My answer is purely from a budget-oriented perspective, so just take that into consideration. Not sure about what kind of project you usually work on, but for me, storage size comes first before any performance increases as long as they are all SSDs. Similar performance, better cooling/longevity and much lower price than m.2 nvme. I do want the 3000MB/s NVME speeds at a minimum.Īny thoughts would be much appreciated (my brains a little frazzled from all the hardware research after years of not being able to consider it!)Ĭlick to expand.I assume the NVME SSD you are talking about is m.2 right? If you are editing locally, I would recommend going for U.2 NVME Enterprise SSD in RAID. But nothing is leaping out at me as offering any significant differences in bang-for-buck. I’ve been sussing out NF1 and U.2 SSDs (for their higher capacities).

So I’d love to hear any suggestions people might have - particularly for cost-effective NVME (or equivalent) storage. The most important thing for me is real-time playback in the Colour page of Davinci (so that I can accurately assess secondary keys and power windows), render times are a distance second place.

How does this sound to people? If the Barefeats benchmarks are anything to go by, I gather it should smoke my maxed out 5,1 Mac Pro. 8TB of NVME SSD via the Sonnet or Highpoint 4x NVME cards (are there any other alternatives?)

32GB RAM (which I’ll upgrade to 96GB via 3rd party) Radeon Pro 580X 8GB (is there any value in keeping this in the box alongside the 2x Radeon VIIs?) 1TB of Apple SSD (for boot drive + applications) So now I’m leaning towards the 12-core instead, and using the $1600 AUD I’ll save on the CPU upgrade, to help fund a pair of Radeon VII GPUs (as it seems like having the second GPU is going to improve playback in Resolve, more than the extra 4 cores can).ĭoes this seem like a sensible approach? It’s surprisingly difficult to find much consensus online as to the benefits of higher core counts. But having scoured through CPU benchmarks (particularly the ones posted up by the team at Puget Systems), it seems like the performance advantage it offers in Resolve (over the 12-core Xeon) rarely break single-digit percentages in speed advances. I was initially going to opt for the 16-core, since it seemed like the best price/performance balance. I’m trying to suss out a sensible Mac Pro 7,1 hardware build for Davinci Resolve (since it’s basically where I spend all of my post time these days).

Davinci resolve 16 mac