That would be enough for 90% of what we do because most of the time the editor gives us a "screener" (compressed) version of the video, but every so often we have to work with the same video the picture editors do which means either an animation codec (just one small step short of uncompressed) or XDCAM. In those cases having to use HD4000 would be maddening!
NOOOO! Then I'll have waited for nothing! They'll give us at least 5000, won't they? Please say we'll get SOME flavour of Iris, even if it's "Amateur!"
If you can borrow one you should just try it. The HD4000 is about as fast as the 330M in my old 2010 MBP. The HD4600 around 50% faster than that which isn't too too bad if that's all we get.
Obviously HD5000 or Iris Pro would be better but I'm guessing the i7-4702MQ as the $799 mini if we get a refresh at all. I think that corresponds to the older 3615QM but I'm not sure.
That would be enough for 90% of what we do because most of the time the editor gives us a "screener" (compressed) version of the video, but every so often we have to work with the same video the picture editors do which means either an animation codec (just one small step short of uncompressed) or XDCAM. In those cases having to use HD4000 would be maddening!
The issue with the Mini would be the hard drive. The Blackmagic drive speed test shows which video quality is usable on the chosen drive:
[VIDEO]
The PCIe SSD drives are very fast, it shows the formats and resolution at the bottom (uncompressed 4444 10-bit reads are 4th column):
[VIDEO]
If Apple updates the Mini to use a PCIe SSD along with a standard HDD, the SSD will allow playback of high bitrate codecs no problem. Video memory could have been an issue before for 4K but this is likely why they upped it to 1GB. The Macbook Air checks all the boxes:
NOOOO! Then I'll have waited for nothing! They'll give us at least 5000, won't they? Please say we'll get SOME flavour of Iris, even if it's "Amateur!"
The 4600 can actually be faster than the 5000 as the 5000 is in a lower TDP chip. I don't think they'll put Iris Pro in the base model but they used Iris Pro in the entry MBP and they normally use the same chip in the Mini. I could see them hitting the same entry price with a dual i5 with 4600. Then if they went with a quad i7 with Iris Pro (i7-4750HQ), it would be $899. For server use, they'd be better off with a quad i7 with 4600 but it really doesn't make that big of a difference. They can replace both the $799 and $999 model with an $899 model and if people want it configured as a server, they'd just buy a license for OS X Server BTO. Some people might just want the entry Mini with 256GB SSD as a dedicated server.
They might go with soldered RAM though. This would be ok if the entry came with 4GB and the $899 had 8GB and had options for 16GB.
An $899 Mini BTO 16GB RAM $200, BTO 256GB SSD $200 = $1299.
The PCIe SSD drives are very fast, it shows the formats and resolution at the bottom (uncompressed 4444 10-bit reads are 4th column):
I'm confused (as usual). Please bear with me -- I try hard but I'm just not that bright.
I thought drive speed was only half the equation. Assuming a drive that can deliver enough bytes per time interval, a working system then requires a graphics processor capable of figuring out which pixels go where and assigning them all spots on the screen sixty times per second. My understanding is that uncompressed video places much higher demands on the GPU than something like h.264. Is that correct?
So, playing back uncompressed 10-bit 4:4:4 would require not only a fast drive but also a very capable GPU, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
They can replace both the $799 and $999 model with an $899 model and if people want it configured as a server, they'd just buy a license for OS X Server BTO.
That makes perfect sense, but I don't think they'll do it. I'm betting that buyer expectations almost force Apple to maintain a model specifically designated as a server. They'll probably also retain dual drives for the same reason. You're right that there's really no reason to do so other than making it easy for buyers to grab the right one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
An $899 Mini BTO 16GB RAM $200, BTO 256GB SSD $200 = $1299.
I'd buy that (assuming it has a decent GPU!). " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
You could email Tim and see if you get a response. LOL.
I almost just pulled the trigger on a refurb mini. Then said nah.
Iris Pro is highly unlikely. HD4600 is probably the most we can hope for.
That is kind of likely for the reasons you've mentioned before about spacing out configurations. If it's accompanied by a price increase, I would expect them to use Iris Pro. Note that 2011->2012 they moved to a more expensive cpu on the mid range model and dropped dedicated graphics. Those dedicated graphics weren't very good anyway, but that may have been the point. They were using cpu hardware comparable to the 15" mbp over the last couple iterations. Right now that would mean Iris Pro quad, drop back to dual core or move to a cpu option that differs from what is used in the mbp line. It's just a matter of which route they go with it. I think it's extremely unlikely that we'll face a cancelled mini. Apple typically pares down a line if sales do not justify multiple base configurations. I do not see them going from 3 to 0. If it wasn't for the divergence from their pattern of sharing as much hardware as possible, I would say the 4600 is almost a guarantee.
