Review: Apple Mac Pro
The new Apple Mac Pro uses Intel Nehalem processors for a significant performance boost.
Apple was the first out of the gate with an Intel Nehalem-based workstation, in the form of the Mac Pro announced in early 2009. Apple recently provided a 2.93GHz Mac Pro for testing, and in a range of benchmark tests against an older-style 2.8GHz eight-core Intel Xeon-based system, the new Mac Pro showed performance boosts as high as 112 percent, though most tests exhibited improvements in the 30-percent-to-70-percent range. Combine this with comparatively aggressive pricing (if you buy RAM elsewhere), and you''ve got the fastest Mac ever in an affordable and easy-to-service case.
Nehalem
Nehalem is the newest CPU from Intel, and it features much faster throughput between the CPU and memory, the return of Hyper-threading Technology (HTT), and a Turbo mode that kicks in when all cores aren''t being used, over¬clocking the cores in use. As you''ll see, for many digital content creation applications, this is a potent combination of performance and throughput.
Apple offers both single- (starting at $2,499) and dual-processor configurations ($3,299), which both peak at 2.93GHz. Note that you can''t buy a single-CPU system and later add a second CPU. That''s because Apple uses the Xeon 3500 quad-core CPU for single-CPU systems, which isn''t dual-CPU capable. On the dual-processor systems, Apple uses the Xeon 5500 series, which obviously is.
With a single-CPU system, Apple includes a single CPU and memory tray, which has four memory slots. A dual-CPU system has another tray for a total of eight memory slots. In both configurations, the CPU communicates to memory using three channels, so it''s most efficient to concentrate memory in three of the four slots. For example, Apple provided my test system with six 2GB dual in-line memory modules (DIMM)s, three for each CPU, leaving the fourth memory slot free on each CPU.
Note that if you fill the final memory slot, you essentially cut memory bandwidth in half for the controller addressing those slots. In a memory-intensive application that would otherwise have to page to a hard disk, the dynamic memory should still be faster, but you''re better off getting more dense memory for three slots per CPU than filling all four slots with lower-density SDRAM.
As always, if you''re looking to configure a system with lots of RAM, check for alternative sources, as Apple''s RAM is very expensive. In addition, Apple doesn''t let you configure a single-processor system with 4GB DIMMs—though in the right configuration (1066MHz DDR4 ECC SDRAM), 4GB DIMMs should work. In fact, at least one reputable company, Other World Computing (OWC), is already selling 4GB modules for the quad-core system. Note that OWC is currently offering a rebate on memory that you replace with RAM purchased from OWC, so you should definitely check out that company''s website before buying your Mac Pro.
If you''re squeamish about adding memory yourself, don''t be—Apple has redesigned the innards of the Mac Pro for excellent serviceability. The case opens as before, via a latch on the back. Once it''s open, you pull two additional latches to unlock the CPU/RAM compartment, which you pull out for adding memory or swapping out CPUs. All four hard drives fit inside a chassis-specific casing, which you can slide in and out with ease.
The base graphics card for the two Mac Pros is the Nvidia GeForce GT 120 with 512MB of RAM, which should be fine for 2D digital content creation. Apple supplied my test system with an ATI Radeon HD 4870 with 512MB of memory, which added $200 to the cost of the system. With two 1TB hard drives, the total cost of the system came to about $6,799, not counting the Apple LED Cinema Display that I discuss below.
On the outside, the Mac Pro looks similar to previous models, though the ports have changed, and there is no longer a FireWire 400 port. Take a deep breath and get over it; Apple''s decision will make sense in maybe 2012, when you retire your HDV camcorder for a camcorder with a FireWire 800 connector (and FireWire 400-to-800 adapters cost about $20). While I''m on the subject of frustrating Apple configuration decisions, there are still no Blu-ray recording options available for the Mac Pro.
Table 1. Apple Final Cut Studio comparative testing.
Performance
OK, those are the basics. Now let''s squeeze in some performance numbers before I get to describing the Apple LED Cinema Display that Apple provided for my viewing pleasure. Briefly, I tested three applications—Apple Final Cut Studio, Adobe Media Encoder, and Telestream Episode Engine—comparing the new system''s results to those of an 2.8GHz eight-core system with 10GB of RAM kindly provided by my colleague Carrie Cannaday, a shooter/editor of broadcast, wedding, and other event work in southwest Virginia. Note that by virtue of processor speed alone (2.93GHz to 2.8GHz), the Nehalem-based computer should be about 5 percent faster than the older-style Xeon system.
I used one of Cannaday''s wedding projects as the first test of Final Cut Studio, specifically a 30-minute sequence of a formal ceremony that was shot in HDV with multiple camcorders. To mimic the workflow used by most producers, I first rendered out a QuickTime reference movie and then input that file into Compressor to produce an H.264 file for streaming and an MPEG-2 file for a DVD. The comparative times for the initial Final Cut Studio encodes are shown in Table 1.
As you can see, the Nehalem-based system was only 22 percent faster than the older-style Mac Pro (17 percent after adjusting for CPU speed) when producing the QuickTime reference movie, but the numbers jumped significantly for the heavy-duty encoding, totaling 91 percent for producing both compressed formats. Note that total encoding time doesn''t equal the sum of the parts because I encoded both files simultaneously by enabling Apple Qmaster.
Table 2. Adobe Media Encoder comparative testing.
The second round of tests involved the Adobe Media Encoder and two of my own real-world projects. The first was a 90-minute ballet shot with two HDV camcorders switched via Adobe Premiere Pro''s multicam feature and rendered to MPEG-2 for an SD DVD. In this test, the Nehalem-based Mac Pro was 79 percent faster than its older sibling.
