Which iMac vs MBP vs mini product is best for FCPX

the never ending quest for 'best'… <sigh> 😐

Any Mac the past 5-8 years works with FCPX, here: a 2012MacMini, modified with 16GB and an int.SSD, plus media managed 'outside' on usb3 connected SSDs … even 4k Multicam does work here… ok, that is more of a stunt, not recommended for professional work 😉

If you don't need mobility, get an iMac. Has a larger and excellent screen (would be #1 on my wishlist)…

The tbMBp has the fastest int. SSD on earth … so, when you're editing smaller projects, the laptop beats the desktop - in specs, but in real-life?

My regular reply on 'speed': I'm no news-room, does it really matter, an export needs 15min instead of 20? (wowee, 25% faster!)

If you're looking for 'best' performance, you have to respect fundamental technically restrictions: a 32 angles Multicam asks for delivery of 32 streams of videos simultaneously … a 4k-compound within a 4k-compound within 4k-compound ask for tons of bandwidth for data… an effect with 1000 particles asks for -zillion of computations… tbc.

So, some smartness in workflow (proxies for example), file distribution etc avoids all that… and my trusty, tiny TubberBox makes it hard to argue why I 'need' the forthcoming 6k-iMac-pro with A10x10ClusterGPU… 😝

best? The one, your wallet allows …

Like Karsten said, if mobility is not an issue, the iMac is a better choice. The large screen and the better ergonomy clearly favor it.

That said: I frown upon buying *any* new mac with anything less than an SSD. The Fusion drive should be better than a mere old HD, but in the current iteration this 1TB version has only a meager SSD part. Recent versions of OS X/macOS perform quite poorly on machines with a rotating HD.

Even a 256GB SSD for your system is better. You will never external drives for video, anyway.

And I say, study your local used Macintosh market carefully and consider with deep thought the refurbished units on sale at apple.com. Your FCPX budget must include the cost of the application (probably Motion and Compressor, too), external drives, and, of course, a very comfortable chair.

David Bogie Chq-1 wrote:

… and, of course, a very comfortable chair.

+1 … I frequently forget the chair in the list ...!

and a coffee-machine, I would add … ok, not individable connected to FCPX, but worth a mention.-

btw: would be interesting to know, how correlates filters ./. steamers to FCPX ./. Premiere…?

sorry, losing track completely ................ 😝😁😝

"Which is best" comes under the heading of "different strokes for different folks".

However, having said that, based on what you wrote about the new machine, it seems to me there is something a bit off with it.

The reason I say that is because while traveling I used my old MacBook Pro 2008 (late) and had essentially no problems editing HD video with FCPX 10.2.3. This is on a 2.53 GHz Core 2 Duo, 320 GB spinning HD, 8 GB memory, and with 256 MB for graphics. Granted, nothing "fancy" in the video as these were more-or-less typical vacation videos spiced up a bit with transitions and titles. Speed was not a concern, and yes, rendering can slow things down but my managing rendering and doing it when needed, that was okay for me. Different strokes .....

Based on using the 2008 MBP it sure seems like the iMac could be improved with some tweaking somewhere, just can's say where.

With regard to what "is best", you've done good by talking to Apple experts for their opinions and read the guru posts above. For comparing machines I'd recommend this site: http://www.everymac.com/ultimate-mac-comparison-chart/?compare=all-macs&highligh t=0&prod1=MacPro031

If you haven't already (and you probably have), I'd bug Apple about the issues you're having and see if they can't get them resolved.

+1 for the chair!

NNespresso.

AAny current Mac is fully capable of running FCPX. It's not about the machine, it's about how you work with it. That is not always simple, video is hard.