Apple dumps Intel and shows Final Cut Pro on new Mac with Apple CPU !
- Thread starter joe1946
- Start date
jonpais
Well-known member
The chips in the new Macs destroy PCs. PCs are dinosaurs now. Apple is so far ahead in tech it's not even funny. Nothing even comes close.
joe1946
Veteran
A Mac Mini with M1 MAX would be insane since the current M1 Mac Mini has 150w continuous power vs only 96w in the 16" MacBook Pro. Also a 10GB Ethernet option for the Mac Mini.
The new Mac Mini should also have HDMI 2.1 for the new mini LED 8K displays like this 65" with prices dropping like crazy.
The new Mac Mini should also have HDMI 2.1 for the new mini LED 8K displays like this 65" with prices dropping like crazy.
Last edited:
Makes sense and would be very convenient to have a self-contained machine that had a lot of current projects ready to go. Files that small wouldn't be creating a bottleneck I'm sure you're right.
After swearing off laptops for serious work until now I might look into a workflow for that myself. The price premium on the internal storage I'd need to justify it with a new MBP makes me cringe though. More likely to spend that on more external storage and just deal with plugging in a small ssd. But that sh*t does get old and can't fault you for enjoying your setup the way it is
NorBro
Major Contributor
I have been editing most of my life's projects (and many times multiple projects at the same time) on internal SSDs for the last 8 years. Only in the very first 2-3 years of my career did I catch the tail-end of spinning drives.
I was a very early adopter of SSDs and it still stings how much money I've spent on them, ha.
Once MBPs and MBAs had internal SSDs (some replaceable by the user), I rarely ever edited on an external drive.
When I first started in the business, I was adamant about separating applications from "scratch" and following certain guidelines like only using up to 60%-70% of a drive's capacity or following certain instructions, but once I started critically thinking about everything in life, I asked myself why I was doing this.
The only answer was because I was following the advice of strangers' recommendations on the Internet.
And so I stopped and - as an experiment - loaded anything and everything I could on my internal drive and worked and rendered and processed and I've never looked back.
I too sometimes use proxies like mentioned above usually when I can't fit everything on the internal, but I would have no problem dumping 1900GB of a project on a 2TB internal drive with 50GB left (after internal applications) and working like that.
Nothing has ever slowed down or caused errors for me.
The conclusion I had in my own personal situation, and only that, was the advice of separating data or having any form of bottlenecking must apply to certain hardware, software and/or workflows because I haven't seen it on premium internal SSDs on a Apple laptop.
I was a very early adopter of SSDs and it still stings how much money I've spent on them, ha.
Once MBPs and MBAs had internal SSDs (some replaceable by the user), I rarely ever edited on an external drive.
When I first started in the business, I was adamant about separating applications from "scratch" and following certain guidelines like only using up to 60%-70% of a drive's capacity or following certain instructions, but once I started critically thinking about everything in life, I asked myself why I was doing this.
The only answer was because I was following the advice of strangers' recommendations on the Internet.
And so I stopped and - as an experiment - loaded anything and everything I could on my internal drive and worked and rendered and processed and I've never looked back.
I too sometimes use proxies like mentioned above usually when I can't fit everything on the internal, but I would have no problem dumping 1900GB of a project on a 2TB internal drive with 50GB left (after internal applications) and working like that.
Nothing has ever slowed down or caused errors for me.
The conclusion I had in my own personal situation, and only that, was the advice of separating data or having any form of bottlenecking must apply to certain hardware, software and/or workflows because I haven't seen it on premium internal SSDs on a Apple laptop.
I'm sure many many people manage just fine this way. I tend to wipe my OS drive & reload every year or so (something Apple users don't tend to do of course); that's part of the purpose of my separation setup. I do know anecdotally from doing 2d & 3d animation I really have seen a benefit avoiding I/O bottlenecks with complex renders & playback
This is my practice as well. I also transfer between two identical sized external SSDs and reformat the first one, check for errors, and then copy back.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
You know you can partition the system drive for that purpose to keep project data intact and still wipe the OS as needed.
To a certain degree I agree that a system drive is not always the best place for everything but keep in mind 90% of the world is editing with compressed h.264 and HEVC formats and are likely not impacted at all by the super fast speeds of Apple drives. Plus FCP is pretty efficient combined with MacOS how it utilizes that storage. Very few will ever run into any issues at all by using the system drive.
For me it comes down to cost vs ability to quickly move projects to another system as needed. A large internal drive is all neat until you have to edit on another system for whatever reason. Plus I have always been a fan of having multiple systems to handle rendering and encoding so I don't tie up my main system. Keeping projects internally means a lengthly process to move them to external drive. Better off just utilizing a fast external drive right away and not being held back.
As amazing as it would be to have 8 TB in a MBP I know I can get 8 TB to edit my projects 100% perfectly for much less so its just not very practical. Thats why I suggest just getting enough internal storage for the swap file, applications, random documents and commonly used assets and any media related to specific applications like Logic samples content and so forth.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I mean, I think the theory of separating the drives you're using is totally sound and should increase your bandwidth. You just might not need all that bandwidth. And I think that my situation slows down (or at least it did in the past but I'm not sure about with my current internal SSD) when my internal is almost full.
