Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 05 Jun 2016 08:03 #77476

alex4D wrote:
...Ideas?
.....

A BXDB ... bruceX database:
It reads out automatically my systems specs, and transmits them to some 'box' which creates a list/website. Finally, at alex4d.com, I can compare my results with others, what effect have 2 vs 4 GB GPU, a fster CPU, more RAM, is my tiny MacMini stilll last in the list etc etc ....
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 05 Jun 2016 18:59 #77493

  • WhiteBlues
  • WhiteBlues's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 17
  • Thank you received: 4
  • Karma: 0
I'm not sure how plausible it would be to get 4 or 5 short raw 4k footage clips (a few seconds each- I could supply this) and then have each clip go through a series of color correction settings that progressively lift and drop shadows, increase saturation, etc while the timeline progresses. This would be very similar to the original in the sense it is still a user-timed stopwatch test.

Not sure if this would stress the CPU anymore than the original, but it would give us more insight into how our comparable machines are handling real world and people footage. It would also allow for a cross-platform test with Premier and Vegas and all those others... but like you mentioned I am not sure if FCPX vs Premier is as good as a premise as how can I make my computer better for the program I am running.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 11 Jun 2016 08:27 #77740

  • Jeroenfcp
  • Jeroenfcp's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 1
  • Karma: 0
13 seconds! :)

i7 6700k
32gb ram
gtx 960 4gb
export to SSD
h264 gave an error.. so i exported in proress 422.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 03 Aug 2016 07:01 #78967

  • rishrash
  • rishrash's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: 0
BruceX - 13-14 seconds with one GPU, 9-10 seconds with 2 GPU!

Brand new Hackintosh optimized for FCPX

Specs:

Gigabyte MB Z170X-UD5 TH
Intel Skylake Core i7-6700k CPU (not overclocked yet)
Noctua NF-A15 CPU Cooler
32GB Ballistix Sport LT DDR4 2400 DIMMS
Samsung EVO 850 1TB SSD
HGST 4TB Enterprise Drive (also free - recent server pull)
Seasonic X-850 PS
Fractal Design Define R5 Case
Sapphire R9-280X 3GB Dual-X GPU
Sapphire R9-280X 3GB Dual-X GPU (2 of them installed)
OSX 10.11.6 using Clover Bootloader

Total cost: ~$1600
This does not include the cost of the 2 Sapphire GPU's. I have had them sitting around a while since I used them years ago in former life mining Bitcoins and Litecoins. :-)
I never overclocked them and had a very ingenious way of cooling my rigs, so I know they have not been mistreated and would function great in a Hack. Here are some pics of the mining rigs if you are interested. We cooled 32 GPU's with only a single fan and no air conditioning!
32 GPU's hashing without Cooling!

Fun times for sure...but I digress!

I initially installed only one Sapphire R9 280X GPU and ran the BruceX test. It averaged around 13-14 seconds, which I thought was very respectable! I then installed another identical Sapphire GPU and ran it again. The time dropped to about 9-10 seconds, dang fast! I am not sure if I will leave the 2nd GPU installed. I also have another 32GB of ram, but I don't think there will be much if any performance increase.

Pics of my current Hackintosh
imgur.com/a/RlaYZ
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 12 Sep 2016 08:12 #79869

  • LaserJudas
  • LaserJudas's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 7
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 0
Got two machines that show very different numbers. Even if one of them (in theory) should be much faster that the other Apples love for AMD shows very much in the result. Therefore my 12 core 3 Ghz machine is three times slower than my other machine that costs less than half the price of the 12 core.

Configs and benchmarks is here:

12 core 3.04 Ghz
48 GB RAM
1 Nividia GTX 980, 4 GB
1 Sonnet Tempo PCIe dual Samsung Evo 850 in stripe raid (total of 1 TB)
Renders in 29-32 seconds

6 core 3,46 Ghz (this is an aftermarket chip)
16 GB RAM
2 x Radeon HD 7970 (Ghz edition) (one reference Sapphire and one XFX Ghost). I have Ghost coolers on both chips.
1 Apricorn Duo PCIe with 2 BIWIN 500 GB in stripe raid
Renders in 8-10.5 seconds

It's a rather big difference between these two. In Premiere it's the other way around totally where the Nvidia GPU chrushes the AMD dual config. The Radeon setup actually even dopes better in FCP X even with just one chip mounted.

So, if you are a FPC X user always go for the (much cheaper) Radeon chips.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 12 Sep 2016 14:35 #79885

  • enka
  • enka's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 6
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 0
Yes, FCPX is much faster with AMD GPUs.
That's maybe why Apple put 2 AMD GPUs on nMP
Last Edit: 12 Sep 2016 14:35 by enka.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 12 Sep 2016 16:49 #79888

  • dorin
  • dorin's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 52
  • Thank you received: 2
  • Karma: 0
@LaserJudas
Those are Mac Pro 5.1? Can you edit 4k video with them?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 12 Sep 2016 17:12 #79889

  • LaserJudas
  • LaserJudas's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 7
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 0
Yep. One firmware upgraded 4.1 and one native 5.1. I render 4k in real time and the 5k test is insanely fast. 9 seconds to render the Bruce X test is almost as fast (or faster) than some of the nMP model. The 7970 is insanely fast in a combination of two cards.
A very reliable and cost efficient colouter for demanding work loads.
/Klaus
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 15 Sep 2016 14:58 #79993

  • enka
  • enka's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 6
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 0
How do you power your two 7970 ?

