Martin Lévay Everything you wanted to know about the Mac Pro and didn't know why to ask. We'll take a look at how drives and processors work in some of today's most powerful computers. Find out why some people think paying a hundred grand for a Mac Pro is a good price.
Why is a hundred thousand video editing computer not expensive?
Video Editing
In 2012, I got a video editing job. Ten hour projects to edit, add effects and texts. In Final Cut Pro, hereinafter referred to as FCP. "I have three Macs, I can do it on the left rear," I thought to myself. Error. All three Macs went full blast for two weeks and I filled up about 3 TB of drives.
FCP and disc work
First, I'll explain how Final Cut Pro works. We will create a project into which we will load 50 GB of video. We want to increase the brightness, since calculating this effect in real time is difficult, what FCP will do is apply the effect to the entire background video and export a new "layer" that has, wow, another 50 GB. If you want to add warm colors to the entire video, FCP will create an additional 50GB layer. They just started and we have 150 GB less on disk. So we'll add logos, some subtitles, we'll add a soundtrack. Suddenly the project swells to another 50 GB. Suddenly, the project folder has 200 GB, which we need to back up to a second drive. We don't want to lose our jobs.
Copying 200 GB to a 2,5″ disk
A 500 GB 2,5" drive connected via USB 2.0 in an older MacBook can copy at a speed of about 35 MB/s. The same drive connected via FireWire 800 can copy approximately 70 MB/s. So we will back up a 200 GB project for two hours via USB and only an hour via FireWire. If we connect the same 500 GB disk again via USB 3.0, we will back up at a speed of about 75 MB/s. If we connect the same 2,5″ 500 GB drive via Thunderbolt, the backup will again take place at a speed of about 75 MB/s. This is because the maximum speed of the SATA interface in combination with a 2,5″ mechanical disk is simply 75 MB/s. These are the values I used to achieve at work. Higher rpm discs can be faster.
Copying 200 GB to a 3,5″ disk
Let's look at a 3,5″ drive of the same size. USB 2.0 handles 35 MB/s, FireWire 800 handles 70 MB/s. The three-and-a-half-inch drive is faster, we will back up around 3.0-150 MB/s via USB 180 and via Thunderbolt. The 180 MB/s is the maximum speed of the disk itself in these conditions. This is due to the higher angular velocity of the larger 3,5″ drives.
More discs, more it knows
Four 3,5″ drives can be inserted into the Mac Pro. They will copy between each other at about 180 MB/s, I measured it. It's five times faster than USB 2.0. It's three times faster than FireWire 800. And it's twice as fast as using two laptop 2,5″ drives. Why am I talking about this? Because the 180 MB/s is the highest normally achievable speed for ordinary money. The next increase in speed is only possible with an investment in the order of tens of thousands for SSD disks, which are still expensive in the higher sizes, what will we say.
Faster!
There are two ways to get past the 200 MB/s limit when copying large blocks of data. We have to use USB 3.0 or Thunderbolt for connection and classic mechanical disks connected in RAID or newer disks called SSD connected via SATA III. The magic of connecting disks to RAID is that the speed of the two disks as a RAID unit is almost doubled, mathematically (180+180)x0,8=288. The coefficient of 0,8 I used depends on the quality of the RAID controller, for cheap devices it is closer to 0,5 and for high-quality solutions it is closer to 1, so two 3,5″ drives of 500 GB connected in RAID will reach a real speed of over 300 MB/ with. Why am I talking about this? Because, for example, the LaCie 8 TB 2big Thunderbolt Series RAID will back up our 200 GB of video for less than 12 minutes if we work on an SSD in a Mac and store via Thunderbolt, where the copy speed is just above 300 MB/s. It is fair to remember that the price of the disk exceeds twenty thousand, and the speed and comfort achieved will most likely not be used by the average user. The realistically achievable maximum is around 800 MB/s if we connect two SSD drives to RAID, but the prices are already above 20 crowns for 512 GB storage. Anyone who really makes a living with video or graphics processing will pay the devil's soul for such a speed.
The difference in discs
Yes, the difference between a drive on USB 2.0 and a drive connected via Thunderbolt is two hours versus twelve minutes. When you process ten of those projects, you suddenly realize that Thunderbolt on a computer with an SSD drive (Retina display on a quad-core MacBook Pro) is actually quite a good price, because you save at least two hours of time on each project just for backups! Ten projects means twenty hours. One hundred projects means 200 hours, that's more than a month of working time per year!
And what is the difference in CPU?
I can't remember the exact numbers off the top of my head, but I was tabulating how fast my computers would export the same project in FCP. It was definitely possible to tell if we had a Core 2 Duo, or a dual-core i5 or a quad-core i7 or an 8-core Xeon. I will write a separate article on processor performance later. Now just briefly.
Frequency or number of cores?
Software is most important. If the SW is not optimized for a larger number of cores, then only one core runs and the performance corresponds to the processor clock, i.e. the frequency of the core. We will simplify the performance calculations by describing how all processors behave at a frequency of 2 GHz. A Core 2 Duo (C2D) processor has two cores and behaves like a dual core. I'll express this mathematically as 2 GHz times 2 cores, so 2×2=4. These were the processors in the MacBook in 2008. Now we'll discuss the dual-core i5 processor. The i5 and i7 series have so-called hypertherading, which in certain situations can act as two additional cores with roughly 60% of the performance of the main two cores. Thanks to this, the dual-core in the system reports and partially behaves as a quad-core. Mathematically, it can be expressed as 2 GHz times 2 cores and we add 60% of the same number, i.e. (2×2)+((2×2)x0,6)=4+2,4=6,4. Of course, with Mail and Safari you won't care, but with FCP or professional programs from Adobe, you will appreciate every second you don't waste waiting for "it to be done". And we have a quad-core i5 or i7 processor here. As I mentioned, a quad-core processor will show up as an octa-core with 2GHz math power times 4 cores + reduced hyperthreading power, so (2×4)+((2×4)x0,6)=8+4,8=12,8, XNUMX.
Only a few, mostly professional, programs will use these performances.
Why Mac Pro?
If the higher Mac Pro has twelve cores, then with hyperthreading we'll see almost 24. Xeons run at 3GHz, so mathematically, 3GHz times 12 cores + hyperthreading, 3×12+((3×12)x0,6)= 36+21,6=57,6. Do you understand now? The difference between 4 and 57. Fourteen times the power. Attention, I took it too far, some programs (Handbrake.fr) can easily use 80-90% of hyperthreading, then we get to a mathematical 65! So if I export an hour from FCP on an old MacBook Pro (with a 2GHz dual-core C2D), it takes roughly 15 hours. With a dual-core i5 in about 9 hours. About 5 hours with a quad-core i4,7. The ultimate "outdated" Mac Pro can do it in an hour.
One hundred thousand crowns is not that much
If someone complains that Apple hasn't updated the Mac Pro in a long time, they are right, but the fact is that the new MacBook Pros with Retina from 2012 have about half the performance of the outdated basic eight-core Mac Pro models from 2010. The only thing that can be blamed on Apple is the lack of technology in Mac Pro, where there is neither USB 3.0 nor Thunderbolt. This will most likely be caused by the absence of a chipset for motherboards with Xeons. My guess is that Apple and Intel are working hard to make the chipset for the new Mac Pro so that the USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt controllers work with Intel's server (Xeon) processors.
New processor?
Now I will venture a little speculation. Despite the truly brutal performance, Xeon processors have been on the market for a relatively long time and we can expect the end of production and a new model of these "server" processors in the near future. Thanks to Thunderbolt and USB 3.0, I guess that either a new multi-processor motherboard will appear with "regular" Intel i7 processors, or that Intel will announce new processors for multi-processor solutions compatible with USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt. Rather, I am inclined to the fact that a new processor will be created with new technologies with additional speed reserve on the buses. Well, there is still an A6, A7 or A8 processor from the Apple workshop, which offers solid performance with minimal power consumption. So if Mac OS X, applications and other necessary things were modified, I can imagine that we would have a new Mac Pro with a 64 or 128 core A7 processor (could easily be 16 quad core chips in a special socket) on which the export from FCP would run even faster than with a couple of trampled Xeons. Mathematically 1 GHz times 16 times 4 cores, without hyperthreading it would look mathematically roughly like 1x(16×4)=64, and for example 32 quad-core A7 chips (quad-core I'm making up, the Apple A7 chip has not yet been announced) and we are at a mathematical performance of 1x( 32×4)=128! And if some kind of hyperthreading were added, the performance would increase by leaps and bounds. I don't think it will be this year, but if Apple wants to keep its emphasis on ecology, reducing consumption by using a mobile processor seems to me a logical direction in the coming years.
If someone says that the Mac Pro is old and slow, or even overpriced, they should take their word for it. It's an incredibly quiet, beautiful and very powerful computer despite being on the market for so long. By all accounts, tablets are slowly but surely replacing notebooks and desktop computers, but the place of the Mac Pro in the music or graphics studio will be unshakable for a long time. So if Apple plans to update the Mac Pro, then it can be expected that the changes will be more extensive and with a high probability they will not only follow but also create new trends. If Apple has been focusing on iOS development, then after completion it will return to the projects it temporarily put on hold, at least that's what it appears from the book "Inside Apple" by Adam Lashinsky. Considering that Final Cut Pro is already supported by disk manufacturers with a Thunderbolt connector, a new computer for professionals is really on the way.
And if the new Mac Pro really comes, we will most likely celebrate the new king, who will once again take his throne with a heartless and raw performance hidden in a silent and detailed cabinet, which Jonathan Ive will once again prove his mastery to us. But the fact is, if he uses the original 2007 Mac Pro case, I won't mind at all, because it's really cool. Even just adding Thunderbolt will be worth enough to some of us to get out of our chairs and buy a new Mac Pro. And I understand them and I will do the same in their place. The hundred thousand crowns is actually not that much.
Thanks for reading this far. I know the text is longer, but the Mac Pro is an amazing machine and I would like to pay tribute to its creators with this text. When you ever get a chance, take a close look at it, remove the cover, and take a close look at the cooling, component connections, and drive connections, and the difference between the case from your old PC and the Mac Pro. And when you hear it running at full power, then you'll understand.
Long live the king.
nice article, nothing with this:
Well, there is still an A6, A7 or A8 processor from the Apple workshop, which offers solid performance with minimal power consumption. So if Mac OS X, applications and other necessary things were modified, I can imagine that we would have a new Mac Pro with a 64 or 128 core A7 processor (could easily be 16 quad core chips in a special socket) on which the export from FCP would run even faster than with a couple of trampled Xeons."
it's really impossible to calculate, such processors would have to be put into the board by the dozen in order to have the performance of one xeon, not to mention the need to recompile all the software...
In my opinion, it's quite possible, but I don't think it will happen with the next generation, first with the one that comes and then with the next one... There are many possibilities of what will be in the next generation of MP. It is quite possible that new processors from AMD will appear in the new MPs, or they will give the option to i7/Xeons based on customer requirements. However, if they found processors from AMD in the new MPs, I think the GPU would also be from AMD... If there are Xeons, I suppose we can expect graphics cards from nVidia in the Macs...
In addition to processors from Apple (AX), Apple offers overall functionality and its computers (Macs) are, if necessary, compatible with Windows or other OS... A step that would give space to their processors would completely "bury" projects such as BootCamp, companies like Parallels Desktop or VMWare, as well as many free projects that work on running applications for other platforms on OS X... This is the reason why I think that we will definitely not see processors from Apple in MP yet.
Thank you.
Yes, recompiling all the SW, but Apple did it once before, when moving to Mac OS X. And it paid off. Microsoft didn't do it and now it's "looking for a station"... It can't be ruled out, although I admit it sounds crazy, when you imagine how much new software has been created in the last six years and how much work it would be to organize it somehow sensibly.
so sure, but it didn't, certainly not until ARM processors have decent performance for non-mobile devices... but we may have to wait for that in the future, you never know
Nice article. Really. It nicely approximates how the consumer performance differs from the professional one. So, similarly, I will show you that it does not end with your Mac Pro. On the contrary, it starts. The technologies described actually come from the server environment.
Disks: the reality is that, on the contrary, a 2.5″ disk has a higher speed potential. Angular speed is the same for discs rotating at the same speed, no matter how big they are (that's why they are angular). But you are interested in how much data flies under the head during one revolution. Well, since 2.5 discs have a higher density of recording per disc, they can be better. That's why the 2.5″ 15k RPM servos are top.
Xeon: that one definitely won't end. It is the server's processor and lives very healthy there. And that's where the Mac Pro problems come from. So why doesn't he come? There aren't really Xeon chipsets with USB 3.0/Thunderbolt, because nobody needs them in servers. And you can't replace an i7 Xeon, because it can't do multiprocessing (you can't put more of them on one board). So the new Mac Pro would be either with Xeons without USB 3 or with one i7. Both would be a step backwards. So it's nothing. And I very much doubt that Intel would rush into the development of a chipset for Xeons just because of the Mac Pro, unfortunately, it was born from you.
