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 22 Oct 2016 17:11 #81109

  • qbe
  • qbe's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 19
  • Thank you received: 2
  • Karma: 1
udayan.tvm: Can you please do the test without background rendering enabled? Thanks
Last Edit: 22 Oct 2016 17:14 by qbe.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 22 Oct 2016 18:02 #81112

  • nikos69
  • nikos69's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: 1
Hello... Can you please do the test without background rendering enabled? Thanks :evil:
udayan.tvm wrote:
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.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 25 Oct 2016 20:26 #81203

Hey guys ! Trying out my new MSI Radeon RX 470 8GB on my old Mac Pro tower (4,1 patched 5,1) running Sierra, here is my result (export in ProRes 422 5K, I don't have the option for H264 in master, only for computer or Apple Devices, but then it's not 5K).

Mac Pro (Early 2009)
CPU 2 x 2.26 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
Samsung SSD 840 EVO 1To
16 GB 1066 MHz DDR3
AMD RX 470 8192 MB

Happy to report as well that it runs DaVinci Resolve all right, not real time in 4k though. I should try 2xRX 470 or even 2xRX 480 ? :)
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 26 Oct 2016 18:49 #81259

Love this new Benchmark! Thanks!

Average Render Time....drum roll...14 seconds :)

Specs:
Computer: Hackintosh
GPU: Titan X
CPU: Intel 6700 i7
RAM: 64GB DDR4
HDD: SSD 1TB PNY
OSX: El Capitan 10.11.6
FCPX: 10.2.3
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 27 Oct 2016 07:50 #81300

Gigabyte Z77-UP5 TH
i7-3770K @3.50 GHz
16 GB RAM
R9 280X 3GB
500 GB Samsung SSD

BruceX test results:
El Capitan 17.5 sec
Sierra 25.5 sec
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 28 Oct 2016 09:26 #81481

  • dorin
  • dorin's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 52
  • Thank you received: 2
  • Karma: 0
BruceX is not working on FCPX 10.3, or is working but is painfully slow to export.
Can someone test BriceX and confirm this?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 28 Oct 2016 09:42 #81482

  • verstaerker
  • verstaerker's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 62
  • Karma: 0
crashes here at import
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 28 Oct 2016 10:15 #81487

No changes in speed.

Hackintosh
Gigabyte Z77-UP5 TH
i7 3550K

BruceX test results

El Capitan 17,5 sec
Sierra 25,9 sec
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 28 Oct 2016 10:17 #81488

verstaerker wrote:
crashes here at import

No changes in speed.

Hackintosh
Gigabyte Z77-UP5 TH
i7 3550K

BruceX test results

El Capitan 17,5 sec
Sierra 25,9 sec
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 28 Oct 2016 10:31 #81492

  • qbe
  • qbe's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 19
  • Thank you received: 2
  • Karma: 1
nikos69 wrote:
Hello... Can you please do the test without background rendering enabled? Thanks :evil:
udayan.tvm wrote:
GPU: Radeon RX480

TIME to Prores 422: 8 seconds

Not sure how to understand your evil smiley...

You are not doing the test the way its supposed to be done. Its written in the original post how you are supposed to run it. You are skipping step 2 (labeled as step 3 by mistake in original post)

You HAVE background rendering enabled in that video. FCPX is prerendering the project. You have to turn background render OFF in preferences and redo the test if you want the results to be comparable to other results...

Anyway, timing the background render time to 12-13 seconds. Sierra seems to slow down rendering times. I have info from other sites, that 280x results have gone back up to 28-34s (depends on setups) from 15-17. So we can guess aproximate results of 480 of 14-15s including the export time to SSD disk
Last Edit: 28 Oct 2016 10:39 by qbe.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 28 Oct 2016 10:36 #81493

Sierra slows down rendering times. My 280x results have gone back up to 25,9 sec. With El Capitan it was 17,5 sec.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 29 Oct 2016 08:21 #81578

  • proenca
  • proenca's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 5
  • Thank you received: 2
  • Karma: 0
For ages, I lurk on this thread. Years to be honest :)

And I envied always the low times - I had a MacBook Pro 17" with discreet graphics, then upgraded ( erm... ) to a MacAir i7 and I despaired.

Now, that prices are rock bottom, I bought a MacPro 5,1.

Yawza !

MacPro 5,1 @ 3.33ghz 6 core
16gb Ram
SSD 240gb
Radeon 280x 3GB

Time to Render : 31 secs.

Still time to improve - a lot to be honest - by adding a second SSD and strip them and adding a second R9. But so far, the performance is stellar. This is under Sierra and FCP 10.2
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 31 Oct 2016 18:36 #81768

  • fcpchris
  • fcpchris's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 14
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 0
hello everyone.

no fcpx 10.3 news from my side, yet, but for the record, I am posting my results after finally doing some upgrades that I had planned for a year.

upgraded system:
cMP 4,1 EFI flashed to 5,1 | upgraded CPU to Xeon 3,46GHz 6-core | 24GB (3x8) RAM now running at 1333MHz | single unflashed SAPPHIRE TRI-X R9 280X 3GB GDDR5 | 2x256GB Samsung SSDs on a Sonnet Tempo SSD Pro Plus configured as a (SoftRAID) RAID0 with 3 partitions (OS X Mavericks, OS X El Capitan & Scratch) | internal 5x6TB (SoftRAID) RAID5 with the fastest 10TB partitioned for Video Work

results:
os x 10.11.6 (el capitan)
fcpx 10.2.3

bruceX to Apple ProRes 422 (3 tests, each after relaunching fcpx)
SSD RAID0 -> RAID5: average 32 secs.
RAID5 -> SSD RAID0: average 32 secs.
SSD RAID0 -> SSD RAID0: average 33 secs.

to point out: that is only a 3 second increase over the old, quad-core 2,66GHz processor and old hdd setup (3x3TB Apple Software RAID0 and single SSD on sonnet card). a bit disappointing. not sure what to make of that. surely the much beefier processor and very fast SSD RAID0 (900+MB/s reads via Blackmagic DiskSpeedTest) should have bumped the speed a bit more.

any clues anyone?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 01 Nov 2016 00:56 #81800

  • qbe
  • qbe's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 19
  • Thank you received: 2
  • Karma: 1
fcpchris: what gpu did you use before?

BruceX is basicaly a gpu test, there is very little in terms of cpu testing and disk speed
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 01 Nov 2016 05:52 #81808

  • fcpchris
  • fcpchris's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 14
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 0
Thanks for the reply and clarification. GPU didn't change from last time. I am closely following the RX480 results, as it seems a viable upgrade option for next year.

On a side note: I am currently debating to extend the (SoftRAID) RAID5 to 6 6TB drives as i/o is not as satisfying as I had hoped. (Quiet a bit slower than the previous 3x3TB RAID0). Or I might change it to a 6x6TB RAID10 config for the speed benefits. Really want some redundancy in the system.

BTW: Is there a dedicated fcp.co thread for RAIDs used for editing?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 01 Nov 2016 07:11 #81810

  • mvarney
  • mvarney's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 7
  • Thank you received: 5
  • Karma: 1
fcpchris, I am a little puzzled at your results. They seem much slower than I would expect for your GPU and OS.

With a flashed Radeon HD 7950 (925 MHz) in my Mac Pro 5,1 on 10.11.3, I was getting 21 seconds (see Post #73689). I believe that this is typical of others' results. I now have a single unflashed R9 280X at 1000 MHz and am getting 19 seconds on 10.11.6, which I think is a bit slow.

In the first case I had (2) Xeon X5570 (2.93 GHz 4-core). In the second I had (2) Xeon X5675 (3.06 GHz 6-core), but I doubt that the CPU upgrade had much effect. In both cases I wrote the ProRes 422 to a SATA SSD. Background rendering was turned off, and no footage was pre-rendered.

