Imac & Mac Pro questions & recommendations

Is the write speed to the drive going to improve the speed? I'm looking to decreasing the time to render edits. Is this the best option?
Click to expand...
drive speed and interface type have as much to do overall performance as processor or ram.
i saw a bigger performance improvement moving from fw800 to esata than i did from both going from G5 to macpro and from adding 16 gigs of ram.
 
Partitioning a single HDD for use as a boot partition and a capture partition is not what I would recommend.

You do not want the OS, media, and application competing for head access.

I don't recommend it.
Click to expand...
yeah, thats a bad idea.

why dork around with partitioning drives. when drives themselves are so affordable?
just add one. internal or external, whatever suits your needs
 
Last edited:
My guess is a Thursday announcement.

I don't think Lightpeak, or Apple's implementation, will be part of the updates, but I hope I'm wrong.
 
lesliewrg said:
@stonebat I'm a bit confused now. Is the write speed to the drive going to improve the speed? I'm looking to decreasing the time to render edits. Is this the best option?
Click to expand...
Write speed will improve, and this does backup, too. You can disable Time Machine temporarily. This will be faster than cheap crappy software raid box.

No this is not the best solution. But this is the most portable solution. Nowadays NLE on basic editing is non-issue on i5 MBP. But GPU acceleration doesn't apply to "effects". The rendering's bottleneck will be likely CPU when RAM is 12GB or more.
 
Render speeds in almost completely CPU based with GPU acceleration for supported filters, and fx.

Go to barefeats.com and examine some of the tests for Motion, FCP, and Compressor rendering there.
 
Realtime play back is enhanced by GPU in Premiere, that's it. You get no benefit to final rendering in any Apple product.
 
While Adobe was proactively embracing Nvidia's GPU acceleration APIs, Apple was busy in creating their new standard OpenCL. I own MBP but dont use Apple softwares except iTunes.
 
lesliewrg said:
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/
Click to expand...
Damn back to AMD gfx.. at least they kept the Intel gfx on there still, that's been a life saver when working remotely. I'm holding out a few months for 'Thunderbolt' to get a all out real review if it's Lightspeed compatible or if Apple just calls it something else. I still don't expect the i7 MBP to trump a Mac Pro any time soon. It's getting there, but once some Sandbridge based Xeon's roll out, look out.
 
Back to AMD gpu is good thing, right? Gotta be much faster than Nvidia 330M. New mbp 15" 17" sound really good.
 
stonebat said:
Back to AMD gpu is good thing, right? Gotta be much faster than Nvidia 330M. New mbp 15" 17" sound really good.
Click to expand...
Faster, possibly. But 90% of these new cards are just throwing supposedly faster ram at slower chips with more pipes. The actually supposed power of most new cards hasn't been seen by many people outside of the manufactures posting numbers that few seem to be able to match. I've stepped backwards on upgrades, in order to get actual performance increases. I'm more concerned about the power consumption of the new cards. I can near double my i7 15inch MBP's run time on battery by forcing it to the intel. For browsing and editing I've yet to have it let me down. Mostly because when the Nvida card spins up it consumes so much power. If they had drivers like the Windows machines have you could force 2d GPU performance all over, but really you are limited to , run this or that. Not sure if the AMD will play as nice due to the Thunderbolt connection being tied to it. Time will tell but I won't pull the trigger yet, I just dropped $2500+ on my i7 that's 2 months old.
 
It was Intel who hindered NVidia from developing the next generation mobile gpu. Yes Nvidia's desktop gpu consumes too much power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top