- Posts: 22
- Thank you received: 0
3 Post Moderation Rule for New Boarders (25 Jan 2021)
New boarders will have their posts moderated - Don't worry if you cannot see your post immediately.
What is everyone running fcpx on ? And whats the performance like ?
- filmfreak3000
-
- Offline
- New Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 15
- Thank you received: 2
23 Aug 2012 21:13 #13408
by filmfreak3000
Replied by filmfreak3000 on topic Re: What is everyone running fcpx on ? And whats the performance like ?
I have a 2011 3.4 i7 iMac with 16GB of RAM, and FCPX flies! I definitely recommend maxing your RAM out.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
23 Aug 2012 21:15 #13409
by Seanus
Sean Lander - Editing since 1982 - AVID 1991 - FCP 1999 - FCPX 2011
Replied by Seanus on topic Re: What is everyone running fcpx on ? And whats the performance like ?
I would say it would be more than a good idea. It is absolutely ESSENTIAL! 4GB is the bare minimum.
I run a 2007 Mac Pro with 12GB of Ram and the old girl can still dance.
I run a 2007 Mac Pro with 12GB of Ram and the old girl can still dance.
Sean Lander - Editing since 1982 - AVID 1991 - FCP 1999 - FCPX 2011
Please Log in to join the conversation.
24 Aug 2012 12:15 #13429
by toQDuj
Replied by toQDuj on topic Re: What is everyone running fcpx on ? And whats the performance like ?
I am having it run on a 2011 MBA with 1.8 GHz i7 and 4GB of RAM. Add in their 4-disk Promise Thunderbolt array and a big screen and that sums it up! It works for small and low-res projects.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
24 Aug 2012 14:36 #13435
by cgbier
Replied by cgbier on topic Re: What is everyone running fcpx on ? And whats the performance like ?
2010 MBP 2.66 i7, 8GB RAM. It works, but there is the occasional beach ball.
Up to 10.4 it even worked on my 2007 iMac (with some restrictions in regards to OpenGL).
Using mainly HDV and MXF material.
Up to 10.4 it even worked on my 2007 iMac (with some restrictions in regards to OpenGL).
Using mainly HDV and MXF material.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
24 Aug 2012 15:35 #13437
by tpayton
Replied by tpayton on topic Re: What is everyone running fcpx on ? And whats the performance like ?
MacPro 2006, Dual 2.6 (4 cores), 13GB Ram, Radeon 5770 1GB, esata RAID, Matrox MX02 Mini - runs very well, but of course occasional beach ball and slowness
MacBook Pro 2007, 2.2 ghz 2 Cores, 4 GB Ram, GeForce 8600M GT 128MB, Firewire 800, or esata. - Now this machine isn't technically qualified for FCP X, but it works. It can't handle decoding 1080p h264, but can play prores. I mainly transcode to proxy if I need to edit 1080. But for editing SD, or HD proxy it works just fine.
A word about beach balls, etc. My Macs are indeed long in the tooth but I got to work on a top of the line iMac maxed our RAM, Promise Raid, etc. for a job this summer. While it was nice and speedy I still ran into beach balls and waiting. So in my opinion right now it matters more that you treat FCP X very kindly and it will perform well for you.
With each release it has become more stable and speedier and I know that the FCP team is hammering out bugs. When I read that article about the patents on FCP X ( fcp.co/final-cut-pro/news/903-apple-try-...by-filing-10-patents ) it made me realize that Apple didn't just rewrite a very complicated NLE software from the ground up, but they reinvented nearly every aspect of the NLE. A year ago who had every heard of a trackless timeline, primary and secondary storylines, clip connections or an angle editor? Not to mention keyword ranges, favorites, etc. They have narrowed editing down to it's essential tasks and built it back up again. Combine this with the fact that what Apple is touting FCP can do is not edit home movies but professional broadcast work ( www.apple.com/finalcutpro/in-action/ ) Therefore I can give them some grace to work out the kinks and look forward to the future.
