 2,6,12 cores when for years everything from memory to CPU's have been, in sets of 2 to the 2nd power. 2,4,8,16,32,64,120,256,512, 1024, 2048,4196,8192, 72,768. Wow. W-O-W and will be using whatever I get with Apollo Quad.
Peace to all and hope someone can point us in THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THANK YOU

Thanks for your reply via email/msg. He wrote:
If you are interested in the actual design data for the Xeon processor, go to the Intel site and the actual CPU part numbers are:
Xeon 4 core - E5.1620v2
Xeon 6 core - E5.1650v2
Xeon 8 core - E5.1680v2
Xeon 12 core - E5.2697v2
I read that the CPU is easy to swap out but am sure something goes wrong at a certain point - even if solderedon they make material to absorb the solder, making your work area VERY clean.
My Question now is this, get an 8 core, then replace with 2 3.7 QUAD CHIPS, what would happen?
I also noticed that the 8 core Mac Pro is 3.0 when in fact they do have a 3.4 8 core chip, so 2 =16? Or if correct, wouldn't you be able to replace a QUAD CHIP WITH THAT? I;M SURE THEY ARE UO TO SOMETHING AS 1) WE HAVE SEEN NO AUDIO FPU OR PERHAPS I SHOULD CHECK OUT PC MAKERS WINDOWS machines for Sisoft Sandra "B-E-N-C-H-M-A-R-K-S" -
SOMETHINGS UP AND AM SURE WE'LL ALL BE PLEASED, AS the mac pro was announced Last year, barely made the December mark, then pushed to January, then February and now April.
Would rather wait and have it done correct than released to early only to have it benchmarked in audio and found to be slower in a few areas- - - the logical part of my brain is wondering what else I would have to swap out as I am sure it would run, and fine for a while, then, poof....
PEACE===AM SURE APPLE WILL BLOW US AWAY - they have to figure out how to increase the power for 150 watts or make the GPU work which in regard to FPU, I thought was NVIDIA?

Which current Mac Pro for Aperture/Photoshop

After much research and what seems to be chasing my tail, I though I'd ask the forum for some advice on which machine will best suit my needs. I am currently running Aperture and Photoshop CS3 and looking for a fast machine for the job. I sort through around 2500-3000 raw files per week and hope the new Intel Xeons will speed up my workflow. It's the question of "How many cores are better?" that's confusing me as I am unclear on how many Aperture and Photoshop can actually make use of.
I'm looking to upgrade from my 3.06 iMac to a Mac Pro but having trouble choosing between a new 2.66 quad or a refurbished 2.26 8-core. I understand the drop in processor speed might be noticeable in some instances but the from what I have gathered an upgrade to the ATI HD 4870 is a must as is 6GB ram on the 2.66 and 8GB ram on the 2.26. It's not so much the price difference of the two machines (£2200 for the upgraded 2.66 and roughly £2700 for a refurbished 2.26 plus upgrades) it's will my workflow see any great benefits from the 8-core over the quad. The program I use most is Aperture, followed by Photoshop then FotoMagico, iDVD and Toast Titanium. Does Snow Leopard affect the use of cores in these programs?
Any feedback is much appreciated or pointing in the direction of some real world tests as all the bench tests of the 8-core are so impressive but I'll not be using it for 3D/Video at all.
Thanks in advance for your help.

