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 04 Feb 2017 22:34 #85478

Hackintosh I7 3.5 Ghz Ivy Bridge
256 ssd
16 gig ram
Radeon HD 6870
FCX 10.2.3
I was blown away only took 28 seconds.

Hackintosh i7 4.0 Ghz Skylake
256 ssd
16 gig ram 2400
770 gtx Evga
FCX 10.2.3
Tried 3 times took 110 seconds
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 13 Feb 2017 15:35 #85705

  • John Vito
  • John Vito's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: 0
I've finally upgraded my 4+ year-old Hackintosh to Sierra from Mavericks.

Hackintosh
Intel Core i7 3.39 GHz Sandy Bridge
256 SSD
32 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
EVGA GeForce GTX 560 2048 MB
OS - Sierra 10.12.3
FCX 10.3.2

Yikes! Rending time ave: 168 seconds

My guess the reason for the slow time is the video card. I'm running dual monitors from the card, I'm sure that doesn't help.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 21 Feb 2017 04:44 #85970

  • ACepero
  • ACepero's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 1
  • Karma: 0
tbMBP

Intel Core i7 2.9 GHz
1 TB SSD
16 GB 2133 MHz LPDDR3
AMD Radeon Pro 460 4096 MB
OS - Sierra 10.12.4 (beta)
FCX 10.3.2
background rendering on

Average rendering time: 19.48 seconds

This is exactly what I was looking for in a benchmark against my late 2013 build rMBP with the NVIDIA card. That averaged over 40 seconds.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 25 Feb 2017 15:44 #86113

  • jjsanderson
  • jjsanderson's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Gold Boarder
  • Posts: 183
  • Thank you received: 28
  • Karma: 7
My stalwart 2008 Mac Pro (3,1): 18Gb RAM, 500Gb Samsung 840 EVO boot drive (used for this test). FCPX 10.3.2. OS X El Capitan 10.11.6.

I recently swapped the graphics card from a 5870 to an R9 380. Which was much simpler than I expected; I literally swapped the cards over and rebooted. I don't get the grey Apple logo startup screen and there's no support for option-booting to select startup drive, but otherwise it seems to work perfectly in both Mac OS X and Windows.

BruceX time: 37 seconds.

...which seems about right. Much faster than the 5870, but not going to challenge the best single-card hackintosh systems, let alone a dual-card setup. On the other hand, I'm running a nine year-old Mac; I've no complaints.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 25 Feb 2017 16:03 #86115

  • orangebeard
  • orangebeard's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 15
  • Thank you received: 4
  • Karma: 1
Nice! I have the same Mac Pro (3,1). I have dual 5770's and was wondering if I could get a little more life out of mine.

What brand of R9 380 did you get?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 26 Feb 2017 13:29 #86133

  • jjsanderson
  • jjsanderson's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Gold Boarder
  • Posts: 183
  • Thank you received: 28
  • Karma: 7
orangebeard wrote:
What brand of R9 380 did you get?

It's a MSI R9 380 Gaming 4G, bought cheap from a friend who's upgraded his PC. Uses the same power cables as my 5870 (which I think also come with the card, normally), has very similar rated power draw but seems to run more quietly. It scored about 97000 on Geekbench 4 compute test.

I've no idea if it's running at full connection speed - I expect not - but I'm seeing roughly the expected performance in both Mac OS and Windows. So far, I'm very happy - and yes, I reckon there's another year or two left in the old 3,1. :)
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 12 Mar 2017 07:13 #86454

  • BenMcC
  • BenMcC's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: 0
Hi guys, i've just installed a RX480GB, i have a hackintosh Gigabyte X99P-SLI and a 6800K 32GB of Ram

the 6800K is probably the limiting factor at this point but its a respectable time, thanks

Test took 23.33 seconds
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 18 Mar 2017 20:34 #86610

  • Duncan Craig
  • Duncan Craig's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Expert Boarder
  • duncancraig.co.uk
  • Posts: 80
  • Thank you received: 9
  • Karma: 2
I've recently installed a second Gigabyte R9 280x in my 5 year old Hackintosh which still serves as my main edit machine.

With a single 280x under Sierra I was getting a time of 35s using 10.2 and 34s using 10.3.
With dual 280x under Sierra I get a time of 22s using 10.2 and 21s using 10.3.

However with dual 280x under El Capitan I get a time of 17.5s using 10.2 and 17s using 10.3.
So I'll be booting to the El Capitan SSD for now, until it's performance improves.

The times I've quoted are completely un-rendered sequences, exporting ProRes 422 to the desktop
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 19 Mar 2017 20:54 #86613

  • spurratic
  • spurratic's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 57
  • Thank you received: 5
  • Karma: 2
Mac Pro 2013
3 GHZ 8-Core Intel Xeon E5
32 GB Ram
Edit Drive: SSD - External Attached Via Thunderbolt
AMD FirePro D500 3072 Mb

Export time to Pr Res 422 - 28 Seconds

Update: This test was with an unrendered timeline and with background rendering turned off. Sorry, don't have time to read 24 pages of comments.....didn't know you wanted average of 3 exports. This test was on the very first export after I loaded the project.
Last Edit: 19 Mar 2017 23:11 by spurratic.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 19 Mar 2017 21:57 #86614

  • joema
  • joema's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 1278
  • Thank you received: 266
  • Karma: 25
BruceX produces different results on a rendered vs non-rendered timeline. Almost nobody posting BruceX results specifies which they are using, or whether background rendering is on or off. There can also be significant run-to-run variation, so ideally taking an average of three runs is best. The results also vary if done without restarting FCPX each time. This may be due to render caching. The BruceX export should be to ProRes 422, not H264.

