Mac Pro doesn't even come with a monitor or anything else. You have 3660 dollars to play with to buy a 5K monitor, another gtx 1080, more SSD, more RAM and even water cooling. RIP MAC
Yes , ryzen support ECC ddr4 out of box , but you just make sure you buy motherboard which supports ecc too. ALL ryzens are overclockable , so another advantage over xeon.
Quick, to the points, showing performance @ stock on both builds as well some options to make the Rysen even faster! I know what my next build is going to be!! Thank you for this great comparison :)
When you overclock 1700, there is almost unnoticeable difference between 1700 and 1800X. So buying 1800X in that case is just stupid. If you don't want to overclock, yeah... then it's a better choice. I would also use some tests on Sony Vegas or Adobe After Effects ;) Thanks for the video!
Well they say the only people using macs use they because they are macs.... And honestly I don't see any other reason they use a Mac over a PC to do whatever they do on the Mac, especially when Macs haven't really evolved over the years. Like can you not do content creation on PC? I've never quite understood whats going on with those Mac guys.
I can say that Bang and Olufsen make good speakers and they are decent for this size, but if the end consumer (my wife in this case) said they are rubbish, no other data will convince them otherwise. Experts made this laptop, but it was not good enough for amateur use.
There is a difference when editing, but for final rendering there was just a slight difference if you choose CUDA vs Software rendering for these tests. Next update of Windows 10 has a graph for GPU usage, so we will be able to see there when and where the GPU is being used.
This is the configuration (with 16GB less), pcpartpicker.com/list/yrYc7h but I would rather get cheaper memory at 2666 (higher memory clock does not add almost anything with current BIOS or any other tests I have seen) and get 1800x instead. Cheaper mobo would be also fine
MacBook has less number of cores, and only one discrete GPU (some don't even have discrete GPU), but it has higher CPU frequency, but I would say it would be quite slower. I don't know anyone that has new MacBook pro, and at work we stopped purchasing macbooks, so I am not able to do the test unfortunately.
I was wondering what is the difference between geekbench scores between this ryzen and the mac pro. In your experience is geekbench score (or cinebench cpu score) a good indicator of the actual time it takes to complete the job.
In my experience none of the synthetic benchmarks is the good indicator of performance in real world. It is more accurate for single threaded applications. There are so many factors, like how much the program has to use SSD, how much scratch disk, how much RAM, how well is the code optimized, how many threads a specific task uses and how well... Then it is not only about the program but the project itself. Cinebench score is good to asses cinema4d performance for that type of scene that is being tested. You can check the geekbench scores for both CPUs on their site I believe.
Tech Guy I think overall Ryzen is more modern architecture with better bus speed etc and thats why it is overall faster. On a separate note, I notice that on my Mac the fan is running even when the Mac is in sleep mode. I was wondering if that is normal. Does fan on your Mac also run in sleep mode.
It should not run while sleeping, although if I set it to sleep it takes longer to turn off than to do a regular shut down and wake up... which is over a minute.
Might be interesting testing a hackintosh built for $2000 against a mac pro if you still have your old non Ryzen rig around.Though we all the know the hackintosh would win. Also, there are't many Premiere vs final cut benchmarks around, that would be interesting too.
Akbar, late response but FCP renders your product as you work on it, IIRC. That way it's akin to saving a Word document rather than rendering a full video.
Not really, Final Cut renders in the background, it works out being the same time if you were to forcefully disable background rendering. However, I still think nVidia's Cuda implementation in Premiere is much stronger than Intel's QuickSync/AMD OpenCL in Final Cut... Especially with Pascal graphics like a Titan XP etc.
Are you kidding compare incomparable? Adobe Premiere is optimised for cuda calculation, which support only one machine in this test. On your test nvidia VGA calculate video with ryzen CPU procesor at the same time , but on mac that was only CPU who transcoding video, because radeon in mac pro has no cuda support !!! If you do this test in final cut pro, mac pro will be 2x sooner than ryzen. Nobody buying mac for working in adobe premiere, if you are not stupid of course. Youu must know what software working with cuda (Adobe products), and what software working with openCL (Apple Final Cut Pro) to use VGA to participate on transcoding. Its apple and pears mixing together boy, less write, more read please in the next part of your life :)
I prefer Mac, reason: system. Even Windows 10 is very good, I think Mac's more stable. I work with audio, in case music, mixing and mastering and I trust on Macs. I only have 1 kernel panic at all, but BSOD..., but I think I never would buy a Mac Pro, reasons: price and consumption. I like the Mac Mini's line, I hope Apple will continue this line.
by who? lmao. I'm long time mac user (now use macbook). and my desktop PC runs hackintosh for a pretty long time, and I rather choose to buy ryzen if it can run as smooth as intel's hackintosh system. mac pro are long time dead as tim cook now doesn't really take care mac desktop lineup
LOL, BSOD and Kernel Panic is all hardware based. Modern day Windows is very good at handling software bugs, especially if you have a good selection of parts with solid drivers. My 2011 XPS laptop hasn't had 1 crash using Windows 10, only a few program crashes running Sony Vegas (not very stable program) but even then, the OS itself has been rock solid. All my Adobe programs and Pro Tools have been very solid too. A custom PC would perform even better again. The reliability factor is getting less and less of an issue (as someone who has always run Macs for work and started using PC software the last 2 years) Considering how massive Windows is and how many different platforms there are I think that's a big feat the fact that they are tuning up the performance and security. However, some people are still reluctant to use Win 10 because of Cortana and "NSA" etc
horrible comparison. you do realize that you have DDR3 VS DDR4 right?, not to mention better graphics. the rendering of the video frames rely heavily on GPU and memory. CPU does very little there.
