#FINAL CUT PRO MAC EMULATOR WINDOWS WINDOWS 10#
#FINAL CUT PRO MAC EMULATOR WINDOWS PC#

And this is not exactly the same story as all the other ARM machines we've looked at before, like Windows 10 on ARM-a respectable option with some serious tradeoffs. In a way, we're not just reviewing the new Mac mini-a Mac mini is always a Mac mini, right?В We're reviewing an ARM-based Mac for the first time. Apple is beginning the process of replacing industry-standard Intel chips with its own, custom-designed silicon. And given that NVIDIA owns ARM now, there should be some much tighter and more optimised GPU integration in the future, too.Apple is crazy, right? The Mac just had its best year of sales ever, and Cupertino is hitting the platform with a shock like it hasnвЂ™t had in nearly 15 years-back in a time when the Mac was not having such a good year. ItвЂ™s very exciting to see what will come in the future from Apple, but with ARM-based Windows finally getting x86 64-Bit emulation Windows might be able to catch up on performance per dollar. I still canвЂ™t see myself switching over to Apple just yet. It was interesting to see a real-world comparison like this. Surprisingly, the M1 actually seemed to perform quite well, if you put all the settings sliders down to вЂњPotatoвЂќ. They also did some stuff with gaming, if thatвЂ™s your thing. Performing the same edits as Resolve, there was no slowdown at all scrubbing through the timeline and the final render came out at 47 seconds вЂ“ faster than DaVinci Resolve on either system. What was impressive, and an area where the M1 won by default because itвЂ™s not available on the PC, was Final Cut Pro performance. The M1 iMac wasnвЂ™t far behind though, at a minute and 4 seconds.

#FINAL CUT PRO MAC EMULATOR WINDOWS PC#

The Intel PC managed it in a very speedy 56 seconds.

There were some noticeable performance slowdowns with both systems, but neither really performed any worse than the other.ДЇor rendering a 30-second clip containing two 5.9K 24fps 10-bit 4:2:0 files, sampled down to 4K 24fps H.264 was sent to both machines and they were left to render. To put them to the test, though, they threw some 5.9K 24fps, 10-bit 4:2:0 footage from the Panasonic S1H at them with some multitrack picture-in-picture.

They didnвЂ™t test Premiere Pro, because apparently, theyвЂ™re not big fans of Premiere Pro. When it comes to video, DaVinci Resolve was the main comparison between the two. Obviously, in these first couple of examples, Lightroom is optimised more for Intel-based systems while Capture OneвЂ™s M1 optimisation is very impressive. I think this lends itself well to demonstrating how well optimised certain applications are for specific platforms. When it came to Capture One, though, the results were a little closer. It was basically twice as fast (which youвЂ™d expect if youвЂ™re paying twice as much). But is it? The Windows laptop hammered the M1 desktop in the Lightroom test. With that massive price difference, it seems a bit of an unfair comparison, really. ItвЂ™s half the price of ChrisвЂ™ laptop, at $1,699 and features an 8-core M1, 16GB RAM and a 256GB SSD. Coming in at $3,499 (although itвЂ™s currently available for $2,999), itвЂ™s not an inexpensive machine, by any stretch of the imagination.В JordanвЂ™s 24вЂі M1 iMac, on the other hand, is significantly less expensive. ChrisвЂ™ PC in this case is the Gigabyte Aero 15 YB, with an 11th Gen Intel i9 CPU, 32GB RAM and NVIDIA RTX 3080 GPU with 8GB RAM.

Final cut pro mac emulator windows