Availability: May 24th, 2012 (North America), May 2012 (International) all products are limited edition unless otherwise specified. October 10th, 2014 - BLADE UPGRADE: 1TB Flash Storage for 2012/Early 2013 Retina MacBook Pro and 2012 iMacs.MAC Hey, Sailor Collection for Summer 2012. It is anything but.BARE FEATS LAB - real world Mac speed tests. It was maligned constantly for being a trashcan.It's not as fast as the latest iMac 2017 for single core performance or single GPU performance. Thunderbolt on Hackintosh is again a reliability issue and on PC it doesn't even work as it's a Mac standard.Liberates your PC from work desk, so you can use it for gaming, which is something it is actually good atHigh multicore performance - still right up there in 2018MacOS upgrades don't break things (risky on Hackintosh)You avoid 5K retina display scaling issues in Premiere and can watch 4K material at 1:1 on a 4K display - or even Cinema 4K display (4096 x 2160)Can upgrade CPU, SSD, RAM (unlike iMac where you can only upgrade RAM and rest is locked in or very difficult to change)Mid-range 6 core / dual D500 model is now £1800 in UK (second hand), quad core / D300 sometimes even less (£1200)Bullet proof reliable and long-life pro componentsWorkstation grade ECC RAM (error checking)Internal SSD (a lot of iMacs still fusion drive - WTF Apple!)There are a few drawbacks of course, as this is a 4 years old computer. 2012 Mac Pro could take 10.14, released in 2018, and the 2012 iMac could take 10.15, released in 2019, giving an effective EOL of 20 respectively.In fact it can run 6x 5K displays daisychained! (Ok yes that's overkill)Quieter than a PC and much smaller than 99% of them as wellHackintosh often needs wired mouse and keyboard (bluetooth lags) and LAN connection (wifi problems), even if everything else works perfectlyThunderbolt compatible for external graphics card and RAID drives. IMac / iMac Pro cannot.Macs typically get 5 years of OS support (with some models going longer if they were particularly beefy/forward looking), e.g.
2012 Pro For Red Editing Software For YearsDual D500 not as fast for gaming as a single GTX 970 in a PC which won't break the bank but then that is what a PC is for and a Mac Pro is not. FCPX runs great on either system, as it is designed for newer architecture. New iMac Pro smokes it in performance in every way but it is bonkers expensive and you won't see a huge performance benefit in everyday apps like Adobe stuff because Adobe are lazy fuckwits who don't optimise their software for years and years. The Mac Pro doesn't have Intel Quick Sync for hardware acceleration of H.264 encoding so EditReady might take a hit - but encoding to ProRes instead of H.264 might be ok? Will have to test that.![]() CPUs are old as fuck compared to new Kaby’s with h.265 acceleration. DDR3 not 4.For reference, I’ve got a 6 core 3.33 2010 Mac Pro collecting dust while I’m running my 2017 maxed out iMac (costs the same as lowest spec Trash Can Pro) connected to a Dell 4K. Where do I start? There are many many reasons why people shouldn’t be on a Mac Pro. Shall I bite?PS - Can you use it without the trashcan casing attached? I plan to mod it and make see-through enclosure.Andrew, I just. Even on the maxed 2015 iMac at work this isn’t even close to possible because they’re only skylake.I’m pretty sure only the RAM is upgradeable in the trash can, FWIW.TLDR: the maxed 2017 iMac non-Pro is one hell of a machine and I’d recommend it over any other MacEthan, it's not that the iMac 2017 5K isn't a great machine, very fast and capable, superb value for money with brilliant P3 display.It's that people unfairly malign the trashcan, and don't actually have hands-on experience.You yourself are criticising it based on your experience with a completely different 2010 model.These guys did a benchmark you should see.Even with a GTX 1080 Ti the 2010 Mac Pro is too CPU limited in Adobe software, although it is quick with CUDA acceleration in Resolve.Way faster in Resolve and Premiere than maxed out iMac 5K 2017.GTX 1080 Ti doesn't help 2010 Mac Pro in Premiere. That’s only possible with Kaby Lake. Plus, because of thunderbolt 3 I plan to run an eGPU enclosure (high Sierra native compatibility) at some point and it’s something like 90% efficient.In FCPX I’m playing back 4K HEVC with effects like it’s h264. That should tell you something cause that’s one hell of a GPU. Am I allowed to do that sir, on my own site!? You ok with that?Then there is the form factor. That is why I started the thread. Trashcan or not.I have not decided yet between the 2017 iMac and Mac Pro, I have not already made up my mind actually. For example, I would not recommend a Mac Pro over an iMac to somebody who wants to play Forza 7 in Bootcamp.The GPU (580 Pro) on the top spec 2017 iMac is a beast for gaming.However if your software is utilising the TWO GPUs on the Mac Pro, and you picked up a D700 spec Mac Pro cheap, it's a good buy. You were given the answers to why not, but thats not a concern for you.And it`s a longterm investment too! After you`re done with it as a computer it will work as a.well you know what as wellChoice of computer is personal. What about Resolve? That is what I use it for! Not CineBench, etc.!The YouTubers, mostly clueless, keep saying the 5K 2017 iMac is a screamer, blah blah blah.Well it seems you made up your mind. Hard drive format for windows and macIn FCPX the iMac is about 2x faster at importing and creating ProRes proxies and 2x faster at exporting to 4k or 1080p H264. Trashcan or not.As a documentary editor with 200 terabytes of archival 4k H264 material, I've extensively tested the 12-core D700 nMP vs a top-spec 2017 iMac 27. Whoever recommends same option for everyone is an idiot.I do my editing in H.264 and ProRes.if your software is utilising the TWO GPUs on the Mac Pro, and you picked up a D700 spec Mac Pro cheap, it's a good buy. Computer choice is personal. Much less easy to do that with an iMac, you can't get it in carry-on for a start. However if you acquire H264 then transcode to ProRes for editing, the 12-core D700 nMP transcodes only 1/2 as fast as the 2017 iMac (using FCPX).That said the nMP is very quiet, whereas the iMac fans spin up under sustained load. If you do ProRes acquisition and have an end-to-end ProRes workflow, the nMP is pretty fast, at least from my tests. Obviously performance in Premiere or Resolve may be different.On ProRes it's a different story. This is mostly 4k 8-bit 4:2:0 material I haven't tested 10-bit 4:2:2 or HEVC. I don't know why the 2017 model is so much faster maybe it's the Kaby Lake Quick Sync. ![]() I'm still testing it, but on complex real-world H264 timelines with lots of edits and many effects, the iMac Pro rendering and encoding performance to H264 is only about 15-20% faster than the 2017 iMac. However even the 10-core Vega 64 iMac Pro isn't vastly faster on H264 than the 2017 top-spec iMac. The iMac Pro is much faster than the nMP, especially on H264, because FCPX is apparently calling the UVD/VCE transcoding hardware on the Vega GPU. They each must be evaluated separately, and performance results in one NLE don't necessarily apply to another.I've also done preliminary FCPX performance testing on both 8-core and 10-core iMac Pros. However Resolve and Premiere are both cross-platform so you also have the option of going Windows which gives you many hardware choices - a blessing and a curse. The iMac Pro remains very quiet under heavy load, more like the nMP.In your situation I'd be tempted to either get a top-spec 2017 iMac or that $4000 deal on the base-model iMac Pro or wait for the modular Mac Pro. On some specific effects such as sharpen and aged film, the iMac Pro is about 2x faster whether the codec is ProRes or H264.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorTeresa ArchivesCategories |