You choose: Imac 5K vs. Mac Pro ?

Joined
Jan 16, 2015
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Points
1
I make short YouTube videos (2- 6 minutes) using Adobe CS in widescreen HD. Nothing complex. Just HD footage and a few graphics here and there.

However, it's time to upgrade my aging hardware. Note: I already own two decent Mac monitors.

I have about US$5K to spend. Would you buy:

1) The new Imac with retina 5K display and
4.0 GHz, 32GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM, 1TB Flash Storage, AMD Radeon R9 M295X 4GB GDDR5,

for $4,399.00 and enjoy that lovely big 5K screen thrown in!

OR ...

2) Mac Pro
3.5GHz 6-core with 12MB of L3 cache
32GB (4x8GB) of 1866MHz DDR3 ECC
1TB PCIe-based flash storage
Dual AMD FirePro D500 GPUs with 3GB of GDDR5 VRAM each

and stick with my existing monitors for now ...

for $5,199.00

I'm wondering what the difference in rendering performance would be between the two machines. (Currently rendering a 5 minute video takes my aging Macbook Pro about an hour so anything's going to be a step-up from that, I hope!)

I would deeply appreciate anybody chiming in with experience of or insights into rendering HD video on either machine or their respective capabilities.

Any suggestions for tweaking my tech specs also appreciated.

Should I save my money for a while longer and go for 8 or 12-cores?

What are the key components that affect rendering time?

Thanks in advance. Everest.
 

pigoo3

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
44,210
Reaction score
1,418
Points
113
Location
U.S.
Your Mac's Specs
2017 15" MBP, 16gig ram, 1TB SSD, OS 10.15
(Currently rendering a 5 minute video takes my aging Macbook Pro about an hour so anything's going to be a step-up from that, I hope!)

In case you don't need or want to spend all of that $5000 on a computer...I'm going to throw a 3rd option out there. Get one of the non-retina 27" iMac's. Go with 16gig of ram and 500gig of flash storage...and I believe this gets you in around $2500.

This will get you about 85-90% of the performance of the 5k 27" iMac...but a lot lower price.:) Of course no 5k display. This will still be a heck of an upgrade compared to your MacBook Pro.

But. If you have no problem spending the cash go for the Mac Pro. If you cut the ram back to 16gig and the flash storage to 512gig...you could get the price down to $4299. Also be aware that the ram and storage in the Mac Pro can be upgraded later. So you don't have to go "nuts" now with the ram & storage preconfigured.;)

HTH,

- Nick
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
Agusan del Norte, Philippines
Your Mac's Specs
L2012 Mini, i7 2.6Ghz, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD + 1TB HDD(fusion), BenQ 32" 2.5k QHD Display
I make short YouTube videos (2- 6 minutes) using Adobe CS in widescreen HD. Nothing complex. Just HD footage and a few graphics here and there.

.......................
I'm wondering what the difference in rendering performance would be between the two machines. (Currently rendering a 5 minute video takes my aging Macbook Pro about an hour so anything's going to be a step-up from that, I hope!)
............

AN HOUR?!?!


Omg just get Final Cut Pro.. On my 2012 Mac Mini a 10min 1080p HD video only takes 2 or 3 mins to render a multi cam video and export 1080p (H.264) to file.. Less if using uncompressed.

My Specs: 2.6Ghz(2.9 Turbo) Ivy core i7.
8GB DDR3-1600Mhz
1.25TB Fusion Array (256GB Samsung SSD, 1TB OEM 5400 HDD)
HD4000 iGPU video..

Nothing special at all.. heck the system hardly even gets warm and the fan really kit in.

I would like to also point out that Adobe Premier Pro isn't fully Mac Pro optimized, Its likely to run just as good on the iMac. However FCPX bloody screams on the Mac Pro.

I even can render a 10 min 4k video on mine in about 5 mins.. So IMHO just get the iMac 5k or a new Macbook Pro and get FINAL CUT..

If your asking what I am upgrading to, then its likely to be what ever next years high end Macbook Pro will be. I do plan to use that system to edit multi cam HD video and many 4k ones.
 

pigoo3

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
44,210
Reaction score
1,418
Points
113
Location
U.S.
Your Mac's Specs
2017 15" MBP, 16gig ram, 1TB SSD, OS 10.15
AN HOUR?!?!

Omg just get Final Cut Pro.. On my 2012 Mac Mini a 10min 1080p HD video only takes 2 or 3 mins to render and export to file..

