Maximum quality DaVinci Resolve 14 system build?

When did AMD stop building CPUs? I dont recall them ever stopping, just not doing nearly as well.

o.k. sorry for the missinformation here, i was under the impression they stopped with workstation cpu's for a while.

I do not know AMD Rizen processors. So I'm curious to see how these CPUs will react to the heat when you have to work for several hours at high frequencies. I am waiting to see.

Thomas - I share your concerns. AMD was so far behind I wrote them off. I'm an Intel fan and we can thank AMD for the price reduction in SkylakeX which has narrowed the Ryzen gap. I'm still concerned about AMD as Intel's 1st quarter profit was more than AMD's total turnover and last I checked in spite of Ryzen demand AMD has yet to show a profit and carries a big accumulated loss and Nvidia still dominates the GPU market. In addition Intel's R&D budget is greater than AMD turnover. So my concerns are -
Will AMD survive?
Is a slightly cheaper investment a better investment for an edit workstation?

Some interesting bits of AMD trivia.
AMD doesn't make Ryzen CPUs - They are made by GlobalFoundaries owned by the Emirate of Abu Dhabi.
Ryzen was also successfully produced by Samsung using 14 nm FinFET process.
Ryzen design success is attributed to one man "AMD began planning the Zen microarchitecture shortly after re-hiring Jim Keller in August 2012. AMD formally revealed Zen in 2015".
The only way AMD could re-gain market share was on price. According to Forbes, AMD is selling Ryzen at a much lower profit margin than Intel.

Back to topic - Max quality Resolve build:-
I'm still confused - to say the least. Benchmarks are hard to find. Here is the latest from Puget Systems using Adobe PrPro 2017 and Win 10 -
Premiere Pro CC 2017.1.2 CPU Comparison: Skylake-X, Kaby Lake-X, Broadwell-E, Kaby Lake, Ryzen 7
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-CC-2017-1-2-CPU-Comparison-Skylake-X-Kaby-Lake-X-Broadwell-E-Kaby-Lake-Ryzen-7-969/
This is an update to the detailed Ryzen tests
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-CC-2017-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-1800X-Performance-909/
Puget build custom workstations for editing, CAD, etc and this is the most comprehensive NLE benchmark I've seen. They have confirmed they will be testing Resolve 14 when it's out of beta testing.
I'm hoping they use Studio as BMD have indicated Studio has performance features not in Free version.

Some things to note in the benchmark:
Ryzen does not perform as well as SkylakeX.
There are significant performance gains going from 4 to 6 and 8 cores but diminishing cost/performance returns as you add more cores in most tests. Puget are not expecting significant performance gains from 12-18 core CPUs coming soon due to multi-threading limitations and slower per core speeds.
SkylakeX is faster than Broadwell E at significantly lower cost. A six core CPU from Intel used to cost over $600, you can now purchase an eight core CPU for roughly the same cost.

In terms of Overall Average CPU Performance it's interesting to note:
Using the $617 i7-6850K 6 core as a base at 100% performance: -
The $339 i7-7740X 4 core at 95% beat the $399 Ryzen 1700X 8 core and matched the $499 1800X
The $389 i7-7800X 6 core at 102% beat both Ryzens and slightly faster than the $617 i7-6850K 6 core.
The $599 i7-7820X 8 core at 113% matched the $1723 i7-6050X 10 core and is only $100 more than the Ryzen 1800X.
The $999 i7-7900X 10 core at 118% is only a 5% gain over the $599 i7-7820X 8 core.

It's clear SkylakeX has moved the Intel goal posts and there is no benefit moving to Ryzen for Premiere users.

We obviously don't know if the same is true for Resolve but I just downloaded the latest Resolve 14 recommendations and confusion reigns.
For Win 10 HEDTs they suggest two workstations:
for 4K - HP Z840 with dual 14 core Xeons (dual 8 core minimum)
4K and above - Supermicro Superserver 7048GR-TR with dual 20 core Xeons.
A $20K workstation? Can Resolve really use 40 cores?
Is this the "Maximum quality DaVinci Resolve 14 system build?"

