Mac Pro? who has one?

Out of context: Reply #16

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 18 Responses
  • Julesvm0

    my company would be the perfect candidate for one of these... we're a bunch of video / 3d professionals, all mac based, and we can justify the cost easily through our company if it made sense. So far... it doesn't.

    - no expansion, with very little third party thunderbolt support (I'm sure it'll come eventually, but this is apple's fault - they introduced the standard 3 years ago and haven't supported it on their own pro machine till now)
    - clock speeds are not much better. In benchmarks the i7 iMac beats it for everyday tasks. And the 12 core upgrade is monstrously expensive for lower clock speeds. Most tasks are single threaded.
    - shitty 4k support. I hear they just fixed it in the new OS update.. but this one blows my mind. How did it not support proper 4k res out of the box?
    - no NVIDIA. We used CUDA for our rendering, so until we get some card options... no deal.

    In the end your paying 5-8K for no noticeable speed gain and moving what used to be nicely concealed inside a box (HDs, Video cards etc.) onto your desk.

    No thanks.

    Julesvm 0Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    • video / 3D pros need the multi-threaded processor, making the iMac pointlessmonospaced
    • we all use mac pros (old silver tower)... not saying it's useless, just saying the new one isn't markedly betterJulesvm
    • The iMac is multicore m8animatedgif
    • yes, it's multicore, but not 8-12 core, not even close, and only 1 vid cardmonospaced
    • If you live and breath FCPX it's a great update, otherwise it's a hard decision until other apps support the dual Fire GPUs via OpenCL.evilpeacock
    • So I'm getting more and more into video/3D - an iMac is not a good choice? I'm on the verge of new machine...MrT
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread