Final Cut Pro on a MacBook

Wow. I'm impressed. I thought that Final Cut Pro would die on a Macbook due to it's GMA 950. It looks like it's only a little slower than the Macbook Pro. Awesome!

lol mash I was laughing so hard when I read that! hahah

Wow.. this is REALLY disapointing for me.. But there had to be a big difference in rendering for Final Cut Pro.. I just spent 2899$ plus tax for a brand new high end macbook pro from best buy.. main reason why i bought it is becuase I want the fastest laptop i can get from apple today.. and now i find out that the little guys at 1500$ can do the same amount of work, and is only a bit weaker? very dispointing.. i thought apple would make the macbooks muchless... "pro".. giving the 2ghz core duo okay.. but it being able to do as much work as mine? disapointing.. i mean witht he 256 mb x1600 card there must be a big rendering difference..i love my macbook pro.. but now i find its overpriced due to the fact that the macbook can do almost the same amount of work... There has to be a big difference in rendering and speed somehow.. can anyone explain ? u cant just tell me that i spent that much more for just a bigger screen and a aluminum casing with a bigger hardrive and ram..

Wow.. this is REALLY disapointing for me.. But there had to be a big difference in rendering for Final Cut Pro.. I just spent 2899$ plus tax for a brand new high end macbook pro from best buy.. main reason why i bought it is becuase I want the fastest laptop i can get from apple today.. and now i find out that the little guys at 1500$ can do the same amount of work, and is only a bit weaker? very dispointing.. i thought apple would make the macbooks muchless... "pro".. giving the 2ghz core duo okay.. but it being able to do as much work as mine? disapointing.. i mean witht he 256 mb x1600 card there must be a big rendering difference..i love my macbook pro.. but now i find its overpriced due to the fact that the macbook can do almost the same amount of work... There has to be a big difference in rendering and speed somehow.. can anyone explain ? u cant just tell me that i spent that much more for just a bigger screen and a aluminum casing with a bigger hardrive and ram..

From what I understand, the reason why there isnt much of a difference in rendering if because the video card has little to nothing to do with rendering. It is almost entirely CPU based. In the realatvely near future, software are drivers will change that, opening up the GPU to assit in rendering, but AFAIK it is really all CPU (and i guess HD/memory) dependent. and as such, the macbook and pro use the same processor, memory and likely HD is most configurations.

Now what I am supprised is that it installed without a hitch. I have heard that FCPro requires a AGP/PCIe video card.... kudos to apple... makes the macbook a bit more tempting

it makes me a little jealous

althought i love my macbook pro.. i think there should be abig difference between the 2.. not just the screen and the hardrive/ram/videocard.. but the cpu.. i just bought the most expensive prebuilt macbook u can buy.. and u can get the same speed with the 1500$ macbook.. like.. the powerbooks before had a speed advantage due to fsb.. meh.. i still love my macbook pro.. no complaints other than the price now..

Dont worry, thats just one program. Im sure the macbook pro kicks major mac book ass on other/future hardcore apps.

Dont worry, thats just one program. Im sure the macbook pro kicks major mac book ass on other/future hardcore apps.

i cant fathom why the mbp loses to the mb in cpu competitions especially since they are both core duo chips and the mbp's is clocked faster! and its not just in fcs tests, its in quite a few programs (how the mb owns the mbp). i guess when a company concerns itself with form more than function (as appears to be the case w/ the mbp), the performance suffers.

Geez... I like my MBP but that's just jacked up... someone can drop 1/2 what I did and still use those high end applications competitively.

Well it's quite obvious now that MacBook Pro is overpriced hehe

Well it's quite obvious now that MacBook Pro is overpriced hehe

Or that the MacBook is just a really good deal.

Or: the two alternatives above are correct.

i cant fathom why the mbp loses to the mb in cpu competitions especially since they are both core duo chips and the mbp's is clocked faster! and its not just in fcs tests, its in quite a few programs (how the mb owns the mbp). i guess when a company concerns itself with form more than function (as appears to be the case w/ the mbp), the performance suffers.

Using Final Cut as the only reason to say "MACBOOK PROS ARE TEH SUX0RS!!!!111!!!1ONE!!!!" is extremely shortsighted. This is the main reason why I utilize Speedmark scores, which test the system using several applications/tasks that a normal user would do. While the Speedmark scores don't show a lot of difference between the Mac portables, the MacBook Pros are still slightly faster than the MacBook not pros. This is most likely due to the graphics card, which absolutely kills the Intel GMA when it comes to tasks that are pawned off onto the graphics subsystem. So everything from Finder window redraws to playing a game would feel snappier on the MacBook Pro.

Tha being said, the MacBook not pro is still a good deal and will most likely be my new laptop system (since I don't play computer games save for really old ones that don't need cutting edge graphics cards)

the only reason i would want the pro is for the gfx card to play games under windows. i only play Enemy Terriotry rite now and thats a mac/unix/win game for free and with people saying that this is one powerful cheap laptop, this mite just be my first mac!

