Computer Graphics World

November / December 2017

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 33 of 35

32 cgw n o v e m b e r . d e c e m b e r 2 0 1 7 R E V I E W T he past 12 to 24 months of computer development have inserted more uncertainty about which operating system and editing platform to choose than I can recall since around 2008 to 2010. At that time, Final Cut Pro was dominating the market, pulling more editors back to the Macintosh fold. Avid was just beginning to feel the pinch. Shortly aer that, Avid had another headache to deal with from Adobe when the Creative Suite video products le them the laughing stock. Through all of this, many editors came to be at home with Apple's Mac OS, since all their preferred editing applications could run on a single platform. Fast forward to 2013 and then 2016, and we find Apple giving us a Mac Pro that wasn't all that professional and a Mac- Book Pro that was cut from the same cloth. While the comput- ers themselves were still quite capable, they couldn't match the I/O and performance-de- manding postproduction audi- ence. Say what you want about Microso Windows; the PC was still able to dominate the Mac in raw performance. U LT I M A T E P E R F O R M E R Enter Boxx. The company builds custom Windows desktops in its home state of Texas that are specifically designed for creatives, engineers, designers, and any other user who requires ultimate performance for their work. Boxx offered one of its higher-end Apexx 4 systems to us for a few months this fall. Given my current disillusion- ment with Apple's continual neutering of its pro machines, I was more than ready to give a speedy Windows editing machine my time and attention to see if I have been missing something as a Mac user for the last 15 years. The Apexx 4 arrived in a tidy, sturdy, large, and heavy cardboard box one evening and required nothing more than a Display Port cable to get it running. The model I received has two Nvidia Quadro P5000 cards that each have a single DVI single-link port and four DP ports should you choose to run a mammoth display setup. Re- moving the thumb screws at the back allows you to remove the side panel, revealing the hand- some guts of this computer. Additional housings are avail- able at the top of the case for more internal hard drives in case the built-in dual Samsung 512 gb solid state drives aren't enough for you. Cooling fans and heat sinks are appropriately oversized for a machine capable of such intense 3D processing, graphic rendering, and video encoding and playback. An Intel Core i9 at 3.3 ghz is supported by 64gb of RAM, with up to 3tb possible. T E S T D R I V E Even though I'm used to the speed of an SSD on my Mac, I was impressed with how fast the Apexx 4 booted into Windows. I dare say that I was able to go from powered off to running applications faster on the Apexx than I can on my 2013 MacBook Pro. While my Mac isn't brand new, it still has the specs that can go up against current models. I decided to run some comparative performance tests on both the Mac and the Apexx despite the difference between the machines. There's no such thing as a true ap- ples-to-apples comparison in the world of computers, but I tried to get as close as possi- ble to bring as much objectivity as possible. Here are the tests I ran on each machine: n H.264 and H.265 encodes with Adobe Media Encoder (1080p, 4096, and 3840 UHD content) n Real-time 3D and particle effects rendering for 24fps play- back in Adobe Aer Effects Here are the comparative results of those tests: n H.264 encode of 1080p Pre- miere Pro sequence (:60 TRT) Mac: 3:11 Apexx: :49 n H.265 encode of 1080p Pre- miere Pro sequence (:60 TRT) Mac: 1:02:02 Apexx: 16:56 n H.265 encode of 3840 UHD 59.94fps Premiere Pro sequence (37:42 TRT) Mac: N/A (Media Encoder estimated over 100 hours to encode) Apexx: 40:56:48 n H.265 encode of 4096 UHD 59.94fps Premiere Pro sequence (3:47 TRT) Mac: 9:41:15 Apexx: 3:03:07 In After Effects, I threw some heavy-duty effects from Red Giant and some raw 1080p footage at these ma- chines. The Mac was not able to play most of them back at real time, even when loaded into RAM. The Apexx 4 was playing around 6fps to 8fps while it loaded the RAM pre- view. After the RAM preview was established, it achieved full 24fps real-time playback with ease. While the Windows plat- form still has some nagging issues that detract from the astonishing performance served up by the Boxx Apexx 4, I found the Windows 10 experience was much better than I had expected. I N C O N C L U S I O N If you're in the market for a new postproduction PC or looking to switch from the Mac, Boxx has American-made machines that are well worth your money. BY PAUL SCHMUTZLER BOXX'S APEXX 4 WORKSTATION BOXX APEXX 4 Configurations range from $3,770 to $7,392 WWW.BOXX.COM Paul Schmutzler (Paul@ lives in Knoxville, TN. Follow him on Twitter (@theschmutzler).

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Computer Graphics World - November / December 2017