First flight today, with some impressions and comments

[dougcjohn]

I guess it depends how old, and how expensive the Mac Pro is (they're hella expensive.)

My system is an AMD Ryzen 3900X, Nvidia 2080 Super, 32GB high-spec RAM, etc. edit: It's one of the fastest video rendering system I've seen, other than seeing people with the latest Mac Pro stuff. This is stronger than my dual-CPU 24-core Xeon 192GB RAM setup that's aging a bit, but I have a feeling it has a lot to do with lack of proper GPU on the Xeon.

Also, I wasn't dogging the Mac hardware -- I was just asking what specific benefits were seen by moving from PC to Mac, other than software options. If that's the case, then so be it. Software preference is obviously VERY important.

That's a great processor and nice GPU. You've built a nice performing system... although your 32GB is limiting your potential in editing, bumping that up to 64GB would be noticeable.

It's a nice new processor and it's 12 core does very well... and yes on many tasks, will outperform 24 cores. Other tasks, the 24 would be well utilized. The RTX 2080 Super 8GB is a great GPU, focused primarily towards gaming and vector graphics... and video editing would be well served.

No "dog" issues, was just expressing the benefits of a Mac side build up that avoids the typical $10-20k Mac cost for comparible to an older build-up. Windows hardware will be lower... I was focused on the Mac side with inquiring questions on benefits.

In comparison, the 2080 provides
3072 CUDA cores with 8GB, the 1080Ti provides 3584 CUDA cores with 11GB.

For video, the faster speed of the 2080 and higher GB of the 1080 provides close to the same video performance... edge goes to the newer GPU most likely. In 2D Ortho and 3D modeling, the 500 additional CUDA would provide additional processing... depends on the task at hand.

Overall, comproable systems on whole.
The FCP Editor may have an edge in some opinions, has a different methodology in processing and workflow that many perfer, but that's more preference in some respects.

In my opinion working on multiple platforms daily, I simply perfer the Unix architecture the Mac OS provides. Not just for memory operations or differences in file structure, the flexibly in the OS system and lack of license or activation issues is a benefit. Prior to Windows 10 64bit architecture, the Mac's architecture provided more benefits for large programs. Plus, I prefer running Mac products and Windows products and that's only possible with Macs.

The Mac side does come generally at a higher cost and Windows boxes are more common and availability for components. A minor self-justification when able to build up a Mac at a reasonable cost.

Systems as in your build or a revamped Mac Pro provide strong video editing... it sounds like similar total component costs too.

 

[scrampker]

There's really nothing that prevents a Mac from having this exact hardware. I thought we were talking about something specific to the OS or software that made a discernable difference in the actual video file output. I've got no problem with people having software preference--was just looking for clarity.

Yeah 32GB is weak for huge video projects, though surprisingly no real lag on the software I'm using, anyhow. If I was actually doing editing for a living, I'd probably pop in a Quadro. The p4000 I have on my desk is worthless for h.265 hardware rendering. 1080Ti can do most of the HVEC tasks, but is missing some features in comparison, according to Nvidia. That being said, the GPU is much less important than the CPU, RAM, and disk, when it comes to editing.

Perhaps I misunderstood the original point of why people moved from Mac to PC. It's the same hardware architecture, so obviously that's not it. Perhaps just a preference for Final Cut Pro? It's definitely popular.

For some, this chart might come in handy. Video Encode and Decode GPU Support Matrix [NEW]

 

[dougcjohn]

There's really nothing that prevents a Mac from having this exact hardware. I thought we were talking about something specific to the OS or software that made a discernable difference in the actual video file output. I've got no problem with people having software preference--was just looking for clarity.

Yeah 32GB is weak for huge video projects, though surprisingly no real lag on the software I'm using, anyhow. If I was actually doing editing for a living, I'd probably pop in a Quadro. The p4000 I have on my desk is worthless for h.265 hardware rendering. 1080Ti can do most of the HVEC tasks, but is missing some features in comparison, according to Nvidia. That being said, the GPU is much less important than the CPU, RAM, and disk, when it comes to editing.

Perhaps I misunderstood the original point of why people moved from Mac to PC. It's the same hardware architecture, so obviously that's not it. Perhaps just a preference for Final Cut Pro? It's definitely popular.

For some, this chart might come in handy. Video Encode and Decode GPU Support Matrix [NEW]

True, lacking some of the HEVC 4.4.4 on the card, although Compressor (FCP piece) handles the gamet of Encoding & Compressions the FCP supports. The B-Frame isn't supported by Apple, they provide a list of reasons and alternates.

None of those have played a factor in my scope or probably most.

I'd agree, if this was a profession I'd be taking a different approach than a hobby passion. Both our systems would be way under my desired system... and a pittance in value comparison.