Is it pointless to try to build a super strong PC...

[David Franklin]

Your post motivated me to see what kind of times my own computer would yield when tested similarly to your new Mac. My admittedly costly PC, built to order in February of 2020, which has both main processor and GPU that are already one or two generations old, and were not the very fastest components available when built, processes a very complex and detailed 340 MP Tiff file in Topaz sharpen, at average settings, in 15 seconds. I wouldn't waste any more time checking on other benchmarks that don't interest me, but that was enough for me to understand the general lay of the land.

This has almost nothing to do with PC's versus Macs. It has do do with two other things - how well you specify a PC or Mac, and how much money you want to spend. When you compare money versus money, rarely will there be any real difference in the speed results from desktop computers, if you ignore a very long period in the recent past when PC desktops had an enormous advantage. That era when PC's were easily superior in dollar-to-speed seems like it will be over when the new desktop macs come on line. But, it depends mightily on how much profit Apple will build into its new desktops and how long Intel, AMD and Nvidia wait to increase speed vs cost ratios again; they already appear to be going in that direction.

Right now, the only significant cost benefit on the Apple side are in Mac laptops - as opposed to desktops, in which case, for the last 20-25 years I have always bought PC's, after my previous long association with Macs. I still tend to buy Mac laptops, because they have just been better built and behaved with more stability. I buy my desktops from a great "white box" builder which always builds very fast PC's with the most reliable components, best customer support, and stability built in. Their speed characteristics, however, depend entirely on how much money you want to spend. On the other hand, the biggest PC makers don't always deliver a long lasting and powerful-for-the-money product, and this has been even more true of their laptops.

My current first gen 13 inch M1 MacBook Pro is a great little machine and a bargain as well, doing the things I ask of it. It is certainly no match for my desktop PC's, but I was not expecting it to be so - different machines for different tasks.

Just remember that if you are a prudent and smart consumer, you can always get what you paid for, depending on what you can afford or want to pay, rather than what you wish for.

--
Keep learning; share knowledge; think seriously about outcomes; seek wisdom.

 

[Zeee]

My friend tried that once. By the time he got all the parts, etc he wished he had not bothered. In that timeframe they released pre built PC's the were better. He is slow and meticulous which is maybe why. He said h'ed never do that again.

i don't think op is talking about literally building it themselves. they are scared to install a pci card by themselves. in any case though, your friend simply didn't know what they were doing. it should only take an hour tops to setup a computer.

He knows what he is doing. I wasn't talking about setting it up. He ordered components and some took a while to get to him.

 

[r6 shooter]

My friend tried that once. By the time he got all the parts, etc he wished he had not bothered. In that timeframe they released pre built PC's the were better. He is slow and meticulous which is maybe why. He said h'ed never do that again.

i don't think op is talking about literally building it themselves. they are scared to install a pci card by themselves. in any case though, your friend simply didn't know what they were doing. it should only take an hour tops to setup a computer.

He knows what he is doing. I wasn't talking about setting it up. He ordered components and some took a while to get to him.

that's nothing to do with building a pc fundamentally though. that just means they ordered from a bad distributor. if you order from newegg, amazon, etc, you're not going to be waiting long.

 

[Phil and Karen]

Hi David,

I think the biggest improvement for me has been the huge reduction in time waiting for the previews to process in response to fine tuning settings - compared to my old iMac it’s been absolute bliss and made my ‘fiddle about with stuff’ workflow viable/ enjoyable once again.

I wasn’t comparing my MBP to high-end desktop PC’s - or even my own upper-mid range set-up (though I know what would win if restricted to using battery power… :-D ), but it has now replaced my existing (and equally old) MBP as well as my iMac, so I’m content with the cost.

Interestingly, I believe Topaz have an M1 as part of their development kit and are looking to harness Metal - and hopefully leverage more of the M1’s capabilities. If/ when they get that worked out and rocking the results could be very interesting.

