Contribute
Register

Final Cut Pro X FCPX Graphic Card performance

Status
Not open for further replies.
dellicious said:
Check here for latest benchmarks: http://barefeats.com/egpu_pascal.html

According to their results, it's about the same. FCPX is still best used with AMD and isn't optimized at all for GTX.
Click to expand...

egpu_pas_brucex.png

The results are kind of weird... From what I understand of it, a single GTX 1080 Ti is 4 seconds slower than DUAL D700s. This is with the GTX 1080 Ti connected via Thunderbolt 2.

Then, it shows the GTX 1080 Ti being 18 seconds slower when connected via Thunderbolt 3 vs Thunderbolt 2...
 
dellicious said:
Check here for latest benchmarks: http://barefeats.com/egpu_pascal.html

According to their results, it's about the same. FCPX is still best used with AMD and isn't optimized at all for GTX.
Click to expand...

Yeh if FCPX is a priority Nvidia isn't the way to go, considering my relatively low powered RX480 beats a 1080ti by a few seconds.
Perhaps performance is different in premiere and the 1080ti performs better, but FCPX in terms of performance still completely outclasses premiere.
 
Single rx480.. 23 seconds with the same settings of the previously posted benchmark.
 
Just got 27 seconds with a single GTX 1080 ti.

khriswithak said:
I have a GTX 960 and am using FCPX 10.2.3 on El Capitan and get about 26 sec on the BruceX test (with background render off). Wondering what a GTX 1080 on FCPX 10.3 would get. Anyone running that configuration? There is a new update to FCPX also...
Click to expand...

I find this hard to believe that you got this score. Not saying you're dishonest but I never got that with my GTX 960 and I was at like 50 secs with my 980 ti.

A note for everyone. Although I can't export bruce x in h.264 and many of you probably can't as well, having quick sync enable for my HD 530 drastically improved my FCP performance. Just a thought if nobody already knew.
 
Caseymartin707 said:
Just got 27 seconds with a single GTX 1080 ti.



I find this hard to believe that you got this score. Not saying you're dishonest but I never got that with my GTX 960 and I was at like 50 secs with my 980 ti.

A note for everyone. Although I can't export bruce x in h.264 and many of you probably can't as well, having quick sync enable for my HD 530 drastically improved my FCP performance. Just a thought if nobody already knew.
Click to expand...

Go back to pages 13-15 of this thread and you'll see that 26 sec for a GTX 960 is normal. People with 970's and 980's were getting around 20 seconds. This was all back in El Capitan. Things are much slower now on Sierra for some reason. It's the main reason I haven't upgraded.

I want a more powerful GPU for FCPX but so far I'm not impressed with any of the scores I've seen on Sierra.
 
Custo Mac Pro
GA-Z97MX-GAMING 5 |  i7 4790K |  Radeon Other
HTPC Mac
GA-H170N-WIFI |  i3 6100 |  HD 530
My Titan xp average time 9-10sec. I don't know it would be applied to another rendering works. But sometimes when I use H246 codec, it is really slow than internal gpu.(HD530). I did OC for CPU.
 
1080ti/10.12.5/ 4444xq = 14sec
Titan xp/10.12.5/ 4444xq = 12sec
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Copyright © 2010 - 2024 tonymacx86 LLC
Back
Top