None of these factors are specified in the typical BruceX test results, so that dilutes the value of BruceX as a benchmark. These are so important it's unfortunate the creator of BruceX did not at least specify these in the graphical output screen.

My own BruceX results on a 2015 top-spec iMac 27, 3-run average, restarting FCPX each time. FCPX 10.3.2, macOS 10.12.3:

Unrendered timeline: 31.75 sec
Rendered timeline: 14.45 sec
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 19 Mar 2017 22:40 #86616

  • Duncan Craig
  • Duncan Craig's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Expert Boarder
  • duncancraig.co.uk
  • Posts: 80
  • Thank you received: 9
  • Karma: 2
From the very first post...

3. In Final Cut Pro X, go to 'Final Cut Pro:Preferences…' – in the Playback tab make sure 'Background Render' is off.
7. In the 'Video Codec' section choose 'H.264' (edited to add - many people have got errors with H.264, so use ProRes422 instead you you have a problem - some times are given with different flavours of ProRes, but each person usually mentions which they've used when reporting their results)

Seems pretty well explained to me!
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 19 Mar 2017 22:50 #86617

  • joema
  • joema's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 1278
  • Thank you received: 266
  • Karma: 25
Duncan Craig wrote:
From the very first post...

We have no idea whatsoever whether the people running BruceX noticed -- much less followed -- those statements from 2013 in page 1 of a 24-page forum thread.

I would be very interested whether those posting BruceX results were aware of this and whether they scrupulously (1) Used ProRes for output (2) Disabled background rendering (3) Posted the average of three runs, and (4) Restarted FCPX after each test.
Last Edit: 19 Mar 2017 22:51 by joema.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 19 Mar 2017 23:03 #86618

  • John Vito
  • John Vito's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: 0
Duncan Craig wrote:
From the very first post...

3. In Final Cut Pro X, go to 'Final Cut Pro:Preferences…' – in the Playback tab make sure 'Background Render' is off.
7. In the 'Video Codec' section choose 'H.264' (edited to add - many people have got errors with H.264, so use ProRes422 instead you you have a problem - some times are given with different flavours of ProRes, but each person usually mentions which they've used when reporting their results)

Seems pretty well explained to me!

I don't know about anyone else but I followed the instructions on the first page.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 19 Mar 2017 23:18 #86619

  • Duncan Craig
  • Duncan Craig's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Expert Boarder
  • duncancraig.co.uk
  • Posts: 80
  • Thank you received: 9
  • Karma: 2
It's only a bit of fun though right? If anyone wants exact metrics for a system then LuxMark and Geekbench are a good start. Both of which can be compared with other known setups as a way of checking that your system is functioning correctly.

Personally I thought I'd post my new times as it's been three years since I first did the test.
Also I think it's worth mentioning, as others have, that Sierra seems slower than El Cap.

Cheers!
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 20 Mar 2017 11:49 #86622

  • alex4D
  • alex4D's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 465
  • Thank you received: 250
  • Karma: 36
Recent video from NahidRains: ‘Final Cut Pro X (FCPX 10.3) Render Benchmark: AMD R9 390x VS R9 280X VS nVidia 980Ti VS nVidia 770’



@Alex4D
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 20 Mar 2017 12:10 #86623

alex4D wrote:
Recent video from NahidRains: …

Interesting. To summarize in one sentence:
FCPX is massively optimized for the hardware built-in Macs.

… which means 'generic' benchmarks don't help here.
So, on opportunity: THANKS again, Alex for your test!


And that…

hackintosh.jpg


… is what makes Hackintosh so desirable? Incredible huge, incredible huge ugly box.
No way…
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 21 Mar 2017 16:22 #86655

  • Duncan Craig
  • Duncan Craig's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Expert Boarder
  • duncancraig.co.uk
  • Posts: 80
  • Thank you received: 9
  • Karma: 2
IMG_9653.jpg

IMG_9654.jpg


Hackintoshes come in a variety of sizes and styles. Personally mine are both in the room next door meaning the suite itself is completely silent. My boxes are indeed very large but have plenty of cooling, lots of HDDs/SSDs, GPUs and a big PSU of course.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 28 Mar 2017 07:00 #86769

Hackintosh
Intel Xeon 3.30 GHz Ivy Bridge
Samsung Evo 250 SSD
16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Asus GeForce GTX 960 2048 MB
OS - Sierra 10.12.3
FCX 10.3.2

Time: average of 3 = 66 seconds
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 11 Apr 2017 14:48 #87092

  • dorin
  • dorin's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 52
  • Thank you received: 2
  • Karma: 0
Has someone tested the new nVidia Pascal drivers on GTX1070 / GTX1080?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 12 Apr 2017 21:35 #87136

  • Xpletive
  • Xpletive's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 1
  • Karma: 0
1080Ti on 378.05.05, played with a few different smbios settings

  • Asus Z97-AR
  • i4790k 4GHz
  • 32GB DDR3 @1867MHz
  • Samsung 850 EVO SSD
  • Seiki SM40UNP Display
  • Dell U2311H x2 Displays
  • EVGA 1080Ti FE AIO watercooled
  • EVGA 980 SC Gaming ACX 2.0
  • FCP 10.3

  • 980SC - 5,1 - 37-38s

    1080Ti - 5,1 - 31s

    1080Ti - 15,1 - 31s

    1080Ti - 17,1 - 30s
    The administrator has disabled public write access.