Phil

 

[Markr041]

Someone here is pushing transcoding as an answer for using low-powered editing machines, as if there is no cost. Leaving aside the extra step (it is not very quick especially with a low-powered computer) and the huge extra files you then work with, here is what else you lose:

1. You process on 10bit compressed 422 video rather than uncompressed 12bit video. You can do much finer color grading. Adding an extra step of compression is destructive.

2. When you shoot RAW, the software program does the deBayering. So, who knows how good that process is for transcoding software, compared to Final Cut or DaVinici Resolve.

3. When you shoot RAW, you do not have to worry about white balance, it can be set precisely in software as if you had done it in-camera. That cannot be done with the transcoded clips. ISO too can be set in post as if in the camera.

There are many reasons for shooting RAW; transcoding mostly gets rid of them.

Transcoding is different from using proxies in post - you edit the on the lower-quality, smaller and manageable proxies but the actual processing is done on the RAW files (better) - so no extra step of compression. But this is very complex and the translation is not always perfect in my experience.

So, what does this imply? If you invested in an R5 (so you know that expensive can be worthwhile) and want to take advantage of shooting 8K RAW video, you need to step up your editing hardware.

The easiest solution, which actually may be the most cost-effective, is to get an M1 Pro or Max MacBook Pro. Those machines can edit 8K RAW files with no problem. And, you can easily create HDR videos, because the screen is a 10bit HDR screen (1000 up to 1600 nits) so you can actually see the results in HDR. The screen is better than almost all HDR TV's, and certainly better than most monitors. Remember, you get the high processing power and a monitor whose quality cannot easily be equalled. Expensive, but you can literally see the value.

And note: editing RAW files is actually easier on the computer than editing highly-compressed H265 files. Decompressing H265 files on the fly is much more difficult than deBayering RAW uncompressed files. I highly recommend shooting RAW - that is thge key advantage of the R5 for video.

 

[r6 shooter]

Someone here is pushing transcoding as an answer for using low-powered editing machines, as if there is no cost. Leaving aside the extra step (it is not very quick especially with a low-powered computer) and the huge extra files you then work with, here is what else you lose:

that would be me. you delete the originals saving space overall. it's a 75-80% reduction which is huge. it's not that slow. certainly better than getting another whole machine lol

1. You process on 10bit compressed 422 video rather than uncompressed 12bit video. You can do much finer color grading. Adding an extra step of compression is destructive.

this is just incorrect. you can process as 12bit 4:4:4:4 which will be the same level of grading and quality (it's visually lossless) while saving tons of space. highly recommend reading the apple whitepaper on prores since it seems you don't know much about it: https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/docs/Apple_ProRes_White_Paper.pdf

2. When you shoot RAW, the software program does the deBayering. So, who knows how good that process is for transcoding software, compared to Final Cut or DaVinici Resolve.

for the r5 you can just export as prores from premiere or w/e editor you use. with ML, the batch programs literally let you pick what algorithm you want to use for debayering. but for the context of this thread, we weren't even specifically talking about raw. i was actually referring to h265 clog files. and i think you can certainly agree that a transcode is better there. a big point in the discussion was h265 playing on mac. the point i was trying to make was that you can just transcode the clog h265 files to prores and then you don't need the mac.

3. When you shoot RAW, you do not have to worry about white balance, it can be set precisely in software as if you had done it in-camera. That cannot be done with the transcoded clips. ISO too can be set in post as if in the camera.

you just set the correct balance in camera like normal. if you need to adjust it in post then you set it in your editor and then export to prores 12bit 4:4:4:4 and it'll be saved in your transcoded file.

you're not truly changing iso in post btw. canon actually uses analog iso unlike nikon so voltage is different each iso step. not something you can just change in post regardless of what some software might be telling you.

There are many reasons for shooting RAW; transcoding mostly gets rid of them.

no compression, highest quality, no chroma subsampling, 12bit. if you transcode to 12bit 4:4:4:4 prores, you keep all of these basically for 1/5 of the file size and get easier editing and rendering.