But for me, there are 2 considerations that are greater than using the fastest or best hardware:
1. I used to procrastinate awfully with regard to editing I could complete on my own timetable. So, ultimately, anything that makes it more convenient and comfortable for me to edit is going to make me a faster editor because I'm more likely to actually get to the work.
2. I hate sitting and I hate office chairs. I hate being in the same position for extended periods of time. I do bad posture. Legs or toes fall asleep. The best office chair I've ever found is my couch
ahalpert
Major Contributor
This is true, although I just have proxies and fcpx library on my internal. Footage is elsewhere. To go to my other system, i just transfer the fcpx library. I will usually delete the proxies at that point. And oftentimes when handheld make this transfer, I'm usually far enough along in the edit that I can finish it over Screen Sharing from my laptop on the couch. But again, I'm not doing animation or too many effects
NorBro
Major Contributor
You should try editing full-resolution files on your internal drive and see what you come up with because it sounds like it's theoretical to you right now?
Would be interested to hear how the experience is with a variety of 4K a7sIII files. (No proxies.)
ahalpert
Major Contributor
IIRC, playback/editing full-resolution files off the SSD has been smooth in my limited experience (usually when I've done that, I'm just reviewing stuff or testing features). I'm not sure about H.265 file playback, I'd have to check that again.
I'm not going to do full-resolution files off my internal, though, just because of space constraints. Right now I'm juggling several projects that are at various stages of completion and they're probably collectively 3TB of raw footage. So, I guess I could do it with a 4 or 8 TB internal...
The only downside for me personally of working with proxies is that I'll end up with about 1 shot per 10 or 15 minutes of edited material that is a little out of focus and has to be replaced and I don't realize it until I'm in the final review stage. But that's such a small waste of time compared to all the good that proxies do me
I'm not going to do full-resolution files off my internal, though, just because of space constraints. Right now I'm juggling several projects that are at various stages of completion and they're probably collectively 3TB of raw footage. So, I guess I could do it with a 4 or 8 TB internal...
The only downside for me personally of working with proxies is that I'll end up with about 1 shot per 10 or 15 minutes of edited material that is a little out of focus and has to be replaced and I don't realize it until I'm in the final review stage. But that's such a small waste of time compared to all the good that proxies do me
ozmorphasis
Well-known member
I really envy all of you who can get away with smaller size (internal) storage for client work. I have a NAS loaded with eight 16TB drives in Raid, and it is still not suitable for long term storage without a bunch of archive drives sitting around as well, and I still need to bring material on and off the NAS when clients need to revisit projects. Speeds are great with 10GbE network connection, so no complaints there. I guess it comes down to the type of client work that you do. I do a lot of doc work (client facing, not as just a shooter, so 12TB or so for a project is common), and also a lot of multi cam concert/event/music work, so also tons of data.
So, having a ton of internal space is not worth the cost since it will still not be nearly enough. Better to spend the money elsewhere in my case.
Of course. The I/O bottleneck aspect doesn't get helped setting it up this way, but it can streamline re-installing with a clean OS sure.
I have functional previous workstations (and space) to take advantage of this when I've had a lot to do at the same time. A couple of really fast USB-c SSDs are better than some clunky network-drive setup imo (although expensive ones can be screaming fast if it's all ethernet).
ahalpert
Major Contributor
100x this. Everything I do for my primary editing client is between 30 seconds and 5 minutes. 1-minute edits are probably most common. Footage ranges from 30 min to 12 hours per project (including multicam angles), usually 240Mbps. So, like 1TB tops. And the client keeps their original footage and backups on their archive and their CTERA cloud storage, so after all my edit versions and project files are delivered, I just delete the footage from my own drives.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Holy **** that's ****ing crazy. The one caveat seems to be that the m1max can't compete on fps in video games - https://www.notebookcheck.net/M1-Ma...side-the-M1-Pro-in-gaming-tests.575086.0.html
But it seems totally on par with high-end gpus for productivity software? And considering that I'm an editor, not a gamer.... wow. I might have to move up my upgrade schedule. My hardware suddenly seems so obsolete
But it seems totally on par with high-end gpus for productivity software? And considering that I'm an editor, not a gamer.... wow. I might have to move up my upgrade schedule. My hardware suddenly seems so obsolete
High1ander
Well-known member
I hate that Apple are getting so good with their chips, because I so dislike their business practice and haven't used them voluntarily for 15 years. So now when they are actually becoming cost competitive and really fast I might be tempted to switch over to them. However, there are so many programs that I use professionally that aren't supported on Apple (and games) that I probably will continue to choose PC's. Another downer for PC's is that AMD's 5000-series threadripper probably won't come in the 1000-1500 dollar range (like previous Threadrippers). Dishing out 2000 dollars just for the CPU is not something I'm looking forward to, especially now with graphics cards costing twice as much.
Last edited: