I'm thinking about finally buying my own editing system. I guess I'll go FCPX.
The question is, what is the cheapest Mac I can get away with for editing? Can the basic iMac do the job? Or the cheapest MacBook Pro?
I'd prefer to edit on an iMac because of the bigger screen. A Mac Pro is out of my limited budget.

As long as the video card in the iMac or MacBookPro is listed in the tech requirements on the FCPX page, you are good to go. The newest models are probably all good, older models have to be checked. From personal experience I know that my oldest iMac which runs FCP7 fine for DV edits and simple HD work, will not run FCPX or 10.7.

iMac will do it, mine does and it's a 2009 model. Get some extra RAM, I've got 8GB but NOT from the Apple Store. Macbook Pros have the same works as iMacs, but (obviously) a smaller screen.


Ron

I have an older iMac 27" (i7 though) and an i5 MBP 13". Both run FCP X, although it's a more pleasant experience on the iMac (better GPU is one of the reasons). Running FCP X on the small screen of the 13" is hell, though.

I think pretty much any new system will run FCP X. I think a 15" MBP or an iMac (21" or 27") will all be okay. Of course, the better you go, the faster the renders, etc.

I've just bought a 27" iMac with the 6970 1GB graphics card and upgraded the memeory to 12GB and FCPX works very smoothly indeed.

I'm thinking about finally buying my own editing system. I guess I'll go FCPX.
The question is, what is the cheapest Mac I can get away with for editing? Can the basic iMac do the job? Or the cheapest MacBook Pro?
I'd prefer to edit on an iMac because of the bigger screen. A Mac Pro is out of my limited budget.

If you don't need it right away I'd wait a month. The odds are in favor of new iMac's and MacBookPro's by then which means more power for less or equal money. And yes, you can edit on the cheapest iMac but adding RAM would be a good move, either now or later when you have the funds. I'm running on a 2011 Core i7 MBP with 8GB RAM, it's very useable. Also using the Pegasus 6TB Thunderbolt RAID which helps make things go smoothly.

For info, somewhat related to your thread is another one over at the FCP Suite:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/final-cut-suite/507720-there-any-reason-not-get-refurb-macpro-vs-new-imac.html#post1732904

There may be some additional interesting information there.

Definitely wait a month.

i have fcp x running on a late 2011 macbook pro, with 4gb of ram. 4gbs of ram is too slow for fcpx; it just crawls and is painful to try to edit. i'm upgrading to 8 gbs of ram, which will hopefully help the speed problem. just my two cents. good luck!

i have fcp x running on a late 2011 macbook pro, with 4gb of ram. 4gbs of ram is too slow for fcpx; it just crawls and is painful to try to edit. i'm upgrading to 8 gbs of ram, which will hopefully help the speed problem. just my two cents. good luck!

And I truly believe this is what is just bogging down my computer as well. It's not handling the files very well and everything moves at a snail's pace. I only have 4gb of ram as well. My iMac is a little bit older and I don't know whether to add the ram or go to a newer computer. (I always wanted a 30" monitor anyway. LOL )

In March I bought 8 GB of memory for my '09 MacBook Pro 5,1 for $49.79 with free shipping from Other World Computing.

They will buy your old memory and that can help defray the cost.

Background rendering is definitely speeded up and other operations are noticeably faster. I think is is money well spent.

There may be a downside, but I don't know for sure: If the operations are faster then would this cause more heat? If so, then a cooling fan for the bottom would help. For the moment I'm using a couple "Wild Turkey" corks to hold the back end of the laptop up. They're nice because they have a flat end on them.

And I truly believe this is what is just bogging down my computer as well. It's not handling the files very well and everything moves at a snail's pace. I only have 4gb of ram as well. My iMac is a little bit older and I don't know whether to add the ram or go to a newer computer. (I always wanted a 30" monitor anyway. LOL )

I've talked to a number of other people about the problem too, and apparently 4 gb is just not enough for fcpx. it just crawls, its painful! (lion overall isn't nearly as snappy as i had thought it would be either.) there is no other way around it, apparently. so i ordered 8gb from crucial.com, which has very reasonable prices ($45, as opposed to apples' $400). i'm going to install it this week, and will let you know if it helps. i'll keep an eye on the heat too as john suggests.

I just found out recently that my graphics card is NOT on the list of those that work. In fact, it is on the list of those that WON'T work. It's the ATI Radeon HD 2600. Now I thought that when you went through the App Store that it would check your computer before allowing you to download. Apparently that didn't go so well.

While I would like to wait it out for the latest and greatest ... the fact is that my computer almost came to a dead halt today. While waiting for it to it's thing in FCPX ... it took close to 60 seconds for Word to open.

This has been brutally painful, but at least now I know that it's possibly just not enough processing power and an incompatible graphics card.

2.8 Intel Core 2 Duo
4 GB RAM
ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro 256
Mid 2007

I'd wait on buying a new Mac if you can. Rumor is that at WWDC they'll have a new 15" MBP with two Thunderbolt ports and one USB3 port. I'd imagine new iMacs may be just some weeks beyond that.
Don't underestimate the importance of Thunderbolt if you're doing any serious work. Whether it's Video I/O (at least for monitoring) or fast hard drives for media, the expansion is a must. I'm actually hoping for a new iMac or MacPro replacement (I think the tower is gone) with four Thunderbolt ports. There's too many "end of chain" devices to have less IMHO.

One of my peeves about the iMac (even the new ones) is the inability to replace the GPU. I kept my 2008 MacPro alive (FCPX compatible) by purchasing a Radeon 5770. Of course Apple would rather you buy a new computer (possibly another reason for them to kill the tower).

They'd be crazy to kill the tower. Not only for video processing but also for CAD. There are too many jobs that would be very hard on the little laptops.

Look at the fan on the MacPro - it's BIG. Then look at the fans on the MacBook Pro - a couple dinky little critters.

There are a lot of fields that I'm sure that also need to use power, such as maybe genetics, for example. If Apple gave up on the desktop they'd surrender that piece of the pie to the other guys. What a shame that would be.

As the FCPX team adds capability to the program I'm sure they'll need more capability, not less.

Lets pray they come up with a new Mac Pro.

John, tower sales are in decline. This is not specific to Apple. It's not tower vs laptop so much as the advances in cpu gpu power relative to cooling needed for example.

My 2011 15" MBP quad i7 can outperform many things my 2008 dual quad (8 core) Xeon MacPro.

HP just came out with a Xeon based All in One (like an iMac).

Thunderbolt is basically 4xPCIe brought out externally . . . and with greater flexibility.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a Xeon based system with multiple Thunderbolt ports coming from Apple. An iMacPro? A large server shaped device (super mini?) a few rack units thick?

What we may need is Xeon based power with 16xPCIe for the GPU. That does not have to be in a tower form factor and personally I doubt it will be coming from Apple.

Gone will be (IMHO) the two internal 4xPCIe slots, two of the HD slots, optical drive. Remaining, I hope, the two 16xPCIe, two internal drives (one may be SSD system boot), Xeon processors. You have a much smaller case with that.

If you don't need to change to a very specific graphics card to add on cards like Red Rocket or RAID controller, then you probably don't need a tower. iMacs are getting to be more powerful than workstations were just a couple of years ago, and will suit a lot of people's needs very well with a smaller footprint.

Arnie, RedRocket doesn't need a tower.

Sonnet Fuels On-Location RED® Workflow By Connecting Red Rocket™ to Thunderbolt™-Technology Enabled MacBook® Pro
Sonnet - News & Media (http://www.sonnettech.com/news/pr2011/pr092211_redrocket.html)

Both Sonnet and Magma are doing PCIe to Thunderbolt expansion chassis.

There's also Thunderbolt to Fibre Channel
SANLink - Fibre Channel adapter using Thunderbolt Technology (http://www.promise.com/storage/raid_series.aspx?region=en-global&m=192&rsn1=40&rsn3=49)

RAID Controllers? Thunderbolt there too.
http://attotech.com/products/category.php?id=15&catid=17

MacPros have never been a big seller and with Thunderbolt providing 4xPCIe on every other Mac, there's even less reason to buy a tower.

I'd like to see Xeon processors though and some will need 16xPCIe for GPUs. If Apple can provide that in any other form factor, the tower is done.

I really like the SANlink...I could use that!

Like the book, "You Are What You Were When" says, that is what I am. And I'm resisting change.

Having grown up with punched cards and Fortran, the Commodore 64 for which I wrote a bunch of programs for, a 286-6 which was turbo-ed to a "12" (wow, that was fast!), a 13" color (yup, color!) monitor, and an all component stereo system(s) (went through quite a few), I am what I was when.

You're very correct about what you say (more power and capability in a smaller space, etc.) but I just can't help it. I like components. Well built ones. Taking the cover/side panel off a Mac Pro is like lifting the hood on a V-12 Jaguar. It's beautiful. It's a masterpiece. I like it. I really like it.

The other thing I like about components is they tend to be easier to upgrade, easier to diagnose problems with, easier to repair, etc. With stereo systems one could easily add tape decks (remember, I was what I were, when), CD players, and, not to forget, turntables. With the iMac, for example, I've seen people lugging their iMacs to the Genius Bar at the Apple store, sometimes covered with a black plastic garbage bag, and it looks like a pain.

Sure, the Mac Pro has been a decreasing piece of the profit pie but there are other considerations. Or, at least, there should be. Apple spends a lot of money on their Apple stores and it's all about image. The Mac Pro provides an image too, and they shouldn't forget that. It could be somewhat akin to Mercedes, Porche, Farrarri, etc., sponsoring cars in races. Sure, the Mac Pro isn't a one-off state-of-the-art machine, but never the less, there is an image there.

Plus, I can't help it. In case I didn't say it earlier, I like it.

You're correct, but it's painful to hear it.

A new rack mountable MacPro would be great for me. The advantages of 8, 12 or 16 cores are measurable for certain work. The present MacPro is a work of art, inside and out, and I would hate to lose it to an iMac although I recommend and install those for clients all the time. iMacs are great as well and extremely capable machines despite the extremely limited internal upgrades.

Craig: I think that a 4x expansion chassis over thunderbolt will suit some peoples needs fairly well. But there will also be some people who need more slots & more bandwidth.

Using a RAID attached directly over Thunderbolt should be more than fast enough for most users, but trying to run a Red Rocket & a RAID controller & a capture card all over the same TB connection will simply not be enough bandwidth for some users- admittedly a pretty small number of us, though.

Using a RAID attached directly over Thunderbolt should be more than fast enough for most users, but trying to run a Red Rocket & a RAID controller & a capture card all over the same TB connection will simply not be enough bandwidth for some users- admittedly a pretty small number of us, though.

Have you tested this? While I haven't seen that specific combo, I've read a lot of daisy chain tests. Basically Thunderbolt doesn't slow down in most cases. It's certainly possible to saturate but, unlike other daisy chain ports, the bandwidth in the pipes are pretty fat.

I think there may be some misconception about what's going on in a Thunderbolt port. Each port is two separate bi-direction channels on one cable. That's 10gb in each direction in each channel.
One cable is carrying 10gb down one channel, 10gb down the second channel, 10gb up one channel, 10gb up the second channel. Total is 40gb.

The devices you daisy chain are across two separate channels and each has 10gb down and 10gb back.
In other words, 2 TB ports gives you more expansion and than 2 4xPCIe slots.
If Apple were to make a 4 TB port box, that would be far more expandability than 4 4xPCIe slots.

Given that many Thunderbolt devices are end of chain, that would limit those devices to one per TB port though. Most Hard Drives and Apple's monitor are pass through though. You could easily have a monitor, a hard drive, a video I/O on a single TB port. From what I've read, the monitor may tie up most of one channel though. I've read that people have put two monitors on one TB cable though (assuming the GPU can handle it).

and this
AREA | IBC 2011 : RED's new Thunderbolt-enabled workflow (http://area.autodesk.com/blogs/marc-andre/ibc_2011_red_s_new_thunderbolt_enabled_workflow)
The thing that excited me the most was when Ted demonstrated RedCine-X running on a 15" MacBook Pro, with the R3D files playing off a Thunderbolt LaCIE Little Big DIsk, pumped through a RED Rocket card sitting in Sonnet's new Thunderbolt expansion chassis.

RedRocket is just one device in the chain and it works fine.

You may want to read about these tests as well
Thunderbolt: How devices affect each other on a daisy chain | Macworld (http://www.macworld.com/article/1163773/thunderbolt_how_devices_affect_each_other_on_a_daisy_chain.html)

I'll add that new Thunderbolt controller chips were released about three weeks ago so the new Macs coming will be even better. I suspect this is why we haven't seen the new Macs yet. It takes some time between release, manufacture, channels to fill to Tim Cook's satisfaction.

See things like this Press Release from mLogic
mLogic Introduces mLink R Thunderbolt Expansion Chassis for RED Rocket Cards | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/16/idUS20342+16-Apr-2012+BW20120416)
specifically designed to enable RED Rocket workflows on portable computers with Thunderbolt connectivity such as the MacBook® Pro. mLink R features a small and sleek chassis tailored to the RED Rocket card and provides two Thunderbolt ports for daisy-chaining of up to six high-speed Thunderbolt peripherals.


Thunderbolt expansion beats PCIe dedicated slots.
When Thunderbolt goes full optical it'll be able to replace 16xPCIe as well.

Apple spends a lot of money on their Apple stores and it's all about image. .

Just to pick up this one point: Apple's retail stores aren't only about image - they're financially extremely successful (over $1Bn in margin in the last reported quarter, which was about 10% of total profit). Apparently, in the USA at least, they lead the retail sector in sales per square foot. So, in addition to their strategic value (pulling in new Apple buyers and widening their reach to consumers), the retail outlets are a profitable business in their own right.

As far as I can see, none of Apple's product lines or channels are run only for image - they're all expected to turn a margin.

None of which invalidates your other points about replaceabilty of components and such (I've just had to replace a 2006 24" iMac because the graphics card has issues). It's just that it seems as if Apple will refresh the Pro line only if it can make money out of it.

As to "image" and the retail stores, Apple Stores generate more profit per square foot than any other retail store today. I can't point to the articles but I've read this in many financial articles pertaining to retail.

When we talk about the demise of the MacPro we must realize that they are still available and there's always one (just one) on display in every Apple Retail Store (that I know of and I've visited a few). At this point it's not because they're generating significant revenue though. Tim Cook is a "supply chain / channel master" from every business account I've read. The channel is open for a reason.

As to replaceability of components, my concern is that Apple may have learned to move away from that which may be unfortunate for us (or maybe not). One thing that drives iOS sales is the large number of people who move to newer models every year or two. Meanwhile I (and others) upgraded their MacPro GPUs for FCPX compatibility. Apple doesn't make as much money when they sell a system you keep running 4-6 by component replacement. When you consider the cost and margin on a MacPro plus the component upgrades to extend its life, one might guess that adds to issue of low sales. My own guess is Apple may well move to less replaceable components as they want you to buy a new box in three years, not a new GPU.

For me, as a business, my concern it ROI on my purchase. I can deal with computer replacement if the box serves my needs and the new boxes have a good value proposition. Thunderbolt certainly allows me to keep adding peripherals. The next big change will be one Intel moves to Optical Thunderbolt and the Pros who need the speed (adding GPUs for demanding applications) will move. BTW it is this theory that leads me to think Apple may have a more "modular" approach to the high end computers. It'll have a lower point entry and you'll add what you need through Thunderbolt. Of course when you get a new box, you can just move all that stuff over to the new machine.

One would assume, then, that the gross profit and net profit on the Mac Pro must be as high as they can get it. If the assumption is true, then the profit margin may be a contributing factor to the high retail price for the Mac Pro?

To quote Craig Seeman:
BTW it is this theory that leads me to think Apple may have a more "modular" approach to the high end computers. It'll have a lower point entry and you'll add what you need through Thunderbolt. Of course when you get a new box, you can just move all that stuff over to the new machine.

This feature might make it worthwhile to pay the higher price for a new Mac Pro.

One rumor I read several months ago was that Apple might come out with a rack-mountable Mac Pro. If this is true, then daisy-chaining some together could be really helpful.

Several years ago a large number of Macs were daisy chained together somehow to create a large super computer. I don't remember the details.

One would assume, then, that the gross profit and net profit on the Mac Pro must be as high as they can get it. If the assumption is true, then the profit margin may be a contributing factor to the high retail price for the Mac Pro?

There's a negative spiral in play here - as iMacs get more powerful, they start to take some of the sales that, in earlier times, would have gone to Mac Pros. Mac Pro market shrinks, sales (and thus production) volumes shrink, unit costs rise and so, to maintain a price point, margins have to shrink.

I can see two other possible factors at play here, affecting (negatively) Mac Pro volumes:

- Time was, if you weren't using specialist kit (e.g. Avid) you used a Mac for video and graphics. Now there are Windows solutions that work well enough to be commercially significant, and they'll have taken some of the Mac Pro market.

- All-in-ones and laptops have now become so powerful and well configured that, for some, having absolutely the most powerful desktop around isn't the critical issue any more. It's more around having the right storage and connectivity to move the stuff around. If I have very fast and reliable external storage, I may not need those internal drive bays. If I have a high speed network, and core i5 or i7 in my all-in-one or laptop, maybe I have all the processing power I need.

There will always be some people who need (or want) the ability to customise and to replace components - and some who just need every bit of horsepower they can get. But I think the size of that group is shrinking.

Nick, you might be alluding to but not specifically mentioning Thunderbolt. With Sonnet, Magma, mLogic, you can now add PCIe cards from the MacBookAir on up. MacPros aren't specifically needed for expansion. That's another thing that eats into MacPro sales. Consider that the top iMac has two Thunderbolt ports and devices can be daisy chained. My own hope is four Thunderbolt ports given the number of end of chain devices. I'd still like to see a Xeon and dual processor option and 16xPCIe (or two) to change GPUs. There's really no reason for a tower though. There's certainly not much of a market for it. That market is going to shrink a lot more with Thunderbolt.

Craig - yes Thunderbolt was where I was going. No idea why I didn't just say so :).

It appears that the new iMacs might not be out until 2013, and that the "real" upgrade to the Mac Pros will be in the same kind of timeframe.

It appears that the new iMacs might not be out until 2013, and that the "real" upgrade to the Mac Pros will be in the same kind of timeframe.

Yes, and I have a theory as to where Apple is heading. Looking at the new MBP Retina is a clue.

They may be consolidating iMac and MacPro. It will be a beast. It will have great connectivity. It may not have upgradable internals just like MBP Retina.

For those editing with MBP, what do you think of using the 15" with FCPX.

I need to upgrade my 17" 2008 model, but am thinking of downgrading screensize to save some dough. I don't travel much with mine but need to hide it away in the safe when I leave the house, so desktop isn't an option.

I have an external monitor (a cheapy Dell) but it does the job for full screen preview.

Thanks!

Which 15" ?
There's the Retina and the "traditional"
If you can afford it, I'd say get the Retina. It's where Apple is heading. It'll have a longer shelf life. The two Thunderbolt and two USB3 ports will make it a much better desktop replacement.

I'm using a 2008 MacBook Pro 15" and it works okay for me but then I'm an amateur and not doing editing professionally. I've got a Mac Pro with a 23" monitor but I've been using the laptop for my editing because I like working in the kitchen dinette better than in our office - better lighting and the table has more room than my desk.

Perhaps one has to make better use of the features that allow one to zoom in on details. The more one uses FCPX the easier it gets. I was sidetracked a few weeks back and found I have to more or less "re-learn" many of the editing features. Arrrgh!

A couple days ago I through a quick video together, importing and editing, in a matter of minutes and even surprised myself. Granted, the editing was minimal - just adjusting clip lengths, but still, it went really fast. We have a cat that is going through chemotherapy and was having eating problems - loosing weight, chewing problems, and basically not eating. His walking and body movements were very slow and measured. I took some video of his eating and body movements and used the completed and edited video to show the vet. The vet found it very helpful. Thanks to the video we received some really good vet advice and he as really sprung back. As a result we hope he will have a good recovery.

I'd like to comment on the WWDC "New" Mac Pro but that would be off topic here.

I have the following:
- 2009 MacBook Pro 13.3"
- Intel Core 2 Duo 2.53GHz
- 4GB RAM
- OS 10.5.8

So, it looks like at the very least I'd have to upgrade to Snow Leopard and add 4GB of additional RAM to run FCPX properly. Probably cost $100. But would it be worth it? Would it run decently? Is the video card suitable? (I can't upgrade that.)

Still, a refurb 13.3" will cost me upwards of $1000. Don't really have that right now. Is there some interim solution people are happy with?

By comparison, I'm doing a lot of editing on a 2008 MacBook Pro 2.53 "Core 2 Duo". It originally had 4 GB Ram and ran fine albeit a little slower than I liked. Changed out the Ram to 8 GB and it speeded up measurably, especially rendering times. Since one tends to run rendering frequently this is a consideration.

The benchmark speed is 3627 with the 4 GB of Ram. Mac Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser (http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/)
Bought my memory at OtherWorldComputing for $48~
The memory install on my computer was a piece of cake. On yours, though, it may be different. Seems to me there was an issue with changing the battery on that year or maybe it was the year afterward?

I'm running Snow Leopard but I can't speek to if you have to upgrade or not.

By comparison, I'm doing a lot of editing on a 2008 MacBook Pro 2.53 "Core 2 Duo". It originally had 4 GB Ram and ran fine albeit a little slower than I liked. Changed out the Ram to 8 GB and it speeded up measurably, especially rendering times. Since one tends to run rendering frequently this is a consideration.

The benchmark speed is 3627 with the 4 GB of Ram. Mac Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser (http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/)
Bought my memory at OtherWorldComputing for $48~
The memory install on my computer was a piece of cake. On yours, though, it may be different. Seems to me there was an issue with changing the battery on that year or maybe it was the year afterward?

I'm running Snow Leopard but I can't speek to if you have to upgrade or not.
Thanks for the reply and info, John. Sounds like I might just be able to upgrade the OS and RAM and be OK. Of course, I'd love to have optimal render time, etc., but as long as the FCPX features work on my laptop, I'd rather save the 1k+ right now.

Most memory is really cheap these days and it is worth the cost for the additional speed and usability. By usability, I mean doing various things like dragging a clip from the Event browser to the Project window, or things like that.

What would be a real nice improvement, nice but not required, would be a switch to the 15-inch screen. The Generator window on the right side of the screen takes up some viewing area and this subtracts from the timeline. Since a lot of work is done in the Project Timeline window it makes it easier when there is more length available there.

As for upgrading, a refurbished one is certainly one way to save a buck but just buying used can work too. I got mine off a craigs list ad for $600. It took a while shopping for the right buy but I met the seller at the Apple store Genius bar and we did a thorough check of the computer and I made sure I was listed as the ultimate owner of the computer. I forget the term, Administrator? they use but one want's to make sure that you've got primary control over the computer.

The first thing the Genius bar person should check for is to make sure it isn't reported as stolen. The next thing would be the battery condition as this is an expensive replacement item. This whole aspect of taking care of the user is what I think helps to justify the higher cost of a Mac and to me it's worth it.

There was a site I went to where one could check what the "wholesale" and "retail" price was for a particular computer and this was a good guide to see if what you're negotiating for is a good value or not. When buying used one can also check for the good and bad features of the computer to see if these are important to you.

