New iMac Pro!

puredrifting said:
I was sentenced to a Windows laptop in my last corporate job from 2010 to 2013. Never again, I still truly hate Windows with every fiber of my being. I worked from home and on the road and even then, the company's corporate IT guys took four HOURS to remotely configure my Windows laptop to wirelessly print with a modern, Epson printer, something that took :10 on any Mac. Idiotic. Gahh. It's like Windows exists solely to keep corporate IT departments and virus software companies in business. No thanks. I am a Mac user for life and if Apple goes under (which there is a chance of under the flailing 'leadership' of Tim Cook), I will switch to Linux or rubbing two sticks together over ever going back to Windoze. I'm becoming less and less of a fan of Mac as they devolve into another Microsoft, but I've tried over the decades to give Microsoft and Windows a chance and every time, I regret it. The OS just doesn't operate in a logical, intuitive and humanistic manner, it's designed for robots.
Click to expand...

Trust me, I felt exactly the same. I use Windows only for gaming, and I always hated it with a passion. But Windows 10 is decent. I remember when I first fired up my XBOX 360 I thought, whoever designed this should be put to work on Windows, and Windows 10 seems to take a lot of cues from the XBOX interface. It's more intuitive, the visual interface pleasing to look at, and adding devices and drivers not so painful. Still prefer Mac OS but I could live with Windows 10 if I had to. Also, been playing with Windows Mixed Reality VR and it was very well integrated. Took less than 10 minutes to set up.
 
Looks great to me, but I'm still in 2K land so the speed bump I'de received from the top-spec normal iMac is more than enough to make me happy. The iMac Pro would provide even more improvement but the real difference would come in the more you push the machine in 4K+. Even on the top-spec normal iMac, the difference between newer and older models, and the difference between MBP and iMac really shines when you go into 4K. For those reasons I'll probably steer clear but it would be awesome to have.

Regarding the price for the base model, I think $5000 is solid considering what you get on top of the top-spec normal iMac. You get 32GB standard, 10-bit P3 panel, better speakers, 4 TB3 instead of 2, 10g Ethernet, 2x the cores, a much faster GPU, and faster SSD (1TB standard).

If you grab the top-spec 2017 iMac from B&H and put 3rd party 32GB RAM in, you're still looking at about $3500 or so...so for an extra $1500...the base model iMac Pro compared to the iMac really does give you a lot by Mac standards.

I'll probably just end up settling for a new MBP at some point here. I've done benchmarks all year in Premiere & FCPX with iMacs, MBP, and the trashcan MP and going from a 2015 MBP to the 2017 MBP would have me seeing 1/2 the render speeds in Premiere and even better in FCPX.

We're all spoiled if you ask me. Modular Mac Pro also on the way which will be pricey but I'm confident it'll have what everyone has been asking for.
 
KyleProhaska said:
I'll probably just end up settling for a new MBP at some point here. I've done benchmarks all year in Premiere & FCPX with iMacs, MBP, and the trashcan MP and going from a 2015 MBP to the 2017 MBP would have me seeing 1/2 the render speeds in Premiere and even better in FCPX.

We're all spoiled if you ask me. Modular Mac Pro also on the way which will be pricey but I'm confident it'll have what everyone has been asking for.
Click to expand...


Curious what 2015 MBP you're using Kyle. My wife knocked a glass of wine onto my MBP yesterday, mid-deadline, and cooked it. While I'm deciding on the best new system, I was thinking of grabbing a mid-2015 MBP to cover things - 16/512 with the Radeon R9 for FCPX, Motion, PS.
 
Went into Apple Store today and employee told me the iMac Pro will be on display accross stores on the 22. He also told me I can bring a hard drive and edit on it and do some tests. Really cool!
 
Anybody have thoughts on RAM? I'm going to go with the 8-core Vega 64, but can't decide if going from 32 to 64GB of RAM is a waste of money. I will mostly be editing and color grading 4k footage from the Varicam LT. No heavy graphics work, just 3D titles type of stuff. I know 32GB should be plenty for straight editing in Premiere Pro and FCPX, but didn't know if anyone had experience where they actually ran into a need for more in Resolve. Also plan to keep this rig for at least 5 years.
 
I wouldn’t go less than 128 but they’d just me.

I have 64gb since 2012 and I’ve already hit the ceiling on it multiple times depending on what I am doing.

And I don’t believe you can upgrade the RAM after the fact through Apple directly? So I’d go big from the start.
 
In that case get 64gb assuming you can do it in 2x 32gb sticks (stays dual channel, leaves slots open for 2 more sticks of RAM).

If you get 4c 16gb sticks in a system with 4 slots then you have to throw away 64gb to upgrade down the road
 
Straw Man said:
Anybody have thoughts on RAM? I know 32GB should be plenty for straight editing in Premiere Pro and FCPX, but didn't know if anyone had experience where they actually ran into a need for more in Resolve.
Click to expand...