For Resolve 14 users who also have Premiere it might be interesting to download the 4, 6, and 8K clips used in the Puget benchmark and compare performance

It just shows how poorly Premiere is written- it's not really made for anything more than few cores at all.

I experienced its rather poor performance- just add simple effects and timeline can slow down terribly. This is very different to Edius where adding effect slows it down, but not 50x. Edius own effects are very well optimised, but there are not that many of them.

.../...
For Resolve 14 users who also have Premiere it might be interesting to download the 4, 6, and 8K clips used in the Puget benchmark and compare performance

@Al Spaeth
Have you downloaded the RED clip and create a project and just put the clip on the TL with no effect. Need to export to H264?
What are test results?
Thank you.

Good...
I open the ball with the clip RED epicdragon-lowlight-4k-hd-120fps in H264 in UHD
(Force sizing to hightest quality: ON
Force Debayer to Hightest quality: OK)
31 s

epicdragon-lowlight-4k-hd-120fps.jpg

Maybe the GPU

Hi guys, this the system I use
Nome modello: iMac
Identificatore modello: iMac17,1
Nome processore: Intel Core i7
Velocità processore: 4 GHz
Numero di processori: 1
Numero totale di Core: 4
Cache L2 (per Core): 256 KB
Cache L3: 8 MB
Memoria: 32 GB
Versione Boot ROM: IM171.0105.B26
Versione SMC (sistema): 2.34f2

I sayd that is not enough to read in realtime FHD movies. But I have some doubt about.
1) In my timeline I have 20 footges, yes I know, it seems a very heay work, but DaVinci read only one camera eacht time, than I don't understand wich is the real problem. Even not problem reading with FCP in similar work.

2) it seems that audio is more heavy that video. Applying 4 audio track Reading is slowed down and fragmented. Also, it does not sound like a good audio editor; Is unclear; any fade curve, the actual zero is about in the middle of the curve, not in the end. But I did not use the audio section yet much.

3) every footages is stored in an external HD 3TB connected via thunderbolt. This connection is realy quickly, but i can say that it is very dangerous. The connection is very small and unstable. When my computer or HD is too hot sometimes I read wrong, I see: offline media, or does not allow me to export, then I have to close DaVinci resolve, disconnect and reconnect HD

.../...
For Resolve 14 users who also have Premiere it might be interesting to download the 4, 6, and 8K clips used in the Puget benchmark and compare performance

@Al Spaeth
Have you downloaded the RED clip and create a project and just put the clip on the TL with no effect. Need to export to H264?
What are test results?
Thank you.

I only have Resolve 14b and not Premiere Pro so I can't compare. I was looking forward to performance feedback from users who have both.
Sorry
Al

I dont know about worrying about AMD... they have a lot of market use. XBox and PS4 are both using their GPUs and CPUs unless that changed recently?

I dont see why it matters if AMD disappeared in say a year.. about using their CPUs now. If it offers a nice increase in performance at half the price.. you benefit now. If they should disappear.. you move on to Intel on your next build. Short of your computer with AMD dying.. and not being able to find a replacement CPU.. the only thing really that happens there is you buy a new cpu, motherboard and possibly RAM. The rest of the components all still work. Not saying it is easy to just drop another $1000 or so to do that.. but it is not like you are throwing away a $3000 edit machine. And that is only if the CPU or m/b crapped out. As long as it works and does what you need.. if AMD were to disappear, your machine wont suddenly stop working. At least not until its out of warranty.. then the day after it probably will.

As for price/performance, I think for video editing rigs, the real value is going to be Threadripper vs Intels best. That early benchmarks are showing the 16 core $1000 cpu besting the $2000+ 18 core Intel Xeon is impressive. To be fair, it is not that much faster in most tests, and slower in some..but that it is even keeping up with a Xeon is damn impressive, and at half the cost even... I would say it is worth a hard look especially for budget minded folks. If money is no object.. Id consider either the 32 core dual socket setup for AMDs, or something similar for Intel. But for around $2000 or so, you can build a 32 thread AMD rig that can churn out 4K RAW editing, and using their GPUs that are more cost friendly (at least rumored..not sure what the final price/performance comparison of the Vegas vs nvidias will be), you may be able to handle some hefty plugin use to boot. Especially given the 64 PCIe lanes vs 44.. giving you a full 3 high end GPUs to work with plus plenty of storage, vs 2 and a little bit of storage.

Justin
Agreed but I'm looking for an upgrade for 4K that will hopefully last 3-5 years and my only bad experience was with AMD. Never had an Intel CPU fail so I may be biased. I do hope AMD survives and thrives as consumers will benefit from competition.
Problem with CPU benchmarks on higher core models like the 18 core Threadripper is benchmark software rarely relates to real world app performance as total score is based on full utilization of all cores and benchmarks run all cores to the max. Apps are limited by multi-threading or parallelism (how many tasks can run in parallel at the same time). Editing is sequential by nature as we tend to do one task at a time but render can see significant improvements with more cores. Servers running more apps obviously benefit from more cores.
I'll have to wait and see the Puget Resolve 14 benchmark results but Premiere benchmarks above lean toward Intel.

There was a youtube post recently that showed Resolve 14 running threadripper 16 core vs 10core xeon Intel (same priced cpus), and the Threadripper was beating the intel xeon quite handsomely. From what I have read on other posts, the Threadripper is on part with the 18 core xeon setup at more than 1/2 the price.

But.. YMMV.. I suspect under different circumstances the Intel will pass it up, and in single threaded gaming, the Intel does beat the AMD.. but most games are still not multi-threaded yet.

Mind you.. I am not for or against either CPU. I just want the most powerful machine I can afford, and if the AMD setup is 1/2 the cost and gives similar/better performance to a machine costing 2x or more.. I am all for it. Then again, I upgrade every couple years to try to stay current. For example.. I am holding off right now waiting on the Optane SSD stuff from Intel to make it in to the AMD build. Originally.. several months ago it was going to be an Intel only option, but more recently apparently AMD will get the ability to use Optane. That is enough of an update to wait before I build my next machine. Thunderbolt 4 is probably not too far off.. but too far to wait. I dont know other than GPU upgrades what to expect in say 2 years from now, but other than Optane, I dont think there is any reason to wait on a system now. Get yourself the X399 motherboard, Thunderbolt 3 hub (OWC just released a new one for $300), couple NVMe Samsung 960 EVOs (far better bang for buck than the Pros), one or two 1070 or 1080 GPUs and a water cooler for the cpu and you should have a screaming 4K capable editing machine that will last several years short of anything dying.

Thanks Justin -
If you find that YouTube link please post it as I would like to see the benchmark.
I find it all a bit confusing as 14 is still in beta, BM claimed a 10X performance improvement over 12 so you can edit on a laptop, and I recently found out the CUDA only GPU accelerated H.264 timeline decoding for playback/edit is ONLY available on the paid Studio version for some strange reason so I can't test it.
Next question is workflow. My experience so far with 14 is 4K H.264 is really only possible via transcoding via DNxHD/HR at 1/4 res (HD). Cineform support has now been added to b8 which may be even better. Transcoding on large projects is time consuming and generates large files to backup or re-generate for current projects but may be the only option for H.264 and H.265. If so, my hardware needs may be much less than 18 cores.
I'm an amateur on a limited budget so what I need and what would be nice to have may not be the same. BM recommends dual Xeons for 14 4K yet I see users here with i7 4790s 4 core systems who, I assume, like me are waiting to see the best upgrade options once we have a stable 14.
Al

If you find that YouTube link please post it as I would like to see the benchmark.

Hi.

I don't know if the requested YouTube link is this one?

'AMD ThreadRipper: Best CPU for DaVinci Resolve?'

But if it is, is the benchmark from before the launch 10th August:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11678/amd ... -august-31

Here is a link to a real review with more recent benchmark. Done after the launch 10th August:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11697/the ... 20x-review

Regards Carsten.

I do not know AMD Rizen processors. So I'm curious to see how these CPUs will react to the heat when you have to work for several hours at high frequencies. I am waiting to see.

So far, so good. I've been beating the crap out of my 1800x OC 3.9 with air cooling over the last several months.

I do not know AMD Rizen processors. So I'm curious to see how these CPUs will react to the heat when you have to work for several hours at high frequencies. I am waiting to see.

So far, so good. I've been beating the crap out of my 1800x OC 3.9 with air cooling over the last several months.

Hi Robert,

It's a ugly devil ...

My experience so far with 14 is 4K H.264

I'm an amateur on a limited budget

IMO, your money is best spent on the Studio license for the GPU accelerated H.264 decode (assuming you have a supported GPU). Unless you can change the format you shoot in, offloading that decoding is going to be the best performance boost you can buy.

I find it all a bit confusing as 14 is still in beta, BM claimed a 10X performance improvement over 12 so you can edit on a laptop, and I recently found out the CUDA only GPU accelerated H.264 timeline decoding for playback/edit is ONLY available on the paid Studio version for some strange reason so I can't test it.

It's a premium feature, so no way are they going to give it away for free. However even the free version has improved performance.

Next question is workflow. My experience so far with 14 is 4K H.264 is really only possible via transcoding via DNxHD/HR at 1/4 res (HD). Cineform support has now been added to b8 which may be even better. Transcoding on large projects is time consuming and generates large files to backup or re-generate for current projects but may be the only option for H.264 and H.265. If so, my hardware needs may be much less than 18 cores.

I think your current hardware might be limiting you. In 14 Beta my 6850k and 1070 doesn't have an issue with 4k h.264 long gop as long as i don't go scrubber crazy.

Thanks Robert -"So far, so good. I've been beating the crap out of my 1800x OC 3.9 with air cooling over the last several months. "
Have you tried 4K H.264 performance? Good to hear you are satisfied with Ryzen.

Thanks Dan - "In 14 Beta my 6850k and 1070 doesn't have an issue with 4k h.264 long gop as long as i don't go scrubber crazy."
How many layers of 4K does it handle smoothly on the timeline. I need 3-4 at 50 fps with color correction and a few effects like stabilize and speed change.
Are you using Studio or Free version? Beta 8?
Great news if a 6 core CPU can manage it - newer 7800X 6 core is significantly cheaper and the 7820X 8 core now about the same price as your 6850K.
https://ark.intel.com/compare/123767,123589,94188

Once 14 is out of beta it would be interesting to see a new user performance feedback thread for various workflows as a guide to hardware requirements.
Hopefully BMD will allow a 30 day trial download for Studio so we can compare performance as we can do with other NLEs.
If the latest BMD Resolve 14 recommended dual Xeon desktop is needed for 4K I'm afraid Resolve may not be a viable 4K solution for me - plus I will will need to edit H.265 4K next year which is yet another challenge.

Thanks to all for the feedback.

Great news if a 6 core CPU can manage it - newer 7800X 6 core is significantly cheaper and the 7820X 8 core now about the same price as your 6850K.

Hi.

Don't look at 7800X 6 core. Look at the new 8th generation Intel CPU's for LGA 1151.

But Intel is doing it different this time. The 8th generation will consist of 3 differet kind of cores.

The first one was the Kaby Lake Refresh for Laptops that was launched 21 august. The next will be Coffee Lake for Desktops expected around October. And the last will come some time next year.

But we already know through leaks, that the Intel Core i7-8700K expected to October has 6 cores 12 thread and is faster than AMD Ryzen.
There will also be a new Z370 chipset. But there are rumors that Intel later will come with a chipset called Z390.

Suggest that you try to Google 'i7-8700K'

Regards Carsten.

Agreed Carsten - Waiting for release. Coffee Lake also has Intel Iris Graphics IGPU with some powerful 4K H.264 and H.265 decoding from Kaby Lake being used in other NLE software.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10959/intel-launches-7th-generation-kaby-lake-i7-7700k-i5-7600k-i3-7350k/6
"Intel claims that Kaby Lake-U/Y can handle up to eight 4Kp30 AVC and HEVC decodes simultaneously. HEVC decode support is rated at 4Kp60 up to 120 Mbps"

How many layers of 4K does it handle smoothly on the timeline. I need 3-4 at 50 fps with color correction and a few effects like stabilize and speed change.
Are you using Studio or Free version? Beta 8?

I'm playing with Beta 8 the free version right now.

if I drop 3 4k 30p clips directly onto the timeline and stack them I get smooth playback even though I gave them all serial blur nodes and varying levels of transparency (looks like mush). if i go to 4, it takes 2 or 3 seconds for playback to level out. At 4 I'm starting to become cpu bound.

If i was running studio, i'm pretty confident I would be fine, as the Nvidea api is pretty powerful. ffmpeg uses it as well, and when i transcode to dnxhr hq i can run 6 files at once.


Are you doing some kind of picture in picture or composite work that you need to layer so many clips? When I work, I'm usually just stringing clips together even if they are on different "layers", so really DR is only ever processing one or two clips at a time.

My experience so far with 14 is 4K H.264

I'm an amateur on a limited budget

IMO, your money is best spent on the Studio license for the GPU accelerated H.264 decode (assuming you have a supported GPU). Unless you can change the format you shoot in, offloading that decoding is going to be the best performance boost you can buy.

Yes, but only if you are using 4:2:0 8bit h264 files. Any 10bit or 4:2:2 h264= no acceleration as far as I can tell as Nvidia's chip doesn't support them.
There is always something

Yes, but only if you are using 4:2:0 8bit h264 files. Any 10bit or 4:2:2 h264= no acceleration as far as I can tell as Nvidia's chip doesn't support them.
There is always something

it will handle 10 and 12 bit decode, but only if it's YUV 4:2:0. encoding it can do 8 and 10 bit at either YUV 4:2:0 or YUV 4:4:4. Personally, i find the breakdown kind of odd.

https://developer.nvidia.com/nvidia-video-codec-sdk

Suggest that you try to Google 'i7-8700K'

Just keep in mind that the 8700k will be a mainstream cpu and thus limited to 24 pcie lanes. so you need to be careful if you need dual gpus, capture cards, HBAs or a specialty NIC.

the 7800x and 7820x will only get you 28 lanes. To get to 40 plus lanes like my 6850k has, you have to get the 7900x or higher. Every Threadripper skew has 64 pcie lanes, that's why so many people are interested in it.

Suggest that you try to Google 'i7-8700K'

Just keep in mind that the 8700k will be a mainstream cpu and thus limited to 24 pcie lanes. so you need to be careful if you need dual gpus, capture cards, HBAs or a specialty NIC.

the 7800x and 7820x will only get you 28 lanes. To get to 40 plus lanes like my 6850k has, you have to get the 7900x or higher. Every Threadripper skew has 64 pcie lanes, that's why so many people are interested in it.

+1

Yes, but only if you are using 4:2:0 8bit h264 files. Any 10bit or 4:2:2 h264= no acceleration as far as I can tell as Nvidia's chip doesn't support them.
There is always something

it will handle 10 and 12 bit decode, but only if it's YUV 4:2:0. encoding it can do 8 and 10 bit at either YUV 4:2:0 or YUV 4:4:4. Personally, i find the breakdown kind of odd.

https://developer.nvidia.com/nvidia-video-codec-sdk

10/12bit is only for h265.
4:4:4 is only for encoding part as far as I can see.
h264 decoding is just 4:2:0 8bit.

It's not always GPU, but also QuickSync:
Intel Skylake or newer for 8-bit HEVC/AVC, Intel KabyLake or newer for 10-bit HEVC encoding and decoding.
Vegas 15 is going to support it.

We obviously don't know if the same is true for Resolve but I just downloaded the latest Resolve 14 recommendations and confusion reigns.
For Win 10 HEDTs they suggest two workstations:
for 4K - HP Z840 with dual 14 core Xeons (dual 8 core minimum)
4K and above - Supermicro Superserver 7048GR-TR with dual 20 core Xeons.
A $20K workstation? Can Resolve really use 40 cores?
Is this the "Maximum quality DaVinci Resolve 14 system build?"

as mentioned, Pp seem to be a pig like thing when it come to mutli-threading, Resolve is elegance personified

Yes Resolve will run all threads a z820/840 has at 100% for hours and hours on end... as mine is tonight.. if you can see a reasonable ROI. it's worth the investment for stability alone

only confusion is in the mind of one who would think a Adobe retailer knows more than the developers...

It's not always GPU, but also QuickSync:
Intel Skylake or newer for 8-bit HEVC/AVC, Intel KabyLake or newer for 10-bit HEVC encoding and decoding.
Vegas 15 is going to support it.

Edius 8 also supports it - 4K AVC editing on a 4 core i7 Kaby Lake and no discrete GPU card needed - cheap hardware laptop/desktop solution. Intel supplies the API. BMD may be looking at it as well. There are advantages to using an integrated GPU for media vs discrete bus connected cards.
Timeline decoding is the challenge. Fast QuickSync (QSV) encoding should be fine for the web but software encoding quality will be better for the discerning Pro users.

We obviously don't know if the same is true for Resolve but I just downloaded the latest Resolve 14 recommendations and confusion reigns.
For Win 10 HEDTs they suggest two workstations:
for 4K - HP Z840 with dual 14 core Xeons (dual 8 core minimum)
4K and above - Supermicro Superserver 7048GR-TR with dual 20 core Xeons.
A $20K workstation? Can Resolve really use 40 cores?
Is this the "Maximum quality DaVinci Resolve 14 system build?"

as mentioned, Pp seem to be a pig like thing when it come to mutli-threading, Resolve is elegance personified

Yes Resolve will run all threads a z820/840 has at 100% for hours and hours on end... as mine is tonight.. if you can see a reasonable ROI. it's worth the investment for stability alone

only confusion is in the mind of one who would think a Adobe retailer knows more than the developers...

+1

It's not always GPU, but also QuickSync:
Intel Skylake or newer for 8-bit HEVC/AVC, Intel KabyLake or newer for 10-bit HEVC encoding and decoding.
Vegas 15 is going to support it.

Intel GPU is the same- only 8bit 4:2:0 acceleration for h264.

We obviously don't know if the same is true for Resolve but I just downloaded the latest Resolve 14 recommendations and confusion reigns.
For Win 10 HEDTs they suggest two workstations:
for 4K - HP Z840 with dual 14 core Xeons (dual 8 core minimum)
4K and above - Supermicro Superserver 7048GR-TR with dual 20 core Xeons.
A $20K workstation? Can Resolve really use 40 cores?
Is this the "Maximum quality DaVinci Resolve 14 system build?"

as mentioned, Pp seem to be a pig like thing when it come to mutli-threading, Resolve is elegance personified

Yes Resolve will run all threads a z820/840 has at 100% for hours and hours on end... as mine is tonight.. if you can see a reasonable ROI. it's worth the investment for stability alone

only confusion is in the mind of one who would think a Adobe retailer knows more than the developers...

There is a further question how much does Resolve actually gain by using more and more cores.
In most cases curve is crazy non-linear, so what e.g. 20 cores give you 40 cores may gain just another 20% but this never going to be 2x. This is common problem- you pay crazy money for 20% gain. This works for business, but for home users it's a very expensive option. You also need well balanced machine for Resolve, so CPU power has to go in line with adequate GPU power (and opposite).

I almost sure that eg. dual 10 cores at 3GHz Xeons system will be beaten in Resolve by single 10 cores i7/i9 at 4.5GHz which costs way less. It's only when you need crazy speed and want 3xGPUs+ Xeons are really needed. For prosumer users i7/i9 with 10+ cores at as high clock as possible (overclocked) is most effective solution (maybe except new AMD CPUs).

We obviously don't know if the same is true for Resolve but I just downloaded the latest Resolve 14 recommendations and confusion reigns.
For Win 10 HEDTs they suggest two workstations:
for 4K - HP Z840 with dual 14 core Xeons (dual 8 core minimum)
4K and above - Supermicro Superserver 7048GR-TR with dual 20 core Xeons.
A $20K workstation? Can Resolve really use 40 cores?
Is this the "Maximum quality DaVinci Resolve 14 system build?"

as mentioned, Pp seem to be a pig like thing when it come to mutli-threading, Resolve is elegance personified

Yes Resolve will run all threads a z820/840 has at 100% for hours and hours on end... as mine is tonight.. if you can see a reasonable ROI. it's worth the investment for stability alone

only confusion is in the mind of one who would think a Adobe retailer knows more than the developers...

Can you do a test (just don't use RED as a source):
- export some typical project with all cores measuring time
- limit cores to half and export same timeline

It would be nice to know how quickly Resolve starts saturating with numbers of cores. It will definitely depend on source format and export format, but also on its internal engine, which is most interesting here.

I Have not experience about hardware, but your comment sound me that my super imac with 4core is really ridicolous using DV Resolve, this is thrue?

i have to deliver mutiple versions of feature films on a deadline, and my cleints are willing to apy for that, so dual xeon's / dual gfx cards / large fast storage with excelent heat managent are worthwhile

iMac would melt down -or- take weeks and weeks to render those deliverables

but that does not mean the iMac is not a great tool when used within it's limits,

just the uses for a powerhouse machine are specfic and need to be paid for somehow, personal projects are not aksing the same of a machine as a feature film with distibution

iMac yes, but not necessarily 10 core i9 overclocked to 4.5GHz. I can bet you that in 50% cases it will be actually faster than your dual Xeon setup, specially if those Xeons are <3GHz ones.
In your case it's bit irrelevant as it's for business which pays for it.

I Have not experience about hardware, but your comment sound me that my super imac with 4core is really ridicolous using DV Resolve, this is thrue?

It depends on your work. If you feel your projects are being completed in a reasonable time, it doesn't matter. Keep in mind there are people editing hobby videos here, and people grading features. What works for the former is probably not enough for the latter.

It's strangely problematic situation. Many pro users will actually need lower spec machine as more often they work only at 2K and on ProRes, RAW, DPX etc sources which need less power than consumer h264 etc based formats. Also many "home" users will be trying to grade Sony a6300, GH4, GH5 4K footage (sometimes 50/60p one!), so they actually need more power than many pro users. For Resolve quality of the source pixels is irrelevant, it still has to processed them in the same way
Just to add a bit of fun and twist to the whole conversation

Hi Andrew,

That's just my opinion

I will turn this situation differently: there are many users who use the FREE version (IHMO Which is very complete) and use many compressed formats. As it is the FREE version, they do not benificient of the advances of the Studio version concerning the decoding (encoding?) of certain codec (it is necessary to compensate the licenses Studio ).

As professionals use the Studio versions (which they bought), to get a performance from their system, they do not "necessarily" need an ultra-high workstation.

Said otherwise: what is better to do? Buy a $ 299 DR license or spend more on PC or MAC or Linux hardware? Which will not necessarily achieve the same results? Everyone does what he wants.

Well, this is exactly what I said long time ago about FREE Resolve, which needs 5K$ machine to be run on
Quite often juts to do cut editing and very plain color correction. There are better options for this, but people like FREE Resolve I rather pay 500$ Edius license and do cut editing (including 4K h264 files) and simple color correction on 1K$ machine. Everyone has own choice.

Also does Studio version compared to free give better performance when you use ProRes, RAW or DPX as source?

I Have not experience about hardware, but your comment sound me that my super imac with 4core is really ridicolous using DV Resolve, this is thrue?

It depends on your work. If you feel your projects are being completed in a reasonable time, it doesn't matter. Keep in mind there are people editing hobby videos here, and people grading features. What works for the former is probably not enough for the latter.

I do some short movie, but not for large commercial use, generally my shots are not more than FHD, but it seems not enough for read Apple prores HQ without any effect or grading. This is the OS I use
Nome modello: iMac
Identificatore modello: iMac17,1
Nome processore: Intel Core i7
Velocità processore: 4 GHz
Numero di processori: 1
Numero totale di Core: 4
Cache L2 (per Core): 256 KB
Cache L3: 8 MB
Memoria: 32 GB
Versione Boot ROM: IM171.0105.B26
Versione SMC (sistema): 2.34f2

it is enought quickly to render and to export, but editing is very complicate, often crash, or is imposible to play and i must to restart DV Resolve. More and more bit problems, it read HVCD of Panasonic very well, but reding the Sony file, is a disaster. At last, the audio files (wave or aiff), seems to be more heavy than video. Using internal audio mixer I can see only the imput level indipendetly of wich level I set, it is very strange.

Well, this is exactly what I said long time ago about FREE Resolve, which needs 5K$ machine to be run on
Quite often juts to do cut editing and very plain color correction. There are better options for this, but people like FREE Resolve I rather pay 500$ Edius license and do cut editing (including 4K h264 files) and simple color correction on 1K$ machine. Everyone has own choice.

Also does Studio version compared to free give better performance when you use ProRes, RAW or DPX as source?

Is not problem to me spend money to buy DR, I love his color correction and grading mode. but I don't want to spend money for a Beta, because I'm not sure that is realy better then the free version.

This is bit odd. Your GPU is AMD Radeon R9 M395 2GB?
Just HD ProRes source with simple grading should work fine I would say.
There has to be some other issue.
Have you tried Resolve 12 and 14 different betas? Always same issues?
Different (or re-freshed) OSX system?
Is your machine stable outside Resolve?

It's strangely problematic situation. Many pro users will actually need lower spec machine as more often they work only at 2K and on ProRes, RAW, DPX etc sources which need less power than consumer h264 etc based formats. Also many "home" users will be trying to grade Sony a6300, GH4, GH5 4K footage (sometimes 50/60p one!), so they actually need more power than many pro users. For Resolve quality of the source pixels is irrelevant, it still has to processed them in the same way
Just to add a bit of fun and twist to the whole conversation

And its going to get worse very soon, as Panasonic just announced the GH5 version 2.0 firmware will be available by the end of next month.

“Open Gate” High Resolution Mode
4992 x 3744
24/25/30p
4:2:0
10 bit
200 Mbit
H.265 LongGop

That will probably pound the snot out of most hardware.

That will probably pound the snot out of most hardware.

Ouch... At some point people will just have to bite the bullet and transcode during their ingest process.

“Open Gate” High Resolution Mode
4992 x 3744
24/25/30p
4:2:0
10 bit
200 Mbit
H.265 LongGop

That will probably pound the snot out of most hardware.

Should be fine as modern GPUs go up to 8K for h265 single stream (including 10bit). This will be just bit above 4K.
I rather had a RAW mode- this would be way nicer

Should be fine as modern GPUs go up to 8K for h265 single stream (including 10bit). This will be just bit above 4K.

I've played around with 30p UHD 4:2:0 8 bit h265 and ffmpeg on my 1070, and while it handles it just fine, i wouldn't call it speedy.

I rather had a RAW mode- this would be way nicer

I agree, I'm just not ready to drop a $1k per ssd based storage devise.

This is bit odd. Your GPU is AMD Radeon R9 M395 2GB?
Just HD ProRes source with simple grading should work fine I would say.
There has to be some other issue.
Have you tried Resolve 12 and 14 different betas? Always same issues?
Different (or re-freshed) OSX system?
Is your machine stable outside Resolve?

I think is a stable machine, no problem with Finalcut pro7, after effect, cubase studio, soundtrack pro and graphic software. Now I haven't Resolve 12, I update to 14 beta and I have not a backup

My GPU is AMD Radeon R9 M395X I don't kno how many GB

2GB- you can find it iMac specs online.

Definitely should not be this way. Maybe it's GPU driver etc. Maybe something specific in your OSX state. Many possible reasons, but what you described is definitely not normal.
I can play with simple grade ProRes HD on dual i5 with intel GPU and your machine is way more powerful in every aspect.

2GB- you can find it iMac specs online.

Definitely should not be this way. Maybe it's GPU driver etc. Maybe something specific in your OSX state. Many possible reasons, but what you described is definitely not normal.
I can play with simple grade ProRes HD on dual i5 with intel GPU and your machine is way more powerful in every aspect.

yes is more quicly, specially in After Effect, but believe me, the new mac is not like once upon a time.
I would like to try reinstall DaVinci, but I'm fear, I have a 3 mounth of work with Davinci in a really complicate project, I would not lose it.
Now I have another problem, I exported the work in multiple files into a Kingston key at purpose to see it in TV, I selected youtube 1080p, limiting the bitrate to 10000 but the video stopping every 3 seconds. I don't know what can I do.