Apparently, according to this post over at Apple's forum,

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=437346&tstart=50

it references a German article where the author claims up to 400% increases in FCP rendering on a new Intel PowerMac.

Anybody else seeing similar results? Makes me want to run out and get a new machine :)

Apparently, according to this post over at Apple's forum,

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=437346&tstart=50

it references a German article where the author claims up to 400% increases in FCP rendering on a new Intel PowerMac.

Anybody else seeing similar results? Makes me want to run out and get a new machine :)

There is currently no Intel Power Mac. The only Intel units are the Imac and Macbook Pro notebook. However, that being said, I can easily imagine FCP running that much faster on the dual core Imac.

-gb-

Update: Just read that thread on Apple's site. The Universal Binary version has slightly improved render performance for the PPC based machines, but it literally screams on the Intel based iMac and Macbook Pro.

duh, yes I was a little quick to type there, the test was indeed done on a MacBook Pro. I am looking at getting my first Mac for home (currently run FCP at work on G5 PowerMacs), and it seems even the new Intel iMac may be a decent performer. Some people are even reporting good performance on the CoreDuo MacMini, although running FCP Studio is not officially supported by Apple.

duh, yes I was a little quick to type there, the test was indeed done on a MacBook Pro. I am looking at getting my first Mac for home (currently run FCP at work on G5 PowerMacs), and it seems even the new Intel iMac may be a decent performer. Some people are even reporting good performance on the CoreDuo MacMini, although running FCP Studio is not officially supported by Apple.

Hi Kaspar,

I have the 1.8 PPC 20" Imac. Bought it a year ago after some associates sold me on the idea of using the FCP bundle for editing. The current Imac would run circles around mine but you lose the ability to do much upgrading with the Imac. No replacable video card, no HD capture card even if the system is fast enough to edit HD. I just didn't want to spend a lot of money on my first Mac in case I was disappointed. I certainly have not been disappointed with the tight integration of OSX and the apps. So next time out will be a Power Mac for me. ;-)

-gb-

Greg,
My camera selection is limited to a Canon G2 and possibly a Sony A1U HDV in the near future ;) Both work fine with Firewire capture so I'm ok without a dedicated HD card.
The built-in graphics card is more of a concern since I'd like to doodle with Motion as well. But as far as I can tell the X1600 they are including is actually a decent, and current middle-of-the road card (unlike some previous Apple offerings where the cards lagged far behind the PC world), and fully supports Motion so I can probably live with that for the next 3-4 years.

Beyond that the iMac supports 2GB of RAM and adding external storage is easy. I believe it also for the first time supports an extended desktop on a second monitor (not just a mirrored image), so a 2 monitor setup is also possible.

kaspar

Beyond that the iMac supports 2GB of RAM and adding external storage is easy. I believe it also for the first time supports an extended desktop on a second monitor (not just a mirrored image), so a 2 monitor setup is also possible.

That's correct. The new ones do support an extended desktop on second display. I do have mine maxed out to 2gb which is exactly what you want to do if running Motion since it can do ram render previews. The more ram, the more complex your preview can be.

Yes, you would be fine with one of the new Imac systems. As for external storage, there is a company that makes external drives for the Mac Mini and the enclosure fits perfectly on the monitor stand underneath the monitor.

Thanks for posting that link earlier. Didn't realize how much improvement there would be running the pro apps on native code. Now we know!

-gb-

Wow... an Intel mini whips a dual 2.0 G5. I may need to re-think my upgrade timeline for my dual 2.5 G5 ;-)

I think that was an Intel iMac and MacBook Pro ... not a mini in that article. (or was there another reference to a mini that I missed)

FCS Universal is my first experience with editing on a Mac. Just started in the last week, using an old 1.25 Dual G4 ... but very happy with the DV performance and workflow.

Most of my Mac work to date has been with CineAlta shots in Shake or Cinema 4D, so a little DV editing is smooth as silk. :)

Saving my pennies now, though, for a nice Intel-based Mac workstation when those come out. .... (MacDesk Pro ?? MacStation Pro ??)

I think that was an Intel iMac and MacBook Pro ... not a mini in that article.

Oops, looks like you're right. But based on those numbers one might expect the mini to also handily beat a dual G5 since the render took over 3 minutes on the dual 2.0 G5 and less than one minute on the the iMac and MacBook.

Boyd, don't forget that the minis use Intel shared-memory GPUs. As a result, any graphics-intensive operations severely affect the performance of the memory bus. This is not the case with the other Intel-based Macs, because they employ GPUs with dedicated V-RAM. So I'd expect the minis to do quite a bit poorer than the other MacIntels as far as FCP-performance is concerned. And you can probably forget Motion altogether...

That could be true.... don't worry, I'm not ready to trade in my dual G5 quite yet though ;-) But I don't think FCP makes very heavy use of the graphics card, does it? You're certainly right about Motion however. It will be interesting to see more user reports as people try out the new machines.