I thought processors were more important for C4D rendering over ramen? Or am I mistaken ?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)
- Thread starter Mago
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macpro 2016
- Sort by reaction score
I thought processors were more important for C4D rendering over ramen? Or am I mistaken ?
C4D traditionally was a CPU renderer. The more cores the faster it rendered. Don't know about the latest releases though
In the sense that GPU and RAM are going to be more beneficial overall across software. It really depends on what you’re doing in Cinema. The physical renderer, for example, excellently utilizes whatever cores you have to throw at it. For my uses of it with Cineware though, I get a bigger punch through the GPU acceleration, and AE and PScan eat whatever RAM I throw at it for previews and such. You’d really have to see what your software use cases are because even with the same base software the calculus changes depending on what widgets you use.
But with 16 cores, you can have more poorly coded Adobe applications open at once.
Thanks for your thoughts. I’ve read that AE devs are working on improving performance going forward, so I wonder if they will work out how to multi core better, so this is one reason I was thinking 16C. But maybe it’s silly to buy for performance that isn’t there yet.
And C4D will use all multi core performance when rendering (and doesn’t use much ram) so 16C would be big help there.
I can always upgrade ram later, but would be stuck with 12C (until out of Apple care I don’t want to try and upgrade CPU myself).
Hard to work out until we know pricing.
16 cores at 3.2GHz is looking like the sweet spot, with 2x Radeon Pro Vega II GPUS. As much RAM as you can afford. But yes the pricing will most likely be eye watering.
Getting a Mac Pro for AE and/or C4D is insane. You’ll get terrible performance from the Xeons in AE and the C4D viewport. Just endure the pain and get a PC with a 9900K or 3rd gen Ryzen and as many CUDA cores as you can afford. You’ll get used to Windows, and you will have the fastest possible system for AE, and can finally use Redshift/Octane.
1 - It's not just about speed.
2 - Some of us have tried to get used to Windows but would rather use the Mac and pay a premium to do so.
3 - We are already using Octane and Redshift on the Mac.
As is your prerogative, but that doesn’t change the fact that for AE and C4D specifically, you’re leaving a lot of performance on the table.
I just don’t get why anybody would consider a Mac Pro if they’re specifically going to use it for After Effects. The 9900K iMac would be a lot faster, and you can use the remaining $8000 on stimulants to really get those projects out of the door 
I just don’t get why anybody would consider a Mac Pro if they’re specifically going to use it for After Effects. The 9900K iMac would be a lot faster, and you can use the remaining $8000 on stimulants to really get those projects out of the door
Fan noise on the iMac is horrific if you're rendering in AE or doing anything significant in C4D. I have had three iMacs as replacements for my 5,1 and have returned them all and gone back to the slower 5, 1. You also have to consider the GPU options on the 7,1 vs any iMac. Most of us in a professional workflow would rather not have a glossy screen either.
I built a PC with 9900k and it works well for C4D. But as a design tool, I just don’t like working on a PC, and I find I’m more creative when working on Mac. I think if I was only one program it would be ok, but I find I’m always fighting with the system in windows rather than enjoying the experience on Mac. But maybe I’m just being stuck in my ways, or PC was the only option I’m sure I’d find a way.
Even guys like Chad at Greyscalgorilla who is hardcore into PC says that the PC is just a means to an end with rough edges that you tolerate to get work done. I just don't want that relationship with my computer. I love my work and my work is also one of my hobbies/passions (3D and digital art) so I want that experience to be as rewarding and as enjoyable as possible. I love the experience on Apple hardware. Speed and cheaper hardware aren't as important to me.
I get that, and still enjoy using my Mac more than my windows workstation, but the price/performance and upgradability gap became so vast, and the Mac Pro refresh so disappointing for my needs, that I finally made the switch this summer, and I’m very happy with it so far even though Windows is a minor pain in the ass.
And a future multi-core After Effects update would only require a ~$2000 mobo/threadripper upgrade.
And a future multi-core After Effects update would only require a ~$2000 mobo/threadripper upgrade.
