Which Mac Book Pro for T2i + HD Editing

D

Dave P

Member
Hi guys, I have a 5 year old 15 inch MBP and have been editing T2i footage on it for the past year now. My computer has multple issues other than it being old.

So I am going to take the plunge and buy a new MBP. I have been using Final Cut for 6 years now. Anyway my question is of these 2 computers below is there really a difference between the 2.0 ghz quad core and 2.2 ghz quad core? I was thinking abut going with the 2.0 ghz then using the saved 300 bucks on putting 8gb of RAM instead of the stock 4gb's (or is 8gb of RAM over kill?). Im sure I will see a drastic improvement in speed anyways upgrading from my 2006 2.0 GHZ Intel Core Duo with 2GB of RAM

Picture 1.jpg


thoughts? (not worried about the extra disc space have multiple externals)
 
At this point in time, FCP is not making the most of multi-core CPUs but hopefully FCP 8 will. I would always go for more cores than raw GHz if the GHz are relatively close. I'm sure you can measure the difference between the 2.0 and 2.2 versions but as you say, you'd be better putting the difference towards (third party) RAM. Apple charges a fortune for RAM and it's no different to the (quality) third party RAM you can buy.

HOWEVER, there is more than just the CPU difference in those models. The graphics card is also 1GB vs 256MB. This may not be important to you today, but if you want to use software that needs (say) 512MB or 1GB video ram then you will regret saving those $300 because it's going to cost you more to upgrade later. The HDD is also 50% bigger and you can never have enough HDD space ;)

As ever, these things are no always as clear cut as they first seem.....
 
I ended up getting a refurb 15" macbook pro a year or so ago (its 1.93 GHZ) and was a good $400 cheaper than the fastest at the time. Didn't have any problems with playing back, and cutting HD footage for shorts and a feature. Might be worth looking into if you want to save a few bucks. But the above poster does make a good point about the graphics cards. Still that being said, very happy about my purchase.
 
Go with the 2.2 version. The graphics card makes a huge difference. I had the 2.0 and it was sluggish so I returned it and got the 2.2. I would say get the 2.2 hands down or get the top of the line mbp from the last gen on sale (which I had and preferred to the current 2.0 version because it had a better graphics card. What was apple thinking putting a worse card in? But the 2.2 is GODLY
 
...and I don't think the graphics card is upgradeable on these, likely part of the logic board? If that's so, you're stuck with whatcha get.
 
Im sure I will see a drastic improvement in speed anyways upgrading from my 2006 2.0 GHZ Intel Core Duo with 2GB of RAM
Click to expand...
actually no. you probably wont.
i did a more drastic upgrade 18 months or so ago. from a dual G5 to octocore macpro. and just on machine spec alone there wasnt an earth shattering performance improvement.

about the only compelling reason to choose the 2.2 over the 2.0 from above is the better graphics card.
and you'll do better (from both a price and quality standpoint) adding 3rd party ram and a fast seagate momentus 7200 rpm or an owc SSD hard drive
 
wgzn said:
actually no. you probably wont.
i did a more drastic upgrade 18 months or so ago. from a dual G5 to octocore macpro. and just on machine spec alone there wasnt an earth shattering performance improvement.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect information. The speed difference for a Core duo to an i5 processor is at least 2-4x faster. Not only that it uses less heat, requires less power and has so many benefits its insane. Just do a search on intels site to read all about the mobile processors in these laptops.
 
The speed difference for a Core duo to an i5 processor is at least 2-4x faster
Click to expand...
on paper and/or in bench specs that may well be the case. but in real world, rubber-meets-the-road use, those specs are never directly reflected in performance.
for example, even if a processor spec is 2x a previous model. youre not going to see your renders happen anywhere near twice as fast.

thats just not how it works. especially considering that the OS or whatever software package may or may not be able to fully take advantage of a certain processor function.

the i5 machine will be faster, certainly. my point is its not going to be life changing.
too many people get drunk on (or mislead by) specs.
 
wgzn said:
on paper and/or in bench specs that may well be the case. but in real world, rubber-meets-the-road use, those specs are never directly reflected in performance.
for example, even if a processor spec is 2x a previous model. youre not going to see your renders happen anywhere near twice as fast.

thats just not how it works. especially considering that the OS or whatever software package may or may not be able to fully take advantage of a certain processor function.

the i5 machine will be faster, certainly. my point is its not going to be life changing.
too many people get drunk on (or mislead by) specs.
Click to expand...

