Better mobile editor: i7 PC laptop or Dual Core Macbook Pro

NextWaveG

NextWaveG

Well-known member
I have a quad core PC at home that I edit most of my 5D footage on. Playing back the raw 5D is slow and very choppy. After converting to Cineform it works pretty good. I have an 8 core Mac at work that I use for editing and graphic design. I tried playing back my raw 5D footage in Quicktime, and it played back very smoothly. Editing the raw footage was very smooth in Final Cut Pro too.

I want to get a portable work station and I'm torn between a new i7 quad core laptop (Acer, HP, Dell, Toshiba, etc.) or a dual core Macbook Pro. I want the biggest screen possible. With the i7, I can get up to an 18.4" screen for under $1500. The biggest MBP model is 17" and is $2500 new. I plan on using my 5D as my primary camera for at least the next year or two so I want the best computer that will work with it.

What are your thoughts?
 
If you want the best computer, get the PC. Mac OS X isn't what makes your 5D footage smooth. It's the hardware, obviously.

With Windows, you can edit with Premiere, which is a lot more similar to FCP than a lot of other NLEs out there, IMO. There's actually a plug-in for Premiere that uses NVIDIA CUDA-enabled graphics processors (GeForce 8300 and higher) to accelerate H.264 editing: http://www.divideframe.com/?p=gpudecoder
 
I have plenty of experience in both Final Cut Pro and Premiere so either NLE would work. I want the best system that's the "most" future proof. I know new stuff will come out, but I usually upgrade every 3-4 years. I need this to work for that long.

Yeah, it was just a test, but I may want to review footage on the fly with a client if I'm in the field.
 
You know, Apple has gotten a reputation for being slow and unresponsive to customers in their continuing development of FCP. Adobe, on the other hand, has always been diligent in evolving their top products, including Premiere. So you can expect to see Premiere get better faster than FCP will. Maybe that's something to consider in on topic of "future proofing"?

FCP is the primarily killer app for Mac OS as far as video people are concerned. If you don't need FCP, then Macs look a lot less attractive.

IMO, the choice is a no-brainer to me. How is paying $1000 more for inferior hardware a sensible decision for "future proofing"? If it is "future proof" in any sense, then it's only because Apple doesn't update its hardware as fast as the rest of the industry does.
 
Last edited:
Jackson Miller said:
inferior hardware? C'mon now.
Click to expand...
Yes. I'm serious. Let's examine the hardware, shall we?

MacBook Pro ($2,499.00)

  • 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Duo (dual-core) with 6MB shared L2 cache
  • 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM
  • 500GB 5400RPM SATA hard drive
  • 512MB NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT
  • 17" 1920x1200 LED-backlit LCD
  • SuperDrive 8x DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW
  • Built-in iSight camera
  • One FireWire 800, three USB 2.0, one ExpressCard/34 slot, Gigabit Ethernet
  • AirPort Extreme 802.11n with Bluetooth 2.1 + Enhanced Data Rate module
  • Mini-DisplayPort output
  • Built-in 8-hour battery

HP dv8t Quad Edition ($1,463.99)

  • 1.6GHz Intel Core i7-720QM Processor (quad-core) with 6MB L2 cache and turbo boost up to 2.8 GHz
  • 6GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM
  • 640GB 7200RPM SATA dual hard Drives (320GB x 2)
  • 1GB NVIDIA GeForce GT 230M
  • 18.4" 1920x1080 LCD
  • Lightscribe Blu-Ray ROM with DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW
  • Webcam + fingerprint reader
  • One FireWire 400, three USB 2.0, one eSATA, ExpressCard/54 slot, Gigabit Ethernet
  • Intel Wireless-N (802.11n) with Bluetooth
  • HDMI output
  • HP Long Life Notebook Battery (presumably 12-cell)
  • 5-in-1 memory card reader

I think that the choice is obvious. Sure, the MBP has a far sexier body with more inspiring build quality, but the internals are what actually matter. It's not like Apple actually manufactures every one of the internal components. It outsources to other companies, actually the same companies that manufacture the same components for Windows computers. Apple doesn't even manufacture any part of its computers, AFAIK. Even the chassis is made by an OEM. Apple is merely the designer.

What Apple offers is its brand, its industry-leading tech support, its operating system, and its top-class style. There's no denying its superiority in those areas. But in terms of the actual hardware, Apple's computers are embarrassingly lacking, especially considering the prices. Most of the components (particularly the most important ones) in the MBP lag one generation behind the corresponding components in the HP dv8t.
 
Last edited:
ydgmdlu;1828738 [B said:
HP dv8t Quad Edition ($1,463.99)[/b]

  • 1.6GHz Intel Core i7-720QM Processor (quad-core) with 6MB L2 cache and turbo boost up to 2.8 GHz
  • 6GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM
  • 640GB 7200RPM SATA dual hard Drives (320GB x 2)
  • 1GB NVIDIA GeForce GT 230M
  • 18.4" 1920x1080 LCD
  • Lightscribe Blu-Ray ROM with DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW
  • Webcam + fingerprint reader
  • One FireWire 400, three USB 2.0, one eSATA, ExpressCard/54 slot, Gigabit Ethernet
  • Intel Wireless-N (802.11n) with Bluetooth
  • HDMI output
  • HP Long Life Notebook Battery (presumably 12-cell)
  • 5-in-1 memory card reader
Click to expand...

