Final Cut Pro X FCPX Graphic Card performance

rhys216 said:

One 280x in fcpx would be faster than a 980ti in premiere.

https://www.macprovideo.com/hub/final-cut/final-cut-pro-x-vs-adobe-premiere-pro-performance-test

Click to expand...

That doesn't give any comparison at all to Final Cut pro. So I'm guessing what you're saying is that the program FCPX is 2x faster at editing than Premiere pro when given an AMD card? I know the 980 ti would beat two 280x's in premiere, but I'm not sure if they would be faster editing the same clip in FCP than my 980 ti editing that same clip in premiere. What do you think?

Caseymartin707 said:

That doesn't give any comparison at all to Final Cut pro. So I'm guessing what you're saying is that the program FCPX is 2x faster at editing than Premiere pro when given an AMD card? I know the 980 ti would beat two 280x's in premiere, but I'm not sure if they would be faster editing the same clip in FCP than my 980 ti editing that same clip in premiere. What do you think?

Click to expand...

Below is my 480 doing bruce x. My 7870 did it in 19 seconds. Never had a 280x but people seem to be reporting 18 seconds with 1 and 10 seconds with 2 cards. Perhaps someone with a 980ti can repeat what I did in the below vid (turn off pre-rendering and delete cache), and post their times. Then we'l have a better idea.

Edit: 980ti times seem all over the place on the net.
But below is from barefeats..


http://barefeats.com/gtx980ti.html

Sierra 10.12.3
4770K
R9 390
Bruce time - 23.07 seconds

Does anyone know how stable FCPX 10.3.2 is on El Capitan with a Nvidia card?

I currently have FCPX 10.2 and I'm running El Capitan 10.11.3 with a GTX 960 and it's pretty stable (can't remember it ever crashing on me). I'm considering upgrading to FCPX 10.3 but I don't want to switch to Sierra so I'd like to upgrade to just El Capitan 10.11.6. I've seen a lot of reports about stability issues and slower exports in Sierra but wasn't sure if the same issues affected El Capitan or if the latest FCPX 10.3.2 update fixed things.

So I just installed 2 used R9 280X cards in my system, running 10.12.3 no tweaks, just OOB, no custom anything.
I ran BruceX ProRes 4444 XQ, Resolution 5K, the test ran just under 18 seconds. Does sound about right?
I know people run the BruceX with all different kind of output settings so I never know what to make of them.

Kuau said:

So I just installed 2 used R9 280X cards in my system, running 10.12.3 no tweaks, just OOB, no custom anything.
I ran BruceX ProRes 4444 XQ, Resolution 5K, the test ran just under 18 seconds. Does sound about right?
I know people run the BruceX with all different kind of output settings so I never know what to make of them.

Click to expand...

Seems a little low, but it may depend on your other components. I think there are some users reporting around 18 seconds with a single 280x.
Brucex is around 14 seconds on a single RX480 on my particular system running sierra & fcpx 10.3.1

6700K @ 4.7ghz
RX480 @ 1370 Mhz (GOP disabled bios, no igpu used)
64gb Ram @ 3200 Mhz
SM951 SSD

I thought so also though I am not overclocked like your are running and when you run BruceX are you outputting at 5K progress 4444 HQ
Thanks

I'm consistently getting low-17 seconds once I installed my second 7970. I was at 27 seconds with a single 7970 at 4444HQ.

More than these ten seconds, I'm stunned by how much quicker/smoother effects, stabilization, etc. are applied. (Side note: my photo editor is Capture One and it is vastly more responsive as well.)

I'm running 10.11.6 and a 4.5 overclock. I'm satisfied with this machine still for the next year and waiting out this series of Skylake/KL and first gen Polaris cards. Look forward to all the teething issues with 3.1, etc. to get workout and a six-core machine in 2018.

rhys216 said:

Seems a little low, but it may depend on your other components. I think there are some users reporting around 18 seconds with a single 280x.
Brucex is around 14 seconds on a single RX480 on my particular system running sierra & fcpx 10.3.1

6700K @ 4.7ghz
RX480 @ 1370 Mhz (GOP disabled bios, no igpu used)
64gb Ram @ 3200 Mhz
SM951 SSD

Click to expand...

I recall that most people are reporting the BruceX benchmark at 4K, not 5K.

The thread for the BruceX benchmark is pretty clear about the settings you need to set. I run it in with dual 280X cards in around 13 - 14 seconds on an standard 4Ghx i7 CPU. The benchmark doesn't touch disks and is GPU intensive which is why the dual 280X cards work well. Triple 280X cards work even better, though you are into diminishing returns by this point.

As with all benchmarks its pretty meaningless as a benchmark, though kind of fun. Most people who use FCPX (and I include people who make their living using it, I don't) spend most of their time working out what to do with the video rather than rendering it down. I know there are exceptions, but when I edit video, I'm thinking through how things should look, which means the computer just sits there spinning useless CPU cycles

Rib

Under 10.12.3 in FCPX 3.2 my times have gone up.
My RX480 using 4444XQ @ 5k is now 18 seconds.