Apple dumps Intel and shows Final Cut Pro on new Mac with Apple CPU !

joe1946 said:
Why not ? It runs great.
Click to expand...

Have you checked your plug in-compatibility?
I am seeing a lot of complaints that significant plug-ins have no fucntionality under Big Sur from multiple users.

The early adopter tax can be high for some, I've paid it before and now I never update an OS or program unless I have to because
it costs me money almost every time. In the move from High Sierra on my old iMac to Catalina on my new iMac, lost functionality of about
$2,500.00 worth of legacy software, several of which will never be replaced but were still very useful and still made me money. Luckily Apple
repaired the 2018 iMac with High Sierra so I can still use those programs on that older Mac but the new hot rod, state of the art 2020 iMac is hobbled
without some of the programs.

In my experience, new OS and program updates are usually offset by the loss of functionality, and stability in order to gain a few new baubles. The production company
I used to work at in Burbank had fourteen AVID Media Composers that were ALWAYS kept 2-3 versions behind any current OS and program updates. Over the years I was there,
OS updates and program updates collectively cost us about 2 million dollars in productivity losses and lost studio business over four years when deadlines were blown in reconstructing
projects from back ups when new OS and program updates screwed up everything. Software companies now routinely use users as their beta testers to winnow out all of the
bugs and defects, except they don't label the new updates betas anymore, they just put it out and let the chips fall where they may. It's a bulls*%t way of doing business but it's what
they all seem to do now.

Remember when bugs and defects used to be relatively unusual?
 
Last edited:
Yup, pure as usual has a good point. The internet is largely to blame. The cost of releasing faulty software on a 3.5" disk or CD-ROM and sending it the masses was catastrophic way back when. Not that there still weren't problems and reason to wait. But nowadays, it's amplified - it's industry norm to send software "gold" (print to disc/send to retail/etc.) a month before its actually done, and release a "day zero" patch. And as the years went by, that practice has gotten increasingly stretched. A lot of software isn't really "done" to the old standards until 3-9+ months after it gets released.

For all the perks the ability to hot patch and update software post launch provides, it's also a double edged sword. Even iOS patching has gotten worse over the years. I appreciated how in 2010-2012 timeframe you might see 1, maybe 2 iOS updates before the next main launch. Now, it's every couple weeks I'm getting pinged for a .0x update on iOS - annoying.

That said, I updated one day 1 to Big Sur on my laptop, HA. But only because it's been in beta for 5 months VS the usual 3, and it's my travel laptop and unused for work since I'm working from home for at least another 6 months.
 
vultch 2 - the loss of egpu compatibility I suspect is more down to (perhaps temporarily) losing the x86 platform and PCI-E interconnects. The reason I suspect pro lines might be delayed is to address this architectural issue. But I am 100% guessing here :D
 
2019 Mac Pros are larger than trash can Mac Pros.

The bigger MacBook Pro (16") should get the M1 chip, but maybe they'll provide it whatever is next.
 
I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on an Intel 2020 iMac because I need it sooner rather than later and in a couple of years after M2 chips are in the imac or 15" Macbook. I watched a good video talking about how it works and the benchmarks blow away intel and so much more efficiently.

So why not upgrade?
1. limited offered only on the 13" macbook and mac mini.
2. limited to 1 monitor output (that's kinda of a deal breaker).
3. limited software support: adobe doesn't will not run on it. And who knows what else won't either. This would be a production computer so if something as simple as my printer isn't supported that's not small thing.

There are probably a lot of bugs that will have to be worked out. You always have to ask yourself is relatively small speed gain worth losing the ability to do something you need. I'm still excited but it's too bad these things take so long to implement. Seems like the M2 chip that will be offered next year is better suited for production level work.
 
Last edited:
JAMedia said:
The new M powered Mac Pro's are half the size of the current Intel Mac Pro's
Click to expand...

There are no M(Apple Silicon) powered Mac Pro's and I haven't even seen anything yet about a rumored M powered Mac Pro. Are you talking about the M powered Mac Mini?
 
Peter C. said:
I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on an Intel 2020 iMac because I need it sooner rather than later and in a couple of years after M2 chips are in the imac or 15" Macbook. I watched a good video talking about how it works and the benchmarks blow away intel and so much more efficiently.

So why not upgrade?
1. limited offered only on the 13" macbook and mac mini.
2. limited to 1 monitor output (that's kinda of a deal breaker).
3. limited software support: adobe doesn't will not run on it. And who knows what else won't either. This would be a production computer so if something as simple as my printer isn't supported that's not small thing.

