Continuing yesterday’s post about tech specs and the problems choosing between Mac Book Pros is causing me, I’d like to talk a little about processors.

As I’ve mentioned before Chris didn’t seem to have any trouble editing 1080p footage on his Core 2 Duo MBP in 2009. Not the most amazing processor in the world but certainly a solid one in its day and apparently better than the quad-core Phenom II 9500 I currently employ.

Clearly a dual core machine is more than up to the task. A quad-core would be nice though and let’s be fair, who uses a dual core these days?


Well the 13” late 2013 MacBook Pros are only dual core.

Part of me keeps wondering if that’s going to be enough for what I’ll be asking of the machine. If I want anything better though that means switching to the vast and unwieldy 15” MBPs. Would that be worth the extra bit of processing power?

Regardless of all that there’s the issue of Intel Quick Sync. It’s basically a hardware encoder as part of the processor. That’s awesome, obviously, but can it be used with Final Cut Pro X?

It seems that only Quicktime X supports it on OSX – but does Quicktime form part of the backbone of Final Cut Pro X?

Either way it seems like the most efficient way to encode things and that’s of considerable interest to me. I’ve got vast volumes of stuff I’d like to push over to H264 if I only had a quick way of doing so.

The question then is whether Intel Quick Sync would limit the usefulness of a high end processor and therefore make a quad-core a needless power suck?

Then there’s the fact that by the time I’ve figured this lot out the new ones will be released!

0 responses to "Quite a bit more than 30 GiB actually…"

Leave a Reply