Using Final Cut as the only reason to say "MACBOOK PROS ARE TEH SUX0RS!!!!111!!!1ONE!!!!" is extremely shortsighted. This is the main reason why I utilize Speedmark scores, which test the system using several applications/tasks that a normal user would do. While the Speedmark scores don't show a lot of difference between the Mac portables, the MacBook Pros are still slightly faster than the MacBook not pros. This is most likely due to the graphics card, which absolutely kills the Intel GMA when it comes to tasks that are pawned off onto the graphics subsystem. So everything from Finder window redraws to playing a game would feel snappier on the MacBook Pro.

Well said.

I'm playing the wait and see game. An apple notebook is in my near future.

I used to own a Powerbook, never looked at the ibook in those days as the benchmarks clearly differed.

Now, macbooks are posting incredible benchmarks. If nothing changes soon, I'll opt to save the cash. Even if I splurge on that black finish, I'm still far ahead for what my budget will allow. Macbook with all the trimmings, and toys, or a pro stock - nothing extra that isn't already in the case.

I'm anxious to see what happens when ATI releases optimized drivers. Unless there is a big improvement, or Apple adds horsepower elsewhere, I guess I can live without the backlit keyboard and slightly larger screen - $19 and I can span to my flatpanel just like the big boys. I've used other GMA based notebooks, (non Apple brand) and frankly find them all surprisingly quick. Not heavy duty gamer worthy, but nothing short of that as far as notebooks go.

So, lets hope things just haven't been optimized yet for the sake of those feeling remorse. To those I say the pro is still the sweetest notebook money can buy, if you got the cash to spend. Pros remain the best looking machines on the planet, and nothing gets attention like that aluminum skin.

The little brothers are just a much more practical buy right now. Load 'em up with RAM, and you won't miss what is lost for video at boot. That's my experience/impression thus far. BTW, that glowing apple on the lid really shines on the black! Here I thought you had to get a pro for that.

I just don't understand why anyone would think you need a high end video card to do video editing? It's never been the case in the past, so why would it be now?

Pity the video resolution on the MacBook just doesn't have sufficient releastate for user firendly video editing otherwise i'd give one a shot.

I just don't understand why anyone would think you need a high end video card to do video editing? It's never been the case in the past, so why would it be now?

 

Pity the video resolution on the MacBook just doesn't have sufficient releastate for user firendly video editing otherwise i'd give one a shot.

Exactly. Why is there so many here that think they know so much about graphics but make stupid posts? Listen people: 3d accelerator cards only accelerate 3d graphics! DVD video isn't 3d. Video is a lot of individual pictures, 2d but very high rez if it is HD, so why do you need a 3d accelerator? You don't. I didn't think this would be such a problem to those out there. I mean older PowerMacs out there are still being used for video production, YET, they don't have major 3d acceleration.

So those that bought MBP's are screwed? No. When it comes to 3d acceleration like graphics modeling and such, you will crush MB users. If all you did was video editing (2d) then no offense you should have known the 3d accelerator wouldn't help. To those that feel screwed and they wasted their money, well you made the purchase. If you didn't need 3d, then why did you buy it? Bigger screens is not a waste of money, so you do have much bigger workspaces.

It is funny. When the MB came out, alot of hate for the Intel video chip. I saw all the whining and I knew it was from those that didn't know what they were talking about. Again to recap: 3d accelerator ONLY boosts 3d performance (well 2d gets minor boosts) and lower end chips do 2d just fine.

Quit bitching at Apple cause you didn't know what to buy. With a 17 inch MBP you got a laptop that can crunch tons of 3d graphics and a huge screen. They are to high, but they should be somewhat higher due to the screen size and the 3d. All in all I think some that {censored} on here about the intel graphics chip should stand back quit posting till they understand what the advantages of the MBPs and 3d acceleration are.

Exactly. Why is there so many here that think they know so much about graphics but make stupid posts? Listen people: 3d accelerator cards only accelerate 3d graphics! DVD video isn't 3d. Video is a lot of individual pictures, 2d but very high rez if it is HD, so why do you need a 3d accelerator? You don't.

 

...

 

Again to recap: 3d accelerator ONLY boosts 3d performance (well 2d gets minor boosts) and lower end chips do 2d just fine.

Well...I think there's at least one significant caveat to the above...

While it is correct that no-one should really be surprised that FCP rendering (an almost entirely CPU dependent process) is about the same on the MB and MBP, there is another benefit to the X1600 GPU in the MBP - it does accelerate H.264 video playback.

(there's probably better evidence for this elsewhere, but see http://everythingapple.blogspot.com/2006/0...very-fast.html)

So, after that rendering and encoding, the playback is going to be GPU accelerated, which for all you MBP owners means less CPU heat, battery use, and whining noises (from CPU and user).

Not to mention, then, if you ever upgrade to/get externally a HD-DVD or BluRay drive, again you will get less CPU load while watching (remember the DVD/MPEG2 decoding hardware in the Lombard PB and the Beige G3 w/AV personality card? same story except this time hopefully H.264 decoding support won't get dropped with the next major OS release...grr... I had both of those machines).