Transcoding is different from using proxies in post - you edit the on the lower-quality, smaller and manageable proxies but the actual processing is done on the RAW files (better) - so no extra step of compression. But this is very complex and the translation is not always perfect in my experience.

processing is faster on prores than on raw. so if you can keep basically the same quality for 1/5 of the file size and have faster editing, that can be worth it over "getting a mac".

So, what does this imply? If you invested in an R5 (so you know that expensive can be worthwhile) and want to take advantage of shooting 8K RAW video, you need to step up your editing hardware.

or you just transcode to 12bit 4:4:4:4 prores where you keep virtually all of the benefits while saving a ton of space and you get to render everything faster.

The easiest solution, which actually may be the most cost-effective, is to get an M1 Pro or Max MacBook Pro. Those machines can edit 8K RAW files with no problem. And, you can easily create HDR videos, because the screen is a 10bit HDR screen (1000 up to 1600 nits) so you can actually see the results in HDR. The screen is better than almost all HDR TV's, and certainly better than most monitors. Remember, you get the high processing power and a monitor whose quality cannot easily be equalled. Expensive, but you can literally see the value.

sounds like you just want a reason to advertise macs. why spend tons of $$$ when you can just convert to prores and edit on the machine you already have?

And note: editing RAW files is actually easier on the computer than editing highly-compressed H265 files. Decompressing H265 files on the fly is much more difficult than deBayering RAW uncompressed files. I highly recommend shooting RAW - that is thge key advantage of the R5 for video.

editing prores is even easier and you can transcode both h265 clog files or raw files.

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

I ask this because my PC was built for me only 2 1/2 years ago, and it still has a lot going for it. Nice tower, strong power supply, an SSD Hybrid hard drive + a 4TB hard drive, great monitor, etc.

this looks like a low level budget desktop...

it's funny how they don't mention the most important specs like cpu, gpu, and ram. instead they talk about harddrive space which is the least important spec. no wonder they're asking about mac XD

Intel Core i7 7th Gen - Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake Quad-Core 4.2 GHz LGA 1151 91W BX80677I77700K Desktop Processor

ASRock Z270 Extreme 4 LGA 1151 Intel Z270 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.1 ATX Motherboards - Intel

CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600) Desktop Memory Model CMK32GX4M2D3200C1

 

[r6 shooter]

I ask this because my PC was built for me only 2 1/2 years ago, and it still has a lot going for it. Nice tower, strong power supply, an SSD Hybrid hard drive + a 4TB hard drive, great monitor, etc.

this looks like a low level budget desktop...

it's funny how they don't mention the most important specs like cpu, gpu, and ram. instead they talk about harddrive space which is the least important spec. no wonder they're asking about mac XD

Intel Core i7 7th Gen - Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake Quad-Core 4.2 GHz LGA 1151 91W BX80677I77700K Desktop Processor

ASRock Z270 Extreme 4 LGA 1151 Intel Z270 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.1 ATX Motherboards - Intel

CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600) Desktop Memory Model CMK32GX4M2D3200C1

oh yeah that's PLENTY good. would be super dumb to get another machine if that's what you already have.

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

I ask this because my PC was built for me only 2 1/2 years ago, and it still has a lot going for it. Nice tower, strong power supply, an SSD Hybrid hard drive + a 4TB hard drive, great monitor, etc.

this looks like a low level budget desktop...

it's funny how they don't mention the most important specs like cpu, gpu, and ram. instead they talk about harddrive space which is the least important spec. no wonder they're asking about mac XD

Intel Core i7 7th Gen - Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake Quad-Core 4.2 GHz LGA 1151 91W BX80677I77700K Desktop Processor

ASRock Z270 Extreme 4 LGA 1151 Intel Z270 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.1 ATX Motherboards - Intel

CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600) Desktop Memory Model CMK32GX4M2D3200C1

oh yeah that's PLENTY good. would be super dumb to get another machine if that's what you already have.

I thought it should be. The guy who built it for me (who I've since lost touch with) said it would be a pretty strong setup, and he knew I used it mostly for photo stuff.... But I told him I never did video.

Anyway, TY.

 

[J.K.T.]

The SSD hybrid drive you mentioned sounds suspect. Adding one or two PCIe 3.0x4 M2 drives might make a difference.

 

[higheronymous]

....for R5 photo and video work ?

I ask this because apparently Mac seems to handle R5 photo and video, quite easily, by default.

Is it even possible to build a comparable PC ?

I ask this because my PC was built for me only 2 1/2 years ago, and it still has a lot going for it. Nice tower, strong power supply, an SSD Hybrid hard drive + a 4TB hard drive, great monitor, etc.

So would it be worth it to try to upgrade it to the point that it could fly though giant photo projects (forget 45 mp's... I'm into stitching and stacking) and also maybe some 4K 60 fps video, or even some 8K...

OR, could one spend a BUNCH of $$$ on PC upgrades, and it still not work as well as a much more modest Mac ?

I totally understand their might be a little bias here lol But I'm ready for that.

It's not pointless, but you need to understand a bit to do it right without blowing tons of money.

Check this post: How to speed up Lightroom & Photoshop for professional media creators! | Learn Photography Skills

I actually followed what it said, I have 32GB of RAM and 3 SSD's, a 1TB drive for the system, a 2TB "cache/swap/scratch disk", and a 2TB "working SSD". Using 3 drives massively improved things in all my media programs. You'll need to manually set Windows, and your software, to use the correct drives but once that is done, you're all set.

BTW, if your software doesn't allow you to specify a drive for its cache (like Capture One) it's probably letting Windows manage the cache so it will follow whatever you set for the Windows system cache.

As for the cost, my SSD upgrades cost about $450. Not a huge amount of money, but it made a discernable difference. Mainly the whole system just runs smoother no matter what I am doing. It never starts that annoying "chugging" behavior. I wouldn't say it is lightning fast yet, but it maintains a good speed without ever slowing down.

 

[Higgins2002]

I ask this because my PC was built for me only 2 1/2 years ago, and it still has a lot going for it. Nice tower, strong power supply, an SSD Hybrid hard drive + a 4TB hard drive, great monitor, etc.

this looks like a low level budget desktop...

it's funny how they don't mention the most important specs like cpu, gpu, and ram. instead they talk about harddrive space which is the least important spec. no wonder they're asking about mac XD

Intel Core i7 7th Gen - Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake Quad-Core 4.2 GHz LGA 1151 91W BX80677I77700K Desktop Processor

ASRock Z270 Extreme 4 LGA 1151 Intel Z270 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.1 ATX Motherboards - Intel

CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600) Desktop Memory Model CMK32GX4M2D3200C1

oh yeah that's PLENTY good. would be super dumb to get another machine if that's what you already have.

I thought it should be. The guy who built it for me (who I've since lost touch with) said it would be a pretty strong setup, and he knew I used it mostly for photo stuff.... But I told him I never did video.

Anyway, TY.

--
Photos are my paintings. The camera is my brush.
Website
www.LightInEveryCorner.com
DPreview gallery; http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5075216809
No time or attention given for negativity or trolls.

For editing 8k buy a better gpu nvidia RTX 3060 12GB is pretty cheap

minimum for 8k is 8GB RAM on gpu. ( PC ).

 

[TukTuk]

I ask this because my PC was built for me only 2 1/2 years ago, and it still has a lot going for it. Nice tower, strong power supply, an SSD Hybrid hard drive + a 4TB hard drive, great monitor, etc.

this looks like a low level budget desktop...

it's funny how they don't mention the most important specs like cpu, gpu, and ram. instead they talk about harddrive space which is the least important spec. no wonder they're asking about mac XD

Intel Core i7 7th Gen - Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake Quad-Core 4.2 GHz LGA 1151 91W BX80677I77700K Desktop Processor

ASRock Z270 Extreme 4 LGA 1151 Intel Z270 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.1 ATX Motherboards - Intel

CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600) Desktop Memory Model CMK32GX4M2D3200C1

get a pair of NVMe SSDs instead of mechanical clunkers (even if one has SSD cache in it), add 2x16 GB RAM and what about GPU ? then you can be OK for a long while

 

[Zeee]

My friend tried that once. By the time he got all the parts, etc he wished he had not bothered. In that timeframe they released pre built PC's the were better. He is slow and meticulous which is maybe why. He said h'ed never do that again.

i don't think op is talking about literally building it themselves. they are scared to install a pci card by themselves. in any case though, your friend simply didn't know what they were doing. it should only take an hour tops to setup a computer.