But this is the only option you have to buy today with Apple, so this says more about Apple then it does about the tester and his test. Besides, this is a CPU test, the parts you mentioned should not make that much of a difference.
horrible comparison. you do realize that you have DDR3 VS DDR4 right?, not to mention better graphics. the rendering of the video frames rely heavily on GPU and memory. CPU does very little there.
That is what is available on MacPro, I did not put it there. By the way, rendering is on CPU, and you can easily test it by switching rendering to "Software only" and see there is not much difference in time
Mac Pro doesn't even come with a monitor or anything else. You have 3660 dollars to play with to buy a 5K monitor, another gtx 1080, more SSD, more RAM and even water cooling. RIP MAC
Amd supports ecc. If you want/need more stability
WHAT? ARE THIS SERIOUS?
www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_confirms_that_ryzen_supports_ecc_memory/1
OMGGGGG!
Yes , ryzen support ECC ddr4 out of box , but you just make sure you buy motherboard which supports ecc too. ALL ryzens are overclockable , so another advantage over xeon.
Ryzen dosent over clock well. you can Bclk overclock xeons
i cant see the macpro all i can see is a trashcane
Quick, to the points, showing performance @ stock on both builds as well some options to make the Rysen even faster! I know what my next build is going to be!! Thank you for this great comparison :)
Amazing! Thanks for sharing.
Then, if you overclock the 1700 to 3.9GHz, you'll get even faster times.
How about blender 3D rendering comparisons
When you overclock 1700, there is almost unnoticeable difference between 1700 and 1800X. So buying 1800X in that case is just stupid. If you don't want to overclock, yeah... then it's a better choice.
I would also use some tests on Sony Vegas or Adobe After Effects ;)
Thanks for the video!
Which is better for 4K video edting. Intel 7700K or Ryzen 1700?
Include gpu rendering to give total system performance .......
The 1700 and 1800x are exactly the same chip.
The R5 chips are EXACTLY the same as R7's with failed cores.
Well they say the only people using macs use they because they are macs.... And honestly I don't see any other reason they use a Mac over a PC to do whatever they do on the Mac, especially when Macs haven't really evolved over the years. Like can you not do content creation on PC? I've never quite understood whats going on with those Mac guys.
please do davinchi resolve, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!
Sure .Do you have a link to some project fire for resolve that I could use to test?
I would be really interested seeing timeline performance.. and ram previews.. at full res
please you are meintion motherboard for amd ryzen 1700
Good stuff! Keep up the good work!
Mac pro has got no chance.
What about having the graphics card render the video?
Graphic card helps only while editing. Results were almost the same if I used Mercury CUDA acceleration or Software Only
I can say that Bang and Olufsen make good speakers and they are decent for this size, but if the end consumer (my wife in this case) said they are rubbish, no other data will convince them otherwise. Experts made this laptop, but it was not good enough for amateur use.
I know very little about adobe premier but isnt the difference in graphics cards also a factor?
There is a difference when editing, but for final rendering there was just a slight difference if you choose CUDA vs Software rendering for these tests. Next update of Windows 10 has a graph for GPU usage, so we will be able to see there when and where the GPU is being used.
this is awesome, thanks for sharing. Can you please post your pc hardware specs? Thanks
This is the configuration (with 16GB less), pcpartpicker.com/list/yrYc7h but I would rather get cheaper memory at 2666 (higher memory clock does not add almost anything with current BIOS or any other tests I have seen) and get 1800x instead. Cheaper mobo would be also fine
firsterinno
Hey thanks for this, you can test render in cinema 4d and after effects ?
I already recorded screens in AE of several projects, so when I find time next week I will put it together.
Thank you
love this no bs video
may i ask which MB 1700 used? thank u!
ROG Crosshair VI Hero
Do you have a hackintosh install guide for ryzen 1700?
No, sorry, never even tried that. I am too old to hack things around, so I stick with what works in my private life and freelance work.
Tech Guy cool. Thanks for responding.
hackintosh isnt wotj for amd cpus
Great video!!! I was wondering how this Mac Pro will fair against a MacBook Pro 15 inch for same projects
MacBook has less number of cores, and only one discrete GPU (some don't even have discrete GPU), but it has higher CPU frequency, but I would say it would be quite slower. I don't know anyone that has new MacBook pro, and at work we stopped purchasing macbooks, so I am not able to do the test unfortunately.