According to the Adobe blog the delay in offering a 64-bit suite for Mac is because the entire suite has to be rewritten in Cocoa (both previous and current offerings are written in Carbon) CS5 will be written in Cocoa and will utilise the full functionality of the Snow Leopard OS (OpenGL, GCD etc) so memory addressing will be a huge step forward on Photoshop (which I use).
I used Photoshop CS4 on a 2008 Mac Pro 2 x 2.8GHz 8 core (dual Xeon 5400 series Quad core CPUs) and just recently switched to a 2009 Mac Pro 2 x 2.26GHz 8 core (Xeon 5500 series Quad core CPUs). I used CS3 on the original Mac Pro 2 x 2.66Ghz (Dual Xeon Dual Core CPUs = 4 cores total). It's not a fair reflection as CS3 ran under Rosetta on the original Mac Pro and CS4 has better integration on the Intel based Macs, but in general, I noticed a much better rate of workflow on the 8 core machines over the 4 core machine.
More importantly, I would point out that running batch process of RAW files in CaptureOne Pro was significantly performing the batch process on the 8 core machines than on the 4 core machine. (250 RAW files {with no corrections] from a Canon EOS 1D MKII into 16-bitt TIFF files). I can't remember the exact figures but the 8 core machines were @ 23 - 25 minutes quicker than the 4 core machine.
I know it's not scientific and software versions were different which could add to the different results in part, but the 8 core machines both out performed the 4 core machine substantially.
However, the 2009 Mac Pro Quad Core is capable of running 2 threads per core (in effect a virtual 8 core machine and as many reviewers have pointed out, perform faster than the 8 core Mac Pro in certain applications (which have not been written to utilise the full multi-CPU-multi-core environment.
The Memory limitation on the Quad Core is 16GB RAM (Apple state 8GB but reviewers have installed 4 x 4GB DIMMs into the Quad Core without issue). Unless you are doing 3D or HD rendering etc you probably won't really need over 16GBs of RAM, however the cost of 4GB memory sticks is expensive. Crucial only offer a 12GB kit for the Quad Core Mac Pro 2009 to make full use of the triple channel memory speeds (DDR3 best performance in multiples of 3) and 12GBs from Crucial is @£771.00 (prices correct at time of writing this. This equates to @ £257 per 4GB.
Total for Quad Mac Pro with 12GB (3 x 4GB RAM) = £2670
Total for Octo Core Mac Pro with 12GB (6 x 2GB RAM) =£2731 (New price not refurb)
Graphics card upgrade etc will be the same on both machines. Memory based on Crucial Memory prices.
So, for a 2009 Mac Pro with 12GB RAM, it is £61 dearer for an 8 core (virtual 16 cores) machine over the Quad Core Mac Pro. The 8 core system will give you further memory expansion once prices of the 4GB memory sticks come down significantly. The Quad Core will only be able to be upgraded with 8GB RAM sticks over the 4GB sticks available now and will cost a huge amount at time of launch.
Buying a refurbishment 2.26 GHz with similar memory upgrade would in my opinion be the way to go. I know the CPU clock speed is lower, but in real time non memory intensive applications the difference will be hardly noticeable.
I went through the same dilemma as you. I opted for the 8 core system with 12GB RAM and the ATI HD4870 graphics (bought as an upgrade kit so was dearer than the build to order option). I am very happy with my purchase.
The other option is to check out eBay there may be a very well spec'd 2008 Mac Pro for sale with warranty, 16GB RAM and the 8800GT graphics card for less than either of the new systems.
Over the long term, the 8 core offers more affordable customisation options over the Quad Core, but it depends on how long you plan to use the machine

Which Mac Pro to buy for Studio 3

Guys, I'm in the process of upgrading my trusted Power Mac G5 Quad to a Mac Pro.
I will also upgrade to FCS 3.
My question is, which Mac Pro to buy? Quad 2.93 OR Octo 2.26?
Will FCS 3 along with Snow Leopard utilise ALL the Octo's processors? Or am I better off saving the money and sticking with a Quad?

If your income depends on this work, then buy the biggest, baddest, most RAM-filled Mac Pro you can.
At least get the octo 2.66. Put 12GB RAM in it, if you can, but put a minimum of 6GB in there. The concept is that as a professional editor, editing for clients, you must be as time efficient as you can afford to be.
Compressor will use that RAM to compress your stuff a lot faster. Also, Motion can make use of as much RAM as you throw in there. Final Cut Pro itself, not yet.

Which Mac Pro to buy for Music Production

Hi All
Hope you can help.
Currently I have a macbook pro ( 2.66Ghz + 4GB ).
Im planning to buy a mac pro for music production, which is better
4 Core 2.66Ghz Nehalem CPU + 3x2GB or
8 Core 2.26 Ghz Nehalem CPU + 6x2GB
Im heavy on VST/AU's, use a fair bit of audio samples and also will be using a load of ROMpler style sampler instruments.
Im also looking to future proof the system but if the 8 core system is unnecssary for using logic studio id rather get the 4 core option as its easier on my budget.
Im also planning to run 3 x 1tb HDD's ( 1 x OS / 1 x Samples / 1 x Music )
Hope you can advise as itching to buy one with my commission money
Cheers
Andrew

