New computer, what to get?

We currently have an older Macbook Pro with FC Pro 7 installed. It is getting pretty slow when rendering. Was considering getting a new computer. The laptop is (I think) 4gb RAM, Intel Core 2 duo so there's definite room for improvement.

I would appreciate your all's input here... so, some thoughts and questions:

  • Unfortunately, cost is a factor. But I will sacrifice "new" for more features/specs. Will need to balance between what I can get (like, I know a 12-core 3tb machine is likely out of the question) with my wallet. Would like to stick in the $1000-ish range, even if used.
  • How much do the cores factor into rendering and speed of editng? From my reading, at a minimum, I would want a 4-core machine, but probably 8-core is closer to a real boon.
  • Given that ^^, another Macbook Pro will likely not suffice. So what's the trade off between an iMac and a Mac Pro? Or does anyone do real editing with a Macbook Pro?
  • How's about the processor? i5, i7, Xeon...? 2.8gHz, 3.2, etc? How does this relate to the cores?
  • What should I be looking at minimally for memory? 8gb? 16gb?
  • What do you all do for storage from project to project? Do you buy a new external hard drive for each? Do you have multiple HD's in your system? Have a big ol' NAS somewhere? etc.
  • Lastly, do you have edit with the source files on an external drive (like connected via USB)? Do you notice any performance hit? I would think the read/write would be slower but figured I'd ask.

Thanks, all!

Tom
 
To answer your technical questions:
How does the number of cores factor into the rendering process?
This depends on the software you use to render your videos. Some can handle several cores, some cannot. If your main software does not, look into getting powerful cores but at a lesser number.

How does the mhz rating work in relation with the number of cores?
Well they don't, they're unrelated. When you look for a processor you can use the mhz (clock cycles per second) to compare between the same microchip architecture. For example, you can't use the mhz rating to compare an Intel chip and an AMD chip, they're just completely different beasts.
On the other hand, if you're comparing two i7s with similar specs but one has a higher mhz number, then each core in that one is most likely faster than the other. Having said that, newer is usually better. Things get more efficient and so less energy and effort is needed to get the same result.
Your best bet in choosing a processor is to look online at comparison websites that run them through a series of performance tests and rate them depending on how well they do. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

8gb or 16gb of RAM?
For editing, ideally you need 8gb or more (according to a recent discussion). More is always better so long as you don't go beyond your system's limit (don't get a cheap processor and add on 64 gigs of RAM, it will be wasted. Make sure your mother board can use that much RAM too).

Do you edit from an external drive using a USB?
No. Unless you have a very recent computer and external HDD (Hard Disk Drive), then no, because USB 2.0 is very slow compared to SATAIII. You don't want to create choke-points or "bottle necks" for no reason, especially if you're spending a lot of money on a system.
Having said that, I expect your HDD will be the slowest component in your computer, it usually is these days unless you get a SSD.

Where do I get my info? I recently built my own PC. I'm not an expert (feel free to correct me if I make a mistake) but I researched it for months before buying the parts.
 
Last edited:
You forgot to mention what you're going to use the computer for. If you're just script writing, then what you have is fine.

If you're going to edit, the software you're using can become a factor as some are more CPU based, others can be more ram/hdd based. It can also depend on what the source files are and how you use them and so on.

If you're doing sfx work, this changes everything...

So back to you... what you using it for?
 
You forgot to mention what you're going to use the computer for. If you're just script writing, then what you have is fine.

If you're going to edit, the software you're using can become a factor as some are more CPU based, others can be more ram/hdd based. It can also depend on what the source files are and how you use them and so on.

If you're doing sfx work, this changes everything...

So back to you... what you using it for?
Should have been more clear in my OP. We do use the current laptop for screenwriting, but also for editing. Using FCP7. How would I find out whether FCP7 is "more CPU based" or "ram/hdd based"?

The source files are from a T2i, at least for now -- HD avi's.

Thanks!
 
How does the number of cores factor into the rendering process?
This depends on the software you use to render your videos. Some can handle several cores, some cannot. If your main software does not, look into getting powerful cores but at a lesser number.
How do you define "powerful core"? Are you talking about i3, i5, etc.? I assume an i7 dual core would be more powerful than an i4 dual core... but what about an older processor with 4 or 8 cores? I ask because I can get a used Mac Pro with 8 or 16 cores. But then I see that the newer iMacs have only 2 or 4 cores. But I realize 8 doesn't mean "better". How in the world would I compare them?

Your best bet in choosing a processor is to look online at comparison websites that run them through a series of performance tests and rate them depending on how well they do. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/
Nice -- thanks.

8gb or 16gb of RAM?
For editing, ideally you need 8gb or more (according to a recent discussion). More is always better so long as you don't go beyond your system's limit (don't get a cheap processor and add on 64 gigs of RAM, it will be wasted. Make sure your mother board can use that much RAM too).
Gotcha -- I have experienced that myself with the various PC's I've owned.