Because BruceX has no real source footage, and the output file is only 70 MB, I wouldn't expect much performance gain from high-speed storage in this test. I'm guessing that the difference in storage speed is more noticeable when the project contains multiple large source files. As QBE says, BruceX is much more affected by GPU speed than anything else.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 01 Nov 2016 08:45 #81811

  • fcpchris
  • fcpchris's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 14
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 0
mvarney, I feel the same. my previous results also received comments about being on the slow side regarding the setup.

but those are my results also on repeated tests. (all exported to ProRes 422, done with background rendering turned off, no footage pre-rendered, upon a fresh system boot & fcpx launch as well as without any other major processes running.) output file size also is 70MB.

questions:
- could it be down to the specific version of my radeon r9 280x (which is the Sapphire TRI-X R9 280X 3GB GDDR5 OC Version)?
- could it be down to it not being flashed?
- could it be down to it not getting enough power from maybe an ageing PSU? (I recently read about decreasing power of older PSUs)
- could it be down to the type of display connected? (DELL Ultrasharp U3415W)

I am clueless.
Last Edit: 01 Nov 2016 08:46 by fcpchris.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 01 Nov 2016 11:37 #81830

  • dorin
  • dorin's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 52
  • Thank you received: 2
  • Karma: 0
I have noticed that increasing the resolution or number of monitors connected to one GPU it's affecting the FCPX performance. When I connect a second monitor to my iMac, FCPX performs worse. Is probably caused by the 512MB vRAM of my iMac's HD 6750M .
Last Edit: 01 Nov 2016 11:43 by dorin.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 02 Nov 2016 02:41 #81899

  • mvarney
  • mvarney's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 7
  • Thank you received: 5
  • Karma: 1
fcpchris, I doubt it's the specific version of your card. I am running the Sapphire R9 280X Vapor-X Tri-X OC (1000 MHz, not the 1100 MHz boost version). I am guessing that your card is supposed to be as fast as mine, and possibly faster.
My card is also not flashed, and I don't believe that any of the Sapphire 280X will work with the Mac EFI BIOS added anyway (because they don't match the reference design in ports provided). It certainly didn't work on mine when I tried it. My card also doesn't have the resistor mod to get 5.0 GT/s PCI speed; I assume it's operating at 2.5 GT/s.
I doubt that the display is significant factor with that card, but I could be mistaken. I'm guessing that the size of the Final Cut window does have a significant effect on performance while editing, though.
Your theory about the power supply could be valid. Some of these high-power cards may overdraw the thin conductors used for the built-in PCIe booster circuits and six-pin cables, causing a substantial voltage drop at the card (I think I read about this somewhere). I was concerned about this, so spliced 8-pin cables directly into the power supply output cables as shown here:
http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/pixlas-4-1-mac-pro-mod.1859652/

This should provide the required current with less voltage drop or chance of overheating the motherboard traces. I don't know if voltage drop is causing your performance hit, though.

Have you tried running LuxMark? I would be curious to know your score from LuxMark 3's Hotel scene. You can get it here:
http://www.luxrender.net/wiki/LuxMark#Binaries
When the app comes up, go up to Scene and choose Hotel. I am getting 2150.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 02 Nov 2016 13:19 #81963

  • iamgerii
  • iamgerii's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: 0
I just ran the test on 10.3 and I've gained time.

GPU: Sapphire Vapor-X r9 280x
CPU: i7 6700k
RAM: 32g ballistix sport
HDD: Samsung EVO 500g
macOS version: El Capitan

FCPX version: 10.2.3 - TIME to Prores 422: 15 seconds
FCPX version: 10.3 - TIME to Prores 422: 23 seconds

An 8 second uptick. I wonder if OC'ing the i7 would do anything...
The administrator has disabled public write access.