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 15 Apr 2017 13:32 #87226

  • BenMcC
  • BenMcC's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: 0
I read on another forum hackintosh 1080 card 38secs, so stick wit AMD 480rx for Mac and hack
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 02 May 2017 18:17 #87745

  • FCPXman
  • FCPXman's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 1
  • Karma: 0
I have Mac Pro 4,1 2009 with 2 x5670 64gb ddr3 1333 and 3 sapphire HD 7970 reference cards (with simple 700w PC Psu in DVD compartment) . In first test I got 16s, in all other attempts I'm getting about 19s. Luxmark 2 shows 7300. I left 2 cards inside and still getting good 22s and 4800 luxmark and having place for USB3 and Sm951. I'm still happy with my old Mac.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 05 Jun 2017 19:32 #88603

  • pikard
  • pikard's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: 0
Hackintosh Xeon E5450(OC 3,2GHz), HIS HD7950(OC 1GHz), 8GB DDR2 RAM OC 852MHz, SSD Samsung 840pro.

Sierra 10.12.5, FCPX 10.2.3

Result: 33sec average from 3 ( differences only in 1/10sec)
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 16 Jun 2017 14:30 #88811

  • mousefarm
  • mousefarm's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Junior Boarder
  • Posts: 36
  • Thank you received: 4
  • Karma: 2
Just tested my brand new iMac 27" 2017.

Core i7
Radeon Pro 580
8 GB ram
512 GB SSD

Result: 19 seconds
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 16 Jun 2017 19:28 #88812

  • DmitriZigany
  • DmitriZigany's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 503
  • Thank you received: 20
  • Karma: 1
Wow. I so want the new 27" iMac...
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 17 Jun 2017 14:20 #88818

I own a Late 2015 retina iMac 4Ghz i7, 32Gb RAM & fusion 3Tb w M395X 4gb, during transcoding in FCPX or Handbrake/IVI i've noticed using "Intel Power Gadget" my CPU runs very hot, and runs at 3,9Ghz (instead of base 4Ghz and turbo 4,4Ghz)! Can you check your CPU speed and heat? this thermal throttling was the reason i sold my fist Retina iMac as it was constantly revving up it's fan & the CPU speed on paper was 3,7Ghz (better than my previous iMac 3,4ghz) but it runned at 3.2Ghz
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 30 Jun 2017 08:02 #89116

  • Paul Anderegg
  • Paul Anderegg's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 18
  • Thank you received: 3
  • Karma: 0
Paul Anderegg wrote:
Early 2013 Macbook Pro 15" 2.7Ghz 16GB RAM 512SSD 1GB GT650M El Capitan and FCPX 10.2.3

0:57 seconds

Reran the above system, on Sierra 10.12.5 and FCPX 10.3.4, exporting to ProRes 422 no prerender

Test 1: 80 seconds
Test 2: 85 seconds

W.T.F. happened...I have been noticing my exports have been excruciatingly slow as of late, which is why I wanted to retest. Did something with Sierra snd new FCPX versions mess things up for BruceX? Looking at almost 1/3 or 30% increase in render times. :(

Paul
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 30 Jun 2017 09:17 #89119

  • FCPX.guru
  • FCPX.guru's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • bbalser.com
  • Posts: 1243
  • Thank you received: 170
  • Karma: 14
What percentage of your drives are left as free space?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 08 Jul 2017 23:57 #89285

  • Paul Anderegg
  • Paul Anderegg's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 18
  • Thank you received: 3
  • Karma: 0
On the 2013, it had 200GB of free space.

I just received a used 15" 2015 rMBP 2.8GHz 1TB r370x from eBay, and ran BruceX on a fresh OSX/FCPX install.

No prerender, to ProRes 422 - 0:44 seconds, vs 80-85 seconds for my old early 2013.

Unhappily enough, in a normal 720p export speed test, with a slight levels grade, the 17 minute export took 8:35 on the 2015, but was only :10 seconds longer on the old 2013 which has half the speed on BruceX, so I am not sure how useful BruceX is for my comparison needs. Maybe try some stabilization tests...

Nope, the old 2013 stabilized a test clip in 3:15, the 2015 r370x rMBP did the stabilization in 3:57. I really don't understand this, identical test settings, no prerender for anything ever....BruceX kicks ass though, and my Geekbeench 4 scores are 2013 12800 vs 2015 15000, so I am at a loss to explain.

Paul
Last Edit: 09 Jul 2017 00:47 by Paul Anderegg.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 09 Jul 2017 02:18 #89286

  • FCPX.guru
  • FCPX.guru's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • bbalser.com
  • Posts: 1243
  • Thank you received: 170
  • Karma: 14
A single number of GB doesn't give the percentage. If it is a 2 TB drive, 200 GB means the drive is over filled and will give problems, such as bogging down and other odd symptoms. If it is a 1TB drive, 200 GB is only 50 GB away from being technically over filled.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 12 Jul 2017 13:58 #89335

iMac Retina 5K- 27 inch - Late 2015
Core i5 6600K
8GB 1667 MHz RAM
Radeon R9 M395 2GB - 45 Seconds - ProRes 4444 XQ

MacBook Air - 11 inch - Early 2014
Core i5 4260U
4GB 1600 MHz RAM
Intel HD Graphics 5000 1.5GB - 2 minutes 40 seconds ( 160 seconds ) - ProRes 4444 XQ
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 12 Jul 2017 18:57 #89338

  • filrmonic
  • filrmonic's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 14
  • Karma: 1
I intend to get one of the 2017 iMacs in the next couple of months, so, having just found this benchmark, I decided to see what my mid-2012 15" MacBook Pro (2.3GHz i7 / NVIDIA 650M 512MB / 16GB RAM / SSD) would come in at. After several minutes it had got to 3% completion! So killed it, restarted (trashed prefs, etc) but still the same. Considering the humble mac mini completes in less than 5 minutes there is obviously something awry! It seems to be ok for most of the normal HD stuff I do. So not too worried, just a little mystified.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 12 Jul 2017 21:32 #89341

  • tap5a
  • tap5a's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 43
  • Thank you received: 8
  • Karma: 0
My wife just got brand new baseline 2017 Macbook and I was just curious to test how it performs. It took 113 seconds. Still skimming around 4K video etc. is suprisingly smooth.

Macbook (12-inch, 2017)
1,2 GHz Intel Core m3
8 GB 1867 MHz LPDDR3
Intel HD Graphics 615 1536 MB
Last Edit: 12 Jul 2017 21:34 by tap5a.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 15 Jul 2017 08:51 #89413

  • MotionFX
  • MotionFX's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: 0
Just tested on a 2017 iMac:

21.5 inches, i5 at 3.4 ghz, Radeon Pro 560, 8 gb and the small Fusion Drive:
40 seconds (5k in ProRes 422).

This iMac is much faster in FCPX than my rMBP 2015 with top specs (i7 at 2.8 ghz, 16 gb and R9 M370X). I was not expecting that much difference.
No throttling at all (while I have some in FCPX with my MBP, as everyone with the rMBP 2015 and the discrete GPU): temperatures never go to high, the computer is able to maintain the turbo mode (even though it seems limited to 3.6 ghz when the 4 cores are in use) and remains silent.

I'm happy with this new computer and I will upgrade it soon to 32 gb and a 500 gb SSD. And it will also have a 21.5 LG Ultrafine as a companion.
Last Edit: 15 Jul 2017 11:26 by MotionFX.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 15 Jul 2017 09:12 #89414

  • MotionFX
  • MotionFX's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: 0
I just received a used 15" 2015 rMBP 2.8GHz 1TB r370x from eBay, and ran BruceX on a fresh OSX/FCPX install.

No prerender, to ProRes 422 - 0:44 seconds, vs 80-85 seconds for my old early 2013.

Unhappily enough, in a normal 720p export speed test, with a slight levels grade, the 17 minute export took 8:35 on the 2015, but was only :10 seconds longer on the old 2013 which has half the speed on BruceX, so I am not sure how useful BruceX is for my comparison needs. Maybe try some stabilization tests...

Nope, the old 2013 stabilized a test clip in 3:15, the 2015 r370x rMBP did the stabilization in 3:57. I really don't understand this, identical test settings, no prerender for anything ever....BruceX kicks ass though, and my Geekbeench 4 scores are 2013 12800 vs 2015 15000, so I am at a loss to explain.

There is an answer for that: you are probably suffering thermal throttling which also happens to my 2015 MBP. Sometimes it's really severe and it really makes FCPX run like a snail. It's not a good experience because I never have a linear experience in terms of performance.

I bought mine used and I plan to sell it because of that.
Last Edit: 15 Jul 2017 09:17 by MotionFX.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 15 Jul 2017 10:27 #89417

  • Stu Wart
  • Stu Wart's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Junior Boarder
  • Posts: 24
  • Karma: 0
MacPro Nehalem 4.1 (early 2009)
2 x 2,66 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon / RAM 20Go 1066MHz

10.11.6 El Capitan / Fcp X 10.3
SanDisk Ultra II 960GB
x2 Graphic ATI Radeon HD 5770 1024 Mo
1920x1080 ProRes 422: = 12 "
5K ProRes 422 = 31 "

no render of course
please people write down the specs of the export file (most posts here have no value because of that)
Last Edit: 15 Jul 2017 10:28 by Stu Wart.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 15 Jul 2017 11:28 #89418

  • MotionFX
  • MotionFX's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: 0
Stu Wart wrote:
MacPro Nehalem 4.1 (early 2009)
2 x 2,66 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon / RAM 20Go 1066MHz

10.11.6 El Capitan / Fcp X 10.3
SanDisk Ultra II 960GB
x2 Graphic ATI Radeon HD 5770 1024 Mo
1920x1080 ProRes 422: = 12 "
5K ProRes 422 = 31 "

no render of course
please people write down the specs of the export file (most posts here have no value because of that)

I suppose that in most cases is ProRes 422. By the way, I have never notices big differences between different ProRes if the destination hard drive is fast enough.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 14 Aug 2017 21:28 #89897

  • Stu Wart
  • Stu Wart's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Junior Boarder
  • Posts: 24
  • Karma: 0
mousefarm wrote:
Just tested my brand new iMac 27" 2017.

Core i7
Radeon Pro 580
8 GB ram
512 GB SSD

Result: 19 seconds

5k ProRes ?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 12 Sep 2017 19:50 #90476

  • LaserJudas
  • LaserJudas's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: 0
Mac Pro 4.1 -> 5.1
High Sierra 10.13 Beta (17A360a)
2 x 2,26 Ghz Xeon (will be upgraded)
64 GB RAM
500 GB Samsung 840 EVO (on ordinary SATA-port)
RADEON RX VEGA 64 - 8 GB
Apple ProRes 422
5K

10.4 sec to render. Pretty good for a beta driver.
Last Edit: 13 Sep 2017 12:43 by LaserJudas.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 13 Sep 2017 09:52 #90485

  • Stu Wart
  • Stu Wart's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Junior Boarder
  • Posts: 24
  • Karma: 0
LaserJudas wrote:
Mac Pro 4.1 -> 5.1
High Sierra 10.13 Beta (17A360a)
2 x 2,26 Ghz Xeon (will be upgraded)
64 GB RAM
500 GB Samsung 840 EVO (on ordinary SATA-port)
RADEON RX VEGA 64 - 8 GB
Apple ProRes 422

10.4 sec to render. Pretty good for a beta driver.

Prores 422 ok but ? 5k ? 4K ? HD ?

thank you
The administrator has disabled public write access.