New Quad Core iMacs - Mac Pro alternative for FCS?

R

RyanBellaCine

Well-known member
http://www.apple.com/imac/


New Quad Core Core i7 Nehalem iMac with 27" 16:9 LED backlight LCD & up to 16GB of RAM.

Just might be the interim FCS & CS3/4 editor alternative to a Mac Pro?


EDIT:

Seems to me a valid option. Especially for the beginner, or tight budgeted. Of course there are trade offs. No additional internal SATA drive bays. Still no eSATA support for external drive solutions. No PCIe cards of course.

But you do get a pretty good performer and the monitor is included. Buying RAM 3rd party will save you LOTS of $$. Ultimately you can save $500 or more off a Quad 2.26 Mac Pro. Put that to use towards external drive space.

27" iMac can be mounted to your wall via a VESA compliant mount. .... Ok, THAT does sound kinda cool. Can't ever have too much desk space! I know I can clutter mine up in no-time.


Also -
MacWorld - http://www.macworld.com/article/143394/2009/10/imac.html

" In a clever touch, the 27-inch iMac has a new feature that dramatically increases its versatility. Via a series of adapters Apple says will be available shortly, users will be able to attach external display sources, such a DVD players or even other computers, to the iMac’s display. At that point, those sources will take over the iMac’s display, effectively turning it into an external monitor or an HDTV. "

.
 
Last edited:
In reality though which would be faster with the latest version of Final Cut Studio?

The 3.33 ghz core 2 duo or the 2.66 Ghz Quad core?
 
Dont go for the 3Ghz Core Duo. That's a waste. In the iMac you wold want the 2.8 i7 QUAD core processor. Look past the first page and check the tech specs before you so easily write off this thing as a consumer toy.

I'll bet that the iMac 2.8 i7 Quad will be just as fast if not a hair faster then the 2.66 Quad Mac Pro. And the i7 does have Hyper-Threading ( the i5 offered does not ) so you get 8 virtual cores. Just like the Mac Pro.

Just skip right over those Core 2 Duo chips, that's just for christmas shoppers.
 
Hmmm... iMac will always have disadvantages, and be slower for serious work, due in no small part to the need to use FW/USB drives. Having only one FW800 channel is a severe limitation compared to multiple SATA drives in the Pro, and the ability to add eSATA. Depends a lot on where your production bottlenecks are... but in general, I think the ability to move data quickly on and off drives is one of the most important factors in FCP speed....
 
Not really a pro tool in my eyes, but as a midrange consumer rig/educational tool I think these new iMacs will be better than ever.
 
Your right about that. There will be tradeoffs. But those on a tight budget, or if you primarily work on a format that doesn't NEED SATA speeds and FW800 will work fine, then this is a intriguing option.


For a little comparo, I've priced out both systems to what I would configure them as, while keeping them as similar as I can.


Mac Pro Quad 2.66
$2,813.00
• One 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
• 3GB (3x1GB)
• 1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
• ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
• One 18x SuperDrive
• Apple Mouse
• Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (English) and User's Guide
• AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi Card with 802.11n
• AppleCare Protection Plan for Mac Pro (w/or w/o Display) - Auto-enroll

3rd Party upgrades:
Mac Pro Quad - 12GB RAM Transintl.com - $458.00 = $3271.00
Hitachi 2TB - NewEgg.com - $179.99 = $3451.00 ( with above RAM )
Dell 2408 24" LCD Monitor - $450.00 = $3901 ( with above )

Grand Total Mac Pro Quad = $3901.00

iMac Quad i7 2.8
$2,423.00
• 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
• 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
• 2TB Serial ATA Drive
• ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB
• 8x double-layer SuperDrive
• Apple Magic Mouse
• Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (English) and User's Guide
• AppleCare Protection Plan for iMac - Auto-enroll

3rd party Extras :
iMac i7 Quad - 8GB RAM Transintl.com - $478.00 = $2901.00
Mercury Elite-AL Pro Qx2 2TB RAID - OtherWorldComputing - $530.00 = $3431.00


Grand Total iMac Quad = $3431.00 ( $470.00 saved from Mac Pro. )


iMac i7 Alternative :

PROs
- Save at least $470.00. Or More.
- More HD storage space & external RAID format ( and still save $470.00 )
- High Quality 27" Monitor included
- With wireless keyboard/mouse - a VESA wall mount clears much clutter off your desk.
- Monitor can double as a spare HDTV screen.
- ?? Other not yet foreseen ??

CONs
- Lack of internal SATA speeds.
- RAM only at 8GB ( for now )
- RAM costs more. Requires *Notebook* style RAM ( 16GB 3rd party pricing not yet available from Transintl.com )
- NOT PCIe expandable.
- ?? Other not yet foreseen??


Conclusion per price comparison - If you can get by without requiring any PCIe expansion cards or SATA hard drive speeds ( which most hard drives can't make it much faster then 80MB/s sustained anyway due to mechanical limits… ) then You can make your dollar stretch a good chunk farther by going the way of the iMac. Plus you can mount a whole computer on your wall, use your wireless keyboard/mouse combo for some really impressive "Cool!!" factor. :~) Edit while chilling on your couch. iMac doubles as an HDTV screen.
 
I am not a pro, which means on a budget. And I really wanted a Mac Pro just for the speed in video editing (which translates to more enjoyment of the process). But I was having a hard time justifying the cost. This new iMac fits perfectly. It gets me waaay more performance than my current iMac, but waaaay less in cost.

I think that here in DVXuser, there will be a segment of the population in which this new i7 quad will fit perfectly. I know I am getting one.