I actually don't and question this. I appreciate the macos experience ... maybe too much. But having macos tied to the apple hardware is more of a pair of cement boots, than a liberating experience. I get the 'wall garden' arguments, fine. But for someone who brings their own monitors, having to pick between an overpriced and under performing macmini with a garbage gpu, and what will no doubt be over 10k$ (CDN, after taxes) for a mostly base model macpro is utterly stupid.
Yep, when you’re on your computer so much, experience has value.
I guess there's just no right and wrong, and I can understand why emotions run high about this computer. It is a seriously premium price tag. Believe me, I would rather not be dropping this much of my budget on a Mac but the alternatives are just not viable for me.
Apple clearly has put their focus on hardware that runs iOS, not OSX, for the last decade plus. This degrades what is arguably their greatest advantage - tight control over hardware and software integration to optimize performance - which requires attention to both. Without that synergy, Biped's note about the hardware becoming a "pair of cement boots" is well taken.
As many of us have noted, despite - or perhaps because of - their gargantuan size, Apple seems unable to manage multiple areas of their portfolio simultaneously. From the outside, this would seem to be proven by the ridiculously long gestation period for the 7,1 MP. Not only do the delays frustrate the user base, they also make the tech chosen early in the design process more outdated upon release - which further erodes price/performance metrics.
I am a user who will spend a bit more for last generation hardware components in exchange for OSX and high reliability - but there is a point where that gets stupid...
As many of us have noted, despite - or perhaps because of - their gargantuan size, Apple seems unable to manage multiple areas of their portfolio simultaneously. From the outside, this would seem to be proven by the ridiculously long gestation period for the 7,1 MP. Not only do the delays frustrate the user base, they also make the tech chosen early in the design process more outdated upon release - which further erodes price/performance metrics.
I am a user who will spend a bit more for last generation hardware components in exchange for OSX and high reliability - but there is a point where that gets stupid...
What alternatives have you examined and what is lacking in them?
Last edited by a moderator:
Why would it lower your confidence? Apply clearly stated the 7,1 Mac Pro would be released in the fall of 2019. The end of fall 2019 isn't for another three weeks. Anyone who has ever followed this industry knows when a manufacturer says "...in the fall/winter/spring/summer/Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4 of..." means the very last day of whatever time frame they say they're going to release it in. There is no reason, at this time, to believe Apple won't follow through on releasing the 7,1 Mac Pro any earlier than as close to 12/22/2019 with the release being a handful of units at this time. The majority will have to wait until later in the winter 2019 for their units. This is what happened with the 6,1 Mac Pro and there's no reason to feel that Apple will do any better with the 7,1 Mac Pro. If 12/22/2019 passes and the 7,1 Mac Pro isn't available for order (order, not delivery) then everyone can complain.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree completely that Apple has ignored Macs in favor of iOS for the past decade plus - but things may be changing.
I am happy that Sir Jony Ive has ridden off into the sunset, and the new 16" MBP looks great (mine arrives on Tuesday). It's an expensive machine, but not at all out of line for what it is - none of the competitors are significantly cheaper (junk gaming laptops, sure - but not mobile workstations with 64 GB of RAM and 4 TB drives).
If the Mac Pro's upgrade pricing is competitive, it's another good (if badly delayed) release. The base price almost doesn't matter with that kind of machine - what matters is the price configured to do its job - and if the job you have for it requires only the base model, it's also perfectly suited for an i9-9900K iMac.
Now we need to see a good iMac Pro update, and a great new iMac. If Apple can get those two out, the Mac line will be in strong shape.
I am happy that Sir Jony Ive has ridden off into the sunset, and the new 16" MBP looks great (mine arrives on Tuesday). It's an expensive machine, but not at all out of line for what it is - none of the competitors are significantly cheaper (junk gaming laptops, sure - but not mobile workstations with 64 GB of RAM and 4 TB drives).
If the Mac Pro's upgrade pricing is competitive, it's another good (if badly delayed) release. The base price almost doesn't matter with that kind of machine - what matters is the price configured to do its job - and if the job you have for it requires only the base model, it's also perfectly suited for an i9-9900K iMac.
Now we need to see a good iMac Pro update, and a great new iMac. If Apple can get those two out, the Mac line will be in strong shape.