Thanks for the info on server technologies. It also doesn't seem realistic to me that the new Mac Pro without USB 3 or with an i7 would be among the Xeons. Rather, it seems to me like an interesting (unlikely) possibility of a new processor. After all, Apple once forced Intel to produce a smaller processor for the MacBook Air.
In my humble opinion, the latest Mac Pro has plenty of power, even for the pros, so it's quite possible that Apple really is stamping its foot and screaming "I want it and I want it and I want it!" and Intel is sweating blood. And it also seems to me that one of the reasons why the stock prices are falling is to force Apple to back off of "something", but I don't know what that could be. Such a classic politician in the background, I think the share price is a means of coercion. We lower stock prices, shareholders start pushing, and Apple eventually complies. But that's just a guess, who knows what it's like. Anyway, I don't see the stock as a bad sign from Apple, more like a bad sign from elsewhere…
I think the i7 multiCPU can do it
I can't. Just look at http://ark.intel.com
They will have to change the cabinet design a bit, thanks to the EU. But the article is good and everything is explained half-heartedly. Good work.
great article
Wonderful article. Thanks a lot. That mathematical description of performance opened my eyes. If I were a professional editor or musician, I would go to him. I need an iMac for graphics :) Even if it's tight...
Mat ty love too go to Mac Pro now, Otherwise a great read :-)
for now my MBP 13 (late 2011) has to be enough
The fact is regarding 100 for a computer that I have already tried, you pay to buy new machines with an additional warranty.
Even if I only have a cheaper machine for about 35, even with a small annual turnover, about 1500 CZK per month invested in the computer is not such a tragedy in comparison (even with about another 1000 CZK per month, which Adobe and Quark will rip off from me during my DTP work).
It's still very little compared to how much a car eats up every month for company trips.
I get a machine that is not too morally obsolete and I have it under warranty for the entire period of operation.
I myself have a MacPRO (EARLY 2008) 2x2,8GHz quad-cpre Intel Xeon - memory 2GB 800MHz DDR2 FB-DIMM Graphics ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT 256 MB
I just bought it for video editing. It worked with iMovie. But I can't even download Final Cut PRO here. That's why I uploaded it to a flash drive via the MacBook Pro and then to the MacPRO - as a result, it chops like crazy, it can't complete the calculation in the background just by inserting a transition and if something happens - it rather falls. MacPRO has a son (8 years old) in his room and he enjoys Minecraft on it - I don't want to sell it due to the purchase price, but it's just a piece of iron today... The truth is that I'm a user without knowledge of hardware requirements and maybe it just needs some remodeling – in iStyle, where I handled everything, they sold me a new iMac, and it doesn't have time to calculate anything in FinalCut Pro, but at least something. So can you please advise me what I could do to expand my Mac PRO so that it is as wonderful as you describe? Thank you.
Maybe you could mention which version of Final Cut you are using :) Otherwise it would definitely need at least 8 GB of RAM, ideally 16 GB :)
as 2GB is too small for the x-axis alone, let alone a video editor
Thanks for the response. The current version on the AppStore, i.e. Final Cut Pro X 10.0.8
RAM could tera shake it up? There is still probably a problem with the graphics card - it told me that it is not supported...
There is enough processor power, if the disk is original it will also be enough. The problem is clearly the lack of RAM, I would add to 8 GB (2×4 GB modules), more is probably unnecessary. The software is just as important, so I would reinstall Mountain Lion on a clean disk and install the latest FCP after downloading the updates. It should perform about the same or better than what I used. I wouldn't bother with the message about the graphics card, see the following.
For FCP, I used a 13″ MacBook Pro (Late 2011, 2,4 GHz dual-core i5 with hyperthreading) and ran the output from the Intel HD graphics 3000 (512 MB) to a 27″ iMac, which I switched to display mode. Sure, the MacBook has been upgraded to 8 GB of RAM, the drive has been replaced with an Intel SSD 240 (220 MB/s write, 400 MB/s read), but the work with Full HD was fast, I was just waiting for the copy when backing up and transferring to another drive , and of course for exports. The second, officially older, 17″ MacBook Pro with almost the same processor (2,53 dual-core i5) without an SSD did not behave as quickly, so I ended up editing on a 13″ MacBook Pro and a 27″ iMac, and I used the 17″ MacBook Pro for video export , which I cut on a 13″ MBP.
