Forums
New posts
Articles
Product Reviews
Policies
FAQ
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Apple Computing Products:
macOS - Desktop Hardware
About to buy a mac for final cut pro/studio
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Nethfel" data-source="post: 887860" data-attributes="member: 89124"><p>They are recommending it mostly due to the dedicated GPU and video ram. The current mini uses the 9400m integrated graphics chipset that uses shared video ram - this means that it is sharing ram with the system. It has stream processors, is limited to system clock speed, etc.</p><p></p><p>To make the discussion a little quicker, here's a little blurb on the 9400m and the 9600m gt from wikipedia:</p><p></p><p>9400M G</p><p>16 Stream Processors.</p><p>Memory Clock depend on System Memory.</p><p>64 bit memory interface (single-channel mode) / 128 bit memory interface (dual-channel mode).</p><p>Memory Bandwidth depends on System Memory.</p><p>3.6 billion texels/s texture fill rate.</p><p></p><p>9600M GT</p><p>32 Stream Processors.</p><p>500 MHz core clock.</p><p>1250 MHz shader clock.</p><p>1000 MHz memory clock.</p><p>Up to 1024 MB memory.</p><p>128-bit memory interface.</p><p>25.6 GB/s memory bandwidth.</p><p>8.0 billion texels/s texture fill rate.</p><p></p><p>As you can see, there is a major capability difference between the two graphics chipsets. The 9600 is significantly more desirable then the 9400m. Several of the programs within the Final Cut Studio package take advantage of the GPU. Having a more powerful GPU will increase the capability and functionality of various Final Cut Studio programs - like being able to display more in real time (different transitions, visual effects, etc.), faster rendering within programs like Color, etc.</p><p></p><p>For dedicated full time video editing, a dedicated GPU is highly desirable to make the editing experience more enjoyable. This DOES NOT mean that you can't do editing on the mini, you can - it will be more time consuming to do your work, and it is possibly with future upgrades to FCS that FCS may eventually not support the use of the 9400m. </p><p></p><p>If it were me, and I didn't need the portability, I'd probably get a iMac with a dedicated GPU then get a cord to hook up your existing external monitor and use a dual screen setup (because they are a bit cheaper then the MBPs with dedicated GPUs with bigger screens).</p><p></p><p>With your budget, you may need to choose a mini so you have cash left over for other things (like FCS for example). Just know that you will probably want to upgrade to a more powerful machine if you plan on doing full time editing. There's a reason why businesses that use FCP in the film and video industry use Mac Pros (and I'm not talking Macbook pros) for their primary work - power, speed, upgradeability, storage capability, feature set, etc. </p><p></p><p>IF you are thinking of getting a 13" MBP and don't need portability - just get the mini, the cost difference is no point, the hardware in the mini is near enough the same as what's in the 13" mbp. You WILL be miserable editing on a 1280x800 screen (what is on the 13" MBP) - even if you dual screen with your existing screen, you will need to try to prop up the mbp to at least come close to even with your other screen and even then it will be awkward due to resolution differences (I use my 13" unibody mb (predecessor of the 13"mbp) at work hooked to an external screen. I tried it dual screen and I just didn't like having a huge screen and the small screen of the lappy and going between the two doing editing work)</p><p></p><p>In terms of what you should buy - you should buy what you feel comfortable with. Your best bet is to see if anyone near you has a mini or similar hardware level (MB or 13" MBP) and has FCS installed so you can see how it feels to use the software on that computer.</p><p></p><p>A million people can give their opinion, but in the end it's you who has to use it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Nethfel, post: 887860, member: 89124"] They are recommending it mostly due to the dedicated GPU and video ram. The current mini uses the 9400m integrated graphics chipset that uses shared video ram - this means that it is sharing ram with the system. It has stream processors, is limited to system clock speed, etc. To make the discussion a little quicker, here's a little blurb on the 9400m and the 9600m gt from wikipedia: 9400M G 16 Stream Processors. Memory Clock depend on System Memory. 64 bit memory interface (single-channel mode) / 128 bit memory interface (dual-channel mode). Memory Bandwidth depends on System Memory. 3.6 billion texels/s texture fill rate. 9600M GT 32 Stream Processors. 500 MHz core clock. 1250 MHz shader clock. 1000 MHz memory clock. Up to 1024 MB memory. 128-bit memory interface. 25.6 GB/s memory bandwidth. 8.0 billion texels/s texture fill rate. As you can see, there is a major capability difference between the two graphics chipsets. The 9600 is significantly more desirable then the 9400m. Several of the programs within the Final Cut Studio package take advantage of the GPU. Having a more powerful GPU will increase the capability and functionality of various Final Cut Studio programs - like being able to display more in real time (different transitions, visual effects, etc.), faster rendering within programs like Color, etc. For dedicated full time video editing, a dedicated GPU is highly desirable to make the editing experience more enjoyable. This DOES NOT mean that you can't do editing on the mini, you can - it will be more time consuming to do your work, and it is possibly with future upgrades to FCS that FCS may eventually not support the use of the 9400m. If it were me, and I didn't need the portability, I'd probably get a iMac with a dedicated GPU then get a cord to hook up your existing external monitor and use a dual screen setup (because they are a bit cheaper then the MBPs with dedicated GPUs with bigger screens). With your budget, you may need to choose a mini so you have cash left over for other things (like FCS for example). Just know that you will probably want to upgrade to a more powerful machine if you plan on doing full time editing. There's a reason why businesses that use FCP in the film and video industry use Mac Pros (and I'm not talking Macbook pros) for their primary work - power, speed, upgradeability, storage capability, feature set, etc. IF you are thinking of getting a 13" MBP and don't need portability - just get the mini, the cost difference is no point, the hardware in the mini is near enough the same as what's in the 13" mbp. You WILL be miserable editing on a 1280x800 screen (what is on the 13" MBP) - even if you dual screen with your existing screen, you will need to try to prop up the mbp to at least come close to even with your other screen and even then it will be awkward due to resolution differences (I use my 13" unibody mb (predecessor of the 13"mbp) at work hooked to an external screen. I tried it dual screen and I just didn't like having a huge screen and the small screen of the lappy and going between the two doing editing work) In terms of what you should buy - you should buy what you feel comfortable with. Your best bet is to see if anyone near you has a mini or similar hardware level (MB or 13" MBP) and has FCS installed so you can see how it feels to use the software on that computer. A million people can give their opinion, but in the end it's you who has to use it. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Apple Computing Products:
macOS - Desktop Hardware
About to buy a mac for final cut pro/studio
Top