Together, these are literally the machinery that make Premiere Pro and every other application run.There are now a lot of MacBook Pros to choose from and Apple’s falling out with NVidia together with the relative disappointment of FCPX has put a new spin on which machine to buy for video editing.Best budget system build for premiere pro cc 3 days ago by sankoor2012 Offline Media Link connects to media but doesnt save in project (NTFS drives) 4 days ago. It should be no surprise that Premiere Pro's performance depends on your computer hardware: CPU, GPU, RAM, storage, etc. The adoption rate of Premiere Pro was phenomenal.The Computer-Machine Analogy. In 2003, Adobe Premiere Pro was introduced as a successor to Premiere and a professional video editor. Initially, it supported macOS by default. Final Cut Pro: Which Is the Best Adobe's video editor, originally called Premiere, launched in 1991.
![]() Best Hardware For Premiere Free Since MacOSVersions after 10.1 have added support for 4K resolution and HD at 60fps. - Radeon 580 has faster clock speeday than the new Vega 56.iMovie is the default video editor for Mac, free since macOS 10. The space grey is not worth the.![]() ![]() Unless you are doing VERY heavy FX work on 5K RED footage, the quad core MacBook Pro can handle almost anything on the timeline in real-time without rendering – just like with CUDA. CUDA only accelerates timeline playback and so for time consuming things like encoding and overall system responsiveness (including multi-tasking with other apps like After Effects and Photoshop) the CPU is much more important, and I was effectivly getting a renderless timeline anyway with the fast CPU.4 cores result in double the performance over the 2010 dual core Intel i7. But I hate the way the pre-unibody chassis falls apart and the general unreliability of that system caused by faulty logic boards and a NVidia integration issue with their 8600 card.In the end I went for the latest 2011 17″ unibody MacBook Pro without CUDA but with a quad core i7 CPU, currently the best MacBook Pro available.I felt the extra investment was worth it. Is it worth the extra investment when you can get NVidia CUDA for almost half the price on a second hand dual core MacBook Pro?For many there’s also the much more reasonably priced option of a MacBook Pro from 2008 (pre-unibody) for under $1000 which has a Core 2 Duo 2.66Ghz processor that comes within 20% of matching the 2.53ghz dual core i5 of 2010. NVidia want to sell more desktop graphics cards, Adobe want to sell more software no matter which hardware it runs on, both depend on each-other for support.I was willing to pay more for a MacBook so I boiled my choice down to last year’s cheaper dual-core i5/i7 based MacBook Pro 17″ with NVidia 330M 512MB graphics that can be hacked to work with CUDA ( see EOSHD article on how to do that here) or the brand new (and more expensive) quad core i7 MacBook Pro 17″ with no CUDA but a very good AMD Radeon HD 6750M with 1024MB.This latest MacBook is a borderline gaming laptop but it costs over £2000 in the UK. Approximately 40 seconds to encode the benchmark’s H.264 sequence It doesn’t however include MacBook results, although you can run the tests, the app that outputs the results is written in Microsoft Visual Basic Script so won’t run on a Mac, annoyingly.If you get a close to these specs as your PC budget allows, you’ll be onto a winner. Personally if I was going for a PC it would be for cost reasons only, not outright performance.Currently the Premiere CS5/5.5 benchmark tells us which machines are the absolute kings for performance. I find that since Lion I am almost always running out of RAM so I have upped the default 4GB to 8GB – RAM is cheap these days so don’t hesitate!Now Lion is out so when OpenCL does become more widely supported in third party apps this laptop will really come into its own and so it is far more future proof than the 2010 NVidia MacBook Pros.What was important to me was not shaving a few seconds off a benchmark but having a good display in a laptop, good build and a good operating system together with enough performance.Others may have a different priority. Similar design huh?Whether you have a 2010 or 2011 unibody MacBook Pro I recommend at least 8GB of RAM otherwise the CPU is rather wasted. 3K RED footage is also handled well with keying for green screen work, all in real-time.The quad core Sandy Bridge logic board in the latest MacBook Pro is a beast.Above: iPhone 4S almost fits in the space occupied by the old 80’s Mac on the book cover of Steve’s biography. 4 core i7-950 4.6Ghz (overclocked), 24GB RAM and Nvidia GTX 460 Approximately 50-60 seconds to encode the benchmark’s H.264 sequence 6x SSD hard drives in RAID configuration!!Now that Xeon processor (and the SSDs) are hellishly expensive so what is the next best thing that gets close but is more cost effective? Here’s what the best Intel i7 desktop with standard hard drives is capable of: Speech recognition software for the macSo for me, not really worth it though they are a bit cheaper.My first preference is to go for a CPU with at least 4 cores then you can pretty much forget about CUDA. I am not aware of what PC laptops have Thunderbolt yet but I am sure they will soon exist.How about a top of the range iMac? Take a look at this chart – in Adobe After Effects the 2011 MacBook Pro 17″ and 15″ is neck and neck with the quad core 2.93Ghz iMac. I don’t so for me CUDA and a Quadro card is overkill.With Thunderbolt on the most recent MacBooks you will soon be able to edit on an external SSD for a nice performance boost. Playback with CUDA is also better but only if you are editing 96fps 5K or lots of FX and tracks. Approximately 90-120 seconds to encode the benchmark’s H.264 sequenceIncidentally the top ranking laptop above has the same processor as the 2011 MacBook Pro 17″ 2.2Ghz (my model – the 2720QM) but it scores higher due to a faster hard drive and more RAM. Just be sure to back it up with a lot of RAM.On a desktop PC choose NVidia over AMD for graphics if you have the choice regardless of how fast your CPU is, because CUDA is widely available even on less expensive cards, with upward of 768MB of video RAM.For me, a MacBook goes beyond the specs sheet and the extra expense is worth it for the overall experience.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorRobert ArchivesCategories |