I was wondering what is the difference between geekbench scores between this ryzen and the mac pro. In your experience is geekbench score (or cinebench cpu score) a good indicator of the actual time it takes to complete the job.
In my experience none of the synthetic benchmarks is the good indicator of performance in real world. It is more accurate for single threaded applications. There are so many factors, like how much the program has to use SSD, how much scratch disk, how much RAM, how well is the code optimized, how many threads a specific task uses and how well... Then it is not only about the program but the project itself. Cinebench score is good to asses cinema4d performance for that type of scene that is being tested. You can check the geekbench scores for both CPUs on their site I believe.
Tech Guy I think overall Ryzen is more modern architecture with better bus speed etc and thats why it is overall faster. On a separate note, I notice that on my Mac the fan is running even when the Mac is in sleep mode. I was wondering if that is normal. Does fan on your Mac also run in sleep mode.
It should not run while sleeping, although if I set it to sleep it takes longer to turn off than to do a regular shut down and wake up... which is over a minute.
What about render time on final cut?
I could try to open the same project in FCP and render it; but if you need FCP, then whatever the render time is, there is nothing to do about it.
Tech Guy i heard that final cut is significantly faster than adobe premiere.
Might be interesting testing a hackintosh built for $2000 against a mac pro if you still have your old non Ryzen rig around.Though we all the know the hackintosh would win. Also, there are't many Premiere vs final cut benchmarks around, that would be interesting too.
Akbar, late response but FCP renders your product as you work on it, IIRC. That way it's akin to saving a Word document rather than rendering a full video.
Not really, Final Cut renders in the background, it works out being the same time if you were to forcefully disable background rendering. However, I still think nVidia's Cuda implementation in Premiere is much stronger than Intel's QuickSync/AMD OpenCL in Final Cut... Especially with Pascal graphics like a Titan XP etc.
Are you kidding compare incomparable? Adobe Premiere is optimised for cuda calculation, which support only one machine in this test. On your test nvidia VGA calculate video with ryzen CPU procesor at the same time , but on mac that was only CPU who transcoding video, because radeon in mac pro has no cuda support !!! If you do this test in final cut pro, mac pro will be 2x sooner than ryzen. Nobody buying mac for working in adobe premiere, if you are not stupid of course. Youu must know what software working with cuda (Adobe products), and what software working with openCL (Apple Final Cut Pro) to use VGA to participate on transcoding. Its apple and pears mixing together boy, less write, more read please in the next part of your life :)
I prefer Mac, reason: system. Even Windows 10 is very good, I think Mac's more stable. I work with audio, in case music, mixing and mastering and I trust on Macs. I only have 1 kernel panic at all, but BSOD..., but I think I never would buy a Mac Pro, reasons: price and consumption. I like the Mac Mini's line, I hope Apple will continue this line.
you can flash Macs Os on regular Pcs
macOs runs better on Macs and put macOs on regular PCs is not allowed.
by who? lmao. I'm long time mac user (now use macbook). and my desktop PC runs hackintosh for a pretty long time, and I rather choose to buy ryzen if it can run as smooth as intel's hackintosh system. mac pro are long time dead as tim cook now doesn't really take care mac desktop lineup
LOL, BSOD and Kernel Panic is all hardware based. Modern day Windows is very good at handling software bugs, especially if you have a good selection of parts with solid drivers. My 2011 XPS laptop hasn't had 1 crash using Windows 10, only a few program crashes running Sony Vegas (not very stable program) but even then, the OS itself has been rock solid. All my Adobe programs and Pro Tools have been very solid too. A custom PC would perform even better again. The reliability factor is getting less and less of an issue (as someone who has always run Macs for work and started using PC software the last 2 years) Considering how massive Windows is and how many different platforms there are I think that's a big feat the fact that they are tuning up the performance and security. However, some people are still reluctant to use Win 10 because of Cortana and "NSA" etc
In my case (music) Mac is better. Reason: Master for iTunes, softwares and stability.
horrible comparison. you do realize that you have DDR3 VS DDR4 right?, not to mention better graphics. the rendering of the video frames rely heavily on GPU and memory. CPU does very little there.
Vlad Hristov but this shows also how far a Mac pro has fallen behind pc even Tim Cook has apologized about this
mac is expensive per performance
But this is the only option you have to buy today with Apple, so this says more about Apple then it does about the tester and his test. Besides, this is a CPU test, the parts you mentioned should not make that much of a difference.
horrible comparison. you do realize that you have DDR3 VS DDR4 right?, not to mention better graphics. the rendering of the video frames rely heavily on GPU and memory. CPU does very little there.
That is what is available on MacPro, I did not put it there. By the way, rendering is on CPU, and you can easily test it by switching rendering to "Software only" and see there is not much difference in time
Fanboy. Still costs half as much.
Vlad, pls show yourself out the exit door....lol