When choosing a professional video editing machine, it typically comes down to two common options: a Windows PC or a Mac. A month ago, Apple finally released the iMac Pro workstation-grade desktop computer to the public starting at just under $5,000.
At that price point, folks over from the PC Master Race would probably complain that you could get much better video editing performance with a self-built PC than a supposedly over-priced iMac Pro. To debunk or confirm this myth, Max Yuryev decided to compare the $5,000 iMac Pro to his custom-built $1,350 PC to see which one would perform better in both Premiere Pro CC and DaVinci Resolve 14.
Before sharing the results, it’s important to specify what type of hardware each computer relies on. The $1,350 PC featured in the video, for instance, is a custom built editing rig that sports an Intel Core i7 8700K overclocked to run at 5.0 GHz alongside an NVIDIA GTX 1070 8GB Graphics Card by EVGA. Besides that, Max added 32 GB of DDR4 Corsair Vengence RAM and a 275GB Crucial MX300 SATA M.2 SSD for comparable read/write performance to the iMac Pro.
On the other hand, the iMac Pro houses more professional-grade components under the hood such as an 8-Core Intel Xeon Workstation-Class processor running at 3.2 GHz, an AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 with 8GB of HBM2 Memory, 32GB of DDR4 RAM, as well as a 1 TB SSD.
As usual, Yuryev puts each machine through its paces with some classic benchmark tests the results of which you can evaluate thoroughly in the video above. But how about the actual video editing performance? The first test in that regard involved stabilizing a clip shot at 4K, which showed that in both Premiere and Resolve, the PC was faster than the iMac.
Meanwhile, Max Yuryev went on to test rendering several 4K clips with varying degrees of complexity (color grading effects, speed manipulation, etc.) in an attempt to put a toll on the machines. Based on the results, a pattern emerged which showed that the iMac Pro seemed to perform much faster than the PC when it comes to video editing and rendering tasks in Resolve, although the outcome seemed to be just the opposite inside of Premiere Pro CC. In that use case, the PC resulted in much faster render times.
A possible reason as to why Resolve worked better on the iMac Pro than Premiere may have to do with software optimization. Since the iMac Pro is still relatively new, Max assumes that Adobe might not have had the proper time to update the program to take full advantage of the system’s hardware.
To push the workstations even further, Yuryev also decided to edit and render some 4.5K RED Raw footage inside of Premiere Pro CC. Surprisingly, the PC resulted in faster rendering times versus the iMac Pro by 4 minutes. Yuryev has also discovered that Premiere was using around 90% of the PC’s graphics and processing power versus the iMac Pro which only used between 30 to 50 percent of the available GPU resources.
Nevertheless, the iMac Pro outperformed the PC in regards to timeline performance. In both Premiere and Resolve, the Apple’s all-in-one desktop machine provided smoother playback when editing 4.5K and 8K RAW footage, even if the playback quality was reduced.
The final test in this comparison includes Canon Cinema Raw Lite clips from the C200 edited inside of Resolve (Premiere doesn’t support this codec at the moment). Following the previous trends outlined in this article, the iMac Pro does, in fact, perform better requiring half the render time than the PC.
So, now let’s get straight to the question: Mac or PC? The answer really depends on your situation. If you’re someone who predominately works with DaVinci Resolve, the Mac may be the safest option to go. But, if you need to save money or just prefer to work with Premiere Pro regularly, then the PC could be the better choice.
That said, it’s important to consider that while the PC can outperform the iMac Pro on certain occasions, it’s still a custom-built computer. Plus, there’s a good reason why the iMac Pro comes at a premium price.
All in all, you’re paying for top-of-the-line workstation-grade hardware that delivers an efficient and reliable performance which is paramount for professional workstations that are meant for people who are constantly on a deadline and cannot afford a second of downtime. At the end of the day, the system you opt for should complement your editing workflow and working environment, but not vice versa.
[source: Max Yuryev]
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate partner and participant in B&H and Adorama Affiliate programmes, we earn a small comission from each purchase made through the affiliate links listed above at no additional cost to you.
Here we go..
This doesn’t answer a relevant question. Either compare equal hardware or equal price. This test – as described here – is beyond pointless, thus the statement “That said, it’s important to consider that while the PC can outperform the iMac Pro on certain occasions, it’s still a custom-built computer. Plus, there’s a good reason why the iMac Pro comes at a premium price.” cannot be concluded by the tests described here.
The fact a PC can compete or outperform the Imac at any task at only 1/4 of the price, is sort of embarrassing.
Why didn’t he test it against his Ryzen based PC..the Intel PC from Max is old news.
Intel i7 8700k overclocked to 5.0 ghz is almost the best one can put into a pc these days for video editing. The xeon advantages are very minor due to a lock of optimisation.
However, davinci in particular scales very well (!) with more cores than 6. that would mainly explain the differences…
Actually, an i7-8700K isn’t even close to the best currently available from Intel, since there’s also an i-9 lineup. Add Threadripper into the equation and things look more interesting still.
For the price of the iMac Pro you can rig up an Omen-X with a 12-core i-9 and a dual 1080Ti. That would a lot more interesting to compare…
Your answer may hold true for certain scenarios. But its important to understand, that in MOST cases (esp. when editing with NON-REd Footage) a 8700k overclocked can absolutely outperform the i9 Series, as their clockspeed is lower. For Premiere the 8700k will almost always be the better choice! For davinci i9 should be better due to high core optimsation. When dealing with quicksync content and looking at final cut i7 8700k is the clear winner again…so not really as simple as „spend more money and get more performance“. After 8700k and above you can get strongly diminishing returns with current software optimisation. (Sometimes even lower performance!)
For professional use, my response will almost always hold true. QuickSync is for h.264 and h.265, not professional codecs… Resolve and its competition (e.g. Mistika, BaseLight, Scratch, Rio, Nucoda) are designed for professional use… so they’re not geared toward consumer codecs like h.264/265.
For professional use though, the situation is the opposite.
Otherwise, companies that cater primarily to professionals like SGO and FilmLight wouldn’t design turnkey workstations around high core count Xeons and multiple GPUs.
I totally agree there. For high end pro-Use these high end CPUs are surely worth it. Esp. when considering, that for a proper company 3000 bucks more on a cpu vs. 5-10% saved time CAN absolutely be worth it (!).
As you can see, i was trying to speak for semi-Pro users like myself. The 8700K offers some tremendous middelground value thats hard to beat, as ryzen and i9 are rather specific and need a higher budget to be justified. I would expect this cpu to be the bet current buy for a lot of the readers of this page (>80%?). If the leftover budget can give you a proper drone, gimbal, 2nd Lowlight-Camera, that can also save tons of time in post (not to mention more Quality). I think for most people thats what a super exp. CPU has to compete against…unless high end as mentioned…
Well, that’s exactly why I plan on getting an Omen-X or HP Z with an i9 rather than an iMac pro for around the same price. I don’t have the budget for a Mistika, but I’m shooting Redcode, rather than h.264. My production company is small and new, so we can’t go really high end right now… but that just makes the iMac Pro that much less desirable, because I can get an HP Z for the same price and add memory and GPUs and a 2nd CPU as I save money rather than having to wait and spring for it all at once due to the iMac “pro” being an all-in-one box. Terrible design decision, that… It’s going to alienate most of its target market, and probably end up annoying most of the people who DO make the mistake of investing, in the same way that the trashcan did.
Which Mobo are you using?