[grover432]

I'm planning to buy a new computer soon. I'm torn between a new iMac 24" 3.06Ghz and a Mac Pro 8 Core 2.66.

I do a fair bit of video and picture editing, using Final Cut Pro and Aperature. For my hobby time, I like to rip movies and add them to my Apple TV library. Currently I use Mac The Ripper and then Handbrake.

Am I a candidate for the Mac Pro or should I stick with the iMac 24" 3.06??

Anyone guess on the performance gain for the Mac Pro over the iMac 3.06? I'm currently using a 3 year old G5 iMac 20", which is pretty pokey when it comes to ripping and encoding for ATV. A full length movie can take 12 hours. How much quicker will either of the new computers be with these tasks?

Thanks

[axlepin]

I'm somewhat in the same boat as you...my need for CPU power is a bit steeper than yours, but that doesn't make me any richer.

I am waiting for serious benchmarks to be released on line so that I can gauge bang/buck ratios.

Basically, if a machine is not twice as fast, it's not worth twice as much, IMHO. Put another way, if they want $2 out of me, I better get at LEAST $2 worth, and not a buck fiddy.

I also wish there were a benchmark figure showing how much 3D rendering per watt of power consumed at the wall, for example.

It matters to me how much juice it takes for that faster machine to do its business..

Again, if it's twice as fast, it better not take 3, 4, 6, 8 or more times the power to do it.

a

[mduell]

Mac Pro; the extra cores, memory support, and graphics cards are huge for video encoding and Aperture. An overclocked laptop chip in a desktop is already marginal for media-heavy computing and it's just not going to be satisfying in a couple years.

[Maflynn]

I use aperture on my MBP (and its usually running the 9400m gpu) and I find the performance pretty good. Overall, if you're doing any sort of decent video work which is what your posts indicates, then a macpro would be a better fit if you have the budget.

Larger expandability, more cores, better GPU faster drives, but you also need to consider the iMac comes with its own display, and you'll need to have one for the MacPro. Just something to consider when budgeting.

[millermiller]

I have just bought my wife the iMac 3.06 with the NVIDIA GeForce GT 130. And ordered a basic 2009 Mac Pro 2.66 4 Core. My other Macs are a 1st Gen G5 Duel 2.0 and a 1st Gen Macbook 2.0.

Whilst waiting for my MacPro to come I could not resist in loading FCP onto the iMac.

I rendered the same footage using the same custom presets:

The preset includes frame resizing 1080p to 720p Prores, (Frame Controls On) frame rate conversion 30-25 and 3 way colour correction with the filters. Also multiclip Prores playback within FCP. And FPS from quicktime playing a 1920 x 1080p H.264 clip.

--------------------------
Test file name: MVI_4881.mov
Size 144.9mb
Duration: 00:30:05

Compressor Preset Name "Canon5D-30to25-720Vintage" (Vintage / Inc Compressor Colour Correction)

Compressor Conversion Times:

iMac 3.06 / Conversion Time: 01:50
QT 1080p Playback Speed 30fps

Macbook 2.0 / Conversion Time: 03:13
QT 1080p Playback Speed 26-28fps

G5 Duel 2.0 / Conversion Time: 05:55
QT 1080p Playback Speed 10-12fps

The 3.06 iMac can cut/play up to 9 720p multiclips.
6 at full resolution playback/cutting

The 2.0 MacBook can cut/play up to 3 720p multiclips.

The G5 Duel 2.0 can cut/play up to 2 720p multiclips.
--------------------------

Motion, FCP, Color, CS4 Photoshop all fly on this iMac and I am totally impressed. And almost feel I should have ordered one instead of the MacPro.

James

[Simon]

So if I understand you correctly you are comparing an octo-core MP to a high-end iMac.

iMac, 3.06, 4GB/1TB, R4850/512 $2249
8 GB RAM ceiling, two cores (no HT on Penryn), no expansion, compact, quiet

Mac Pro octo 2.66, 6/640, R4870/512 $4899 plus ~$900 for a decent 24" screen
eight cores with HT, many expansion options, big, quiet

There is no doubt the MP will be faster at things like Aperture, FCP, HandBrake, MTR. For games (many cores don't help, it's all about CPU clock and GPU) the iMac could end up being a tad faster, but in most cases it will be a tie.

The question is if you can afford an extra $2.5k for the added performance. I you can and want to spend that kind of money, go for it. The octo MP is a beast! If you're not sure you need that kind of performance, chances are the iMac will be good enough. Put the saved $2.5k towards maxing RAM, fast disks, nice peripherals and updating sooner.

Ten years ago it would be have been good advice to tell people to buy expensive and then keep long. Today that's only true in certain areas. Many people (and definitely consumers/prosumers) are better off spending less (i.e. buying midrange) but updating more frequently.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Ten years ago it would be have been good advice to tell people to buy expensive and then keep long. Today that's only true in certain areas. Many people (and definitely consumers/prosumers) are off better spending less (i.e. buying midrange) but updating more frequently.

QFT

I found that I was buying my computers with a life cycle of over 3 years, and an eye to beyond 5 but in reality I was selling my 2 or 3 year old computer and buying the next greatest thing. While I do lust after the MacPro spending 3k - 4k on a machine that I'll not have for more then a few years doesn't make sense anymore. If course when I was doing that it was spending under 2k, now apple has much more powerful machines but higher end models are very expensive.