Mac Pro or Precision T7500

Nexus said:
You sir are talking out of your arse.

My Mac Pro is a couple of years old now and it handles HD video editing just fine, even before I'd upgraded the RAM above 2gb.

Likewise, there are companies I've worked for which still use G5s to do HD work and they only just struggle with it.

I don't really understand what you mean by it not being a Pro Tool? In the film and television production world it is certainly a pro tool, albeit it's not a purpose built system like most of Autodesks machines, but then its a fraction of the price.
Click to expand...

He isn't. Before Nahalem the base spec Mac Pro was very much in line with the rest of the range, now it's just a standard quad box in a fancy chassis, for slightly more money. It's not in the same league as the proper dual CPU workstations really. The only reason I can fathom people buy them is the nessecity of owning a Mac to use with a seperate monitor with the option of a few more internal drives / proper GPU.

I dread to think what the companies using G5's for HD editing are thinking. Do they not make any money? They're near useless for editing anything 'proper' in Photoshop let alone HD video.
 
Adrianr said:
He isn't. Before Nahalem the base spec Mac Pro was very much in line with the rest of the range, now it's just a standard quad box in a fancy chassis, for slightly more money. It's not in the same league as the proper dual CPU workstations really. The only reason I can fathom people buy them is the nessecity of owning a Mac to use with a seperate monitor with the option of a few more internal drives / proper GPU.

I dread to think what the companies using G5's for HD editing are thinking. Do they not make any money? They're near useless for editing anything 'proper' in Photoshop let alone HD video.
Click to expand...

Because it would be a lot of money to replace all the machines they have when they are still doing the job fine. Most of these machines have more than 16gb of RAM in them.

I was last working for a very large film/vfx/commercials studio, which does have numerous Smoke, Inferno, Flame, Baselight and Avid machines, which I think is what you are trying to get at by saying a Mac Pro isn't a 'Pro' machine in comparison to the likes of them. The majority of the machines use linux, but Mac Pros are still used as workhorses in the machine room for video work and processing. Mac Pro equipped machines tend to be used with Final Cut Pro when a client hasn't got the money to edit on an Avid, which tends to be a lot more, some smaller productions tend to use them more so.
 
Nexus said:
Most of these machines have more than 16gb of RAM in them.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous comment. 16gb of ram will do sweet FA.

FCP client editing & rendering requires maximum cpu power and Hard disk transfer speed.

Working with 4:4:4 uncompressed your looking at 176mb p/s.

Crazy thinking 16gb of ram will save that day.

Also as far as im aware as the majority of FCP users are still on 2 - it is only addressing 4gb of ram running in 32bit mode.

Or if you could explain how FCP utilizes 16gb of ram fair does.
 
I didn't say they were all being used for editing. Like I said, the majority are in the machine room, which is where they are used for batch processing, standards conversions and the like. It's a fairly critical tool for being able to get commercials out the door, so that's why I believe it's fair to cool it a 'Pro Tool'.

I never said they were being used in a client facing position. As I mentioned earlier, the majority of projects are done on Avid and I believe the two machines being used in client facing positions are now intel machines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom