fbpx
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 10 Mar 2018 17:14 #94560

  • kęstutis.Česnavičius
  • kęstutis.Česnavičius's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 1
  • Thank you received: 0
Mac Pro 3.1 (8 core)
Processor 2 x 3,2 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
Memory 24 GB 667 MHz DDR2 FB-DIMM
GPU NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 3072 MB
500GB WD Black

BruceX: 44 sec.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 21 Mar 2018 14:50 #94756

  • rwillett
  • rwillett's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Junior Boarder
  • Junior Boarder
  • Posts: 20
  • Thank you received: 5
You won't get a lot (any?) benefit from RAIDing as the benchmark is designed to stress graphics cards. Very little writing is done,. I recall we did that and it made no difference with real hard disks as opposed to SSDs,

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 08 May 2018 01:11 #95427

  • zzchu
  • zzchu's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Boarder
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 77
  • Karma: 3
  • Thank you received: 9
MacPro 5,1 (Mid 2010) 3.46 Ghz 6-core
Sapphire Radeon RX 580 Pulse 8gigabyte
FCPX 10.4.2 and Mac OS 10.13.4.
Export to ProRes:
21.92 seconds

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 08 May 2018 01:43 #95429

  • FCPX.guru
  • FCPX.guru's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • bbalser.com
  • Posts: 3004
  • Karma: 34
  • Thank you received: 402
iMac Pro, 10 core, 3.0GHz, 64 GB RAM, Vega 64
Exporting to Promise Pegasus 32 TB (28TB usable), 8 bay, Thunderbolt 3, RAID 5
No pre-rendering

Using the version of the test currently linked in the OP. Is there an update to this?

H.264
24.33 seconds avg

ProRes 422
20.8 seconds avg

Just for fun, H.264 exported to the internal 2TB SSD drive, 25 seconds. So, never edit on your system drive, it's not necessarily the fastest.

What I find interesting is that I do 30 second TV commercials in 4K, export to ProRes, in much less time. Which is real-world work, so I base my opinions on that. But this is a fun test. I wonder if folks hit the start on their stop watches when they hit the save button or when the background task clock starts moving.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by FCPX.guru.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 08 May 2018 10:28 #95434

  • martinX
  • martinX's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Boarder
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 68
  • Thank you received: 6
24.4 for h.264
18.6 for ProRes

Model Name: iMac
Model Identifier: iMac18,3
Processor Name: Intel Core i7
Processor Speed: 4.2 GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Total Number of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB
L3 Cache: 8 MB
Memory: 24 GB
Radeon Pro 580 8192 MB

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 21 Jul 2018 21:41 #96435

  • ti.jl
  • ti.jl's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 2
  • Thank you received: 0
33.9s for ProRes 422

Model Name: Hackintosh
Model Identifier: iMac12,1
Processor Name: Intel Core i7
Processor Speed: 3.41 GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Total Number of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB
L3 Cache: 8 MB
Memory: 16 GB
Nvidia GTX1070 8GB

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 21 Jul 2018 21:50 #96436

  • ti.jl
  • ti.jl's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 2
  • Thank you received: 0
Not bad for a hack from the green team...
32.90 for ProRes

Model Name: Hackintosh - Asus P8P67 Evo
Processor Name: Intel Core i7 2600K
Processor Speed: 4.2 GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Total Number of Cores: 4, 8 threads
L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB
L3 Cache: 8 MB
Memory: 16 GB 1333 Mhz DDR3
SSD: Crucial 240GB SATA 2
Nvidia GTX 1070 8GB
Attachments:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 22 Jul 2018 09:00 #96440

  • joema
  • joema's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 1338
  • Karma: 27
  • Thank you received: 279
My latest tests on 2017 top-spec iMac 27 and 10-core Vega 64 iMac Pro, all running macOS 10.13.6 and FCPX 10.4.3. Each test was done five times on five fresh libraries to avoid caching effects, and the average taken.

Background rendering was off, timeline was not pre-rendered, Time Machine was shut down. Ideally when doing benchmark testing Spotlight should be shut down but I didn't do that.

To improve timing precision, I would suggest everyone subsequently copy and paste the BruceX timeline to itself 4 times and divide the resulting execution time by 4. However -- these numbers aren't directly applicable to the previous single-pass numbers, but somewhat faster. This might imply a significant % of BruceX timing is startup overhead and isn't really measuring the core task. Conversely it might imply the 4x timeline is benefiting from cache effects of the repeating test. This shows how complex a simple-looking benchmark can be. Until this is understood or Alex posts an "official" new test procedure, I recommend we keep running it as usual.

However there is considerable run-to-run variation, so it's a good idea to run several iterations and take the average. Definitely background rendering should be disabled.

Time was started when hitting the share button and stopped when the file loaded in Quicktime Player. I tested both ProRes 422 and H264 4k using "fast" export option. Note the H264 export is 4k not 5k.

2017 iMac 27, ProRes 422: 17.9 sec
2017 iMac 27, H264 4k: 19.0 sec

2017 10-core Vega 64 iMac Pro, ProRes 422: 12.2 sec
2017 10-core Vega 64 iMac Pro, H264 4k: 15.3 sec

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by joema.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 25 Jul 2018 00:32 #96473

  • qbe
  • qbe's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 19
  • Karma: 1
  • Thank you received: 2
joema: very very interesting findings

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by qbe.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 10 Jan 2019 23:26 #98458

  • solidww
  • solidww's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: 1
  • Thank you received: 2
Quick question for everyone. I am planning to build a new Hackintosh. For best editing in a 4K workflow with FCP X. Would sticking with the two current 7850 be good or would any of you upgrade to two RX560s? I could also go with a single 7950 GPU, if that would be the better bet?