The key limitation for the mini is obviously the lack of a GPU followed by RAM with only two slots available. Aperture uses OpenCL.
Still, if most of what you are doing is converting FLAC to .mp3 then a mini would be fine. The Mac Pro (and high end iMac) shines when you are doing complex tasks in real time (Photoshop, FCPX, etc) vs batching them for overnight.
I missed this one. I agree on ram, although a lot of people would be well served by 16GB, which is possible with the mini. I see a lot of frequent claims that Aperture uses OpenCL, yet I haven't been able to find any references from Apple either in its required specs to run Aperture or their developer pages. Photoshop uses OpenCL a little, but it's not that significant. I've looked at the barefeats tests, and they're a bit contrived. For example one involved running liquify, yet they used big swipes, presumably producing a lot of topological errors in the mesh that required quite a bit of weird calculation. Warp is another, along with lighting effects. Some of those things were incredibly slow when first introduced. Today they run well on a mini. For that one if you're bound by ram, turn off thumbnails and things. If you have to deal with 100+ layers you're mostly reliant on labels anyway. I can't speak for FCPX. I can use Premiere. I barely know FCPX. Typically if I need to know how it runs something, I look up that specific function. I just don't necessarily think he would be truly hindered by the mini unless 32GB is compelling within 12-18 months (mid duty cycle imo).
The cost delta between the iMac and the Mac Pro is actually very small.
$3099 for a 3.7 Ghz quad core, 256GB SSD and 16 GB RAM, Dual Firepro D300
$2749 for a 3.4 Ghz quad core, 256GB SSD and 16 GB RAM, 780M 4GB DDR5
For $350 you get a much better platform to grow with. That's not an unreasonable upgrade and buys you a small amount of future proofing (the greater possibility of GPU upgrades and far easier access to the SSD).
Yes, you need to add keyboard, mouse and monitor. The newly announced Dell 28" 4K monitor is $699.
Consumer level video editing app? You mean FCPX? You DO realize that FCPX and iMovie appears to share the same core now right? To the point that some unmodified FCPX plugins work in iMovie.
If the Mac Pro was built to be a FCPX powerhouse I would bet that it's also a iMovie powerhouse.
In any case FCPX is only $300. Hardly out of the reach of the same kind of consumer that would buy any $2749 computer.
I wouldn't buy a top end iMac for home use. It's just too expensive for a consumer rig for what you get.
I would buy the base model Mac Pro and believe it is comparatively a better value than the iMac based on the pricing above. Mac Pros traditionally have a longer usable life than iMacs. From a TCO perspective the Mac Pro strikes me as the better deal over the long haul.
So your assertion that "If you're buying this for a home machine, then you're either nuts, someone who wants to brag, or simply has too much money, and too little brains." is of little merit or forethought and based only on your own prejudices.
No surprise there.
Your monetary assessment looks pretty bad. That's a big price difference. This is NOT a $2749 computer. Using your own numbers, it's a $3,900 dollar computer, and FCP brings that to $4,200. That's a pretty big difference in price. So unless you're editing your kids activities in 4k, the slight performance difference isn't going to be that noticeable. iMovie will perform well with both models. A 10% performance difference more or less isn't going to be that important. If you use Photoshop, that top line iMac will be faster, as will be most other activities.
So perhaps my description was immoderate, but my reasoning isn't.
My understanding is that uncompressed video places much higher demands on the GPU than something like h.264. Is that correct?
No, they are both uncompressed during playback. If the H.264 is decoded on the GPU, it would actually put more load on the GPU. The weak point is getting the data to it. The GPU is always rendering at 60 FPS for screen refreshes.
You can see here an old Macbook Air with weak integrated graphics running 4K RED video no problem:
[VIDEO]
If the RED video is decoded on the Air CPU, it chokes because the CPU isn't fast enough. Decoding it using the Red Rocket produces uncompressed frames, which then get passed through the GPU to draw inside the application interface.
Video resolution impacts GPU performance so 4K takes more resources than 1080p but the weak point in playback of uncompressed video is the host drive. There's a calculator here:
4444 1080p 8-bit is 186MB/s. Normal hard drives can't read that fast. You don't always just need real-time either, you'd scrub through the video so you need the data faster than real-time.
After a bit of research, I am adding a new iMac to my mix at work in preparation for a couple of big projects this year.
My current mini did not fair well in speed tests with the apps I will use; compared to my current iMac it was taking 2 to 3 times as long to complete tasks. Worse, any CPU-intensive rendering makes it sound like a tea kettle in a very short time. When it was bought it did what it was needed for very well, but as my needs have changed it can't keep up.
