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

Might be worth waiting for the second gen of these devices ... these while compelling are the basement of the
product line ... and may be worth using until the new more powerful chip Macs are released.

I have a 2010 MacPro with maxed out processors and memory ... and a AMD Radeon VII ... the base M1 Air bests it ...

Will be moving up but not with this generation ...
 
Tamerlin said:
The MBP really should have 32GB to earn the "pro" monicker, to be honest. But I need a mac to run Colour Lab Studio, and the M1 machines are the only macs I've seen in years that aren't either stupidly overpriced, stupidly underconfigured, or more commonly, both.
Click to expand...

While that may be true keep in mind every current 16" MBP comes standard with 16 GB and many never bother to custom order to get more ram on the MBP. In fact the majority of MBP users out there are only using 16 GB of Ram.

So 16 GB does in fact "earn" the "pro" monicker because 16 GB has always been a good amount for many pro MBP users.
 
Thomas Smet said:
While that may be true keep in mind every current 16" MBP comes standard with 16 GB and many never bother to custom order to get more ram on the MBP. In fact the majority of MBP users out there are only using 16 GB of Ram.

So 16 GB does in fact "earn" the "pro" monicker because 16 GB has always been a good amount for many pro MBP users.
Click to expand...

He'll likely answer you on that, but I was in agreement with him. My reasoning was that they should have a 32GB RAM model available at launch. Not every professional field needs excessive RAM, but one would hope to be able to upgrade to 32GB as an option on the launch of a "pro" computer.
 
James0b57 said:
Oh wow! Beautiful region! That sounds amazing! Would love to visit Northern India. I spent about 2months in East India, such a different place form other parts of India. Wonderful though.
Click to expand...

That it was! The culture there is very different, they don't have TVs and computers everywhere, and a lot of them stay there year around.

And at over 14,000 feet a 15 pound camera + lens + tripod + battery rig feels like it weighs 30 pounds...
 
Thomas Smet said:
While that may be true keep in mind every current 16" MBP comes standard with 16 GB and many never bother to custom order to get more ram on the MBP. In fact the majority of MBP users out there are only using 16 GB of Ram.

So 16 GB does in fact "earn" the "pro" monicker because 16 GB has always been a good amount for many pro MBP users.
Click to expand...

Nah, the 16GB belies the pro monicker, it doesn't justify it. Just like the trash can belies the "pro" monicker because it was a design so idiotic that even mac fans (except the most die hard cultists, of course) damned it before launch... and then realized that they'd been too generous when they discovered that the GPUs had to be underclocked because the thermal design was inadequate for the non-upgradable GPUs.
 
James0b57 said:
He'll likely answer you on that, but I was in agreement with him. My reasoning was that they should have a 32GB RAM model available at launch. Not every professional field needs excessive RAM, but one would hope to be able to upgrade to 32GB as an option on the launch of a "pro" computer.
Click to expand...

I never said it works for everyone but even though its called a pro its still a 13" entry level MBP. These things were always called pro but not used to the same capacity as the 15" or 16". I think many miss the point that these are only replacing the most entry level Macs right now. We need to not get hung up on the pro in the name because it means squat really. Pro can mean lots of things like photographer, graphic designer, illustrator, web designer, UX designer, app developer, software engineer, musician, YouTube video personality and so forth. There are hundreds of other pro professions out there that did and still do find the 13" a pro machine for their needs.

I think some on this forum assume pro just means film maker and that is not true at all. I went to art school with thousands of pros that never did video of any kind.

The 16" is coming in a few months and very well will have more than 16 GB. We still have to see if Apple also replaces the higher end 13" models that had 4 TB ports.
 
Thomas Smet said:
I never said it works for everyone but even though its called a pro its still a 13" entry level MBP.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, I did not intend to imply anything you meant, I was just explaining things on my end.



Thomas Smet said:
These things were always called pro but not used to the same capacity as the 15" or 16". I think many miss the point that these are only replacing the most entry level Macs right now. We need to not get hung up on the pro in the name because it means squat really. Pro can mean lots of things like photographer, graphic designer, illustrator, web designer, UX designer, app developer, software engineer, musician, YouTube video personality and so forth. There are hundreds of other pro professions out there that did and still do find the 13" a pro machine for their needs.

I think some on this forum assume pro just means film maker and that is not true at all. I went to art school with thousands of pros that never did video of any kind.

The 16" is coming in a few months and very well will have more than 16 GB. We still have to see if Apple also replaces the higher end 13" models that had 4 TB ports.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think 16GB is totally within the Pro world, but as a product segment, I would have thought they would at least introduce a 32GB Ram model.