Funny, I think you may be the only one who feels that way.
Yes, your software and OS have to be able to take advantage of the hardware available, which is why initially when I jumped to Core 2 Duo years ago, there wasn't a dramatic difference (the renderer I was using at the time didn't know how to use more than one core yet, I had to upgrade my software to see the difference).

But, these days, I should hope that no one is using any NLE that is so old as to not be aware of multiple cores and spread the instruction threading between them (actually one of the reasons I stopped using Mac has to do with limited support of certain architecture, but that's another story not for this discussion).

You want "real world, rubber-meets-the-road use"?
I have an After Effects project that took 6 hours on my 2.8 Core 2 duo to render. I needed to make a change and re-render the entire sequence, but thankfully had just picked up a new i5 laptop 2.4Ghz laptop.
It only took only 3-4 hours to render, both machines running CS5. In fact, the first computer had far more memory, and was practically more powerful in *every* way, except for the CPU generation.
Why? The architecture is fundamentally different, with 2 cores that can emulate the threading for 4 when needed, and boost voltage to cores that need it more when one is stuck on a particularly tough caculation. Technically, each core on my first machine (Core 2 Duo) is clocked with more cycles (2.8Ghz, versus 2.4 on the i5), but the i5 outperformed by almost double the speed, even with at the lower clock.
I'm with Vision Filmz on this- your information is totally inaccurate.
 
Be sure to get the 7200 rpm hard drive when you order. It makes a significant difference. I just got the 2.2 version with 8 gb ram, 500gb 7200rpm drive, and am very happy.
 
im happy to be wrong. but in about two decades of mac use ive never seen processor specs deliver 1:1 performance increases relative to actual performance.

not from 030 to 040, 040 to powerPC and not from powerpc to intel. maybe from coreduo to ix the rules have changed.

im going to shut up until i do / see some real world performance tests for myself ; )
 
wgzn said:
im happy to be wrong. but in about two decades of mac use ive never seen processor specs deliver 1:1 performance increases relative to actual performance.

not from 030 to 040, 040 to powerPC and not from powerpc to intel. maybe from coreduo to ix the rules have changed.

im going to shut up until i do / see some real world performance tests for myself ; )
Click to expand...

My render times speak for themselves.

But it also depends on the software. All these new quantum leaps in hardware design usually require the software to be written to take advantage of these changes. Remember when Mac first adopted RISC-chips? All the old software had to run in a 6800-emulator mode, which made it run slower than the older CPUs. You need to match your software to your hardware's capability.

When I first upgraded to a Core 2 Duo system about 5-6 years ago, I found that it didn't run that much faster than my previous box. That was until I realized the NLE I was using was 2 versions old and didn't support multi-core threading, so I was really only using ONE core! Once I upgraded to software that could use all the cores, it suddenly went significantly faster.

The architecture of core i5 and i7 can actually significantly cut down rendering times due to how it is designed. I can split into 4 separate processors, which makes the computational load more efficient, but even cooler than that is this Turbo Boost thing they came up with. If I understand it correctly (and this is just my interpretation from what I've read about it), it has the ability to burst more voltage into a core that is stuck on a particularly long calculation, while the others are sitting idle.
Normally during a rendering session, the tasks are split between multiple cores, and they don't all finish at the same pace. That means you are left with unused processor power while the unused ones sit idle and wait for the others to finish. The architecture of this chip, to my understanding, can shut power to those idle cores, and boost more power into the ones in use, temporarily raising the Ghz clock speed of that core, after which everything goes back to normal for the next instruction.