He knows what he is doing. I wasn't talking about setting it up. He ordered components and some took a while to get to him.

that's nothing to do with building a pc fundamentally though. that just means they ordered from a bad distributor. if you order from newegg, amazon, etc, you're not going to be waiting long.

He knows what he is doing and is finicky but he is cheap. That is his own business. I don't know where he ordered from and since I don't do that it was never a concern of mine.

I just know it took a while and it was frustrating. I guess he was close to when new and better models were about to be released.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Sorry but your question lacks some crucial information such as specs of Mac that's able to handle the R5 photo and video vs specs of your PC.

....for R5 photo and video work ?

I ask this because apparently Mac seems to handle R5 photo and video, quite easily, by default.

Is it even possible to build a comparable PC ?

I ask this because my PC was built for me only 2 1/2 years ago, and it still has a lot going for it. Nice tower, strong power supply, an SSD Hybrid hard drive + a 4TB hard drive, great monitor, etc.

So would it be worth it to try to upgrade it to the point that it could fly though giant photo projects (forget 45 mp's... I'm into stitching and stacking) and also maybe some 4K 60 fps video, or even some 8K...

OR, could one spend a BUNCH of $$$ on PC upgrades, and it still not work as well as a much more modest Mac ?

I totally understand their might be a little bias here lol But I'm ready for that.

 

[Markr041]

Someone here is pushing transcoding as an answer for using low-powered editing machines, as if there is no cost. Leaving aside the extra step (it is not very quick especially with a low-powered computer) and the huge extra files you then work with, here is what else you lose:

that would be me. you delete the originals saving space overall. it's a 75-80% reduction which is huge. it's not that slow. certainly better than getting another whole machine lol

1. You process on 10bit compressed 422 video rather than uncompressed 12bit video. You can do much finer color grading. Adding an extra step of compression is destructive.

this is just incorrect. you can process as 12bit 4:4:4:4 which will be the same level of grading and quality (it's visually lossless) while saving tons of space. highly recommend reading the apple whitepaper on prores since it seems you don't know much about it: https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/docs/Apple_ProRes_White_Paper.pdf

2. When you shoot RAW, the software program does the deBayering. So, who knows how good that process is for transcoding software, compared to Final Cut or DaVinici Resolve.

for the r5 you can just export as prores from premiere or w/e editor you use. with ML, the batch programs literally let you pick what algorithm you want to use for debayering. but for the context of this thread, we weren't even specifically talking about raw. i was actually referring to h265 clog files. and i think you can certainly agree that a transcode is better there. a big point in the discussion was h265 playing on mac. the point i was trying to make was that you can just transcode the clog h265 files to prores and then you don't need the mac.

3. When you shoot RAW, you do not have to worry about white balance, it can be set precisely in software as if you had done it in-camera. That cannot be done with the transcoded clips. ISO too can be set in post as if in the camera.

you just set the correct balance in camera like normal. if you need to adjust it in post then you set it in your editor and then export to prores 12bit 4:4:4:4 and it'll be saved in your transcoded file.

you're not truly changing iso in post btw. canon actually uses analog iso unlike nikon so voltage is different each iso step. not something you can just change in post regardless of what some software might be telling you.

There are many reasons for shooting RAW; transcoding mostly gets rid of them.

no compression, highest quality, no chroma subsampling, 12bit. if you transcode to 12bit 4:4:4:4 prores, you keep all of these basically for 1/5 of the file size and get easier editing and rendering.

Transcoding is different from using proxies in post - you edit the on the lower-quality, smaller and manageable proxies but the actual processing is done on the RAW files (better) - so no extra step of compression. But this is very complex and the translation is not always perfect in my experience.

processing is faster on prores than on raw. so if you can keep basically the same quality for 1/5 of the file size and have faster editing, that can be worth it over "getting a mac".

So, what does this imply? If you invested in an R5 (so you know that expensive can be worthwhile) and want to take advantage of shooting 8K RAW video, you need to step up your editing hardware.

or you just transcode to 12bit 4:4:4:4 prores where you keep virtually all of the benefits while saving a ton of space and you get to render everything faster.

The easiest solution, which actually may be the most cost-effective, is to get an M1 Pro or Max MacBook Pro. Those machines can edit 8K RAW files with no problem. And, you can easily create HDR videos, because the screen is a 10bit HDR screen (1000 up to 1600 nits) so you can actually see the results in HDR. The screen is better than almost all HDR TV's, and certainly better than most monitors. Remember, you get the high processing power and a monitor whose quality cannot easily be equalled. Expensive, but you can literally see the value.

sounds like you just want a reason to advertise macs. why spend tons of $$$ when you can just convert to prores and edit on the machine you already have?

And note: editing RAW files is actually easier on the computer than editing highly-compressed H265 files. Decompressing H265 files on the fly is much more difficult than deBayering RAW uncompressed files. I highly recommend shooting RAW - that is thge key advantage of the R5 for video.

editing prores is even easier and you can transcode both h265 clog files or raw files.

Yes, transcoding to 12bit 4:4:4:4 ProRes prores saves image information (I believe you suggested 422 HQ, which has less information than RAW) - but those 12bit 4444 files are truly gigantic. Care to tell us the size relative to a H265 clip? 10X the size? 20X? The space requirements are enormous for that codec. If you shoot, say, 20 minutes of H265 8K video, how large would the transcoded 8K 12bit 4444 prores files be?

Also, give us an idea how long it takes on a low-specced PC to transcode from an H265 10bit 422 8K file or an 8K RAW file to 12bit 4444 prores (or 10bit 422 HQ)? Again, take the 20-minute H265 example. Three hours?

If you shoot RAW you do not need to transcode, since with no compression the files are relatively easy to edit - I can do it on a MacBook Air m1 (cheap).

Oh c'mon, don't impute my motive - "advertise" really? Do you think I financially benefit from someone following my suggestion of an alternative? Btw, can any software create prores files on a Windows computer? Why didn't you mention DNxHR 12bit 4444? Pushing Apple?

As to spending "tons of money" - that is what an R5 and lenses cost. The relevant audience here has bought a very expensive R5, so why cheap out for making use of its features? You invest in equipment to save lots of time and space, get a better screen, and avoid hassle.

Your pushing of how transcoding avoids hardware investments is useful, but very slanted. It is useful for someone with lots of time, and a low opportunity cost of that time, and lots of disk space but who somehow ran out of money after purchasing an expensive camera and lenses.

 

[Bigger]

I ask this because my PC was built for me only 2 1/2 years ago, and it still has a lot going for it. Nice tower, strong power supply, an SSD Hybrid hard drive + a 4TB hard drive, great monitor, etc.

this looks like a low level budget desktop...

it's funny how they don't mention the most important specs like cpu, gpu, and ram. instead they talk about harddrive space which is the least important spec. no wonder they're asking about mac XD

Intel Core i7 7th Gen - Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake Quad-Core 4.2 GHz LGA 1151 91W BX80677I77700K Desktop Processor

ASRock Z270 Extreme 4 LGA 1151 Intel Z270 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.1 ATX Motherboards - Intel

CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600) Desktop Memory Model CMK32GX4M2D3200C1

oh yeah that's PLENTY good. would be super dumb to get another machine if that's what you already have.

I thought it should be. The guy who built it for me (who I've since lost touch with) said it would be a pretty strong setup, and he knew I used it mostly for photo stuff.... But I told him I never did video.

Anyway, TY.

For editing 8k buy a better gpu nvidia RTX 3060 12GB is pretty cheap

minimum for 8k is 8GB RAM on gpu. ( PC ).

I upgraded my PC from 16GB RAM to 32GB RAM, but it still filled up when running Lr/Ps. So, I just went to 128GB, and found 64GB would probably be enough.

 

[Digitalis32]

My thoughts regarding Mac Vs PC as a post processing platform is that MACs use a lot of proprietary hardware designed with the explicit design intent of not being repairable - and any attempts at user repair is actively discouraged by apple in the TOS.

MACs are fine post processing platforms however PC has the inherent advantage in being very adaptable, modifiable and repairable. Granted the initial cost outlay and the steep learning curve of technical understanding, and the slight but distinct differences between AMD and Intel based systems can be confusing for some. And then of course you OS selection is vastly wider than MACs, with dual boot being an option.

PCs are complicated and expensive, but if you build one well with carefully selected components with a thought to future technologies the upgrade path can be painless and relatively inexpensive if you put in the investment in the right hardware now.

Macs are like meat cleavers, they do a particular job very well that other kitchen knives would be inappropriate if not dangerous to attempt. But PC's are more like a standard chef knife - in skilled hands it can do basically anything and do it well, some things will be not as good if you used a different specialized knife but with a little ingenuity it will get the job done.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

My thoughts regarding Mac Vs PC as a post processing platform is that MACs use a lot of proprietary hardware designed with the explicit design intent of not being repairable - and any attempts at user repair is actively discouraged by apple in the TOS.

It's not practical to compare 'platforms' for postprocessing. Comparing the actual h/w specs is much more beneficial. In this thread, people seem to tend to compare brands not specs.

What brings you faster from A to B, Toyota or Ford? The question is meaningless without knowing the actual technical details and concrete car models.

In terms of LR and PS, RAM is very important but your CPU may become a bottleneck.

 

[Dan W]

....for R5 photo and video work ?

I ask this because apparently Mac seems to handle R5 photo and video, quite easily, by default.

Is it even possible to build a comparable PC ?

I ask this because my PC was built for me only 2 1/2 years ago, and it still has a lot going for it. Nice tower, strong power supply, an SSD Hybrid hard drive + a 4TB hard drive, great monitor, etc.

So would it be worth it to try to upgrade it to the point that it could fly though giant photo projects (forget 45 mp's... I'm into stitching and stacking) and also maybe some 4K 60 fps video, or even some 8K...

OR, could one spend a BUNCH of $$$ on PC upgrades, and it still not work as well as a much more modest Mac ?

I totally understand their might be a little bias here lol But I'm ready for that.

You really opened up a can of worms with that question lol. I'm a Mac guy that used to be a PC guy. I use a 2017 27" iMac that was maxed out at the time including 64gb memory.

I'm not going to go there with who's better etc but I will say this, I'll never go back to a PC. It drove me crazy before I retired and had to use a PC at work. My Mac is an intel based computer so in theory its comparable to a PC of similar specs. The OS is what's the main difference. if you are going to do 4K or 8K video you may want to upgrade your graphics card and defiantly your Hybrid drive to a full SSD drive. Spinning drives are a huge bottleneck. Memory is pretty cheap and the second best way to amp up your box, max it out too.

I'm excited about the M1 series of Macs but not enough to want to upgrade (they haven't released the M1 in the 27" iMac anyway). I've got $3600 in my box so I need to keep it going for a few more years or until they stop supporting it.

But I will say this, when I was in school studying Photography 2006-2008, we were all Macs. We had 1 (One) IT guy take care of all the computers, and he spent most of his day flirting with the pretty girls lol. At work we had about a dozen IT guys to keep the PC's running. I used to like tinkering with PC's and figuring out how to get things going again. But not anymore, I just want to turn on my computer and start working or surfing... It was a rare day I could come home from work and NOT have my wife or kids ask me why they can't print or get online or whatever. "My experience" is Macs are a lot easier to get things done because I dont have to tinker with anything in the OS to keep things going.

But for you if you're happy with windows, stay with them and upgrade, one of the biggest advantages to PC's, upgradeability. Its also the downfall of PC's is all the 3rd party manufactures making PC parts mean the OS its less stable, need drivers, etc...