• Blogs
• Forums
• Tradeshows
• Partners
• White Papers
• Podcast Show Notes
• Events

Apple Mac Pro vs. MacBook Pro Test Drive, Part 2

Sep 28, 2009 12:00 PM, By Jan Ozer

           

Back again, comparing the performance of an Apple MacBook Pro (3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 8GB of 1067MHz DDR3 RAM) with a Mac Pro (2.93GHz quad-core Nehalem Xeon CPUs with 18GB of 1067MHz DDR3 RAM) in a range of editing and encoding chores (read about the two computers' specs). The Mac Pro has an obvious advantage in power; the big question is whether the speed advantage will be sufficient to outweigh the hassle of carrying (or shipping) a desktop computer around, rather than a notebook.

Table 1: Comparing rendering times for preview in Apple Final Cut Pro.

Apple Final Cut Pro tests: previewing

All projects are different, and editing responsiveness is difficult to objectively measure. During the real-world projects that I edited in Apple Final Cut Pro—which were all single-camera DV, AVCHD, or HDV shoots—I felt very little subjective difference in editing responsiveness, which was quite snappy on both platforms.

Related Links

Apple Mac Pro vs. MacBook Pro Test Drive, Part 1 Month after month, one of the most widely researched topics on the millimeter site is the performance difference between an Apple Mac Pro and a MacBook Pro. Given that I have brand-new models of both computers in my office, it felt like it was time to revisit the issue... Apple Snow Leopard for Video Producers, Part 1 Apple's new Snow Leopard (or OS X 10.6) is the type of release that delivers incremental advancements on the surface, but exponential enhancements below the waterline--though many will take months, if not years, to truly start bearing fruit... Test Drive: Apple Mac Pro, Part 1 I have in my hands an Intel Nehalem-based Apple Mac Pro, specifically a 2.93GHz dual-processor, quad-core unit running Mac OS 10.5.7 with 12GB of RAM and an ATI Radeon HD 4870 driving a beautiful Apple LED Cinema Display...

To gain some objective results, I performed three tests on the two computers: first adding a 10-second Apple Motion title to an AVCHD project and rendering for preview, then rendering a 1-second cross-zoom transition, and then rendering a 10-second 720p greenscreen effect. The results are presented in Table 1 in seconds.

Though I don't particularly enjoy waiting for Final Cut Pro to convert AVCHD footage to ProRes 422 during ingest, editing in ProRes is generally worth the wait, especially on lower-power computers—not that you have any choice. Probably because ProRes is so efficient, none of the results presented in Table 1 convince me that I need to take my Mac Pro on location. If you're working with more complex or higher-data-rate footage, or more effects, your conclusion might be different.