Yes, I know I'm squeamish about having three Macs, but I probably wouldn't explain it :-)
Thank you very much for the answer. Although I got a little confused about the "driving" from iMac to MacBook... But I think I understand it in principle. I also looked at the iMac - I have 4GB of RAM there, and the MacBook Pro also has 4GB of RAM - which is probably not a miracle, but I'll probably leave it as it is and send the "grandfather" MAC Pro to the service for strengthening... It's unfortunate that I do video editing as a hobby, but RAM, GB, HDD, etc. is a Spanish village for me and I simply do NOT want to learn it. Well, thanks again. Nice weekend.
You need graphics that support CL, because the Atina in your MacPro doesn't support it. And of course 2GB of RAM is quite small :)
I own the same MacPRO model, in the basic configuration with 10GB of RAM, which I subsequently expanded to 32GB of RAM. I worked with it for a long time in FinalCut Pro 6,7, in which I had no problem. However, with the new Final Cut for X, there was a performance problem. I still own a Macbook for retina in the highest configuration with increased RAM to 16GB, and FinalCut runs like a slingshot on it. According to the benchmark, this retina has a more powerful processor than the older mac pro, and it can be seen in the renders, but the difference I feel when editing in FinalCut pro X is very big. For example, Mac Pro can't handle connecting a Blackmagic card for reference preview at all. Most likely the problem is really in the graphics card. Recently, 2 new powerful models of graphics cards have been released for the Mac pro, so I would see a solution here.
Very nice article, thanks!
Great article, you can see that someone really understands this. Keep it up!
Excellent article! Thanks, I read it all the way through "in one go"…
Mac Pro is a great machine, but only for a small handful of optimized SW (FCP, Cinema4D, I don't know other options...). I can't imagine that someone will buy it in a graphic studio for Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign. The performance in these applications will not be higher than on the iMac, MacBook Pro, and if so minimal, because these applications cannot use so many cores. The difference in price is indefensible in this case, unless you buy a bargain MacPro.
Making a 700MB PSD file in Photoshop is no problem, the swap file is 13GB after a bit of work! So a fast drive is definitely defensible. And let's not forget that Photoshop can do scripting (batch processing), something like "take all the files from this folder and apply these five filters to them, reduce them and save the result as a JPG". Two thousand files times ten actions for each is enough for a madman. In Photoshop I "upload" one and then just "play". If a graphic artist paid by the hour is waiting for the result, he will be happy that it will be in 5 minutes and not in two hours.
Otherwise, yes, moving the mouse cursor across the screen has no demands on the processor, but even InDesign can use up the CPU when exporting a catalog, book, or magazine. But if it's done twice a week, our guy will try it and wait for the hour.
Mac Pro is for professionals. When it comes to time, it is a priceless worker. A thrift store item only makes sense to someone who knows exactly what it's going to be used for. It's a bit of a waste at home :-)
Personally, I use PS and, compared to the Imac, the MAC PRO works without any waiting, the Imac got really hot.
Hats off, great :)
if I didn't have my own experience with them, I might even believe the article.
I'm just wondering which editor would be crazy enough to use FCP X...
it is possible to mention the support of ECC memory that goes hand in hand with xeons, which is definitely not to be taken lightly with large capacities, especially for workstations
If someone pays 100 liters or more for a desktop, they can certainly afford to buy an SSD disk array for it. I'm crying about the SW raid in the iMac, and personally for several years I've been hoping that the MacPro will officially support the OCZ RevoDrive (the best in the raid) and that QNAP/Synology will finally come with a Thunderbolt connector. If only there was some kind of Thunderbolt - 4LAN reduction with storage. The performance of today's PCs seems OK to me, but the data storage speed and space requirements are far behind.
Thunderbolt is a problem for Intel, which has not yet offered it in a chipset for the Xeon processor platform.
This is a very high quality article.
Hello everyone,
much of what has been written here is true, but….
In 2008, I was dealing with the decision to buy a new machine and I chose APPLE
MacPRO (EARLY 2008) 2x2,8GHz quad-cpu Intel Xeon - memory 6GB 800MHz DDR2 FB-DIMM NVIDIA 8800 graphics.
