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 03 Jan 2014 01:16 #37916

  • chirpie
  • chirpie's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 3
  • Thank you received: 0
Wouldn't the compression to h.264 mostly be on the cpu?

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

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 03 Jan 2014 03:17 #37922

  • Darren Roark
  • Darren Roark's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 482
  • Karma: 13
  • Thank you received: 61
Not necessarily, h.264 encoding hardware is now in most GPUs made in the past five or so years. It's why handbrake now works many times faster than realtime.

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

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 03 Jan 2014 03:30 #37923

  • chirpie
  • chirpie's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 3
  • Thank you received: 0
This is what I get for having an older GPU. Hand break is nowhere near that speed for me. More like 70% of real time when doing a single pass on an MKV from a Blu-ray for example. (Maxed out on the CPU though...)

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

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 03 Jan 2014 04:02 #37925

  • sealtainn
  • sealtainn's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 10
  • Thank you received: 1
MacPro 2010 5,1
32GB RAM
Internal PCIe Accelsior
6 core 3.33GHz

Sapphire 7950 (3GB VRAM)

BruceX on FCPX 10.1 and 10.9.1 (ProRes) -- 42 seconds


Dual Radeon 5770 1GB VRAM (Slots 1 &2)

BruceX on FCPX 10.1 and 10.9.1 (ProRes) -- 33 seconds

I was expecting better than that given the comment from Barefeats (assuming 7970 is ~ 20% faster than 7950)
By my calculation using the single 7970 vs. 7950 factor I'd guess a dual 7970 on this system would be about 24 second, so something "slightly slower" than that for dual 5770 could be anything from 25 seconds up... maybe as much as 28 seconds, but 33 seconds is quite a bit slower than "slightly slower".

Have had difficulty physically installing 2nd 5770 into Slot 4 to save a pcie slot for another Accelsior card.
It would seem that even with the 2nd GPU in slot 4 that there should be enough room to fit low profile 2.5" drives in the bays above -- at least for bay 2.

Also have a 5870 to test.

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

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 03 Jan 2014 10:56 #37942

  • verstaerker
  • verstaerker's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Boarder
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 63
  • Thank you received: 0
i got 61 second son a Mac Pro 2008 , Dual Quad 3.2 GHz, 24 GB Ram AMD 6870 1GB... but i can't export to H264 so i've chosen ProRes LT

86 seconds on a Mid2012 MBPR ...2.6 GHz i7,16 gb ram ... also no H264 export possible

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

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 03 Jan 2014 16:45 #37978

  • Duncan Craig
  • Duncan Craig's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Expert Boarder
  • Expert Boarder
  • duncancraig.co.uk
  • Posts: 80
  • Karma: 2
  • Thank you received: 9
72 second rendering to ProRes LT on my main Hackintosh.

It's a i7 3770 Quad Core 3.4Ghz, 32GB RAM, GTX670.
Scores 14108 on Geekbench3 64 Bit and 631 on LuxMark Sala.
So that sounds about right, but it still unclear whether 2 or more GPUs will work on a Hack.

I guess you could add more GPUs via thunderbolt right?

The entry level nMP does look like great value for money, but I hope the £2k I spent on the entire suite, RAID, IO and LED monitors will last for a few more years...

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

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 03 Jan 2014 17:25 #37988

  • heartlesspigeon
  • heartlesspigeon's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 3
  • Thank you received: 0
I'm running a hackintosh (3770k) with a 7970.

FCPX 10.0.9 OSX 10.9.0 -> 22sec

FCPX 10.1 OSX 10.9.1 -> fail
FCPX 10.1 OSX 10.9.1 -> 20sec, prores
FCPX 10.1 OSX 10.9.1 -> 20sec with project set to 4K, H.264

Seeing how well dual 5770 are doing (especially as their combined luxmark scores are lower than the 7970) I'd be interested to know how well two 7750 would do. They match or outperform the 5770 at openCL tasks and are more energy efficient, drawing all the power they need from the pcie slot.

I'm even more interested in whether cards need to be matched. We're not making use of crossfire here so I don't see why they'd need to be. It would be great to just add a 7750 to say a 7970 or 7950 for a little boost for £70. Or potentially sizeable boost given the 5770 performance. For mac pros this would seem ideal given that no additional power cable is required if the combined 7950 and 7750 could outperform 2 5770s.

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

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 03 Jan 2014 17:45 #37992

  • pollux
  • pollux's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Expert Boarder
  • Expert Boarder
  • Posts: 156
  • Karma: 2
  • Thank you received: 8
Looked around for used 5770 and the Apple brand one seems pretty pricy for such an old card. The PC-flashed-to-Mac cards however are very reasonable.

Since my monitor is hooked to the Apple card I am thinking about going the flashed one as the OpenCL card.....opinion?

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

Last edit: by pollux.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 03 Jan 2014 17:56 #37995

  • Darren Roark
  • Darren Roark's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 482
  • Karma: 13
  • Thank you received: 61
You can run some tests both ways and see.

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

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 03 Jan 2014 18:22 #37998

  • thefluentone
  • thefluentone's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Boarder
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 69
  • Karma: 2
  • Thank you received: 5
For those with mixed cards to test, try putting your fastest card in PCI slot 1. then put your slower card whereever. Hook your display up to your slower card. From what I saw in Alex4d tags regarding GFX cards and some reading on Anandtech, I think the OS will use the display card as a raster and the second card as an Auxillary. If the Auxillary card is your faster card, I think that will bebnnift the most. I don't hae two cards so I can't test myself. But I'd be interested to see if anyone can see a difference.

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

Last edit: by thefluentone. Reason: spelling and dyslexia

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 03 Jan 2014 21:12 #38044

  • Mikch
  • Mikch's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 9
  • Thank you received: 2
MacPro 2012 5,1
40GB RAM
Dual ATI Radeon 5770 Running 3 Monitors, 2@ 24" and one 30"
12 core 2.4 GHz

Share to Pro Res LT 53 Seconds

After a restart I re-ran the share and it ran in a little under 45 seconds
I'd like to change the world, but they won't give me the source code!

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

Last edit: by Mikch. Reason: Additional Info

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 04 Jan 2014 02:00 #38074

  • sealtainn
  • sealtainn's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 10
  • Thank you received: 1
Given the problem with h.264 the more recent numbers being reported are coming in for Prores, but I am seeing some saying Prores LT. There is also other Prores settings. I think some of this variation is making comparisons difficult. Can anyone clarify what we are supposed to be comparing?

FWIW I did get my 2nd 5770 moved from slot 2 to slot 4 & the results was a slow down from a time of 33seconds using slots 1 & 2 to a time of 36.5 seconds using slots 1 & 4. That shouldn't be a surprise really.
However, I did try connecting the monitor to the slower GPU card (slot 4) as someone suggested: this made no difference in performance.

The other point I found is that although the instructions say to use the fastest storage location possible, for this test I think that is unnecessary. In fact, since my fastest storage is on the PCIe that's what I was using. Turns out I get slightly fractionally faster times when using slower storage... even external usb thumb drives!

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

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 04 Jan 2014 02:12 #38076

  • pollux
  • pollux's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Expert Boarder
  • Expert Boarder
  • Posts: 156
  • Karma: 2
  • Thank you received: 8
I did the test one more time but this time I am going ProRes 4:2:2 (vs ProRes LT last time)

This time 68 secs (vs 61 sec with ProRes LT)




Mac Pro 5,1 Quad 2.8, 16GB RAM, Single ATI 5770 video card.

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

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 04 Jan 2014 12:45 #38093

  • mousefarm
  • mousefarm's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Junior Boarder
  • Junior Boarder
  • Posts: 36
  • Karma: 2
  • Thank you received: 4
iMac 2013 - GTX780M - 8 Gb ram

FCPX 10.1 - ProRes 422

80 seconds

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

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 04 Jan 2014 13:04 #38094

  • zzchu
  • zzchu's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Boarder
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 79
  • Karma: 3
  • Thank you received: 9
Following this thread with interest.

1 minute 22 seconds to export in Pro Res 422 (not HQ or LT) to secondary hard drive.

Mac Pro 1,1 with 2,1 firmware update(better Geekbench scores) Dual X5355 swap (8 cores)
16 gigs of RAM
Mac OS X Mavericks via the awesome Tiamo EFI. FCPX 10.1
Single Apple ATI HD 5770 video card

It seems that resulting movie plays fine? Does this mean I'm ready to work with 4k video? ;)

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

Last edit: by zzchu. Reason: added info

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 04 Jan 2014 15:35 #38108

  • samtorsten
  • samtorsten's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Junior Boarder
  • Junior Boarder
  • Posts: 26
  • Karma: 4
  • Thank you received: 2
Mac Pro 3,1 (2008)
SSD Boot Drive
32GB RAM
OS X 10.9.1
FCPX 10.1

Single Apple Branded 5770

BruceX Export to:

1)eSata dual HDD Raid 0: 59 seconds
2)Sepaate Internal HDD: 1:03
3)FW 800 external HDD: 1:02

So in my case seems like faster conencted storage will improve export times although an earlier poster seemed to have the opposite experience.



Waiting for a secondary ATI GPU to arrive and test again!

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

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 05 Jan 2014 03:35 #38144

  • sealtainn
  • sealtainn's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 10
  • Thank you received: 1
>So in my case seems like faster conencted storage will improve export times although an earlier poster seemed to have the opposite experience.

I suspect the reason why I see faster times when using slower storage is because my fastest storage is located on PCI express so I wonder if the high activity being pumped by both GPU cards is in some way competing/conflicting with the writing to the Accelsior card.
That's all I can think of when I see (marginally but consistently) faster times when saving the file to a SATA hdd or FW HDD, or USB flash.

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

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 05 Jan 2014 05:11 #38148

  • samtorsten
  • samtorsten's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Junior Boarder
  • Junior Boarder
  • Posts: 26
  • Karma: 4
  • Thank you received: 2
Makes sense, thanks for following up.

Noticed you have access to multiple 5770s, a 5870, and a 7950. Have you tried BruceX combining the 7950 and the 5770?

I'm not an expert on power distribution, but for what it's worth I tested BruceX with a 5770 with a GTX 285 and had no power problems. The GTX 285 has a max draw of 204 Watts compared to the 7950's 200 Watt max. Granted these are internet-enabled numbers so double check of course ( www.hwcompare.com/11507/geforce-gtx-285-2gb-vs-radeon-hd-7950/ ).

Thanks again for sharing any findings.

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

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 05 Jan 2014 05:20 #38150

  • pollux
  • pollux's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Expert Boarder
  • Expert Boarder
  • Posts: 156
  • Karma: 2
  • Thank you received: 8
Won an eBay auction for the 5770. The flashed version are on average 50 bucks cheaper but I decided to look for apple one at the end since I am using a Cinema Display having the 2nd video card with mini display port may come in handy in emergency cases..

Once I receive it I will do the test once again to see how the dual 5770 system work for me

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

Last edit: by pollux.

BruceX: Try this new Final Cut Pro X benchmark 05 Jan 2014 12:55 #38161

  • zzchu
  • zzchu's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Boarder
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 79
  • Karma: 3
  • Thank you received: 9
I decided to get a flashed HD5770 card off eBay since it was less expensive. It does have an HDMI port, which might be useful if I can ever justify a Wacom Cintiq without getting an adapter.

Since I have a 2006, I have to decide about which PCI slot to use:
support.apple.com/kb/HT2838?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US

I don't want to give up my internal hard drive bays, so I'm going to put in slot 3 configured as a 4 lane? (x4)
It looks like I only give up 5-6% performance of the card using that speed slot, so it is fine.

I'm referencing this link for another card:
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_5870_...ress_Scaling/25.html

When I get the card, I will test again and report back.

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