The Mac Pro looked very interesting indeed... until the speed results started coming in. The quad I got to play with was slower than my 2012 iMac, despite being clocked higher; data I've seen online for the same apps show the hex to only be marginally faster at those apps, but slower at "regular" apps. For the price, especially after adding a display, I just simply can't jump at it. (already have TB externals)
The iMac is the sweet spot. For less than the nMP, it comes with the display which is gorgeous. It also is fast as heck and handles heat far better than the mini. Just gotta figure out where to place it in the office (which is tiny); would have had the same problem with the MP, however, as there was no way it would replace the iMac for certain tasks.
Specs: 27", 3.5GHz quad, 32GB RAM, 1TB Flash Drive, GTX 780M, Apple Care TOTAL= $4118 ($1300 less than a MP, before a display and before adding software licenses)
And that is just it; I could get an iMac for my horsepower needs, 'heaviest' app used being Aperture, but then I'd get that semi glossy screen which I don't like. Matte for me, so either a MP or a Mini. I do use a Mini, but it's merely for downloading and displaying on the big screen in the living. Though I do think it's fast enough nowadays for Aperture as well and won't actually need a MP anymore. Still, I keep on buying that model every time.
Do you think I could get by with just a Mini, instead of my current dual quad 2.whatever GHz, RAM that never gets used et cetera? The only time I see all CPU's doing their thing is when converting FLAC to .mp3. And while I do that a lot, there's no need for me to have that task finish quickly; I'd simply batch that and check back adter an hour. Or the next day, whatever.
You get this stuff; I'd like to read your opinion.
Well, there is a major price delta here. Of course, the Mac Pro will be faster. The graphics performance is much better than that of the Mini. It's too bad the glossy iMac monitor bothers you, as otherwise, the monitor is quite good.
For home use, a lot depends on how important the performance difference really matters. How large are your photo files? These days, even a Mini is pretty fast, if you buy the top model. It's just that pesky graphics performance, or lack of, that won't do Open CL much good. If you have 20MP files, even a Mini will work fine. But if you're working 16 bit 80MP files, AND you are comping several, then the Mimi will begin to bog down.
I really don't think that the Mac Pro is a sensible choice for home use. I hope people understand what I mean by by home use. If video or other area is a major interest, and you display your work, that doesn't really qualify as "home use". So if you have a high quality camera, video recorder, or some such thing, then it qualifies as an avocation. But if you're using it for your kids stuff, vacation pics or video, then unless money isn't really a concern, this is way overkill.
So a choice between a top iMac and a Mac Pro, that favors the Mac Pro for "home" use, as far as I'm concerned, is a bad idea. But the performance difference between a top Mini is greater, as is the price.
Many Apple stores will allow you to try a few photos or a video that isn't too big in the store, so you can see for yourself if the Mini is ok, or whether the Mac Pro is better, if they have the config you want, or close to it.
Your monetary assessment looks pretty bad. That's a big price difference. This is NOT a $2749 computer. Using your own numbers, it's a $3,900 dollar computer, and FCP brings that to $4,200. That's a pretty big difference in price. So unless you're editing your kids activities in 4k, the slight performance difference isn't going to be that noticeable. iMovie will perform well with both models. A 10% performance difference more or less isn't going to be that important. If you use Photoshop, that top line iMac will be faster, as will be most other activities.
So perhaps my description was immoderate, but my reasoning isn't.
The $2749 27" iMac is indeed $2749. If you add FCPX then it's more but that's immaterial if you aren't going to use FCPX. The POINT is that iMovie and FCPX are now very similar under the hood. The comment that "consumer grade video software" won't use all the cores is likely no longer true for iMovie 13.
If you want to add $500 to the price of the Mac Pro for the monitor keyboard and mouse that would be fair. That makes the monetary equation:
$2749 for the iMac vs $3599 for the Mac Pro. Higher but you get to pick which monitor you want.
None of the choices are $3900. I have no idea why you cannot add.
My current mini did not fair well in speed tests with the apps I will use; compared to my current iMac it was taking 2 to 3 times as long to complete tasks. Worse, any CPU-intensive rendering makes it sound like a tea kettle in a very short time. When it was bought it did what it was needed for very well, but as my needs have changed it can't keep up.
Well that's the downside of small machines like the mini. Dissipating heat is an issue. Haswelll should help quite a bit in terms of performance if the apps were GPU limited.
Quote:
The iMac is the sweet spot. For less than the nMP, it comes with the display which is gorgeous. It also is fast as heck and handles heat far better than the mini. Just gotta figure out where to place it in the office (which is tiny); would have had the same problem with the MP, however, as there was no way it would replace the iMac for certain tasks.
