Multimedia
Aug 21, 05:43 AM
I stopped by the Apple store tonight to play with a Macpro. I'm getting ready to buy and thought I'd get some hands on experience to see how it performed with Finalcut Pro. I was especially interested in how it handles playback of uncompressed footage.
The store had a 2.6 hooked up to a 30"ACD. Everything on the machine was stock. I launched FCP and it appeared with a project already loaded (about 5 seconds). The project was a simple 20-30 second 720x480 NTSC clip of hockey game footage. I selected the clip and copied it to a new layer and threw a blend mode on it AND changed the speed to 85%. Next I copied and made another layer and changed the speed and offset it and changed the transparency to 80%. 3 layers total with the top two manipulated. I hit the render and it finished in about 30 seconds. :)
I know, not very scientific, but I just wanted to get a feel for how fast the Macpro would render manipulated footage. Anyhow, next I changed the output in project settings to "uncompressed" and hit render again. Again, it took less than a minute to render and the CPU usage in console was maxing out at only 42% per core.
Once the render completed, I hit the play button to see how the stock Macpro would handle playback of the uncompressed footage. It played for about 4 seconds then threw an error saying that frames were being dropped during playback. Not good. I was hoping that the Macpro would be able to play uncompressed footage from the timeline without 3rd party acceleration or setting up a raid. The error message suggested turning off RT effects (of which I did, but still had dropped frames) or get a faster drive. There was a couple other things the error suggested, but I can't remember at the moment. I wonder if having the ATI card would have made a difference? Not sure if FCP uses the GPU for playback, but I would think that should make a difference. Ram would probably help too. Anyone know what might be going on? Am I expecting too much out of this machine?
Sorry for sort of getting off topic. I thought this might be an appropriate area to post this; I wasn't feeling up to starting a new thread.That's great info. Would you please tell us:
1. How fast that is compared to what Mac model-speed you are currently using?
2. IE Were you impressed or not so impressed with how fast-slow it rendered?
3. What kind of speed were you expecting?
I'm no expert, but my guess is that the lack of RAM may have been the culprit. Need more independent tests like this from other FCP users. Thanks a lot. :)
The store had a 2.6 hooked up to a 30"ACD. Everything on the machine was stock. I launched FCP and it appeared with a project already loaded (about 5 seconds). The project was a simple 20-30 second 720x480 NTSC clip of hockey game footage. I selected the clip and copied it to a new layer and threw a blend mode on it AND changed the speed to 85%. Next I copied and made another layer and changed the speed and offset it and changed the transparency to 80%. 3 layers total with the top two manipulated. I hit the render and it finished in about 30 seconds. :)
I know, not very scientific, but I just wanted to get a feel for how fast the Macpro would render manipulated footage. Anyhow, next I changed the output in project settings to "uncompressed" and hit render again. Again, it took less than a minute to render and the CPU usage in console was maxing out at only 42% per core.
Once the render completed, I hit the play button to see how the stock Macpro would handle playback of the uncompressed footage. It played for about 4 seconds then threw an error saying that frames were being dropped during playback. Not good. I was hoping that the Macpro would be able to play uncompressed footage from the timeline without 3rd party acceleration or setting up a raid. The error message suggested turning off RT effects (of which I did, but still had dropped frames) or get a faster drive. There was a couple other things the error suggested, but I can't remember at the moment. I wonder if having the ATI card would have made a difference? Not sure if FCP uses the GPU for playback, but I would think that should make a difference. Ram would probably help too. Anyone know what might be going on? Am I expecting too much out of this machine?
Sorry for sort of getting off topic. I thought this might be an appropriate area to post this; I wasn't feeling up to starting a new thread.That's great info. Would you please tell us:
1. How fast that is compared to what Mac model-speed you are currently using?
2. IE Were you impressed or not so impressed with how fast-slow it rendered?
3. What kind of speed were you expecting?
I'm no expert, but my guess is that the lack of RAM may have been the culprit. Need more independent tests like this from other FCP users. Thanks a lot. :)
dscuber9000
Mar 22, 10:52 PM
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition:
Do you think the scale of our intervention is anywhere close to the scale of our intervention in Iraq? We don't even have any troops in Libya! We barely even need a coalition at all! I'm sorry that you're still sore about how the war in Iraq went, but trying to compare this to it is just stupid. Just stupid.