And yes, the later Macs are coming. Overall, exciting new tech, I am almost wanting to jump on an 8GB Mac mini, haha, but I have to remind myself that they are not upgradedle. haha
 
It could be that the M1 chip doesn't need as much ram as a traditional computer. Don't forget phones run fine with 4gb. These first gen boards might not be able physically accommodate or use more ram. Finally this could be a marketing decisions that there needs to be some sort of reason to still buy an intel mac until they completely switch or they want to release 15 macbook pros that have 32. Apple is always looking to give you reasons to upgrade the next year.

Just be thankful Canon didn't make the mini. They would hit you so hard with a cripple hammer, you'd be lucky to get 4gb of ram, and it would over heat 20 minutes.
 
Last edited:
Peter C. said:
It could be that the M1 chip doesn't need as much ram as a traditional computer.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but 8GB and 16GB are a little low even then. I was watching some videos where the 8GB was doing fine until they started getting into things, and plus the recode playback required dropping the quality down, which is what I currently have to do anyway, so no real benefit for me moving to the M1, except maybe faster render times.
 
Peter C. said:
It could be that the M1 chip doesn't need as much ram as a traditional computer. Don't forget phones run fine with 4gb. These first gen boards might not be able physically accommodate or use more ram. Finally this could be a marketing decisions that there needs to be some sort of reason to still buy an intel mac until they completely switch or they want to release 15 macbook pros that have 32. Apple is always looking to give you reasons to upgrade the next year.
Click to expand...

The M1 is a system on a chip using embedded DRAM. It's built into the die, so there's no chance of an upgrade. Using DIMM sockets is a lot more flexible, but requires significantly more space on the system board, and draws more power.

The M1 also doesn't dedicate any memory to the GPU.

My theory behind why Apple chose to go that route is that it's using the SSD as system memory because it's big, and the embedded memory as a cache. That's probably why the system memory is so stingy, yet is clearly not crippling the system the way that such a pitiful amount of memory hinders a more traditional system.

It does seem to be working out pretty well, so maybe they can earn the pro monicker with just 16GB... though the pro monicker is so overused these days by pretty much any company that has anything vaguely resembling marketing that it's pretty much bogus anyway.

Just be thankful Canon didn't make the mini. They would hit you so hard with a cripple hammer, you'd be luck to get 4gb of ram, and it would over heat 20 minutes.
Click to expand...

And the 8GB mini would then cost $2500. ;)
 
This may have been mentioned earlier, and is somewhat directed to RAM on the M1. Someone opened all 50 applications on a M2 MBA with 8GBs of RAM and still was able to transcode a h.265 file to pro res using Compressor.

They also opened 4x faster than a 2019 16" MBP with 32GBs of RAM.
 
I think next year you'll get your M2 with 32 or 64 GB of RAM. But it's your money. The proof is in the pudding. Don't compare apples and oranges. I sure hope you ain't speccing out what Mac you would need based upon what you have needed for Windows. Even compared to last year's Macs, the new ones are so different, you can't compare them either.

  • ARM instead of x86
  • designed by one of the richest companies in the world for a very narrow range of hardware, these are the most tightly integrated laptops on the planet
  • Many are citing the Unified Memory Architecture as key to the speed
  • Also, sofware: Mac OS is a better OS than Windows
  • The newest version, Big Sur, so far is snappier on my old Macbook Pro. It's like I got a free upgrade
 
combatentropy said:
I think next year you'll get your M2 with 32 or 64 GB of RAM. But it's your money. The proof is in the pudding. Don't compare apples and oranges. I sure hope you ain't speccing out what Mac you would need based upon what you have needed for Windows. Even compared to last year's Macs, the new ones are so different, you can't compare them either.

  • ARM instead of x86
  • designed by one of the richest companies in the world for a very narrow range of hardware, these are the most tightly integrated laptops on the planet
  • Many are citing the Unified Memory Architecture as key to the speed
  • Also, sofware: Mac OS is a better OS than Windows
  • The newest version, Big Sur, so far is snappier on my old Macbook Pro. It's like I got a free upgrade
Click to expand...

At this point, I have only seen the performance from the 8GB models, so I may find the 16GB RAM models to be sufficient. We'll see. However, I know for less than the transition cost to an M1 16GB MBP 13" I could get an eGPU that would handle recode 5K playback at full quality. ...but yeah, I am still keeping an eye on these things, as it is a nice sort of leap frog in performance at not a big price point. might just not need it right now.
 
filmguy123 said:
I don't know for sure what the "smart" move is, as there are too many variables and unknowns at play - and with tech, anything could happen at any time. But, no, I am not abandoning my PC build. I still feel good about it. Here is my rationale, a conjecture filled crystal ball, so take it for what it is:

This is going to be a slow burn. As amazing as Apple's new M1 chip is, we live in an X86 world and that's simply not going to change overnight. We have yet to see how well the M1 chips will scale upwards. Even Apple's graphs showed a plateau effect, it's just that the curve rests higher. ARM has traditionally been engineered for lower TDP, so assuming there's going to be a linear scale towards the high end is premature. We also know that today, the M1 lags behind in multicore (we have yet to see what Apple can do, or charge, at the higher end of cores and TDP). But, for kicks, let's just say in 1 years time Apple has a desktop class M1 chip that bests everything else out on the market right now by 50% in both single and multicore. That would be incredible... but it will still be Apple exclusive and a ways off on the PC platform, and thus likely come at a premium (very premium?) cost for that higher, pro-end of things. Not just the cost of the chip, but the complete system - RAM and everything else that comes along with it. And it's still at least a year out.