Personally I'd still get the Mac Pro for your use with the quad core and upgrade to the D700. There will simply be things you can do on that that you cannot on the iMac. Like with the mini you may find that the iMacs you buy today simply will not hold up to the use you will have for tomorrow.
As a second machine the min I'd still go with is the 27" iMac with 256GB SSD, GTX 780M 4GB VRAM and 3.5 Quad i7. That's $2549.
$1500 more you get dual D700s and probably will be able to get an aftermarket SSD upgrade eventually.
It's not like you need monitors for your render farm and you now have a machine with 6GB VRAM. And you can use your current iMac in Target Display Mode in a pinch.
Never underestimate the ability of Adobe developers to use up resources. Given that one of the two GPUs isn't used to render video anyway but dedicated to compute needs I can imagine someone wanting more VRAM in a couple years time.
"I was particularly surprised by how much video memory Final Cut Pro appeared to take up on the primary (non-compute) GPU. I measured over 3GB of video memory usage while on a 1080p display, editing 4K content. The D700 is the only configuration Apple offers with more than 3GB of video memory. I’m not exactly sure how the experience would degrade if you had less, but throwing more VRAM at the problem doesn’t seem to be a bad idea."
I wouldn't buy the iMac with the 2GB VRAM options if I were you.
You may wish to go hexa over the quad. And you could buy a 12 core with the base D300s and swap with the D700 next year then sell the entry level quad MP as an entry level MP.
If the H.264 is decoded on the GPU, it would actually put more load on the GPU.
I don't know if I've been given bad information or if I just misunderstood what i've been told, but either way I was obviously wrong. Thanks for the help.
It makes sense that having to "reconstruct" a compressed video feed would be more demanding than playing an uncompressed file, but then why are modest systems able to play movies from the iTunes Store just fine while being incapable of even a few frames per second of XDCAM or Animation-encoded material? Is it really strictly storage throughput? Or is it like the Red example you provided -- the stream needs to be "decoded" and overwhelms the CPU?
Further, what then is the role/benefit of a powerful GPU? For video editing, how is a dedicated GPU better than just integrated graphics?
I realize that to you this is like leading a brain-damaged monkey through a trail of peanuts so I appreciate the hand holding!
The issue with the Mini would be the hard drive. The Blackmagic drive speed test shows which video quality is usable on the chosen drive:
Looks like the 840 pro is fast enough. You can put one in into a mini. Likely though large files will come on an external drive making this point moot.
I don't know if I've been given bad information or if I just misunderstood what i've been told, but either way I was obviously wrong. Thanks for the help.
It makes sense that having to "reconstruct" a compressed video feed would be more demanding than playing an uncompressed file, but then why are modest systems able to play movies from the iTunes Store just fine while being incapable of even a few frames per second of XDCAM or Animation-encoded material? Is it really strictly storage throughput? Or is it like the Red example you provided -- the stream needs to be "decoded" and overwhelms the CPU?
Further, what then is the role/benefit of a powerful GPU? For video editing, how is a dedicated GPU better than just integrated graphics?
I realize that to you this is like leading a brain-damaged monkey through a trail of peanuts so I appreciate the hand holding!
XDCAM (I think the guys were doing HD and not HD 422) played back and edited fine on a 2008 MBP using FCP7. I'd be surprised if playback were choppy in a 2012 mini. What issues have you seen and what are you using for playback?
H.264 is special because of hardware decoding built into the CPU since sandy bridge.
Transcoding circa 2014 now has GPU support in the software. Effects, renders, etc are also often dependent on GPU acceleration for performance. Prior to this year a lot of that was CUDA based. Also prior to mavericks OpenCL wasn't supported on Intel GPU. Ivy bridge's GPU is now supported even if a bit anemic. But pretty much most folks went nvidia GPU for these reasons. ATI can't do CUDA and half the stuff was CUDA based.
Take what I say here with a grain so salt. I'm a developer not a video pro but I do help those guys out from time to time.
why are modest systems able to play movies from the iTunes Store just fine while being incapable of even a few frames per second of XDCAM or Animation-encoded material? Is it really strictly storage throughput? Or is it like the Red example you provided -- the stream needs to be "decoded" and overwhelms the CPU?
It's both the decoding requirements and file sizes but file size tends to be the bigger bottleneck. Laptop hard drives are usually around 50MB/s so for a stream that needs 160MB/s, it will playback at 10fps or less. External drive manufacturers use uncompressed workflows to show off their drive performance:
[VIDEO]
Their stats show nearly 160MB/s for 1080p and the Pegasus handles 6 streams.
Further, what then is the role/benefit of a powerful GPU? For video editing, how is a dedicated GPU better than just integrated graphics?
For video playback and basic video chopping, a dedicated GPU won't make a difference. For effects rendering, it can but the Iris Pro integrated graphics are comparable to the dedicated GPU. The dedicated GPU has an option for more than 1GB of memory though.