But anyway, everytime a new chip/architecture/etc comes out, you need to make sure you are using software that can take advantage of it. Apple isn't always so helpful in making that happen these days. If anyone here used Adobe CS4 on a Mac, you might have remembered hearing that it actually ran faster and more efficiently on the PC side of things. Why? Because Apple decided to drop 64-bit support in the environment Adobe wrote photoshop and most of their suite products in. The end result is that PC users could use as much RAM as they wanted, whereas the Mac version was limited to 4. Suddenly folks who upgraded their Mac Pros to 8+GB of RAM found absolutely ZERO performance increase in Adobe products. This all was fixed when CS5 came out, and Adobe was forced to rewrite all of their products in Apple's new cocoa language, but it took another generation of software for the performance to catch up to the hardware's ability.

(Incidentally, stuff like this, along with the current price of Apple versus competitor's products per performance, is why I switched from being totally pro-Mac to swearing off them completely)

You have to take all of that into consideration if you aren't noticing a speed increase with new hardware. You should be. I can testify that there IS indeed a significant difference.
 
The speed bump and Thunderbolt sealed the deal for me. The new i7 MBP models show impressive initial benchmarks. The 2.2Ghz, i7, 15" model with hi-res/anti-glare will be my next major purchase. I maximize my hardware purchase lifespan, so the extra threaded cores are appreciated. CS5 and other software I work with can utilize them now, but FCP should eventually come around.

The potential for 10Gbps upstream/ downstream simultaneously from a single port is phenomenal, especially for logging video on location. Access to high speed raid via Thunderbolt host bus adapters will also be possible if 3rd party vendors decide to design them. It's a pretty amazing machine from what I've seen so far.
 
MarcoPolo said:
The speed bump and Thunderbolt sealed the deal for me. The new i7 MBP models show impressive initial benchmarks. The 2.2Ghz, i7, 15" model with hi-res/anti-glare will be my next major purchase. I maximize my hardware purchase lifespan, so the extra threaded cores are appreciated. CS5 and other software I work with can utilize them now, but FCP should eventually come around.

The potential for 10Gbps upstream/ downstream simultaneously from a single port is phenomenal, especially for logging video on location. Access to high speed raid via Thunderbolt host bus adapters will also be possible if 3rd party vendors decide to design them. It's a pretty amazing machine from what I've seen so far.
Click to expand...

I prefer USB 3.0 personally. Hopefully eventually Apple will come around on that as well. In the mean time, I can't justify spending over 2x the money for the same speed hardware.
 
dishe said:
I prefer USB 3.0 personally. Hopefully eventually Apple will come around on that as well. In the mean time, I can't justify spending over 2x the money for the same speed hardware.
Click to expand...

I'm not gonna get into the whole 2x money argument but Thunderbolt is supposed to be compliant with USB 3.0, eSata and is a direct extension of PCIe. So in a manner of speaking Apple has come around on USB 3.0. They also support an interface that is 2x faster.

Also can you point me to a PC Laptop that is machined out of a solid piece of Aluminum?
 
kgimedia said:
I'm not gonna get into the whole 2x money argument but Thunderbolt is supposed to be compliant with USB 3.0, eSata and is a direct extension of PCIe. So in a manner of speaking Apple has come around on USB 3.0. They also support an interface that is 2x faster.

Also can you point me to a PC Laptop that is machined out of a solid piece of Aluminum?
Click to expand...

Not only that, name 1 pc laptop or desktop that holds it value like a Mac. It's insane that people say they don't want an apple argument yet throw little jabs. No matter which way you look at it, Apple Os runs a different kind of code that can allow the "Same" hardware to work more efficiently and better. Personally I could never buy a Pc.
 
kgimedia said:
I'm not gonna get into the whole 2x money argument but Thunderbolt is supposed to be compliant with USB 3.0, eSata and is a direct extension of PCIe. So in a manner of speaking Apple has come around on USB 3.0. They also support an interface that is 2x faster.
Click to expand...

That's actually pretty cool, if it works like that. I haven't seen any USB 3.0 use on a Mac yet, but if its possible, that's a big win for Apple IMO. I found it ironic that my $200 netbook has USB 3.0, and the $3k Mac Pros didn't!
Good for them, hoping to be able to share my USB 3 drives with Apple coworkers sometime soon.