I mostly shoot with my iPhone at 4k. So, I don't necessarily need the faster most powerful GPUs.

Thank you for any help.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 20 Feb 2019 16:07 #98986

  • John Vito
  • John Vito's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 4
  • Thank you received: 0

John Vito wrote: 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.


UPDATE
I just replaced the above EVGA GeForce GTX 560 2048 MB card with a Sapphire R9 280X 3GB graphics card. Ran BruceX and as always followed the instructions. The R9 280X is over 4 times faster than the GeForce!

Hackintosh
Intel Core i7 3.39 GHz Sandy Bridge
500 GB SSD
32 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Sapphire R9 280X 3GB
OS - Sierra 10.12.6
FCX 10.4

Rending time ave: 37 seconds!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by John Vito.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 05 Mar 2019 12:50 #99158

  • verstaerker
  • verstaerker's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Boarder
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 63
  • Thank you received: 0
17s for ProRes 422
44s without the eGPU

Model Name: MBP 2016
Processor Name: Intel Core i7
Processor Speed: 2.9GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Memory: 16 GB
BM eGPU Pro Vega56

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by verstaerker.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 07 Oct 2019 20:26 #101878

  • zzchu
  • zzchu's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Boarder
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 77
  • Karma: 3
  • Thank you received: 9

zzchu wrote: MacPro 5,1 (Mid 2010) 3.46 Ghz 6-core
Sapphire Radeon RX 580 Pulse 8gigabyte
FCPX 10.4.2 and Mac OS 10.13.4.
Export to ProRes:
21.92 seconds


Haven't done this test in over a year... but
Final Cut Pro X 10.4.7 update seems to have cut the time from 22 seconds to about 17 seconds with same hardware (Mac Pro 5,1 - 6 core, AMD RX580 and Mojave 10.14.6)

Good job Apple!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 18 Jan 2020 05:11 #103991

  • serralha
  • serralha's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 1
  • Thank you received: 0
Macmini8,1
3,2 GHz 6-Core Intel Core i7
32 GB 2667 MHz DDR4
AMD RADEON RX 5700XT
MacOS Catalina 10.15.2
FCPX 10.4.8
ProRes 422
9,6 s

:)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 19 Jan 2020 09:01 #104028

  • verstaerker
  • verstaerker's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Boarder
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 63
  • Thank you received: 0
macPro 7,1
12Core
VegaII
64 GB Ram
MacOS Catalina 10.15.2
FCPX 10.4.8
ProRes 422

6,6s

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 19 Jan 2020 14:24 #104029

  • FCPX.guru
  • FCPX.guru's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • bbalser.com
  • Posts: 3004
  • Karma: 34
  • Thank you received: 402
Model Identifier: iMacPro1,1
Processor Name: 10-Core Intel Xeon W
Processor Speed: 3 GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Total Number of Cores: 10
Memory: 64 GB
Boot ROM Version: 1037.60.58.0.0 (iBridge: 17.16.12551.0.0,0)

GPU: Radeon Pro Vega 64, 16 GB VRAM

Pegasus R3, 8 Toshiba 4TB HHDs, RAID 5, Thunderbolt

BruceX residing on and exporting to the system drive, 9 seconds.
BruceX residing on and exporting to Pegasus RAID, 8 seconds.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 20 Jan 2020 04:08 #104032

  • solidww
  • solidww's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: 1
  • Thank you received: 2
Yes that was a gift from Apple for those of us using 2009-2012 Mac Pro models. Mojave and FCPX 10.14.7 are a huge improvement in performance.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 20 Jan 2020 12:07 #104039

  • joema
  • joema's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 1338
  • Karma: 27
  • Thank you received: 279

FCPX.guru wrote: ...

BruceX residing on and exporting to the system drive, 9 seconds.
BruceX residing on and exporting to Pegasus RAID, 8 seconds.


We have exactly the same iMac Pro model and config, however mine ran BruceX much faster. I don't know why. Was your output H264 or ProRes 422? Mine was running FCPX 10.4.8 and Mojave 10.14.6, Pro Video Formats 2.11.

Since BruceX runs so fast on modern hardware/software, I appended the timeline 5 times and divided the running time by 5.

My BruceX numbers for 10-core Vega 64 iMac Pro below.

5.74 sec - ProRes 422 output
9.9 sec - H264 "Fast" output
11.9 sec - H264 "High Quality" output

2019 MacBook Pro 16", i9, 32GB, 5500M 8GB GPU, FCPX 10.4.8, Catalina 10.15.2, Pro Video Formats 2.11

11.88 sec - ProRes 422 output
19.5 sec - H264 "Fast" output
37.47 sec - H264 "High Quality" output

For some reason FCPX on my iMac Pro would often hang when writing the output for for the H.264 "High Quality" case. I tried various output drives; don't know what the problem is.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by joema.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 07 Feb 2020 22:46 #104473

  • Paul Anderegg
  • Paul Anderegg's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Boarder
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 41
  • Thank you received: 4
2019 16 inch i7 2.6GHz 16GB RAM 5300 base model
:27 seconds

2015 15 inch i7 2.8GHz 16GB RAM 370
:57 seconds

Paul

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.