Do you think the scale of our intervention is anywhere close to the scale of our intervention in Iraq? We don't even have any troops in Libya! We barely even need a coalition at all! I'm sorry that you're still sore about how the war in Iraq went, but trying to compare this to it is just stupid. Just stupid.
jeremy.king
Jun 15, 09:58 AM
My wife walked into store about an hour ago. Reserved a 16GB and a 32GB without issue. We were offered store credit for trade-ins but don't have to decide until we purchase, and $20 accessory credit as well. We were informed that we may not get them on launch day, but we would have them by 6/28 at the latest. I'm fine with this, and so far I'm pleased with Radio Shack.
coolbreeze
Apr 7, 11:30 PM
You people don't know the facts and are jumping to conclusions. You need to realize that this is a RUMOR site....
Share the facts then sir.
We are reacting to a rumor on a rumor site.
:confused:
AppleBestBuy? (applebb)?
Share the facts then sir.
We are reacting to a rumor on a rumor site.
:confused:
AppleBestBuy? (applebb)?
tyroja00
Sep 19, 08:02 AM
Apple's reliability? Care to elaborate more specifically? Good high quality well designed never dying logic boards that run at 40-ish degrees Celsius for one? :p
Well I have had 5 PC laptops in the past 7 years, through work and personal use. Other than the IBM, I have had various unacceptable problems from frequent crashes to jacked-up touchpads that go where they please. My second hand PB has yet to do anything, not one crash. Also, I have taken apart my laptops (b/c I am a geek like that) and I must say that Apple laptops are a work of pure attention to detail. Finally, just read consumer reports for reliability. Apple smokes everyone. But, I also think that a lot of issues arise in PC's due to people not knowing how to maintain their computers and their computer's software.
Well I have had 5 PC laptops in the past 7 years, through work and personal use. Other than the IBM, I have had various unacceptable problems from frequent crashes to jacked-up touchpads that go where they please. My second hand PB has yet to do anything, not one crash. Also, I have taken apart my laptops (b/c I am a geek like that) and I must say that Apple laptops are a work of pure attention to detail. Finally, just read consumer reports for reliability. Apple smokes everyone. But, I also think that a lot of issues arise in PC's due to people not knowing how to maintain their computers and their computer's software.
-SD-
Nov 12, 09:58 AM
Sony have set a new release date: November 24th (this year, if you were wondering). So then, 12 days to go, unless you're one of the lucky ones who's already managed to get a copy ;)
:apple:
:apple:
~Shard~
Jul 14, 02:33 PM
Maybe one of the drives will be Blu-Ray.
... and the other one HD-DVD! :eek: ;) :D
... and the other one HD-DVD! :eek: ;) :D
Half Glass
Aug 18, 11:29 PM
"Quad Core Ready" - that would make a nice bullet on a software package wouldn't it?
Better yet: "MultiCore Ready".
So the webpages at Apple.com suggest the improvement of Xeon vs Quad G5 in FCP of 1.3- 1.4 times as fast as the Quad G5.
However, notice that it is footnoted that these results were obtained using a Beta version of FCP:
flower clip art free lack and
lack and white flower clip
clip art trees lack and white
free clip art flowers black
flower clip art black and
Delicate white flowers on a
lack and white flower clipart
This lack and white clipart
flower clip art black and
lack and white flower clip
People Clip Art of Black and
Better yet: "MultiCore Ready".
So the webpages at Apple.com suggest the improvement of Xeon vs Quad G5 in FCP of 1.3- 1.4 times as fast as the Quad G5.
However, notice that it is footnoted that these results were obtained using a Beta version of FCP:
Macinposh
Aug 17, 02:55 PM
I have a new 3.0 Intel- just letting you know they are not as close as Rob's test under real world performance. Adobe camera raw really screamed on my G5 and is noticibly slower and a bit buggy on my new Mac Pro. Start up is alot slower, etc, etc. He only tested MP aware processes which isn't the whole picture.
Have you used cs2s or canon�s raw converters? How do they work?
What is the general feeling of yours how the new machine works in photog business?
2 x 2 drive stripe raids.
So you have 4hdds in total,with 2 of each in raid 0 or what?
Do you have the os on one pair and scratch on the other pair?
Ordering the new rig in couple of weeks,so i am buggin you now.