For its part, Resolve is happy with 16GB RAM, according to Blackmagic Design.

As a straight up editing machine I'm sure the default config (8-core, 32GB RAM) with a Vega 64 would last a long time. Some compositing apps like Motion or After Effects can use RAM for realtime playback. Having more RAM means you can load a longer segment into RAM. 3D apps sometimes benefit from large amounts of RAM with large scenes with many objects.
 
I know I'll never justify buying one, as my 2015 i7 27" iMac is perfectly good enough for me

I was surprised by the display specs - all this talk of 4K HDR with FCPX etc etc and yet the builtin display is still only 500nits - the same as the current iMac, so you can't really edit in HDR.

And looking at a TB solution to get 4K HDR out to another monitor, runs to around $2k for the converter!
 
AndreeOnline said:
Can you give an example when you hit the ceiling with 64GB, where RAM wasn't used as a RAM-disk for playback?
Click to expand...

I hit it on Adobe Premiere with no other apps open on my last project that I posted in the GH5 gallery. I ended up having to split that Premiere project file into 3 project files as I got two low memory warnings. It was definitely a large project, but there was no VFX work etc.

RAM disk is of course a different story - I rarely do that but that will burn through all your RAM in no time.

I've also come close to 64gb on a number of smaller projects but which have more layered effects. IE working on a layered title sequence in After Effects (no ram preview), having something open in Photoshop, and the project itself with multiple layers, some luts, some effects, etc. in Premiere. It's not uncommon for my RAM usage on what I consider everyday stuff to sit between 48gb-52gb.

YMMV but there's no way I'd buy a high end system with 32gb today. It wouldn't get *me* by TODAY... let alone be something I'd feel comfortable with on a system I want to keep for the next 5 years...
 
filmguy123 said:
I hit it on Adobe Premiere with no other apps open on my last project that I posted in the GH5 gallery. I ended up having to split that Premiere project file into 3 project files as I got two low memory warnings. It was definitely a large project, but there was no VFX work etc.

RAM disk is of course a different story - I rarely do that but that will burn through all your RAM in no time.

I've also come close to 64gb on a number of smaller projects but which have more layered effects. IE working on a layered title sequence in After Effects (no ram preview), having something open in Photoshop, and the project itself with multiple layers, some luts, some effects, etc. in Premiere. It's not uncommon for my RAM usage on what I consider everyday stuff to sit between 48gb-52gb.

YMMV but there's no way I'd buy a high end system with 32gb today. It wouldn't get *me* by TODAY... let alone be something I'd feel comfortable with on a system I want to keep for the next 5 years...
Click to expand...

Filmguy123 - to be clear was this on a Mac or a PC? I just saw you use both and I know (although not an expert) that Mac and PC RAM usage isn't exactly the same.
 
It's on PC - Mac and PC Ram usage is not exactly the same. But it's not much different in modern Windows 10 era, save for a few GB.

It was catastophic for PC in Vista era, where Vista was hyper bloated, and most people's RAM was anywhere from 4-16gb.

I'd assume the Mac might be 2-3gb lower on my estimates, but also think that's pretty negligible in context. It still gives them a huge edge in mobile/laptop computing when working with less resource though. (Though I definitely feel like my 16gb RAM on my Macbook Pro is often tight).
 
Does anyone really care about HDR? Until every monitor or projection system your clients or your clients customers would view the content on offers it, isn't it kind of pointless?
 
filmguy123 said:
I hit it on Adobe Premiere with no other apps open on my last project that I posted in the GH5 gallery. I ended up having to split that Premiere project file into 3 project files as I got two low memory warnings. It was definitely a large project, but there was no VFX work etc.

RAM disk is of course a different story - I rarely do that but that will burn through all your RAM in no time.

I've also come close to 64gb on a number of smaller projects but which have more layered effects. IE working on a layered title sequence in After Effects (no ram preview), having something open in Photoshop, and the project itself with multiple layers, some luts, some effects, etc. in Premiere. It's not uncommon for my RAM usage on what I consider everyday stuff to sit between 48gb-52gb.

YMMV but there's no way I'd buy a high end system with 32gb today. It wouldn't get *me* by TODAY... let alone be something I'd feel comfortable with on a system I want to keep for the next 5 years...
Click to expand...

A large part of the ram issue is due to how inefficient Adobe is. Don't get me wrong I think Adobe is a solid collection of productivity tools and I taught classes on graphic design and video production using Adobe for many years at a university. I have no beef with Adobe at all but it is a huge resource hog. I think it is important to keep in mind that yes Adobe users do need a heck of a lot more ram than what an Apple pro apps user might need. I'm not sure how to put a number on the efficiency differences between Adobe and Apple software but there is a difference. We have to be careful not to judge the needs of Mac and FCPX users the same way we would judge a PC for Adobe use. I have 24GB on my 2012 iMac and have never really run into any issues with ram. People do some impressive video work on MBPs with only 16GB of ram.

