Final Cut Pro X FCPX Graphic Card performance

[Infin1tty]

Thats a bit odd. I have three different 5770's and they all worked identically. No issues with not respecting the monitor boundary.

However I only use DVI ports. I can drive two monitors off the two DVI ports on one 5770 and a single larger monitor off the single DVI port on the Apple 5770. All of this worked out of the box with no kexts at all. I didn't have to do anything to make them work and no extra config afterwards. Fans were fine.

I also turned off the on-board Intel Graphics as it significantly slowed things down with FCP X.

My motherboard is a Gigabute X87X UD3H and it was a painless install with no flags needed either.

FCP X works very well with the two 5770s. Again no extra configuration (or any configuration) needed.

I will have to check what its displayed as in my Mac. I have a feeling the Apple one comes up as a 5000 as well, but am away from the computer at the moment.

Rob.

Hi Rob,

I am thinking about building a new hackintosh mainly for photo editing and FCPX work. I play no games and would like to ask you the following, as I am thinking ab out 5775C broadwell cpu...
I would like something that can perform on a similar to 4790K basis,but with better gpu performance for FCPX playback and export sake.
So in other words I need a compromise between cpu power and gpu power.
As I dont play games, I dont see a point buying 200e or more expensive dedicated GPU. I reckon I could do without gpu and rather spend 60e more on 5775C and have better balance.
I checked all the benchmarks I could, compared, and found out that 5775C when overclocked to 4, or 4,2gh performs same or slightly better than 4790K in cpu related tasks /no major difference/ but the iris outperforms 4790k almost twice in most 3d tasks.
Now the main point is if I want to use this 5775C without buying GPU, for FCPX video editing, will it work well and will I have a swift system?

I read that you disabled the internal gpu for some reason /slowing fcpx down... can you please explain more on this? why do you experience slow fcpx when using igpu on 5775c?
How slow is it?
Now I use my MBP15" late 2011, 2,2gh, with integrated 512 gpu, and I see it gets hot soon, and lags in playing video in real view and exports sometimes take longer with dropped frames...

Hence I am thinking about new hackintosh.

thanks for your or anyones advice on this.

Iam also thinking about waiting for skylake and later buying dedicated gpu, and run on skylake 6700k for now, which would be maybe better, futureproof option.

 

[rwillett]

Hi Rob,

I am thinking about building a new hackintosh mainly for photo editing and FCPX work. I play no games and would like to ask you the following, as I am thinking ab out 5775C broadwell cpu...
I would like something that can perform on a similar to 4790K basis,but with better gpu performance for FCPX playback and export sake.
So in other words I need a compromise between cpu power and gpu power.
As I dont play games, I dont see a point buying 200e or more expensive dedicated GPU. I reckon I could do without gpu and rather spend 60e more on 5775C and have better balance.
I checked all the benchmarks I could, compared, and found out that 5775C when overclocked to 4, or 4,2gh performs same or slightly better than 4790K in cpu related tasks /no major difference/ but the iris outperforms 4790k almost twice in most 3d tasks.
Now the main point is if I want to use this 5775C without buying GPU, for FCPX video editing, will it work well and will I have a swift system?

I read that you disabled the internal gpu for some reason /slowing fcpx down... can you please explain more on this? why do you experience slow fcpx when using igpu on 5775c?
How slow is it?
Now I use my MBP15" late 2011, 2,2gh, with integrated 512 gpu, and I see it gets hot soon, and lags in playing video in real view and exports sometimes take longer with dropped frames...

Hence I am thinking about new hackintosh.

thanks for your or anyones advice on this.

Iam also thinking about waiting for skylake and later buying dedicated gpu, and run on skylake 6700k for now, which would be maybe better, futureproof option.

OK, lots of questions, I'll answer what I can.

Everything is a compromise, I can't afford a 12 core Xeon or a new Porsche (or indeed a second hand one).

I have no experience with the 5775C Broadwell CPU. I have the 4790K and am happy with it. The i7 4790K has firmware in the CPU for assisting with video encoding, does the 5775C?

My personal view is that at this speed unless there is a glaring disadvantage to either chip its simply not worth worrying about. Trying to eek out the last 2-3% of CPU performance is a pointless exercise in my view as most of the time the CPU sits there waiting for user input. Over clocking means you stress the system and when things go wrong its difficult to fault find. Other people disagree with me. Thats fine.