Do you edit from an external drive using a USB?
No. Unless you have a very recent computer and external HDD (Hard Disk Drive), then no, because USB 2.0 is very slow compared to SATAIII. You don't want to create choke-points or "bottle necks" for no reason, especially if you're spending a lot of money on a system.
Having said that, I expect your HDD will be the slowest component in your computer, it usually is these days unless you get a SSD.
I kind of figured... at some point I will invest in a big fat NAS to store source files from old projects. But I think getting a 1 TB HD (probably won't have SSD since it will be used) for now in the new system will be fine.

BTW, what's your take on SSD's these days? Last I heard, they were still a little flaky -- potentially faster more unreliable?

Thanks for your insight!
 
Should have been more clear in my OP. We do use the current laptop for screenwriting, but also for editing. Using FCP7. How would I find out whether FCP7 is "more CPU based" or "ram/hdd based"?

Google. From what I've heard, it's more CPU based, but there is a bottle necks it'll slow down the other aspects.


BTW, what's your take on SSD's these days? Last I heard, they were still a little flaky -- potentially faster more unreliable?

I personally like them. Just make sure you have backups. This is true regardless of what type of hard drive you have. SSD drives are very good for editing.
 
How do you define a powerful core? How would I compare them?
A processor has several cores, each of which is designed to work at a certain speed, say 3.6ghz like my quad core i7-3820. You just need to find a processor that has faster individual cores, that's all. And that only applies if your software can't do multi-core rendering. Most recent software can.
Just put the name of both processors into that comparison site, it will tell you. :)

SSDs:
It's funny, people say "my HDD died" all the time but that's never happened to me, ever, in my 15 years around computers. I've never had one of my computers run into any kind of issue due to a component dying.

My SSD is holding out well so far, but it's only 4 months old right now so I can't tell you more beyond that. For the price I paid, the gain in speed is worth it so long as your budget can allow it.
You can't have an SSD on its own either, they're not designed to be used in the same way HDDs are. They're limited in that they have a fixed number of write cycles and writing to them gets slower as time goes on. Theoretically, this life span is the same as HDDs anyway so there's not much to worry about. HDDs get slower too, as they fill up and get reused, and you have to constantly defragment them whereas SSDs are digital and allow for random, non-mechanical access. HDDs are slow because they're mechanical (they have to start spinning and then a device moves to the relevant places to detect the data somewhat like on a vinyl record).

SSD vs HDD
+ So much faster it's astounding. 6gb per second!
+ More energy efficient
+ Easier maintenance
- It's a relatively new technology so some questions still remain unanswered such as durability and life time
- Price: "Cost per gigabyte is only around $0.075/GB these days for an HDD (based on buying a 4TB model), amazing when you compare it to the $1.00/GB cost for an SSD (240GB model)" http://www.storagereview.com/ssd_vs_hdd
- If you get an SSD you ideally need a HDD anyway! They perform different tasks when used together and work as a synergy rather than replacements.
+ Did I mention they're damn fast? Haha
 
Last edited:
Double-checked with my wife, who does the editing... nope -- they're .mov's. I can't keep up with all these formats :)

Some of it comes down to the codec that you'll be using. Both in source and output. h.264 is the popular codec at the moment, especially with dslr footage, and is usually intensive on on the cpu.

I guess your best course of action is to determine where your current bottleneck is and take a good hard look at upgrading that part. Take consideration of other areas where you're close to the bottleneck and considering upgrading those too.
 
First things first:

Convert your .mov's to ProRes! This will make your computer run faster, edit faster and render faster as it's not constantly re-compressing.

Secondly, number of cores can be misleading. I've never done specific bench testing of Mac Pros vs iMac vs Macbook Pro etc.
From what I hear, an i7 is very capable and you don't necessarily need 4+ older cores if you're using i7(s).

A retina Macbook Pro may be worth looking into - they are super fast, with SSDs (which are awesome), highly specced and the higher models are practically designed for this kinda work. Bit more expensive, but worth it IMO (my Retina MBP looks and performs wonderfully).

In terms of RAM, depends on your software, but more RAM is generally always better anyway. I tend to have ~8GB in my systems, but I know friends who have 16.

64-bit software and OS is heaps better and will increase your performance greatly. FCP7 is not 64-bit. In fact, if you're buying something new (or even used) I'd be checking to see if the newer OS's can still support FCP7. It's discontinued, so it's quite possible that newer Mac OS's have put in things which might break FCP7. Just something to look into. You'll get better performance out of a newer piece of software, but you won't necessarily get better/faster editing - if you change software you'll probably edit a lot slower as you learn it, but the performance of the program will be much quicker. Conversely, you'll likely edit a lot faster in FCP7, but the performance of the program won't be as good.
 
Back
Top