Well, there is a major price delta here. Of course, the Mac Pro will be faster. The graphics performance is much better than that of the Mini. It's too bad the glossy iMac monitor bothers you, as otherwise, the monitor is quite good.
For home use, a lot depends on how important the performance difference really matters. How large are your photo files? These days, even a Mini is pretty fast, if you buy the top model. It's just that pesky graphics performance, or lack of, that won't do Open CL much good. If you have 20MP files, even a Mini will work fine. But if you're working 16 bit 80MP files, AND you are comping several, then the Mimi will begin to bog down.
The RAW's are ? 15MB. jpeg's 3-4MB. So no problems there. And I try to take a photo as-is, all in camera, not tumbling with it afterwards.
I really don't think that the Mac Pro is a sensible choice for home use. I hope people understand what I mean by by home use. If video or other area is a major interest, and you display your work, that doesn't really qualify as "home use". So if you have a high quality camera, video recorder, or some such thing, then it qualifies as an avocation. But if you're using it for your kids stuff, vacation pics or video, then unless money isn't really a concern, this is way overkill.
In that case I've always bought overkill as I always bought the high-end PM/MP. I once got the Ti book, maxed out, but that thing was slow even back then. HDD being main problem as I remember.
I attended a few Pro sessions at the Apple Store this summer and was surprised to see Aperture go through 20MB RAW files like it was nothing, applying filters, creating a light-table and creating a 500MB .pdf from it - all buttery smooth. Granted, they gave us a maxed out rMBP. FCP was even no problem, nothing stalled, no waiting for something. They / technology sure have / has come a long way.
So a choice between a top iMac and a Mac Pro, that favors the Mac Pro for "home" use, as far as I'm concerned, is a bad idea. But the performance difference between a top Mini is greater, as is the price.
I agree, and when my MP dies I will certainly include a Mini to my options as it all seems fast enough for my needs anyhow. Besides, the old MP had 4HDD bays which could be a big differentiator in choosing a Mini over a MP, but with the nMP this doesn't matter anymore. The current FD has 128GB SSD; a 256SSD + 1TB HDD FD Mini would be a great successor to the current model.
Many Apple stores will allow you to try a few photos or a video that isn't too big in the store, so you can see for yourself if the Mini is ok, or whether the Mac Pro is better, if they have the config you want, or close to it.
That's a Top Tip. When the time comes I'll do just that.
Comments
That would be enough for 90% of what we do because most of the time the editor gives us a "screener" (compressed) version of the video, but every so often we have to work with the same video the picture editors do which means either an animation codec (just one small step short of uncompressed) or XDCAM. In those cases having to use HD4000 would be maddening!
NOOOO! Then I'll have waited for nothing! They'll give us at least 5000, won't they? Please say we'll get SOME flavour of Iris, even if it's "Amateur!"
If you can borrow one you should just try it. The HD4000 is about as fast as the 330M in my old 2010 MBP. The HD4600 around 50% faster than that which isn't too too bad if that's all we get.
Obviously HD5000 or Iris Pro would be better but I'm guessing the i7-4702MQ as the $799 mini if we get a refresh at all. I think that corresponds to the older 3615QM but I'm not sure.
The issue with the Mini would be the hard drive. The Blackmagic drive speed test shows which video quality is usable on the chosen drive:
[VIDEO]
The PCIe SSD drives are very fast, it shows the formats and resolution at the bottom (uncompressed 4444 10-bit reads are 4th column):
[VIDEO]
If Apple updates the Mini to use a PCIe SSD along with a standard HDD, the SSD will allow playback of high bitrate codecs no problem. Video memory could have been an issue before for 4K but this is likely why they upped it to 1GB. The Macbook Air checks all the boxes:
[VIDEO]
The 4600 can actually be faster than the 5000 as the 5000 is in a lower TDP chip. I don't think they'll put Iris Pro in the base model but they used Iris Pro in the entry MBP and they normally use the same chip in the Mini. I could see them hitting the same entry price with a dual i5 with 4600. Then if they went with a quad i7 with Iris Pro (i7-4750HQ), it would be $899. For server use, they'd be better off with a quad i7 with 4600 but it really doesn't make that big of a difference. They can replace both the $799 and $999 model with an $899 model and if people want it configured as a server, they'd just buy a license for OS X Server BTO. Some people might just want the entry Mini with 256GB SSD as a dedicated server.
They might go with soldered RAM though. This would be ok if the entry came with 4GB and the $899 had 8GB and had options for 16GB.
An $899 Mini BTO 16GB RAM $200, BTO 256GB SSD $200 = $1299.
The issue with the Mini would be the hard drive.