In checking the benchmark values I found that the i5 and i7 computers, while having the same speed as ours, 2.53, have much higher values. I don't know how this reflects in speed when running FCPX but I'm sure there is some positive effect there. Maybe when preparing for burning a DVD?

In 6 to 9 months when you're ready to upgrade the computer you're looking at today will be even a better price.

Several years ago a large number of Macs were daisy chained together somehow to create a large super computer. I don't remember the details.

Just for the fun of it:

Apple G5 super computer at Varginia Tech *Amazing* - YouTube

The new "boring" imacs have been released so it's time to either pick up an old one, or: will a Mac Mini do the job?
The old imac with an i7 will cost a few hundred less than the base model 27 inch or you can buy a top quad mac mini for $999. On board graphics but good processor and thunderbolt. What do you think about the hd4000 with FCPX? $1000 saving.

Apple says that the HD 4000 card will work so if you can get the proper Thunderbolt accessories you need then go ahead with the MacMini. Add some memory to it and use a good external drive to store the video files. There hasn't been a comparison review of FCPX on different Mac models that I know of but it's probably wise to figure that you will have longer render times with a MacMini than a MacPro with an OpenCL video card.

Update - I was wrong, here is a comparison: http://barefeats.com/fcpx01.html

thanks for the link awesome read

That comparison is between a single 6-core CPU Mac Pro & a quad core iMac & quad core MBP so unsurprisingly there isn't a great deal of difference in render times.. What would be more interesting is to know how much better a dual 6-core CPU Mac Pro performs.

One thing to note is that test is from Sept 2011.
Given the iMac has just been bumped to Ivy Bridge chips (Dec for 27" Quad i7) and the MacPro has only had a minor speed bump, one might suspect that the iMacs have moved up a notch yet again compared to the aging MacPro.

Yes, it would be interesting to see how a speed bumped 2010 12 Core MP would perform but I have a hunch that relative cost value would make one wonder whether it's worth the expense even for most professionals.

Next year's MacPro replacement is going to be interesting. I wonder if it'll be Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge Xeons (as Xeon chips tend to be a generation name behind)

Barefeats just posted 13" vs 15" MPBr tests which include FCPX and Motion (as well as Photoshop).
13" versus 15" Retina MacBook Pro (http://barefeats.com/rmbp13.html)

I'd thought I'd add this given that the 2011 test didn't include Retina model(s).

Apparently the new version of FCPX has had a rewriting of the rendering engine which speeds up rendering significantly. As I rarely render before a final export, I didn't notice but other people have: http://fcp.co/final-cut-pro/news/954-10-0-6-brings-a-3200-speed-increase-when-rendering-effects-on-a-final-cut-pro-x-timeline
I did notice that FCPX can now export in the background and still give you plenty of CPU power to continue to edit other projects.

The Bare Feats tests are now unrepresentative of the software as well as the hardware but still can give an idea of the differences between the Mac product lines.

Hmmm. The Quad-Core 15" Retina MacBook Pro is twice as fast as the Dual-Core 13" Retina MacBook Pro so no surprise there.

It would be really good to see some benchmarks of FCP X on a dual CPU Mac Pro not least because FCP 7 can only use one CPU & it would be nice to have confirmation that they like Adobe with Premiere Pro that Apple have actually written it to properly use multiple CPUs with multiple cores.

I can tell you from experience that FCPX on my 2009 dual 8 core MacPro was initially only modestly faster than my 2010 17" MacBookPro when the program first came out. Of course Compressor was much, much faster with the QuickCluster enabled on the MacPro which isn't possible on a quad-core. What really pulled the MacPro ahead was replacing the video card from the basic card it came with. I didn't go with the most expensive card but the change in real-time effect responsiveness and rendering was noticeable. All MacPros come with FCPX friendly cards now. Right now I am not sure how the new software will change this but it seems substantial. Just as a note, while Adobe has put a lot of effort into CPU optimization making real-time editing with Premier much easier than FCP7, you still have to render out. And Compressor with QuickCluster beats out the Adobe Media Encoder on many of the same type of renders, at least on my computer.