I created a form to give your BruceX results, and a sheet to view all results.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 17 Sep 2016 10:08 #80047

  • Xavier Novembre
  • Xavier Novembre's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 40
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 1
Same question :
How do you power your two 7970 ?

is it possible to bring power from outside with a molex for the second one ?


MOD SPEAKING HERE:
please stay on topic = BruceX, feel free to start a new thraed about your hardware tinkerings ;)
Last Edit: 18 Sep 2016 06:44 by Karsten Schlüter.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 17 Sep 2016 10:45 #80048

  • zzchu
  • zzchu's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 77
  • Thank you received: 8
  • Karma: 3
You can add a secondary power supply in the lower CD bay to power the second card. That's how I have been running dual 7950's on my Mac Pro 5,1 for over 2 years now. Check out the epower EP-450CD

Check out these threads: www.fcp.co/forum/4-final-cut-pro-x-fcpx/...-pros?start=40#41845


MOD SPEAKING HERE:
please stay on topic = BruceX, feel free to start a new thraed about your hardware tinkerings ;)
Last Edit: 18 Sep 2016 06:44 by Karsten Schlüter.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 17 Sep 2016 10:57 #80049

  • Xavier Novembre
  • Xavier Novembre's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 40
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 1
thank you for that useful reference

so you have it internally with an AC cable coming in ?

I guess I could keep it external with a cpl of DC cables coming in ?

(my upper CD bay is already full with two HD)


MOD SPEAKING HERE:
please stay on topic = BruceX, feel free to start a new thraed about your hardware tinkerings ;)
Last Edit: 18 Sep 2016 06:44 by Karsten Schlüter.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 17 Sep 2016 14:35 #80051

  • zzchu
  • zzchu's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 77
  • Thank you received: 8
  • Karma: 3
I have it mounted internally. The e-powe'rs power cord is fished out the back thru a pci slot cover. A molex power connector tapped from the cd bay triggers the power on of the aux power supply.


MOD SPEAKING HERE:
please stay on topic = BruceX, feel free to start a new thraed about your hardware tinkerings ;)
Last Edit: 18 Sep 2016 06:45 by Karsten Schlüter.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 21 Sep 2016 11:59 #80143

  • dorin
  • dorin's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 52
  • Thank you received: 2
  • Karma: 0
Are there any performance gains with macOS Sierra?
Last Edit: 21 Sep 2016 12:00 by dorin.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 24 Sep 2016 20:12 #80261

  • iamgerii
  • iamgerii's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: 0
i7 6700K
32g DDR4 Ballistix Sport
Sapphire Vapor-x 280x
Samsung EVO 500G SSD
700W PSU

15 seconds.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 27 Sep 2016 10:13 #80319

  • qbe
  • qbe's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 19
  • Thank you received: 2
  • Karma: 1
Can everybody please note version of system and version of FCPX. As you see, there is big step up in performance between Yosemite and El Capitan. We dont know yet for Sierra. This info is very important. Soon we are going to have results from three different operating systems.

I would suggest a little table to fill in:

GPU:
CPU:
RAM:
HDD: (used for export)
macOS version:
FCPX version:

TIME to Prores 422:

thanks in advance
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 27 Sep 2016 11:23 #80320

  • iamgerii
  • iamgerii's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: 0
GPU: Sapphire Vapor-X r9 280x
CPU: i7 6700k
RAM: 32g ballistix sport
HDD: Samsung EVO 600g
macOS version: El Capitan
FCPX version: 10.2.3

TIME to Prores 422: 15 seconds
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 27 Sep 2016 15:38 #80325

  • LaserJudas
  • LaserJudas's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 7
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 0
Unfortunately not. I have a feeling its slower. I have tried the following this week:

1 x 280x - 35 sec
2 x 280x - 16 sec
2 x 380x - 18 sec
1 x 290 - 25 sec (this takes some SERIOUS tinkering with the KEXT-files in Sierra to even get the card working at all, you need to manually add the card ID in three kext files).
1 x 290X (still waiting for the card, it should come tomorrow).

I have a shitload of graphics cards here right now so this is going to be rather interesting.

:-)

/Klaus
Last Edit: 29 Sep 2016 22:44 by LaserJudas.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 18 Oct 2016 09:30 #80867

  • udayan.tvm
  • udayan.tvm's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: 0
New AMD RX480 8GBDDR5 with Corei7 6700K 32GB DDR4

Test Results : 8 Seconds

https://youtu.be/56pDeeUre9A
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 18 Oct 2016 09:47 #80868

  • udayan.tvm
  • udayan.tvm's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: 0
GPU: Radeon RX480
CPU: Core i7 6700K
RAM: 32GB DDR4
HDD: SSD 250GB Samsung
macOS version:10.12.1 Beta4
FCPX version:10.2.3

TIME to Prores 422: 8 seconds



The administrator has disabled public write access.