I even can render a 10 min 4k video on mine in about 5 mins.. So IMHO just get the iMac 5k or a new Macbook Pro and get FINAL CUT..

Great real world example. Also a great way to save a lot of cash. Depending on what MBP the OP has...maybe only purchase Final Cut (no new computer necessary).:)

- Nick
 
OP
E
Joined
Jan 16, 2015
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Wow! I don't know why but I wasn't expecting a software-based solution to my rendering woes! Thank you so much for your advice. I will certainly investigate Final Cut and maybe I can save myself a whole bunch of cash in the process! Thanks again.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
Agusan del Norte, Philippines
Your Mac's Specs
L2012 Mini, i7 2.6Ghz, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD + 1TB HDD(fusion), BenQ 32" 2.5k QHD Display
Wow! I don't know why but I wasn't expecting a software-based solution to my rendering woes! Thank you so much for your advice. I will certainly investigate Final Cut and maybe I can save myself a whole bunch of cash in the process! Thanks again.

Glad to help.. There is a 30day free trial on it. But think you may have to download the trial from Apples website and not the AppStore IIRC.
BTW on exporting, I export to the Apple Devices option. Its 1080p and H.264 codec in a m4v container. It offers the best compression and no loss in quality IMHO. 4k Option I still export to Master File and choose Apple Pro Res XQ 4444 compression codec and use a quicktime mov container.
Also when exporting there is the option for Best Quality or Fastest Speed. Choose Fastest Speed. I have never noticed any quality difference, but Best Quality can take 3 times longer then Fastest Speed. Also no change is file size..

I am also trying to learn Motion5 as we speak. This ones tricky.. lol

Hope this helps you get started..
 
Last edited:

pigoo3

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
44,210
Reaction score
1,418
Points
113
Location
U.S.
Your Mac's Specs
2017 15" MBP, 16gig ram, 1TB SSD, OS 10.15
Glad to help.. There is a 30day free trial on it. But think you may have to download the trial from Apples website and not the AppStore IIRC.

An even better scenario! Try the app for 30 days...if no improvement in rendering times for the OP...then maybe it IS new computer shopping time.;)

- Nick
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
66
Reaction score
8
Points
8
Your Mac's Specs
2015 iMac 27, 4Ghz i7, 1TB SSD, 32GB, M395X, Pegasus R4, 2015 MPB, 2x 2013 MacBook Air 13s
I make short YouTube videos (2- 6 minutes) using Adobe CS in widescreen HD....Currently rendering a 5 minute video takes my aging Macbook Pro about an hour....

I use both FCP X and Premiere Pro CS6. FCP is great but I would not suggest changing unless you are willing to make an investment in learning it. For someone starting from scratch, I think FCP is easier, and it definitely has better media organization tools.

However -- FCP uses totally a different paradigm. While people can usually switch between Premiere, Avid and Vegas fairly easily, switching to FCP X can be more difficult, since you have to unlearn the conventional way of doing things. Once switched, I think FCP is faster at producing a final product because the organizational tools are so much better.

That said, another consideration is whether you are on CC or ever think you might upgrade to CC if on CS5, CS6, etc. Adobe no longer sells their software but only rents it for about $50 per person per month. Do the math -- in 2-3 years you could buy a new iMac for that. This alone could make the switch to FCP X worthwhile.

The biggest improvement in export performance would be using a CPU and software which support Intel's Quick Sync, which is essentially an on-chip transcoder. It only does single-pass MPEG-2 and H.264 but that is all you need for DVDs and Youtube videos. Quick Sync is about 5x faster than other methods.

Quick Sync was only introduced on Intel "Sandy Bridge" CPUs, which means a 2011 or later iMac. Also software support is needed. FCP X supports Quick Sync natively, Premiere does not, even on CC (I think).

There are Premiere Plugins which do support Quick Sync such as TMPGEnc, but it's Windows only.

On my 2013 iMac 27 running FCP X, exporting a 10 min 1080p/30 video from a Canon 5D Mark III using single-pass H.264 takes 2 min 31 sec.

Mac Pro uses the Xeon CPU which does not have Quick Sync, so a top-spec iMac will export video to single-pass H.264 much faster than a Mac Pro.

