Mac Pro

I'm thinking of picking one of these up. Which configuration do you think will be the best for me? I'll most likely just be using it for Final Cut Studio, Shake, Adobe After Effects and Adobe Photoshop.

I wonder if I need the ATI Radeon 512mb graphics card. Probably going to stick with 1gb of Ram and get it another gig elsewhere for cheaper. Same with the harddrive.
 
Remember that After Effects and PhotoShop are not Universal Binaries, so they will run in an emulation mode, and will run considerably slower than they would on a G5 chipset. For a rough idea of what slowdown to expect, see the web site www.barefeats.com, and do a search for "Adobe Rosetta".

Adobe has said that it will introduce UB versions of its core apps in 2007--my bet is that PhotoShop would come first, followed by AfterEffects.


drameddie said:
I'm thinking of picking one of these up. Which configuration do you think will be the best for me? I'll most likely just be using it for Final Cut Studio, Shake, Adobe After Effects and Adobe Photoshop.

I wonder if I need the ATI Radeon 512mb graphics card. Probably going to stick with 1gb of Ram and get it another gig elsewhere for cheaper. Same with the harddrive.
Click to expand...
 
k2director said:
Remember that After Effects and PhotoShop are not Universal Binaries, so they will run in an emulation mode, and will run considerably slower than they would on a G5 chipset. For a rough idea of what slowdown to expect, see the web site www.barefeats.com, and do a search for "Adobe Rosetta".

Adobe has said that it will introduce UB versions of its core apps in 2007--my bet is that PhotoShop would come first, followed by AfterEffects.
Click to expand...

Au contraire, there are some benchmarks here that show a test in PS running faster on an Intel than a Quad G5...not much to go on, but good news for those who are waiting on Adobe to get their poo together.
 
kovarova- thanks for the link. very informative.

anyone with thoughts on when blue ray drives will become available, affordable, and supported by mac? is that something that is going to be a bg deal about the new operating system (that Steve Jobs is not yet mentioning)?

I'm not that involved with hi-def, but this sure could be a step which helps make it more accessable and affordable.
 
Greggl said:
Hehe... I may pounce on a quad G5 first... we'll see what the macpro's due to
ebay/used G5 market over the next two weeks. I hate paying for 'bleeding
edge'.

It is absolutely true about the lack of options compared to 5 years ago... we've
got a LOT fewer players in the market and even less on the horizon.
Click to expand...

Fewer proprietary systems would be the other side of that lament.
 
Mac Pro 2.66 or 3.0

Mac Pro 2.66 or 3.0

I work traditionally with FCP, Motion and learning Shake. Also upgrading from DVX to HVX in the near future. What are your thoughts about the difference between the 2.66 and 3.0 Mac Pro? Is it worth the extra $800.

Thanks-
 
20% more speed for $800.00. I'll wait a couple a more seconds.

Get the X1900 GPU and spend the money on RAM, which is pricey
 
From what I can gather. The speed of the 2.66 is going to be very very fast in comparison to the Quad G5!

I would put the extra $800 in more RAM!
 
unless you are charging someone top dollar for your work and feel you need to have the fastest possible render times, than it seems excessive for $800.
 
kai said:
Hey a thousand bucks cheaper than a comparable dell with the same specs. Can't argue with that. :)
Click to expand...

yes thats impressive BUT can some one explain why apple charge such funny prices for memory & harddrive upgrades? what so special about apple ram?
 
David S. said:
Best thing about this is that with Boot Camp, you have a Mac and a PC with these performance capabilties.
Click to expand...

back im my uni days my teacher once asked me if you had the all the money what platform would you choose MAC or PC & i said if i have all the money i will have both !! well now i can have one that does both & does them better than ever before.
 
I think Apple should continue to charge crazy prices for Ram. Why? cause that will just drive people to buy Ram from places like Kingston(amazing place to buy ram) and others.

or I guess they could just buy the ram from those places for their BTO options...

but ya..

Mac Pro... droooool.

for the guy asking about the grfx card and rendering. Currently The GPU on the grfx doesn't really impact on the rendering time of FCP. I haven't really looked over the Apple Developer documentation in a long time (ahh good old programming days.. a tear) but I do believe Core Video uses the GPU to accelerate the rendering of common place effects, which is how it achieves a realtime playback by piping effects such as 'blur' or 'distort' etc.. through the GPU instead of the CPU, freeing the CPU to do things like maintain playback, program control etc..

I want a Quad 3.0Ghz Mac Pro with the ATI X1900 XT card... if I had that... I would for sure dive head first back into my World of Warcraft addiction.
 
Loki said:
for the guy asking about the grfx card and rendering. Currently The GPU on the grfx doesn't really impact on the rendering time of FCP.
Click to expand...

But doesnt it help with Real Time previews ?
 
John_Hudson said:
But doesnt it help with Real Time previews ?
Click to expand...
Depends on what it is. Believe it or not Mr. Vegas, some things actually DO run in real time on FCP :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG) :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top