The PCIe SSD drives are very fast, it shows the formats and resolution at the bottom (uncompressed 4444 10-bit reads are 4th column):
I'm confused (as usual). Please bear with me -- I try hard but I'm just not that bright.
I thought drive speed was only half the equation. Assuming a drive that can deliver enough bytes per time interval, a working system then requires a graphics processor capable of figuring out which pixels go where and assigning them all spots on the screen sixty times per second. My understanding is that uncompressed video places much higher demands on the GPU than something like h.264. Is that correct?
So, playing back uncompressed 10-bit 4:4:4 would require not only a fast drive but also a very capable GPU, right?
They can replace both the $799 and $999 model with an $899 model and if people want it configured as a server, they'd just buy a license for OS X Server BTO.
That makes perfect sense, but I don't think they'll do it. I'm betting that buyer expectations almost force Apple to maintain a model specifically designated as a server. They'll probably also retain dual drives for the same reason. You're right that there's really no reason to do so other than making it easy for buyers to grab the right one.
An $899 Mini BTO 16GB RAM $200, BTO 256GB SSD $200 = $1299.
I'd buy that (assuming it has a decent GPU!).
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
My 2012 iMac is not showing great write speeds... They start off at 288, then start falling, down to 120.
What's up with that?
You could email Tim and see if you get a response. LOL.
I almost just pulled the trigger on a refurb mini. Then said nah.
Iris Pro is highly unlikely. HD4600 is probably the most we can hope for.
That is kind of likely for the reasons you've mentioned before about spacing out configurations. If it's accompanied by a price increase, I would expect them to use Iris Pro. Note that 2011->2012 they moved to a more expensive cpu on the mid range model and dropped dedicated graphics. Those dedicated graphics weren't very good anyway, but that may have been the point. They were using cpu hardware comparable to the 15" mbp over the last couple iterations. Right now that would mean Iris Pro quad, drop back to dual core or move to a cpu option that differs from what is used in the mbp line. It's just a matter of which route they go with it. I think it's extremely unlikely that we'll face a cancelled mini. Apple typically pares down a line if sales do not justify multiple base configurations. I do not see them going from 3 to 0. If it wasn't for the divergence from their pattern of sharing as much hardware as possible, I would say the 4600 is almost a guarantee.
The key limitation for the mini is obviously the lack of a GPU followed by RAM with only two slots available. Aperture uses OpenCL.
Still, if most of what you are doing is converting FLAC to .mp3 then a mini would be fine. The Mac Pro (and high end iMac) shines when you are doing complex tasks in real time (Photoshop, FCPX, etc) vs batching them for overnight.
I missed this one. I agree on ram, although a lot of people would be well served by 16GB, which is possible with the mini. I see a lot of frequent claims that Aperture uses OpenCL, yet I haven't been able to find any references from Apple either in its required specs to run Aperture or their developer pages. Photoshop uses OpenCL a little, but it's not that significant. I've looked at the barefeats tests, and they're a bit contrived. For example one involved running liquify, yet they used big swipes, presumably producing a lot of topological errors in the mesh that required quite a bit of weird calculation. Warp is another, along with lighting effects. Some of those things were incredibly slow when first introduced. Today they run well on a mini. For that one if you're bound by ram, turn off thumbnails and things. If you have to deal with 100+ layers you're mostly reliant on labels anyway. I can't speak for FCPX. I can use Premiere. I barely know FCPX. Typically if I need to know how it runs something, I look up that specific function. I just don't necessarily think he would be truly hindered by the mini unless 32GB is compelling within 12-18 months (mid duty cycle imo).
Your monetary assessment looks pretty bad. That's a big price difference. This is NOT a $2749 computer. Using your own numbers, it's a $3,900 dollar computer, and FCP brings that to $4,200. That's a pretty big difference in price. So unless you're editing your kids activities in 4k, the slight performance difference isn't going to be that noticeable. iMovie will perform well with both models. A 10% performance difference more or less isn't going to be that important. If you use Photoshop, that top line iMac will be faster, as will be most other activities.
So perhaps my description was immoderate, but my reasoning isn't.
No, they are both uncompressed during playback. If the H.264 is decoded on the GPU, it would actually put more load on the GPU. The weak point is getting the data to it. The GPU is always rendering at 60 FPS for screen refreshes.
You can see here an old Macbook Air with weak integrated graphics running 4K RED video no problem:
[VIDEO]
If the RED video is decoded on the Air CPU, it chokes because the CPU isn't fast enough. Decoding it using the Red Rocket produces uncompressed frames, which then get passed through the GPU to draw inside the application interface.