The second round''s second and third tests involved a 10-minute single-camera DV shoot produced as an audition for America''s Got Talent. I rendered the file to H.264 for submitting to the show (and YouTube) and to MPEG-2 for a DVD for the adoring parents. As you can see in Table 2, for this simpler project, the Mac Pro''s performance advantage was more modest.
In the June issues of Affordable HD, I''ll take a deeper look at Nehalem-based technology and discuss how and why it accelerates certain projects more than others (see millimeter.com/affordablehd). Briefly here, understand that your mileage will vary significantly from project to project. When working with NLEs and their associated encoding tools, you''ll see the most benefit when the project involves both high throughput (e.g., HD footage) and significant processing (e.g., encoding to compressed formats), because this leverages Nehalem''s increased memory bandwidth and pure processing enhancements.
For example, if you''re producing a 30-second advertisement with lots of layers and effects, particularly from an SD source, there''s much more processing required than pure throughput, negating Nehalem''s increased memory bandwidth. On the other hand, the 90-minute ballet shown in Table 2, using dual HDV video sources and some color and brightness correction, was the perfect blend of high bandwidth and processing requirements, resulting in very significant time savings. If you''re a long-form HD producer, there''s a good chance you''ll achieve similar time savings on your projects.
Table 3. The results from Telestream Episode Engine tests.
Streaming encoding
The last tests involved Telestream Episode Engine enterprise encoder (how''s that for alliteration?), which offers both high-quality output and very efficient multiprocessor use. Here I ran two tests, the first encoding a single HD source file to nine different streaming formats, a mix of VP6, H.264, and Windows Media output in different resolutions and at different data rates. The second involved encoding 16 1-minute SD source files to 14 output formats in the same three streaming formats, plus MPEG-2.
In the first round of tests, the Nehalem-based system was 31 percent faster. It proved 77 percent faster in the second, which likely reflects the fact that encoding 16 SD files involves much more I/O than does a single HD file. Overall, whether for editing or encoding, most producers will realize a significant performance boost with the Nehalem-based Mac Pro over systems based on the older Xeon CPUs. Does the return on investment dictate auctioning off your old system in favor of the new? That depends on the type of work you do.
Apple LED Cinema Display
As mentioned, Apple sent along a new Apple LED Cinema Display, a beautiful 24in. flatpanel display that retails for $899. Like most Apple hardware products, the display looks like it should go directly to the Museum of Modern Art without passing Go, and I found the glossy display very crisp and easy to work with. Still, there are a couple of issues you should at least consider before running down to the local Apple Store and buying the unit.
In terms of specs, the display has a maximum resolution of 1920x1200 and a stated contrast ratio of 1000:1. It ships with a Mini DisplayPort connector, which works with the latest versions of the MacBook notebooks and Mac Pro desktops. Billed as the “first display designed specifically for the MacBook,” the display also comes with a universal MagSafe power connector that can supply power to your MacBook, a great feature if you have a MacBook. The display also features an iSight camera with microphone, an internal loudspeaker, and a USB hub with three ports.
The display uses solid-state LED light sources for backlighting its glossy screen. There''s a new black edge of glass around the monitor that''s reminiscent of the iPod touch or iPhone. The rounded back is thinner around the edges than the older-style displays, and the overall look and feel is warmer and more compelling as compared to older Apple Cinema panels.
| Related Links |
||||||
|
If you read the online reviews at the Apple Store and elsewhere, you''ll note that the responses to the glossy finish are polarized; most folks love it, but some hate it. When not turned on, the unit is very reflective, and it prominently displays fingerprints and dust. While the unit is working, most of this disappears, and you end up noticing the high contrast ratio and bright colors more than any reflection. I compared the monitor with a similarly sized LCD panel running the identical program side by side, and the LED Cinema Display was clearly sharper and more readable. Several random visitors had a close look at the monitor while it was running in my office, and none of them even mentioned the reflection.
All that said, when displaying black onscreen, the reflections can get very noticeable. For example, while testing the monitor and Mac Pro, I shot and edited a piano recital, and when the black baby grand filled the picture, you could definitely check your five o''clock shadow or makeup. Your eyes quickly learned to tune this out, but some folks might find this irritating and/or distracting.
On the other hand, the embedded loudspeakers were a nice touch without a real negative. The audio comes up via the USB cable, so there''s no loudspeaker cable to hassle with, and the quality was certainly good enough for meat-and-potatoes video work. If you''re mixing audio or performing noise reduction, you''ll need your headphones or professional (audio) monitors, but you probably use those even with traditional loudspeakers. Though there''s no headphone port on the monitor, if you plug your headphone into the computer driving the monitor, the loudspeakers in the monitor shut down, which is great in an office situation.
Beyond the glossy look, what are the other concerns? First, the cable is ridiculously short—about 42in. by my measure—and barely reached the computer when the display sat on a traditional desk. If you use a standing desk like I do much of the time, you''re out of luck, as Apple doesn''t yet offer a cable extension. Second, an HDMI or even S-Video connection would have been nice for those wishing to use the $899 display for pure video playback. These are common features on competing 24in. monitors. Finally, with 24in. monitors from name-brand competitors priced in the $300-to-$400 range, the LED Cinema Display may be a tough sell for all but the most well-heeled buyers, and museums, of course.
bottomline
Company: Apple
www.apple.com
Product: Mac Pro
Assets: Performance boost with Intel Nehalem; new, serviceable case design.
Caveats: Can''t add second processor if you choose single-processor system; no FireWire 400 port; no Blu-ray recording options.
Price: Starting at $2,499 (single-processor); starting at $3,299 (dual-processor); $6,799 (as tested)
Middle Ad
CPN Newsletter
FREE eNewsletter
Subscribe to our FREE eNewsletter
Subscribe to our FREE eNewsletter
Middle1 Ad
print edition