Also can you point me to a PC Laptop that is machined out of a solid piece of Aluminum?
Click to expand...

That's kind of a random requirement, but ok- the Dell Adamo?
Supposed to rival build quality of the Air, but I have no personal experience with that. Too much money for what it is (both the Adamo AND the air), since all of this equipment should be considered disposable. Like camera bodies, you will eventually need to upgrade anyway, so I see little point in investing so much into a "cooler" one.

vision_filmz said:
Not only that, name 1 pc laptop or desktop that holds it value like a Mac.
Click to expand...

When you can buy an i5 laptop for under $400, the entire cost of an HD editing PC might be less the amount of depreciation on your mac. ;)

It's insane that people say they don't want an apple argument yet throw little jabs. No matter which way you look at it, Apple Os runs a different kind of code that can allow the "Same" hardware to work more efficiently and better.
Click to expand...

::scratches head:: I spent YEARS in the IT field before going into video, and studied computer science back in college. I loved Apple, was a big fan of Macs back when they actually engineered their own CPUs (glad to see them starting to do that in portable devices again at least). But I can tell you for a fact that what you just said is not true. Maybe you like the way the OS looks/works better, which is cool. But perform more efficiently? Not exactly. Install After Effects on both machines and render the same project on the same hardware, the Mac won't save you any time. In fact, in the case of CS4 and other self-imposed limitations by Apple, it will go faster on the PC.

I'm not trying to knock buying Apple (I sort of knew it would come to this, but I really didn't intend to go there), and l0rd knows I've been guilty of Apple fanboyism myself in the past. But I think we've placed them on an artificial pedestal that unfortunately creates a lot of confusion in consumers. For the record, I consider myself platform agnostic, and have owned both kinds of hardware.
 
dishe said:
That's actually pretty cool, if it works like that. I haven't seen any USB 3.0 use on a Mac yet, but if its possible, that's a big win for Apple IMO. I found it ironic that my $200 netbook has USB 3.0, and the $3k Mac Pros didn't!
Good for them, hoping to be able to share my USB 3 drives with Apple coworkers sometime soon.



That's kind of a random requirement, but ok- the Dell Adamo?
Supposed to rival build quality of the Air, but I have no personal experience with that. Too much money for what it is (both the Adamo AND the air), since all of this equipment should be considered disposable. Like camera bodies, you will eventually need to upgrade anyway, so I see little point in investing so much into a "cooler" one.



When you can buy an i5 laptop for under $400, the entire cost of an HD editing PC might be less the amount of depreciation on your mac. ;)



::scratches head:: I spent YEARS in the IT field before going into video, and studied computer science back in college. I loved Apple, was a big fan of Macs back when they actually engineered their own CPUs (glad to see them starting to do that in portable devices again at least). But I can tell you for a fact that what you just said is not true. Maybe you like the way the OS looks/works better, which is cool. But perform more efficiently? Not exactly. Install After Effects on both machines and render the same project on the same hardware, the Mac won't save you any time. In fact, in the case of CS4 and other self-imposed limitations by Apple, it will go faster on the PC.

I'm not trying to knock buying Apple (I sort of knew it would come to this, but I really didn't intend to go there), and l0rd knows I've been guilty of Apple fanboyism myself in the past. But I think we've placed them on an artificial pedestal that unfortunately creates a lot of confusion in consumers. For the record, I consider myself platform agnostic, and have owned both kinds of hardware.
Click to expand...


Lets not derail this thread, because I'm more than sure I can pull out benchmarks stating otherwise. Lets just say this, Apple computers hold their value and have a great operating system. Firewire is faster than Usb 2 and their new thunderbolt is faster than Usb3. Macs hold their value unlike any pc I have ever owned. Now yes you can build a rock solid pc and do some great things, but imo & strictly opinion I feel that Mac computers are simply more reliable and perform better.

Apologies to the Op, back to our regularly scheduled programming
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top