There are probably a lot of bugs that will have to be worked out. You always have to ask yourself is relatively small speed gain worth losing the ability to do something you need. I'm still excited but it's too bad these things take so long to implement. Seems like the M2 chip that will be offered next year is better suited for production level work.
Click to expand...

That's all true...but if everything would end up working flawlessly than you could be wasting money on yesteryear mediocrity.

But if you need more than one extra monitor (mini has the option of running 2 monitors, BTW) then they are probably not the machines for you anyway.

Nevertheless a 2020 10-core iMac with a 5700 XT for around $3200 (before you upgrade your own RAM) is not that bad either in the grand scheme of things if you're looking at an Apple. And it may have many more advantages for you.

Run&Gun said:
There are no M(Apple Silicon) powered Mac Pro's and I haven't even seen anything yet about a rumored M powered Mac Pro. Are you talking about the M powered Mac Mini?
Click to expand...

It was a rumor he read [Bloomberg].

New MPs are supposedly half the size coming next year or 2022. (I didn't bother following up.)
 
NorBro said:
That's all true...but if everything would end up working flawlessly than you could be wasting money on yesteryear mediocrity.

But if you need more than one extra monitor (mini has the option of running 2 monitors, BTW) then they are probably not the machines for you anyway.
Click to expand...
From the video I watched he felt the m1 chip is limited in its bandwidth to output video to a monitor that's why there is only 2 usb c ports and he clearly said that the mini is limited to 1 monitor. He could be wrong but if true that's not good. When I record zoom meetings I put my screen capture program in the main screen and the zoom in the secondary monitor. For editing you have your time line in one screen and the viewer in the 2nd monitor. In the macbook you would have two screens ie the laptop and then the external monitor but who is going to want to edit on a 13" screen. Having only two ports is very limiting put a monitor on one, external drive on the other, seem like you would need a breakout box to give you more ports. The bottom line these are more consumer duty offerings and in the future they will include more powerful options. I just can't wait another year for them to be offered. Knowing apple I can imagine the pro level version will not come cheap.
 
Last edited:
Resolve 17.1 beta adds universal support for M1 chips, out today.

Curious how fast widespread support will roll out. The big question might be plugins - both how fast they'll come to ARM, and if x86 plugins will work in an ARM universal app on M1 chips, if so how well. But other than that, with full adobe suite, ms office suite, FCP X, resolve, cinema4D all close to launch... these machines might be very viable professionally very soon. At this rate, I definitely think I'll wait for the ARM 16" MBP before upgrading my laptop.
 
Peter C. said:
From the video I watched he felt the m1 chip is limited in its bandwidth to output video to a monitor that's why there is only 2 usb c ports and he clearly said that the mini is limited to 1 monitor. He could be wrong but if true that's not good. When I record zoom meetings I put my screen capture program in the main screen and the zoom in the secondary monitor. For editing you have your time line in one screen and the viewer in the 2nd monitor. In the macbook you would have two screens ie the laptop and then the external monitor but who is going to want to edit on a 13" screen. Having only two ports is very limiting put a monitor on one, external drive on the other, seem like you would need a breakout box to give you more ports. The bottom line these are more consumer duty offerings and in the future they will include more powerful options. I just can't wait another year for them to be offered, then the waiting list, etc
Click to expand...

As mentioned, the new Mini can do two. One TB, one HDMI.

New 'Books can do only one.

P.S. The old Minis could do three displays (2 TBs, 1 HDMI).
 
NorBro said:
As mentioned, the new Mini can do two. One TB, one HDMI.

New 'Books can do only one.

P.S. The old Minis could do three displays (2 TBs, 1 HDMI).
Click to expand...
Looked it up you're right. Either I miss heard it or he said the mini can only do 1 external via usb c thunderbolt (which is true but failed to mention the hdmi). I find youtube videos are not as accurate as written reviews.
 
Just a note, AMD is making fast work in the server market, the core per dollar and extremely high core counts per processor are really attractive when you consider that most machines running as a hypervisor give better performance under AMD (per dollar). XCP-NG worked quickly to support the newer AMD stuff, this is the open source project of the Xen hypervisor. High on my list as I need to virtualize my windows servers, and I can (probably) get more performance for my dollar, or get a third server for the few dollars that I have which gives me good high availability fail over. AMD is really going to put a hurt on Intel unless Intel drops prices even farther.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top