My point is almost every time somebody talks about not having enough ram it is because they are using Adobe software. Is that the fault of the hardware or is Adobe more to blame to being a resource hog? Adobe has a long history of not building resource efficient programs and just piling code on top of old code. They are great at slapping in new features but they rarely take a step back and figure out how to better optimize their tools. They would rather depend on the hardware getting faster to chug through the hundreds of thousands of lines of code.

Apple is far from perfect when it comes to writing software (iTunes is the biggest resource turd in the world) but they are working hard on making FCPX a lot more resource efficient. Just somethign to keep in mind about ram. Ram is relative to the tools making use of that ram.
 
Thomas Smet said:
A large part of the ram issue is due to how inefficient Adobe is. Don't get me wrong I think Adobe is a solid collection of productivity tools and I taught classes on graphic design and video production using Adobe for many years at a university. I have no beef with Adobe at all but it is a huge resource hog. I think it is important to keep in mind that yes Adobe users do need a heck of a lot more ram than what an Apple pro apps user might need. I'm not sure how to put a number on the efficiency differences between Adobe and Apple software but there is a difference. We have to be careful not to judge the needs of Mac and FCPX users the same way we would judge a PC for Adobe use. I have 24GB on my 2012 iMac and have never really run into any issues with ram. People do some impressive video work on MBPs with only 16GB of ram.

My point is almost every time somebody talks about not having enough ram it is because they are using Adobe software. Is that the fault of the hardware or is Adobe more to blame to being a resource hog? Adobe has a long history of not building resource efficient programs and just piling code on top of old code. They are great at slapping in new features but they rarely take a step back and figure out how to better optimize their tools. They would rather depend on the hardware getting faster to chug through the hundreds of thousands of lines of code.

Apple is far from perfect when it comes to writing software (iTunes is the biggest resource turd in the world) but they are working hard on making FCPX a lot more resource efficient. Just somethign to keep in mind about ram. Ram is relative to the tools making use of that ram.
Click to expand...

As long time Adobe user I have to agree. Unfortunately, In todays world is more important to adding new features then making overall improvements. It would be hard to justify (marketing wise) that new version does not offer any new stuff and "only" stability improvements.

I am using both Windows and macOS and basicaly because of Adobe I am still with PC. Two years ago I have bought macbook pro and custom built PC machine for the same price and there is HUGE permormance diference between those systems when using Adobe software. PC is way way faster when it comes to Adobe.
 
KrocanX said:
As long time Adobe user I have to agree. Unfortunately, In todays world is more important to adding new features then making overall improvements. It would be hard to justify (marketing wise) that new version does not offer any new stuff and "only" stability improvements.

I am using both Windows and macOS and basicaly because of Adobe I am still with PC. Two years ago I have bought macbook pro and custom built PC machine for the same price and there is HUGE permormance diference between those systems when using Adobe software. PC is way way faster when it comes to Adobe.
Click to expand...

Well of course a PC desktop is going to be faster than a Mac laptop... Isn't that kind of obvious? You can only really judge the platforms based on similar classes of machines. Compare MBP to a PC laptop or a PC desktop to the iMac.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Well of course a PC desktop is going to be faster than a Mac laptop... Isn't that kind of obvious? You can only really judge the platforms based on similar classes of machines. Compare MBP to a PC laptop or a PC desktop to the iMac.
Click to expand...

Well, you are right. Apples to apples. I did not explain it correctly, sorry. The thing is that there was no iMac in same price range and similir speced iMac would cost me way more even though I would prefer iMac. I cant switch to FCPX (some clients want AE a PPRo projects) so Adobe is the way. I also usualy hit the celling of 64 GB of RAM with Adobe. So buying new machine with less than 128GB would not make sense for my point of view.

Anyway I dont want to start again discussion Apple vs PC. Simply was trying to agree with you haha. Adobe is not Mac friendly haha
 
filmguy123 said:
I hit it on Adobe Premiere with no other apps open…
Click to expand...

Allright. It really doesn't matter what the reason is for Adobe apps needing so much memory—if that's what you use, then you need to configure for reality.

But I'm also in the camp questioning the current state of Adobe's code. I'm a paying 'photography plan' subscriber, but it's abundantly clear that Adobe has some catching up to do when I compare efficiency and fluidity to apps from Affinity and the likes...

puredrifting said:
Does anyone really care about HDR?
Click to expand...

Unlike 3D, I definitely think HDR is the future. We'll be able to watch images that behave much closer to how light works in the real world. But it's definitely not as easy as buying a bright monitor and crank up the contrast. I predict growing pains for a number of years.

Just by buying a LG 65" OLED a while back and playing with different setups and techniques to bring my own videos onto my own TV set in HDR—it's clear that it isn't quite consumer ready (apart from buying/streaming HDR content).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top