JG99 wrote:
I've heard from a few Logic users and read on other forums that there is currently little difference in performance between the 8-core and 4-core Mac Pro's when running Logic 8. This may change in the future...?
Really? The benchmarks seem to indicate that the 8 x 2.26 is 30-40 % more powerful than the 4 x 2.66, a significant difference...
Personally, I'd get a quad core and spend the difference on ram (from crucial.com) as this will make more of a difference when running power hungry plug-ins.
JG
But the 4 core has a max RAM of 8 GB where the 8 core maxes to 32 GB. Might be worth considering.

Which Mac Pro to buy for Logic?

Hi, I am a Logic Pro user, I use lots of tracks with automation, lots of virtual instruments and other plugins.
I've finally settled on getting a Mac Pro, since I want to use a UAD card, as well as for expandability. So now... Which one? For a given budget, do I want to:
1) max RAM
vs
2) max clock speed
vs
3) max number of cores/procs
Eventually I'll get lots of RAM, so #2 and #3 are my main questions, which will get me the the biggest bang for my buck specifically for use with Logic Pro?
Thanks!
Message was edited by: smeet

Things to consider:
At the moment, the single processor Mac Pros arent that great in terms of value. 4 memory slots is just kind of crappy for a machine that costs so much.
That being said, logic wont support more than 8 cores, meaning nothing above the quad core is going to be worth your money for strict use with logic. We have no idea when logic will support more cores.
Now is not the greatest time to be buying a Mac Pro for various reasons. What kind of budget are you on? Your best bet might be a refurbished 2009 quad core or a 2008 octocore.

Which Mac to buy - Is a Mac Pro for me?

I have been using a PC for nearly 20 years starting in High School. I am desperate to change my ageing and slow PC for a Mac as I mainly use it for video and photo editing. To start with I will be using FCE 4 and Appeture 2, but see myself outgrowing these within a couple of years. For a while I have wanted a Mac Pro, but a friend recently suggested getting an iMac and upgrading it to 4GB ram and 1TB hard drive. I want to be able to easily upgrade my mac in months / years to come as I have done with my PC. Is the Mac Pro the best option for me, plus does any one have any ideas when the new Mac Pro may be announced. Possibly WWDC 2009 in June?
Many thanks
Matt

I just received my new Mac pro dual 3.2 system. I have been a Mac user for 15 years and find it hard to think about going to a PC. I have both PC and Mac, but do all design work on a Mac. The RIP programs need to use a PC and that's all I can do with them.
I too work some with video and I can tell you what I have come across. I started with FCP 3 when it come out and upgraded along the way and started using FCP Studio 2 recently. There seem to be more problems with all the HD stuff. I guess it depends on how much video you plan to do, but you will find it takes a heavy duty system if you plan to work in HD (highly dysfunctional). I have dealt with post production houses and most are using PC systems with Avid. All have a Mac with FCP, but it does not seem to be the main system they use. There is a big jump in price to go the next level and now the Mac Pro with FCP Studio is working OK. There are issues as I would think there would be with Avid, but I am not willing to spend the money to find out at this time. The other thing I ran into is the large Apple displays are a problem for some editing systems. I am running two 30 inch cinema displays and they will not work with Avid.
I feel Apple has dropped the ball on working with the graphics people that supported them for so many years. They are so big it is hard to deal with them like the old days and i-pods are their number one market. I am disappointed in the experience in this last purchase, but again, I can't see making the move to going all PC....not yet any way!
So depending on what you plan to do in the future, I would suggest looking deeper than the Apple site for suggestions on a new system. If you plan to work with video and stay under 30,000...Apple is the best option from my experience.

Which Mac Pro to buy for Logic Pro and Final Cut Pro X?