Have you used cs2s or canon�s raw converters? How do they work?
What is the general feeling of yours how the new machine works in photog business?
2 x 2 drive stripe raids.
So you have 4hdds in total,with 2 of each in raid 0 or what?
Do you have the os on one pair and scratch on the other pair?
Ordering the new rig in couple of weeks,so i am buggin you now.
AtHomeBoy_2000
Aug 5, 05:38 PM
BitTorrent is great if you're using a cable modem or DSL with almost equal upload/download ratios.But I'm using a Satellite..Downloads are great but the uploads are only 256k
Nothing wrong with leaching if you have to ;)
Nothing wrong with leaching if you have to ;)
LegendKillerUK
Apr 6, 02:34 PM
That's a common misreading of what Jobs said.
iOS was developed for the phone first.
As Jobs explained, there was a simple UI demo done on a touch device originally designed to be a keyboard input prototype. That demo gave him the idea to go all touch on the iPhone. That's what he meant by "the tablet came first".
Since we know that during summer/fall the first iPhone UI concepts were done using iPods with wheels, his touch "eureka" moment probably came in late with the UI demo almost certainly done under OSX.
According to all known histories, the actual creation of iOS didn't begin until 2006. Prior to that, some at Apple were still proposing using Linux for the phone OS.
But he then said after how well it would work on the phone, they put the tablet project on the shelf and focused on the phone as it was more important. Which means it was a tablet and no just a touch screen device in the beginning.
iOS was developed for the phone first.
As Jobs explained, there was a simple UI demo done on a touch device originally designed to be a keyboard input prototype. That demo gave him the idea to go all touch on the iPhone. That's what he meant by "the tablet came first".
Since we know that during summer/fall the first iPhone UI concepts were done using iPods with wheels, his touch "eureka" moment probably came in late with the UI demo almost certainly done under OSX.
According to all known histories, the actual creation of iOS didn't begin until 2006. Prior to that, some at Apple were still proposing using Linux for the phone OS.
But he then said after how well it would work on the phone, they put the tablet project on the shelf and focused on the phone as it was more important. Which means it was a tablet and no just a touch screen device in the beginning.
Michael383
Apr 8, 05:34 AM
Why anyone would ever choose to buy an Apple product at Best Buy over the Apple Store is beyond me. :confused:
Because the price points at the Apple store and the Best Buy where I bought my MBP were the same.
Because the price points at the Apple store and the Best Buy where I bought my MBP were the same.
EvilEvil
Apr 11, 03:55 PM
makes my recent iphone 4 purchase look like a good decision. Sorry for those who are waiting for the 5 :o
qft!
qft!
MyDesktopBroke
Apr 27, 09:06 AM
Barack Husein Obama was born in Kenya! Now we have proof!!! Look, it says it right there!! :rolleyes:
Scottsdale
Apr 6, 11:59 AM
It would be about as fast. The IGP is 150MHz slower though so graphics wise it would be slightly slower. chrmjenkins explained some smaller details but in terms of performance, i7-2649M should be similar to i5-2520M.
Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but the Windows numbers don't correspond to OS X numbers.
Are you smoking something? Sure the IGP used in SB 13" MBP might get some fudged numbers by those who report for Apple, but you think the ULV SB IGP is going to even compare to the 320m on any level??? Huh? You are far smarter than that.
A lot of people using the 13" MBP in comparison when there are almost no similaries.
I don't believe a ULV CPU gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe this CPU in the story gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe Apple is dumb enough to ruin the MBA brand AGAIN with Intel's IGP at this time. I don't believe that what Apple does in the 13" MBP has any correlation with the MBA because the IGP is different. I believe when Apple and Nvidia said Apple will use the Nvidia chipset and GPU for a long time they were specifically citing the MBA, as it make no sense for the MBA to be so challenged as to get such an inferior design leading to tragic real world results.
In 2012 the MBA will get an update when it actually makes sense. People waiting for a ULV SB chip in the 13" MBA will be waiting a long time. People waiting or expecting SB IGP to even compare in ULV variants will be waiting forever as they cannot match the Nvidia offering with the underclocked IGP.
This story is ridiculous as written.
Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but the Windows numbers don't correspond to OS X numbers.