I think relying on the the inbuilt GPU is a mistake, certainly if you are using FCP X and want some decent performance. However I am not familiar with the latest inbuilt GPU's as I've not upgraded for a year or so. I think FCP X will struggle to be honest.

The reason I disabled the internal GPU is that it conflicts with FCPX when you have fast external GPU cards. I had dual 280X cards but FCP X tried to render using the onboard GPU which was around 5-6x slower. Physically it worked so, no error was displayed but FCPX got very confused. I can't comment one the 5775C as I don't have one. Any advice I give would be random noise.

I have a Macbook Pro Retina from 2013 and the performance for simple FCPX was fine. I used it when I was doing a lot of travelling to work by train and it was and still is perfectly adequate for many. many tasks. I recall I edited a five minute Xmas video on it with no issues, though the effects etc were minimal. Your macbook from 2011 is now quite old and so I think it will struggle.

My suggestion would be to find the budget for a GPU but not to buy it. Try using your CPU with the internal GPU and see how it goes. I assume you have checked that it is fully compliant and lots of people have done this before. If they haven't and you can't be 100% certain, walk away. If you are happy it will work with zero issues, then get it and see if the performance is fast enough. If not use the set-aside budget for the GPU and get a 280X or something. The 280X will slaughter any internal GPU you have and will make FXP X render significantly quicker. However I have no idea of your workflow and what effects you use in FCP X, so I can't say any more.

I have given up waiting on new CPU's as there is always something new coming round. There is no such thing as future proofing. Apple has to support stuff from years ago, going with the latest CPU doesn't future proof any more than me having a 4790 now. All a new chip does is give you more problems to resolve as nobody else has it working. If you wait a few more months, something else will come along., then what do you do. Get something going and use it.

Rob

 

[schwadorf]

5775C has an Iris Pro 6200 on it, which is 2x faster than the iGPU that was used in Retina Macbook Pros. (Iris Pro 5200)

Newer iGPU's, even though they are insufficient for gaming, work fine in FCPX thanks to Intel's Quicksync technology. Don't let the BruceX test fool you, I'm not sure if it's the best way to compare real-life performances of GPU's, even the creator of the test admits this.

My GTX 780 is ~1.5x times faster than Iris Pro 5200 in BruceX (45 seconds vs 65 seconds) but when exporting a proper, 12 minutes long, 1080p project, the Iris Pro actually wins by a quite huge margin. (3 minutes vs 7 minutes)

That said, I couldn't find any successful Hackintosh stories with 5775C. There are only a few people on the web that tried it and apparently they can't get the Iris Pro 6200 to work.

 

[trs96]

That said, I couldn't find any successful Hackintosh stories with 5775C. There are only a few people on the web that tried it and apparently they can't get the Iris Pro 6200 to work.

This will be changing soon as the new 4K iMac, 21.5" model uses only the Iris Pro 6200 graphics
without any discrete card option. Both of the Broadwell "C" CPUs are now in the Buyer's Guide.

http://www.tonymacx86.com/building-customac-buyers-guide-october-2015.html#CPUs

On a Z97 mobo you'll likely need to update the BIOS.

 

[zanzo]

i3 3220
SSD Samsung 840 evo
8GB G.Skill 1600
Asus R9 270X 4GB
El Capitan 10.11.1
FCPX 10.2.2

19,22 sec

 

[rwillett]

A little surprised at these results. 19.22 secs mmmmm.....

did you clear everything out before you ran the tests? This time looks like the rendering was already done.

This beats most new Mac pros with a system that has a significantly slower and older cpu, less memory, slower ssd, slower and older GPU and only one GPU.

Congratulations. You have managed to break the laws of physics

Rob

 

[zanzo]

Ok , first of all I apologize for my terrible English ..
I was very surprised I even from the result of this test.
Before this I had a X58 + i7 [email protected] Ghz + 3x Asus R9 270X and I performed the test with a result of about 22 seconds, Luxmark was about 4950 ..
Now, this system achieves a score of about Lexmark 1850, Cinebench 15 about 63 fps and BruceX Test - 5K in 19 to 20 sec ..
It 's amazing for me , I can just do the video and post a link.