Video resolution impacts GPU performance so 4K takes more resources than 1080p but the weak point in playback of uncompressed video is the host drive. There's a calculator here:
http://web.forret.com/tools/video_fps.asp?width=1920&height=1080&fps=30&space=rgb444&depth=8
4444 1080p 8-bit is 186MB/s. Normal hard drives can't read that fast. You don't always just need real-time either, you'd scrub through the video so you need the data faster than real-time.
After a bit of research, I am adding a new iMac to my mix at work in preparation for a couple of big projects this year.
My current mini did not fair well in speed tests with the apps I will use; compared to my current iMac it was taking 2 to 3 times as long to complete tasks. Worse, any CPU-intensive rendering makes it sound like a tea kettle in a very short time. When it was bought it did what it was needed for very well, but as my needs have changed it can't keep up.
The Mac Pro looked very interesting indeed... until the speed results started coming in. The quad I got to play with was slower than my 2012 iMac, despite being clocked higher; data I've seen online for the same apps show the hex to only be marginally faster at those apps, but slower at "regular" apps. For the price, especially after adding a display, I just simply can't jump at it. (already have TB externals)
The iMac is the sweet spot. For less than the nMP, it comes with the display which is gorgeous. It also is fast as heck and handles heat far better than the mini. Just gotta figure out where to place it in the office (which is tiny); would have had the same problem with the MP, however, as there was no way it would replace the iMac for certain tasks.
Specs: 27", 3.5GHz quad, 32GB RAM, 1TB Flash Drive, GTX 780M, Apple Care TOTAL= $4118 ($1300 less than a MP, before a display and before adding software licenses)
[LIST]
[*] http://www.anandtech.com/show/7673/owc-to-bring-aftermarket-sf3700-pcie-ssd-upgrades-to-2013-macs
[/LIST]
Well, there is a major price delta here. Of course, the Mac Pro will be faster. The graphics performance is much better than that of the Mini. It's too bad the glossy iMac monitor bothers you, as otherwise, the monitor is quite good.
For home use, a lot depends on how important the performance difference really matters. How large are your photo files? These days, even a Mini is pretty fast, if you buy the top model. It's just that pesky graphics performance, or lack of, that won't do Open CL much good. If you have 20MP files, even a Mini will work fine. But if you're working 16 bit 80MP files, AND you are comping several, then the Mimi will begin to bog down.
I really don't think that the Mac Pro is a sensible choice for home use. I hope people understand what I mean by by home use. If video or other area is a major interest, and you display your work, that doesn't really qualify as "home use". So if you have a high quality camera, video recorder, or some such thing, then it qualifies as an avocation. But if you're using it for your kids stuff, vacation pics or video, then unless money isn't really a concern, this is way overkill.
So a choice between a top iMac and a Mac Pro, that favors the Mac Pro for "home" use, as far as I'm concerned, is a bad idea. But the performance difference between a top Mini is greater, as is the price.
Many Apple stores will allow you to try a few photos or a video that isn't too big in the store, so you can see for yourself if the Mini is ok, or whether the Mac Pro is better, if they have the config you want, or close to it.
That comment wasn't necessary. Do it again, and you'll get deleted.
That's the point I was making.
Your monetary assessment looks pretty bad. That's a big price difference. This is NOT a $2749 computer. Using your own numbers, it's a $3,900 dollar computer, and FCP brings that to $4,200. That's a pretty big difference in price. So unless you're editing your kids activities in 4k, the slight performance difference isn't going to be that noticeable. iMovie will perform well with both models. A 10% performance difference more or less isn't going to be that important. If you use Photoshop, that top line iMac will be faster, as will be most other activities.
So perhaps my description was immoderate, but my reasoning isn't.
The $2749 27" iMac is indeed $2749. If you add FCPX then it's more but that's immaterial if you aren't going to use FCPX. The POINT is that iMovie and FCPX are now very similar under the hood. The comment that "consumer grade video software" won't use all the cores is likely no longer true for iMovie 13.
If you want to add $500 to the price of the Mac Pro for the monitor keyboard and mouse that would be fair. That makes the monetary equation:
$2749 for the iMac vs $3599 for the Mac Pro. Higher but you get to pick which monitor you want.
None of the choices are $3900. I have no idea why you cannot add.
My current mini did not fair well in speed tests with the apps I will use; compared to my current iMac it was taking 2 to 3 times as long to complete tasks. Worse, any CPU-intensive rendering makes it sound like a tea kettle in a very short time. When it was bought it did what it was needed for very well, but as my needs have changed it can't keep up.
Well that's the downside of small machines like the mini. Dissipating heat is an issue. Haswelll should help quite a bit in terms of performance if the apps were GPU limited.