Combine this with the Divide frame plugin, and you could be editing those Quicktime MOV files natively in premiere pro in real time. No transcoding.
 
Yes but you said "Paying $1000 for inferior hardware." No you are paying $1000 more for the same hardware lol. Thats all I meant. I thought you were saying the components were worse even if you payed the extra money so the two comps being compared had similar specs. Anyways I just like macs. w/e.
 
Jackson Miller said:
Yes but you said "Paying $1000 for inferior hardware." No you are paying $1000 more for the same hardware lol.
Click to expand...
Not following your logic here. $1500 for a quad-core, vs. $2500 for a dual-core, is not paying $1000 for the same hardware. There are many differences he listed, including 50% more RAM, a bigger screen, a blu-ray drive, a bigger hard disk...

I imagine he could put together a comparison that showed the same hardware as the MBP (instead of better hardware) but I'd wager that the price difference would be notably more than the $1,000 listed here.
 
Jackson Miller said:
Yes but you said "Paying $1000 for inferior hardware." No you are paying $1000 more for the same hardware lol. Thats all I meant. I thought you were saying the components were worse even if you payed the extra money so the two comps being compared had similar specs. Anyways I just like macs. w/e.
Click to expand...
Please read my comparison carefully, and you'll see that almost every component is inferior, spec-wise, in almost every way (speed, capacity, features, etc.). The fact that you claimed that my comparison showed the hardware to be "the same" suggests that you didn't read my post at all.
 
Barry_Green said:
Not following your logic here. $1500 for a quad-core, vs. $2500 for a dual-core, is not paying $1000 for the same hardware. There are many differences he listed, including 50% more RAM, a bigger screen, a blu-ray drive, a bigger hard disk...

I imagine he could put together a comparison that showed the same hardware as the MBP (instead of better hardware) but I'd wager that the price difference would be notably more than the $1,000 listed here.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Going with HP again, I was able to configure a system that's only a small step behind the MBP, overall, while being less than half of the price. The screen resolution is lower, the CPU and graphics are slower, and there's way less battery life. But it's still competitive, especially considering the price and the fact that it does have a few better specs.

HP dv7t ($1,209.99)

  • 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo Processor (quad-core) with 3MB L2 cache
  • 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM
  • 500GB 7200RPM SATA hard drive
  • 512MB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4530
  • 17.3" 1600x900 LED-backlit LCD
  • Lightscribe 8X DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW drive
  • Webcam
  • One FireWire 400, three USB 2.0, one eSATA, ExpressCard/54 slot, 10/100BASE-T Ethernet
  • Intel Wireless-N (802.11n) with Bluetooth
  • HDMI output
  • Extra 8-cell battery
  • 5-in-1 memory card reader
Surprisingly, the Core 2 Duo options are worse values than the Core i7s. Here's the cheapest dv8t configuration:

HP dv8t Quad Edition ($1,149.99)

  • 1.6GHz Intel Core i7-720QM Processor (quad-core) with 6MB L2 cache and turbo boost up to 2.8 GHz
  • 4GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM
  • 320GB 7200RPM SATA hard drive
  • 1GB NVIDIA GeForce GT 230M
  • 18.4" 1920x1080 LCD
  • DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW drive
  • Webcam + fingerprint reader
  • One FireWire 400, three USB 2.0, one eSATA, ExpressCard/54 slot, Gigabit Ethernet
  • Intel Wireless-N (802.11n)
  • HDMI output
  • 8-cell battery
  • 5-in-1 memory card reader
So aside from the smaller hard drive, lack of Bluetooth, and weaker battery, it's still an overall better system than the MBP that costs $1350 more.
 
Yes I apologize, I only skimmed the comparison. My bad. It really comes down to the OS for me though. I have considered running OSX on a PC. I just don't know. I really want a 27 inch imac... What would be a comparable monitor to the amazing new apple one? I just like the simple sexiness of macs. Maybe that doesn't make sense.


EDIT: The imac and mac pro are much better deals than the macbook pro. Can we do some comparisons there? Honestly I cannot find anything that compares to the resolution, viewing angles etc of the new imac screen. And I hear they are super fast. I don't know much about PC's though to see how it compares.

This is about what I am saving for I believe:


27 inch imac
2.8Gh quad core intel i7
8GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM
2TB internal drive

$2650


I know the PC equivalent will be cheaper but I am interested in seeing how much so.
 
Last edited:
Jackson Miller said:
Yes I apologize, I only skimmed the comparison. My bad. It really comes down to the OS for me though. I have considered running OSX on a PC. I just don't know. I really want a 27 inch imac... What would be a comparable monitor to the amazing new a
Click to expand...

Okay so your argument drifts from hardware quality, which now has been fully debunked without much effort, to now an argument based on OS preference.. typical fanboi antics. :2vrolijk_08:
 
I'm not making an argument *#*^%#*(&#(. Yes I admit I am a fan of apple computers. I am not interested in a Mac vs. PC argument. Not in the slightest. So I am not obligated to say why I prefer macs. I am just wondering what a good alternative to the setup I listed above would be to see if I myself would be ok with running OSX on that instead. Since we all can use extra money.
 
Check the internet. I saw a HP or Dell 15" laptop yesterday for 999 quad core, 4MB ram, etc...

In regards to QT playback, check out windows 7. It plays back in realtime now. I have a Macbook 2.2 and I run Leopard and Win7 on it. I used to split time, but since win 7, I use the macbook in Win 7 mode most of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top