Regards,

G.
Non-Pro
 
I've been debating over getting a Mac Pro for months now. Have been putting money aside while waiting to hear some sort of definitive answer in the 4 core vs 8 core debate (to which there is no definitive answer as far as my online research could uncovered).

The new iMac is very intriguing. One of my biggest issues has been justifying paying a lot (at least by my standards) for a Mac Pro when I have no idea if I can get editing work outside of my own movies.

Even if I go with a bare bones refurbished Quad Core 2.66 I'm looking at relatively the same price as a fully loaded iMac with 3 years Apple Care.

The big thing that is making me lean towards the iMac is it is sort of future proof. If I get one, then determine a year or two from now I truly need Pro capabilities, I have a 27inch 2K (or at least close to) monitor to use with whatever core Mac Pro is out at that point.

In the meantime I have a Pro-sumer editing system that can double as the household computer.

But... I won't buy before knowing it is as good as I hope it can be. Will need to see some benchmarks first. Will need to see it in person to see if the glossy glass is an issue. Will need to figure out what cameras can and can't be used/captured.

*Question: How would one go about doing proper color correction using the iMac?
 
Monitor calibratiors like iOne from X-rite. They won't mimic NTSC/ HDTV color profiles, you'd need an actual HD monitor setup for that. I couldn't say if any calibrated color profile would hold when the 27" is in HDTV mode. That answer will have to be discovered.

But a monitor calibrator is still a very wise investment.

The Quad i5/i7 versions of the iMac won't be out until Late November I believe.
 
Staven said:
*Question: How would one go about doing proper color correction using the iMac?
Click to expand...
W/o PCI or ExpressCard34 the iMac is very limited when it comes to external expansion such as monitoring or external drives. Off the top of my head only the AJA I/O HD, which connects via FW800, would be able to get a b'cast quality video signal out of an iMac, but, at least for Color, the IO only supports SD monitoring. If Matrox certified the original MXO to work w/the new iMac that would be an option as well but I don't know how much more support the original MXO is going to get.


-A
 
Thanks for the monitor calibrator reply.

Yes, we have potentially a month or so before it's actually available. We should all use this thread to pose questions/provide insight and observations/list pros and cons etc on whether it's a legitimate editing system or not and if it is a decent alternative to the mac pro.

I took a look over at reduser and so far consensus is that going by specs, it is a capable machine even for dealing with Red - Using lower end proxies for editing, though I know little about what that means.

Since the 27inch Core 2 Duos are in the hands of online reviewers we should get some news soon enough about how well the monitor in works. I wonder how long till we see these core 2 duos in stores.
 
Wether or not it's a legit editing system depends on your needs. For example, if you are working w/file-based footage that needs to be color accurate and needs eSATA HDD speeds the new iMacs probably aren't for your. But lets say you already have a Mac Pro suite w/a b'cast monitor and all that and are looking for a second machine the new iMacs could be a great 'off-line' machine.


-A
 
chromeboy007 said:
Question: does the 2.8G, i7 alternative justify the extra $200 from the regular 2.66G i5 option?

Quad core
Click to expand...

Yes since it does Hyper-Threading, creating 8 work threads out of 4 cores and significantly increasing performance for video encoding.
 
adkimery said:
Wether or not it's a legit editing system depends on your needs. For example, if you are working w/file-based footage that needs to be color accurate and needs eSATA HDD speeds the new iMacs probably aren't for your. But lets say you already have a Mac Pro suite w/a b'cast monitor and all that and are looking for a second machine the new iMacs could be a great 'off-line' machine.


-A
Click to expand...

It's important to note that the LCD used in the new iMacs is an IPS panel which is one of the best types (and most expensive) for color reproduction. How this stacks up to a b-cast monitor I don't know, but the monitor is definitely quite good.
 
yabyum said:
It's important to note that the LCD used in the new iMacs is an IPS panel which is one of the best types (and most expensive) for color reproduction. How this stacks up to a b-cast monitor I don't know, but the monitor is definitely quite good.
Click to expand...
Computer monitors and broadcast monitors are built for different purposes though so even very nice computer monitors will fall short of being good broadcast monitors. The other parts of the problem are that FCP, Avid, etc., don't display broadcast accurate images in the GUI but just proxy images of what you are editing and the GPU is not designed to playback a b'cast standard image. Also, the electronics driving the panel makes a difference as well which is why monitors using the same type of panel can still have different display characteristics.



-A
 
adkimery said:
Computer monitors and broadcast monitors are built for different purposes though so even very nice computer monitors will fall short of being good broadcast monitors. The other parts of the problem are that FCP, Avid, etc., don't display broadcast accurate images in the GUI but just proxy images of what you are editing and the GPU is not designed to playback a b'cast standard image. Also, the electronics driving the panel makes a difference as well which is why monitors using the same type of panel can still have different display characteristics.



-A
Click to expand...

Interesting... though I don't understand how FCP could be the industry standard and not display broadcast accurate images... what editors do display broadcast accurate images?
 
I just got the lowly $1600 24" aluminum Imac and am enjoying the heck out of editing my feature on it. Using FW800 and a raid 0 for my scratch disk, it flies. I do not do intensive compositing or lots of layers, so your experience may be different - but it beats my 15" MBP hands down.
 
yabyum said:
Interesting... though I don't understand how FCP could be the industry standard and not display broadcast accurate images... what editors do display broadcast accurate images?
Click to expand...
What you see in the Viewer and Canvas windows are just proxies, but when you are sending a signal out via a Blackmagic, Matrox, or AJA card/device that signal is b'cast accurate. If you aren't feeding a proper signal to a proper monitor you can't be positive of what the image really looks like and that's true of any NLE.


-A
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top