My belief that it would finally work (HD video, audio) was one big mistake (applies to both HD video and audio samplers). Multiple disks in the station allowed me to test work in both MAC OS and Windows in parallel and to choose the most suitable settings and applications.
Video:
I used both FC 10 (OSX) and Premier 6 (OSX, WIN) for a while. If you are serious about your work, the answer is absolutely clear:
HDD: SSD only
Graphics: NVIDA QUATRO K5000
Video: BLACKMAGIC Intensity Pro
Basically, it doesn't matter if you have a newer or older machine, without these components it will be a "horrible mess" Using After Effects and more effects without rendering is simply not possible.
Using uncompressed video files or similar codecs is a must if you don't want to lose your eyes. All this has an impact on the necessary disk space, as it is correctly written in the article.
I finally chose to work in EDIUS, Windows platform, lossless video data format. I recommend it to all of you too. And most of the problem is greatly suppressed. Today's average VGA card is suitable for custom GPU effects. It is enough to have 1-2 SSD HDD, video card for preview (unfortunately only from GV). I no longer use Adobe applications. The latest iMAC (the most powerful variant) is also suitable for this work.
Audio
Here, the situation is very similar, although it is not talked about much. Today's musical instrument samples reach gig sizes. If you play such a symphony orchestra, the machine is not enough to load it from the HDD. It is therefore necessary to use SSD disks here as well. One for samples, the other for audio data. If you start using effects from Wawes and various Reverbs, etc., you will have to be very careful about overloading the processors, which is manifested by peeling (dropout). Here, too, it is necessary to solve the next procedure by rendering individual tracks (freezing) or by distributing the load on several machines, and this greatly delays creation.
With this article, I mainly wanted to say that solving everything only from the point of view of the disk and the way they are connected does not solve anything. It doesn't matter at all what the machine will be made of and what the final price will be. Its performance will always be insufficient and you will have to wait. For working with video, my machine is usable for SD, for HD it is on the edge, for 3D HD it is unusable.
And HD 2K and 4K are knocking at our door.
Support for multiprocessing in the mentioned applications is indeed declared, but often only somewhere and sometimes. And so it may well happen that you have to render because the effect you just used (or changed) is only singleCPU. And you go for a coffee or a cigarette. Video applications can use the GPU for some effects, which often speeds up work, but a really powerful card is required.
My recommendation: fewer CPU cores at a higher clock IS BETTER than many cores at a lower clock.
In conclusion, I would like to state that a machine balanced in price (parameters) is what is at stake here. Fewer effects are often better than many. For the video, first the editing, then the effect and the final rendering, calmly in the background of another activity.
This applies not only to HD video, but also to samplers in AUDIO.
Hello and thank you for adding. I didn't want to go into these details, these problems are solved by only a few individuals in the republic, but I agree, it is still not enough for some things. For example, the new Příšerky, s.r.o. has a rendering time of the order of one hundred million hours. You need to pay a few million dollars and a plane with a CPU farm will fly to your garden for a few months. Hundreds of thousands of cores, lined up to maximize computing power. They are atypical custom machines with atypical custom software. For a hundred thousand times the price, you rent a hundred thousand times the performance. From almost twelve thousand years of calculations, it can be reduced to just a few months. Of course, it is continuously rendered from 3D to film format, after scenes that are continuously composed in a classic editing room with Windows or Mac OS X.
Otherwise, I agree, After Effects 7 on the 2,0 GHZ quad core ran worse than on the higher clocked 3.06 GHz dual core. It only changed with AE CS5, where, for example, previews during mask animation were faster. Nothing crazy, but the progress was there, perhaps thanks to the support of the graphics card. It could be accelerated by leaps and bounds with a card from BLACKMAGIC, but I didn't need it that much :-) I solved it when I bought a MacBook Pro 17″, so I don't remember the exact numbers, but the differences were in the order of tens of percent of the difference between the SW versions used .
I agree with two disks, but again it is necessary to know what I am doing, to tune the HW for the activity that few people can do, for most "experts" it is the same voodoo as for users. My guess is that very few people know about HW for graphics and recording studios and even those will prefer to choose the tried and tested "good old Mac Pro" rather than trying to trick a customer into buying a MacBook Pro with Retina because everyone says it's a "gun". If someone wants "something for occasional video editing", then MBP with Retina is a great choice, if you don't intend to invest hundreds of thousands.