New Mac Pro's, worth it for Post Facility?

[Nate Hoffman]

Originally Posted by vudoo

Been using the new 6 core Mac Pro for heavy video/film work and it kills my old Mac Pro 12 cores...no comparison!!! i mean wayyy faster and more stable...very happy so far.

I will switch my HDN rig (from the 27'' iMac and old MacPro 12 cores) to the new 6 cores MacPro when i have some downtime and will let you know how it performs with PT.

Same experience here, although I'm coming from a 2008 8 core, so this thing is easily twice as powerful if not more so.

[V5V]

Originally Posted by Frank Kruse

I liked this visualization of the situation:

http://www.giga.de/wp-content/upload...c-Pro_2013.jpg

(you need to add the noisy expansion chassis to the image in your mind ;-) )

But the option on the left has no provision for a PCIe solid-state system drive. Neither does it have Thunderbolt ports, which you could probably live without if it at least had USB3 but it doesn't have that either. Yeah, a Magma is a nuisance, but it's worth it.

[V5V]

Originally Posted by Postman

Total cost less than a new Mac Pro.

I suspect your Windows machine may forego some of what the Mac Pro offers if it is less expensive. Our comparisons of as-close-as-we-could-get-to-equivalent were more expensive than the Mac -- not by a lot, only 5 - 10 percent more, but the point is that we didn't find any savings on comparable hardware.

The difference with the Windows machines is that we are able to exclude things we deem less critical, like multiple Thunderbolt busses. We can also choose to use high-end i7 (consumer) CPUs instead of Xeons.

So while it is possible to build a Windows machine for less than a Mac Pro, it's not really a straight across comparison, more like how it's possible to buy a Corvette for less than an Aston Martin. The Corvette may be perfectly well suited to the task at hand and might be a more prudent choice if you don't need the extra things the AM offers. Not everyone needs the extra capabilities of the Pro, but like the Aston Martin, the more you learn about how it works and what it offers that the competition doesn't, the more you WANT one!

[Brandonx1]

Originally Posted by V5V

I suspect your Windows machine may forego some of what the Mac Pro offers if it is less expensive. Our comparisons of as-close-as-we-could-get-to-equivalent were more expensive than the Mac -- not by a lot, only 5 - 10 percent more, but the point is that we didn't find any savings on comparable hardware

I don't know about this. I just bought a hpz800 for 900 dollars that has dual 5670 xeons. That's 12 cores 24 threaded xeons at 2.93 gz. I guess that's about 1/4 of the cost of the early 2013 12 Mac Pro in today's market.

[V5V]

Originally Posted by Brandonx1

I don't know about this. I just bought a hpz800 for 900 dollars that has dual 5670 xeons. That's 12 cores 24 threaded xeons at 2.93 gz. I guess that's about 1/4 of the cost of the early 2013 12 Mac Pro in today's market.

VERY late response to this, but...

The HP you bought, does it have a solid-state system drive hanging off the PCIe buss? Dead silent operation under heavy load? Dual 2GB graphics sub-systems? Three discrete Thunderbolt busses?

It is possible to build a Windows machine, even a good one, for less than the price of a new Mac Pro, but that doesn't make it equivalent. You just have the option of not including things you don't consider important.