Hi, I'm considering to buy a Mac Pro for my personal studio. I have 2 choices in my mind: 1st one is the "Quad-core (one 3.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon) with 6GB RAM", and the 2nd one is "12-core (Two 2.4GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon) with 12GB RAM". I'll be mainly using Logic Pro 9 and hardcore video editing in Final Cut Pro X. I know the fact that having higher GHz than more cores may benefit you at some point, and only those software applications that are well-written for using multiple cores will be able to utilize the power of 12-core. So, I need to know that are Logic and FCPX are such apps? Are they able to utilize the power of 12-cores or a Quad-core with more GHz will be better? I'm looking for fast operation and smoother workflow, and I'll also be using this computer for a very long time (so, its a major investment!).
So, the ultimate verdict is to whether to go for more clockspeed or more cores? Money is not the problem here, and I will add more RAMs, SSD according to the need later after couple of months, but considering nothing else I need you to compare between these two machines! If the 12-core machine is even 1% faster I'll go for it, but I don't want to end up spending more money on the machine with will have less power and utility.
Regards.

6 core 3.33 1st choice
8 core 2.93 or higher

Which mac pro configuration - how many can be effectively used

Hi all
Well, this question has been asked many times before - and I've read the macperformanceguide.com articles - but I can't find any info relating to 2010 Mac Pros or my typical usage. So any advice/links greatly appreciated.
I'll be investing in a Mac Pro soon and really need some solid advice on whether the Quad Core 2.8 Ghz (12Gb ram), Quad Core 3.2Ghz (12 Gb ram) or 8 core 2.4 Ghz (6Gb ram, upgrading later) will be best for my needs.
Typical usage for web design on my Macbook Pro is currently the following running/open at the same time: Wacom tablet driver, time machine, billings, mamp, 2/3 browsers for testing, vmware fusion running windows xp, emails, dreamweaver, smultron/textwrangler, fireworks, photoshop, fontexplorer pro, terminal and gitx, Skype - they all end up open while I'm messing about with files, talking to sub contractors, etc. Any I may well end up with Numbers, Pages, etc open as well. My Macbook Pro (4Gb ram) is ageing and just can't handle everything quickly.
I'm looking for the best system for now and 3 years down the line. I know a lot of software still doesn't make use of multiple cores so the quad cores would seem to be initially a better bet with their faster clock speeds. But I don't know if OS X will automatically allocate threads from different software to different cores - in which case 8 cores would help with the amount of software I'm using at the same time.
Thinking about 3 years from now the 8 core allows me to add more memory but - will the extra investment in the 8 core now provide a real benefit in 2-3 years or will the extra ram potential advantage be negated by heavier, hungrier software requiring faster speeds from other parts of the system.
Which ever system I get, I'll be adding extra hard drives over time, maybe upgrading the graphics card if that becomes necessary. It really comes down to the number of cpus, those extra cores and the extra ram possibilities.
Thanks in advance for any help!

Taking Applications that are inherently single-threaded and running them on multiple processors is a Classic unsolved problem in Computer Science. This means that Applications will only speed up when they are Hand-coded to run speedily on multiple processors. Although the latest version of Photoshop is Finally seeing this treatment, many more mundane Applications will never be done this way.
As long as it remains so (which is likely to be permanently) MegaHertz (processor speed) matters, and once you have a handful of processors MegaHertz matters a lot more than number of processors.
Your list of prospective Mac Pros does not include the Mac you should be considering first, the 6-core 3.33 GHz Westmere, available as a build-to-order option of the four-core mac Pros. It gives you the fastest clock speed of any, and its Hyper-Threading give you 12 effective processing units.
The premium price of an eight-core or 12-core is so large that you could buy another complete Mac Pro for the same price, and use them separately or as a compute-farm.
If you are handy, larger DIMMs (8GB each) are available from reputable third party memory suppliers, and they stand by their correct operation in your Mac with one caveat: They do not play nice with other sizes mixed in. So if you are contemplating large memory size, choose 8GB DIMMs from the start.
Three DIMMs is optimum, but studies are showing that the penalty for running with two DIMMs or four DIMMs is under 5 percent in real-world Applications. So starting with two 8GB DIMMS seems like a good way to go.
With this kind of large compute power, the remaining bottleneck quickly becomes Disk I/O. You should set aside a Boot Drive: a small, very fast Drive that holds only System. Library. Applications, and hidden Unix files including Paging. Users files should be moved to another drive to reduce competition for the Boot Drive. A small VelociRaptor works well for this. A small SSD is even faster.

Which Mac Pro for FCP?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for