Are you smoking something? Sure the IGP used in SB 13" MBP might get some fudged numbers by those who report for Apple, but you think the ULV SB IGP is going to even compare to the 320m on any level??? Huh? You are far smarter than that.
A lot of people using the 13" MBP in comparison when there are almost no similaries.
I don't believe a ULV CPU gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe this CPU in the story gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe Apple is dumb enough to ruin the MBA brand AGAIN with Intel's IGP at this time. I don't believe that what Apple does in the 13" MBP has any correlation with the MBA because the IGP is different. I believe when Apple and Nvidia said Apple will use the Nvidia chipset and GPU for a long time they were specifically citing the MBA, as it make no sense for the MBA to be so challenged as to get such an inferior design leading to tragic real world results.
In 2012 the MBA will get an update when it actually makes sense. People waiting for a ULV SB chip in the 13" MBA will be waiting a long time. People waiting or expecting SB IGP to even compare in ULV variants will be waiting forever as they cannot match the Nvidia offering with the underclocked IGP.
This story is ridiculous as written.
citizenzen
Mar 22, 08:19 PM
It is obvious the UN has taken sides here, no doubt about it. Do you disagree with that decision?
The U.N. Security Council perhaps, but not the entire assembly. It would have been interesting to open that issue up to debate and seen how all the members would have voted.
What I always wonder is what diplomatic efforts were used to pressure Qaddafi? There were no (as far as I know) threats of economic embargoes, freezing of assets, or other less violent methods to coerce Qaddafi. We didn't need to convince him to step dow. We simply needed to convince him that he needed to tone down, defend himself against the armed insurrection, but not cast a wider and violent campaign against innocent civilians.
I need a clearer demonstration that serious steps were taken before resorting to war. War should be used as the last resort and only when it's clear that all other options have failed.
The U.N. Security Council perhaps, but not the entire assembly. It would have been interesting to open that issue up to debate and seen how all the members would have voted.
What I always wonder is what diplomatic efforts were used to pressure Qaddafi? There were no (as far as I know) threats of economic embargoes, freezing of assets, or other less violent methods to coerce Qaddafi. We didn't need to convince him to step dow. We simply needed to convince him that he needed to tone down, defend himself against the armed insurrection, but not cast a wider and violent campaign against innocent civilians.
I need a clearer demonstration that serious steps were taken before resorting to war. War should be used as the last resort and only when it's clear that all other options have failed.
manu chao
Apr 27, 08:24 AM
Keeping a database of our general location is logging our location.
Yes, but
a) there is a difference between logging where you have been and storing the timestamp of when you have been there, I don't think Apple needs to or should have stored the timestamp
b) restricting the database to all locations you been to in the last seven days greatly diminishes the harm potential
Apple admitted (b), and said they would fix it. They might also fix (a).
Anybody who connects to a WiFi network automatically stores its SSID (unless you tell your iOS device to forget the network every time after your done). This alone is a record of your location (though again, the list of WiFi networks could be stripped of its access date, ie, issue (a)).
Yes, but
a) there is a difference between logging where you have been and storing the timestamp of when you have been there, I don't think Apple needs to or should have stored the timestamp
b) restricting the database to all locations you been to in the last seven days greatly diminishes the harm potential
Apple admitted (b), and said they would fix it. They might also fix (a).
Anybody who connects to a WiFi network automatically stores its SSID (unless you tell your iOS device to forget the network every time after your done). This alone is a record of your location (though again, the list of WiFi networks could be stripped of its access date, ie, issue (a)).
dougny
Nov 29, 08:58 AM
Do you work for Universal, or the RIAA?
No actually, I represent recording artists, songwriters and producers. I am on the other side usually trying to fight the labels for every nickle an artist can try to get. However, because of that, I am on the same page with them in trying to get my artists and writers compensated from a digital marketplace that only pays for a small percentage of the material transferred. My artists only get paid for between 10 - 20% of the digital material out there (the rest pirated), so, anywhere we can get some income, even if through this flawed iPod royalty, I support.
I am just sick of people who think that they have a right to free music. Why don't you all think you have a right to free computers, or free software. How dare Apple charge you for iLife?
If all of you on here bought all of your music either from iTunes or from a record store, then, absolutely, complain away if that dollar is passed on to you. But, which is likely in just about every case, you have a few songs you burned off a friend's CD or downloaded from a file-sharing site, then shut up, you are the reason this is necessary.
