Final Cut Pro X FCPX Graphic Card performance

[studiomix]

youtu.be/PmAgsjzJLRs

 

[rna23]

youtu.be/PmAgsjzJLRs

Thanks for the link. Originally my browser displayed a link to a thread on this forum, but after it showed the proper link.
Looks like Vega is the way to go. Thanks again!

 

[mgregrs]

FCPX works great with new Vega cards but it still some bug / few bugs with all application which use hardware acceleration
and for example electron apps .... etc... so you can't use google chrome, or even build-in OS X photo editor because you have windows manger which restarts or your PC which restart alone.. so If you want full profit of Vega 64 we have to wait on December and new Mac-s and then - it will be a "perfect config"

 

[bogicp]

Hello everybody, it's my first post here.
Thank you very much to beautiful and helpful forum... out of nowhere, I successfully set two different configurations.
Here are BruceX test results:

MoBo: AsRock Z77 Extreme 4
CPU: i5-3570K @ 4.20GHz
GPU: Radeon R9 280X 3GB MSI Gaming (single)
RAM: 32GB
FCPX 10.2.1
OS X 10.11.6 (El Capitan)
16sec

MoBo: ASUS Maximus VIII Gene
CPU: i5-6600K @ 4.20GHz
GPU: GeForce GTX 1050Ti 4GB Gigabyte (single)
RAM: 16GB
FCPX 10.2.1
MAC OS 10.13.1 (High Sierra)
35sec


(Background render disabled, output to ProRes 422, ordinary HDDs in both cases)

 

[mitch_de]

I think last bench is hard to compare for for GPU vs GPU! Too many different, speed related components (CPU,RAM, OS X Version,...) different beside the GPU makes it difficult to interpret the result.

 

[Heinrich]

@bogicp welcome. Pretty great place, right?

Thanks for stating your render quality - most don't.

I don't know if rendering out at 444 has officially been declared a standard, but That's what a lot of us do (as well as places like Barefeats, etc.) We need the consistency to have good comparisons.

 

[bogicp]

@bogicp welcome. Pretty great place, right?

Thanks, yes.

Thanks for stating your render quality - most don't.

I don't know if rendering out at 444 has officially been declared a standard, but That's what a lot of us do (as well as places like Barefeats, etc.) We need the consistency to have good comparisons.

I did it again:

MoBo: AsRock Z77 Extreme 4
CPU: i5-3570K @ 4.20GHz
GPU: Radeon R9 280X 3GB MSI Gaming (single)
RAM: 32GB
FCPX 10.2.1
OS X 10.11.6 (El Capitan)
422 - 16sec
444 - 18sec

(Background render disabled, output to ProRes 422 (444), ordinary HDDs)

Second system is not accessible anymore.

 

[bogicp]

testing 2 x R9 280X

MoBo: AsRock Z77 Extreme 4
CPU: i5-3570K @ 4.20GHz
GPU: Radeon R9 280X 3GB MSI Gaming (dual, two of them)
RAM: 32GB
FCPX 10.2.1
OS X 10.11.6 (El Capitan)
422 - 11sec
444 - 12sec

(Background render disabled, output to ProRes 422 (444), ordinary HDDs)

 

[jhenu]

testing 2 x R9 280X

MoBo: AsRock Z77 Extreme 4
CPU: i5-3570K @ 4.20GHz
GPU: Radeon R9 280X 3GB MSI Gaming (dual, two of them)
RAM: 32GB
FCPX 10.2.1
OS X 10.11.6 (El Capitan)
422 - 11sec
444 - 12sec

(Background render disabled, output to ProRes 422 (444), ordinary HDDs)

Those numbers are Mind Boggling My build with RX580 4G Bruce 5k Test render time is 30 seconds. What mistake I have done. ? All 36 Cores are active.

 

[Raima]

My tests so far

i7 2600 with 280x El Capitan 18 secs

i7 2600 with 780ti El Capitan 26.5 secs


2015 5k iMac Sierra - 27 secs

2017 5k iMac Sierra - 15.5 secs


i7 2600 with Vega 64 High Sierra 17.8secs

i7 2600 with 280x High Sierra 28.3 secs

i7 2600 with 780ti High Sierra 44.6 secs

i7 3770 iMac with 680MX High Sierra - 1min 11.70 secs


i7 8700k with Vega 64 High Sierra 13 secs