Re retina iMac vs Mac Pro, here is a good article: I bought the 5k iMac … | The Pro Mac Blog | The Mac Was Meant To Be Used By Professionals
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
Agusan del Norte, Philippines
Your Mac's Specs
L2012 Mini, i7 2.6Ghz, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD + 1TB HDD(fusion), BenQ 32" 2.5k QHD Display
Good insight Joema. Even the transition from iMovie to FCP was a slight difference.

I never used Vegas or Premier myself. Never really needed anything pro-ish until about 6 months ago when I realized I needed to be able to sync A/V files and/or sync multi cam recordings. I film videos with my Canon 70D and also my 600D which has Magic Lantern installed. I prefer my Samson USB cardioid mic for sound quality and FCP makes syncing these a snap.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
17,494
Reaction score
1,541
Points
113
Location
Brentwood Bay, BC, Canada
Your Mac's Specs
2011 27" iMac, 1TB(partitioned) SSD, 20GB, OS X 10.11.6 El Capitan
As for the original OP's question, I'd wonder if the "two decent Mac monitors" are actually up to the job with a new Mac Pro. Hmmm… ???
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
Agusan del Norte, Philippines
Your Mac's Specs
L2012 Mini, i7 2.6Ghz, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD + 1TB HDD(fusion), BenQ 32" 2.5k QHD Display
As for the original OP's question, I'd wonder if the "two decent Mac monitors" are actually up to the job with a new Mac Pro. Hmmm… ???

Most any modern HD (1920x1080p) LCD will do the job. However color accuracy is important factor and most LCDs are not accurate at all.

I have 2x 23" Samsung displays and while I have them really close, I know technically they are still not 100% 8bit RGB accurate, much less 16bit accurate. This is why I am replacing them with this 32" 2.5k WQHD bad boy from BenQ
BL3200PT - LCD Monitors - Products | BenQ USA
 

bobtomay

,
Retired Staff
Joined
Dec 22, 2006
Messages
26,561
Reaction score
677
Points
113
Location
Texas, where else?
Your Mac's Specs
15" MBP '06 2.33 C2D 4GB 10.7; 13" MBA '14 1.8 i7 8GB 10.11; 21" iMac '13 2.9 i5 8GB 10.11; 6S
The Retina iMac versus the Mac Pro, on paper – Marco.org

That iMac also has user accessible memory. Chop out the $600 and additional build time from Apple to upgrade to 32 GB and you can buy the 32 GB from Crucial for $290 and you're down to < $4,100.

Capable of working on your own iMac, chop out Apple's $800 SSD - you can get one just about anywhere at $500 or less and you're down to < $3,800.
But, not sure if I'd be willing to do this on a new $4k all-in-one myself.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
Agusan del Norte, Philippines
Your Mac's Specs
L2012 Mini, i7 2.6Ghz, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD + 1TB HDD(fusion), BenQ 32" 2.5k QHD Display
.....
That iMac also has user accessible memory. Chop out the $600 and additional build time from Apple to upgrade to 32 GB and you can buy the 32 GB from Crucial for $290 and you're down to < $4,100.
This is an option, however you will want to make sure the RAM is highly rated and at least 8 layer PCB that meets or exceeds Apple specifications.. I rather recommend paying a small amount more and getting the RAM from Other World Computing at Other World Computing (OWC) - Performance Upgrades For Your Mac and know its been fully tested, since the ram they sale meets or exceeds Apples RAM.

Capable of working on your own iMac, chop out Apple's $800 SSD - you can get one just about anywhere at $500 or less and you're down to < $3,800.
But, not sure if I'd be willing to do this on a new $4k all-in-one myself.
Ehh.. This is one I don't recommend. The new Macs have Apples Flash storage. I believe the this model may also have it and not a SSD. So not only will this likely not be an option, even if it was. Apples flash storage is much much faster.
 
C

chas_m

Guest
It's worth noting that the 2013 Mac Pro is *highly* upgradeable -- nearly every part, in fact! If it were me, with my needs, I'd take the 5K iMac for what he listed as his needs, but the Mac Pro is probably a good deal more "future-proof!"
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
Agusan del Norte, Philippines
Your Mac's Specs
L2012 Mini, i7 2.6Ghz, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD + 1TB HDD(fusion), BenQ 32" 2.5k QHD Display
It's worth noting that the 2013 Mac Pro is *highly* upgradeable -- nearly every part, in fact! If it were me, with my needs, I'd take the 5K iMac for what he listed as his needs, but the Mac Pro is probably a good deal more "future-proof!"

This is very true.. Even the CPU is upgradable in this system..
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top