No actually, I represent recording artists, songwriters and producers. I am on the other side usually trying to fight the labels for every nickle an artist can try to get. However, because of that, I am on the same page with them in trying to get my artists and writers compensated from a digital marketplace that only pays for a small percentage of the material transferred. My artists only get paid for between 10 - 20% of the digital material out there (the rest pirated), so, anywhere we can get some income, even if through this flawed iPod royalty, I support.
I am just sick of people who think that they have a right to free music. Why don't you all think you have a right to free computers, or free software. How dare Apple charge you for iLife?
If all of you on here bought all of your music either from iTunes or from a record store, then, absolutely, complain away if that dollar is passed on to you. But, which is likely in just about every case, you have a few songs you burned off a friend's CD or downloaded from a file-sharing site, then shut up, you are the reason this is necessary.
epitaphic
Aug 18, 09:12 PM
If you don't think you are going to ever use more than one thing at a time, then you are right. But I think most of us here have 10-15 things open at once and do all sorts of things at once. That's the reason for "Spaces" in Loepard.
We all probably have 15+ apps running at any time, but its very rare to have more than two hammering the CPU (unless its "automated" like with handbrake/toast). That is of course, unless you find yourself editing video whilst designing a website whilst laying out a book whilst writing some music whilst watching superman at the same time. ;)
We all probably have 15+ apps running at any time, but its very rare to have more than two hammering the CPU (unless its "automated" like with handbrake/toast). That is of course, unless you find yourself editing video whilst designing a website whilst laying out a book whilst writing some music whilst watching superman at the same time. ;)
gnasher729
Aug 17, 03:44 AM
1. The video cards are underclocked compared to their PC equivalents on the Mac.
Could you give some evidence for that, except that they are underclocked on the MacBook Pro _when they are idle_?
Could you give some evidence for that, except that they are underclocked on the MacBook Pro _when they are idle_?
pdjudd
Mar 31, 03:18 PM
The Motorola Xoom ships with Honeycomb. It has been released. You miss that???
The source hasn't been released. It's the source code that people are talking about. The source code that Google has always released up till now.
The source hasn't been released. It's the source code that people are talking about. The source code that Google has always released up till now.
Evangelion
Aug 17, 03:58 AM
But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
There were handful of benchmarks. If we disregard the non-universal apps, we get this:
Xeon is a lot faster in iMovie
In FCP it's a bit faster
in FileMaker it's A LOT faster
in Cinebench it's considerably faster
Are those really such a bad results? The apps that it was slower in (but not by much) were running through emulation, is that a fair comparison?
Looking at the other reviews around the net, it becomes quite obvious that apart from few apps, Mac Pro is considerably faster tham PowerMac. In compiling for example, it walks all over the G5
But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!
There were handful of benchmarks. If we disregard the non-universal apps, we get this:
Xeon is a lot faster in iMovie
In FCP it's a bit faster
in FileMaker it's A LOT faster
in Cinebench it's considerably faster
Are those really such a bad results? The apps that it was slower in (but not by much) were running through emulation, is that a fair comparison?
Looking at the other reviews around the net, it becomes quite obvious that apart from few apps, Mac Pro is considerably faster tham PowerMac. In compiling for example, it walks all over the G5
puggles
Jun 14, 07:42 PM
ok definitely not going to radio shack... they changed the time from 7AM to 1PM and are now giving out pins which will put your name on a list and they will call you as they are received to the store.... definitely not guaranteed! They also seemed really desperate for my business. Im guessing they also made the 1PM time so you will miss other pre orders and be stuck with them....unless you can pre order with apple and radio shack and cancel the apple one if radio shack does work out?
Chundles
Jul 27, 09:56 AM
at last, I may be able to build a system that will run Vista well!
Gee, talk about getting ahead of yourself.
Core 3 will be out before Vista is. I'm going to call it now.
Everybody, be my witness, Core 3 (any processor that goes beyond Core 2 because I don't know if they'll call it "Core 3") will be out before a consumer version of Vista is shipped.
Gee, talk about getting ahead of yourself.
Core 3 will be out before Vista is. I'm going to call it now.
Everybody, be my witness, Core 3 (any processor that goes beyond Core 2 because I don't know if they'll call it "Core 3") will be out before a consumer version of Vista is shipped.