/shrug
Mount them on the walls.
http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/imac-vesa
Personally I'd still get the Mac Pro for your use with the quad core and upgrade to the D700. There will simply be things you can do on that that you cannot on the iMac. Like with the mini you may find that the iMacs you buy today simply will not hold up to the use you will have for tomorrow.
As a second machine the min I'd still go with is the 27" iMac with 256GB SSD, GTX 780M 4GB VRAM and 3.5 Quad i7. That's $2549.
$1500 more you get dual D700s and probably will be able to get an aftermarket SSD upgrade eventually.
It's not like you need monitors for your render farm and you now have a machine with 6GB VRAM. And you can use your current iMac in Target Display Mode in a pinch.
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1326404
Never underestimate the ability of Adobe developers to use up resources. Given that one of the two GPUs isn't used to render video anyway but dedicated to compute needs I can imagine someone wanting more VRAM in a couple years time.
"I was particularly surprised by how much video memory Final Cut Pro appeared to take up on the primary (non-compute) GPU. I measured over 3GB of video memory usage while on a 1080p display, editing 4K content. The D700 is the only configuration Apple offers with more than 3GB of video memory. I’m not exactly sure how the experience would degrade if you had less, but throwing more VRAM at the problem doesn’t seem to be a bad idea."
I wouldn't buy the iMac with the 2GB VRAM options if I were you.
You may wish to go hexa over the quad. And you could buy a 12 core with the base D300s and swap with the D700 next year then sell the entry level quad MP as an entry level MP.
If the H.264 is decoded on the GPU, it would actually put more load on the GPU.
I don't know if I've been given bad information or if I just misunderstood what i've been told, but either way I was obviously wrong. Thanks for the help.
It makes sense that having to "reconstruct" a compressed video feed would be more demanding than playing an uncompressed file, but then why are modest systems able to play movies from the iTunes Store just fine while being incapable of even a few frames per second of XDCAM or Animation-encoded material? Is it really strictly storage throughput? Or is it like the Red example you provided -- the stream needs to be "decoded" and overwhelms the CPU?
Further, what then is the role/benefit of a powerful GPU? For video editing, how is a dedicated GPU better than just integrated graphics?
I realize that to you this is like leading a brain-damaged monkey through a trail of peanuts so I appreciate the hand holding!
Looks like the 840 pro is fast enough. You can put one in into a mini. Likely though large files will come on an external drive making this point moot.
XDCAM (I think the guys were doing HD and not HD 422) played back and edited fine on a 2008 MBP using FCP7. I'd be surprised if playback were choppy in a 2012 mini. What issues have you seen and what are you using for playback?
H.264 is special because of hardware decoding built into the CPU since sandy bridge.
Transcoding circa 2014 now has GPU support in the software. Effects, renders, etc are also often dependent on GPU acceleration for performance. Prior to this year a lot of that was CUDA based. Also prior to mavericks OpenCL wasn't supported on Intel GPU. Ivy bridge's GPU is now supported even if a bit anemic. But pretty much most folks went nvidia GPU for these reasons. ATI can't do CUDA and half the stuff was CUDA based.
Take what I say here with a grain so salt. I'm a developer not a video pro but I do help those guys out from time to time.
It's both the decoding requirements and file sizes but file size tends to be the bigger bottleneck. Laptop hard drives are usually around 50MB/s so for a stream that needs 160MB/s, it will playback at 10fps or less. External drive manufacturers use uncompressed workflows to show off their drive performance:
[VIDEO]
Their stats show nearly 160MB/s for 1080p and the Pegasus handles 6 streams.
For video playback and basic video chopping, a dedicated GPU won't make a difference. For effects rendering, it can but the Iris Pro integrated graphics are comparable to the dedicated GPU. The dedicated GPU has an option for more than 1GB of memory though.
The RAW's are ? 15MB. jpeg's 3-4MB. So no problems there. And I try to take a photo as-is, all in camera, not tumbling with it afterwards.
In that case I've always bought overkill as I always bought the high-end PM/MP. I once got the Ti book, maxed out, but that thing was slow even back then. HDD being main problem as I remember.
I attended a few Pro sessions at the Apple Store this summer and was surprised to see Aperture go through 20MB RAW files like it was nothing, applying filters, creating a light-table and creating a 500MB .pdf from it - all buttery smooth. Granted, they gave us a maxed out rMBP. FCP was even no problem, nothing stalled, no waiting for something. They / technology sure have / has come a long way.
I agree, and when my MP dies I will certainly include a Mini to my options as it all seems fast enough for my needs anyhow. Besides, the old MP had 4HDD bays which could be a big differentiator in choosing a Mini over a MP, but with the nMP this doesn't matter anymore. The current FD has 128GB SSD; a 256SSD + 1TB HDD FD Mini would be a great successor to the current model.
That's a Top Tip. When the time comes I'll do just that.