Why do you think I got this result ?
Thanks and sorry if I wrote incomprehensible

 

[rwillett]

Ok , first of all I apologize for my terrible English ..
I was very surprised I even from the result of this test.
Before this I had a X58 + i7 [email protected] Ghz + 3x Asus R9 270X and I performed the test with a result of about 22 seconds, Luxmark was about 4950 ..
Now, this system achieves a score of about Lexmark 1850, Cinebench 15 about 63 fps and BruceX Test - 5K in 19 to 20 sec ..
It 's amazing for me , I can just do the video and post a link.


Why do you think I got this result ?

I think that you have done something wrong for your system to be faster than a new Mac Pro.

The likeliest thing you have done wrong is not to clear out the pre-rendered work

Here's the list of stuff to do:

1. Have both QuickTime player and Final Cut Pro X open at the same time.

3. In Final Cut Pro X, go to 'Final Cut Proreferences…' – in the Playback tab make sure 'Background Render' is off.

3. Use the 'File:Import:XML...' command to import 'BruceX Test - 5K.fcpxml' to create a very short but complex 5K project.

4. Click the new 'BruceX Test - 5K ' timeline (this makes the Share command selectable)

5. Export the QuickTime movie by choosing "File:Share:Master File...'

6. In the dialogue box that appears, click the 'Settings' Tab

7. In the 'Video Codec' section choose 'H.264' (edited to add - many people have got errors with H.264, so use ProRes422 instead you you have a problem - some times are given with different flavours of ProRes, but each person usually mentions which they've used when reporting their results)

8. In the 'Open With' section, choose 'QuickTime Player'

9. Click the 'Next' button in the bottom-right of the dialogue box

10. In the Save sheet, choose a name and location for the export - export to your fastest drive connected using your fastest connection.

11. Get your stopwatch ready and time from when you click 'Save' until you see the movie open up in QuickTime Player.

12. Quit and restart Final Cut to clear some cached renders and time the export again. Quit and restart Final Cut again, export a third time. The BruceX value is the average of the three export times.

The important thing to do is clear out the render files otherwise all you are doing is writing stuff out and some back ground work.

See here for what you need to do.

http://www.fcpeffects.com/blogs/blog/3879802-delete-fcpx-render-files-to-recover-hard-drive-space

If you have managed to defy the laws of physics and information technology to get this result, then I'd apply for a Nobel price in Physics. I'd also patent your idea as you will be a very rich man by noon today as you have managed to find a way to get more performance than is possible out of old technology. VW would also like to speak you about doing their emissions technology for them.

Sorry, but that result is 2x to 3x faster than it should be. A similar setup is

7-5820k 6 Core 3.3 ghz
16gb DDR4 Ram 2400 mhz
2gb Asus DirectCUII TOP R9 270X
256 Corsair Force LX SSD
Yosemite 10.10.3
FCPX 10.2

37.8 seconds--1st
47 seconds----2nd
49.1 seconds--3rd

44.6 Second AVERAGE

Same Computer with 5820k Overclocked to 4.5ghz

32.7
37
37.3

35.7 Seconds AVERAGE

Rob

 

[zanzo]

I disabled the background rendering and I closed and reopened three times FCPX

Count the seconds:

https://youtu.be/4dqzhc-pkJY

I'm speechless and I do not understand why ..

 

[rwillett]

Count the seconds:

https://youtu.be/4dqzhc-pkJY

Did you clear the pre-rendered cache out as the test requires. If you haven't done that, then you haven't run the Bruce X test properly. That's the whole point of the test, it checks the rendering speed of FCPX. If you leave the pre-rendered cache files there then it will be fast. Thats the point of prerendering them. To speed things up.

Once you have done that and checked you have done that, come back.

What you are saying is that you have managed to get an older PC with limited RAM and limited GPU capability (in comparison to a new Mac Pro) work faster than £3,000 worth of kit. Nobody else has managed to do this and there are dozens of threads of people doing this on the FCP X forums.

Think about it this. How have you managed to do something nobody else has and many. many people have tried? Do you think this is likely or do you think you *may*, just *may* have run the test incorrectly?

Rob