Recent Mac Pro performance tests

What makes you think something like an iMac ( all in one ) can't handle 4K well. I see it handling 4K well every day. (lie: except on Sundays.)

Scrubelicious wrote:

Darren Roark wrote:

BenB wrote: I see these Mac Pro R3D test as in more... look what it can do but not what you should do.

I was commenting on wether or not the new Mac Pro was worth thousands more than a maxed out iMac. My point I tried to make was that expandability and upgradeability is worth the extra money in the long run in my opinion.

I misspoke that 2011 iMacs and MBPs can’t edit 4K well. They do handle prores no problem, I meant .r3d files. On set I have to do quick rough cuts and color corrections and don’t have time to transcode. My 2011 MBP 15” was sluggish with the red files, so I had to upgrade to the retina after only having it a year and a half. (Small price to pay for portability though.)

A five year old Mac Pro can be updated with a $500 GPU to become a very capable 4K FCP X workstation with another couple years of usefulness ahead. The new Mac Pro will be useful for at least five or six years or more depending on what upgrades get done. A five year old iMac can run FCP X, but an updated 2009 Mac Pro runs circles around it.

Both setups are with a 256GB SSD and 32GB RAM:

Current Quad Core iMac maxed out - $3149
Price per month for three years - $87.47

Mac Pro 2013 Six Core, dual D700 GPUs $4999
Price per month for three years $138.86
Price per month for five years - $83.31

For an extra $50 a month you get a much faster computer that will stay useful much longer. If you figure five years, it’s $4 less a month and the hardware can be upgraded.

I’ll stop being the guy who sits next to you on an airplane who won’t shut up now.