Me with my MacBook Plain will have to spin my (very nice) CPU to decode that video stream.

Good point, as I said about 2d getting minor boost. It does help in SOME things. But I believe if you have enough system ram, the differences will be minimal, if unnoticeable(sp?).

What irritates me is some bashing Apple when they have no clue what they are talking about. Yes there is SOME improvement with X1600 in 2d, but will you notice or care? I wouldn't. They bought high end 3d cards and want everything to use them. Just use the thing and enjoy it.

Does anyone know why motion 2 will run on the mackbook but not on the mac mini. As far as I can see the only difference is the cpu speed

Exactly. Why is there so many here that think they know so much about graphics but make stupid posts? Listen people: 3d accelerator cards only accelerate 3d graphics! DVD video isn't 3d. Video is a lot of individual pictures, 2d but very high rez if it is HD, so why do you need a 3d accelerator? You don't. I didn't think this would be such a problem to those out there. I mean older PowerMacs out there are still being used for video production, YET, they don't have major 3d acceleration.

You don't understand the Quartz rendering engine, which throws as much as computerly possible from window redraws to Dashboard ripples to 3d gaming to the graphics subsystem. While it doesn't affect a render job in iMovie or Final Cut (because that's a processor dependent process) it does work when it comes to video playback and everything the Quartz engine will throw at the graphics card.

You don't understand the Quartz rendering engine, which throws as much as computerly possible from window redraws to Dashboard ripples to 3d gaming to the graphics subsystem. While it doesn't affect a render job in iMovie or Final Cut (because that's a processor dependent process) it does work when it comes to video playback and everything the Quartz engine will throw at the graphics card.

Well all for naught - the MacBook is what the MacBook should be.

Intel has price cuts coming May 28th! Will this effect the overall price? It should.

http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20060518PR209.html

Motion seems to run fine - the major difference really is 3d and gaming, and larger LCD space, backlit keyboard, plus those that I know that are Pro Tools users and have a PowerMac G4, never even user the screen (those of course I'm speaking about that work from hom and edit) and seeing how the MB can span to 1900x1400, the MACBOOK looks to be a really good deal. Now is it worth $400 for some black, 20GB extra space, 1.2 mghz jump (see price cuts above soon) when these MacBooks allow for easy HD replacement (7200 rpm) and DDR replacement? Hardly. A $400 investment in 2 GB of DDR and a 7200 RPM drive sounds like a better deal.

My take is that the MBPRO will become the middle of the line (backlit keys and all) and the new memron, and quad core laptops will be the next MBProX or Mac Book X, top of the line, moving the MBP down a notch.

The most surprising....and this is what the kicker is, is that the MacBook beats the DUAL G5 which has been the standard for the last year or so around the $2000 price mark - - being able to have this as a portable solution really makes for a portable editing/audio rig. Can't tell you how many times we bashed Sweetwater and there so-called PowerMac G4's as powerhouses for audio/video, simply was not true, add in a few virtual instruments and the system bogged down big time.

The MACBOOK crushes the G4, let alone the G5 desktop. Now, add in that down the road (at the expense of battery life, two things will happen with the MacBook, they will either get dedicated gpu (maybe back lit keys), 15.3 screen, or newer GMA955 which apparently handles directX better and will allow for gaming, and I say college students pick these babies up left and right, add in that the price will come down as the MBPro or MBX with quad cores or dual dual cores come out, it will create 3 price points and 3 market areas, while at the same time, allowing all the users to be able to share projects within each others computer.

I think Apple wanted to make sure that this was a factor. Those that bought into the first MBP's should have known better- - most mac users (only a small percentage I know) know better than to buy the 1st generation Mac products - -

I see it like this

MX-quad dual cores/quad (amd) quad cores

MBPX - dua dual cores laptops

MacBook - dedicated gpu, larger screen

MacBook Light ($899) what today's macbook is - dedicated GPU.

just my .02 cents.

I understand that OS X uses some hardware acceleration on the 2d side, but it doesn't need as much as a 3d game ok? Please don't kid yourself. I have seen old PowerMacs run OS X (mine at home) with 16 and 32 meg cards that are ancient and the interface was smooth. The Macbook graphics chip is plenty for 2d.

I'm not bashing apple if that is what you guys are saying..

I love my macbookpro.. and i use it to edit a lot more things then just final cut..

I use Maya, Pro Tools, Reason, Photoshop, After Effects, Shake, and much more..

I installed windows to use after effects(not universal) and other programs that are not native in mac intels right now..

Now that i think about it, macbooks are the little brothers of the macbookpro.. becuase it has bigger screen, contains a better video card, and I need all these things.. for 3d in maya, i cant imagine doin final cut on a 13.3 inch widescreen.. i had a 12" powerbook.. and editing movies on it were terrible, too small of a workspace..

has anyone here started editing on the macbook? I'm wondering if its too cramped..my powerbook was.

I just installed windows last night and it was awesome, except the fact that i cant get isight to work.. lol oh well..

I just remember that some in the Macbook thread when it was released kept on bashing the chip. Now it is ironical that the Macbook is as powerful as it is.