There's also more caveats: we don't know anything about the PCI-Express architecture and interconnect. We know very little about what they can do with a discreet ARM GPU or if other GPUs (ie nvidia) would work with the platform (probably not), and if apple's ARM GPU will come anywhere close to rivaling the RTX 3000 series today let alone what's out in 18 months. How will applications that are programmed for NVIDIA CUDA fair on a new ARM architecture? This could take time too. And whenever this desktop class M1 does come, how is compatibility across the board with a library of plugins and everything else? With pro-level M1 chips, they are going to be a tiny market minority - how will developer support be? Probably last place in a world dominated by 90% x86 chips. The list goes on.

I am not at all being a downer on the M1 chips, as my other posts show I am extremely (extremely) impressed. While I've had some hesitation myself after seeing this, I also have been on this rodeo too many times. I'm being very realistic from a professional standpoint that this is likely going to be a slower burn until I want my daily grind machine to run on a new and untested platform. I've just consistently seen this is my life with tech. The hype is real, the potential is real, but here we are 15 years later after dual core chips came to market and we're just recently starting to finally see things really take advantage of multi-core computers.

My system build is going to be a Ryzen 5950x, RTX 3090 (I want the 24gb of VRAM), 128gb DDR4 3600, and a 2TB PCI-E 4.0 nvme SSD, plus storage etc. etc. Its a killer system that works, today, with every plugin etc. - no fuss. It's still much faster than anything Apple has out, and on the whole, it really does remain to be seen if the M1 GPU and higher TDP/Core count chips can leapfrog such a system. I think the biggest gains are going to be on the lower end in mobile, with much more modest gains higher up the chain. But, we'll see. Either way, this system is expandable and upgradeable which means I can likely keep pace for cheaper than the cost of whatever Apple will want for its high tier systems. The M1 cpus show incredible potential, but the reality is they won't be a fully rounded competitor to such a system for a while, and it's all a giant unknown right now.

I think this system will serve me very well for many years. Eeven if Apple does the incredible on the high end and comes out with a workstation platform that is 50% faster in every single metric (from single core to multicore, to CPU to GPU, and that is fully compatible with everything, with no teething problems or caveats etc.) by the end of their "2 year transition", a few thoughts: (1) Two years used to be the average computer upgrade cycle, (2) my new workstation won't suddenly be slower, and a 50% increase is great, but probably over optimistic, and definitely not "have to upgrade today" status (3) don't hold your breath for it to be a bargain deal on the pro end (4) 2022 is a ways away to wait for such a best case scenario.

I'm pretty bullish on this new architecture, but for the next couple years, I think its going to be most important primarily to mobile workstations (I am going to wait to upgrade my 2013 MBP for the ARM macbook pro, for sure!). On the desktop workstation front, the soonest I see it being a very smooth transition would be at the tail end of Apple's claimed 2 year transition time. And I'm simply not waiting 2 years to "see what happens" when I have a 2012 desktop severely in need of an upgrade. More likely, I see the ripple effects of this new desktop architecture being a true discussion piece closer to mid decade than I do to today (once you factor in the many things pro workstations are looking for).

On the mobile consumer front, though? All hell just broke lose! Popcorn to see what happens next. Enjoy the show... for me I'll be enjoying the show from my Ryzen 5950x! :D
Click to expand...

Thanks for the awesome response.
 
I bought a base model M1 mini to edit cinema dng footage from an OG bmpcc, which plays super smooth in the Resolve M1 beta.

If anyone is on an older mac (mine is a top spec 15 inch from 2013) and wants to spend the least possible amount of money to be able to edit modern codecs like BRAW or R3d files or even older raw files like DNG, the Mini is a good deal. I think the closest in performance would be the base 16 inch mbp or a 27 imac.

I downloaded all the raw clips from both blackmagic and red just to see what it could do, it can play any BRAW file from 12k on down at full res. With the red footage its a mixed bag because of the mix and match of framerates/resolutions/compression ratio available on the red site.

a few of the 8k clips play on the timeline with no dropped frames, a couple need to be half res
their is a 5k file that is 5:1 that needs to be at half res and a 6k file at 3:1 that needs to be half res
most of the other 4/5/6k will play with no dropped frames.

I haven't done any proper editing or tested export speeds, but this 8GB model is pretty quick.

If anyone has any questions or wants me to check something let me know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top