My basic advice is:
- get the fastest GPU you can afford- more important than a fast CPU. A Radeon 5770 works great. If you have a GPU that FCP X doesn't like you are in a world of hurt.
- Get as much ram as you can afford (12 GB Minimum)
- Get the fastest drive system you can afford.
- Use Event Manager X or other method of hiding your inactive projects/events
- Edit in Pro Res if you can, i.e. Optimize your media or work in proxy
- Let FCP Copy media to the FCP folders
- Turn off your AV output when you don't need it
- Organize your projects in folders and close those folders so you don't get the hit of
- Don't duplicate or splice complicated compound clips
- Edit in Pill or collapse audio roles in your timeline to avoid redrawing waveforms all the time
MacBook Pro 2007, 2.2 ghz 2 Cores, 4 GB Ram, GeForce 8600M GT 128MB, Firewire 800, or esata. - Now this machine isn't technically qualified for FCP X, but it works. It can't handle decoding 1080p h264, but can play prores. I mainly transcode to proxy if I need to edit 1080. But for editing SD, or HD proxy it works just fine.
A word about beach balls, etc. My Macs are indeed long in the tooth but I got to work on a top of the line iMac maxed our RAM, Promise Raid, etc. for a job this summer. While it was nice and speedy I still ran into beach balls and waiting. So in my opinion right now it matters more that you treat FCP X very kindly and it will perform well for you.
With each release it has become more stable and speedier and I know that the FCP team is hammering out bugs. When I read that article about the patents on FCP X ( fcp.co/final-cut-pro/news/903-apple-try-...by-filing-10-patents ) it made me realize that Apple didn't just rewrite a very complicated NLE software from the ground up, but they reinvented nearly every aspect of the NLE. A year ago who had every heard of a trackless timeline, primary and secondary storylines, clip connections or an angle editor? Not to mention keyword ranges, favorites, etc. They have narrowed editing down to it's essential tasks and built it back up again. Combine this with the fact that what Apple is touting FCP can do is not edit home movies but professional broadcast work ( www.apple.com/finalcutpro/in-action/ ) Therefore I can give them some grace to work out the kinks and look forward to the future.
My basic advice is:
- get the fastest GPU you can afford- more important than a fast CPU. A Radeon 5770 works great. If you have a GPU that FCP X doesn't like you are in a world of hurt.
- Get as much ram as you can afford (12 GB Minimum)
- Get the fastest drive system you can afford.
- Use Event Manager X or other method of hiding your inactive projects/events
- Edit in Pro Res if you can, i.e. Optimize your media or work in proxy
- Let FCP Copy media to the FCP folders
- Turn off your AV output when you don't need it
- Organize your projects in folders and close those folders so you don't get the hit of
- Don't duplicate or splice complicated compound clips
- Edit in Pill or collapse audio roles in your timeline to avoid redrawing waveforms all the time
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- Don Rumsey
-
- Offline
- Elite Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 220
- Thank you received: 17
26 Aug 2012 07:07 #13467
by Don Rumsey
Replied by Don Rumsey on topic Re: What is everyone running fcpx on ? And whats the performance like ?
Great Stuff tpayton!!!! I've heard if you run a second monitor it will slow it down as well. Any truth? Is that what you mean about your A/V output?
Otherwise...
2009 iMac i5 2.66, 16 gig RAM, ATI Radeon HD 4850. Running Snow Leopard, Event Manager X, all media on externals. Lacie FW800 for current project, FW 800 Seagate for not so current, and a USB western Digital for archives.
Otherwise...
2009 iMac i5 2.66, 16 gig RAM, ATI Radeon HD 4850. Running Snow Leopard, Event Manager X, all media on externals. Lacie FW800 for current project, FW 800 Seagate for not so current, and a USB western Digital for archives.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
26 Aug 2012 07:47 - 26 Aug 2012 07:48 #13472
by Julian
Replied by Julian on topic Re: What is everyone running fcpx on ? And whats the performance like ?
I have a 27" 2011 iMac 3.4 i7 with the 2GB video card, 16GB of RAM (not Apple Brand), 120GB SSD for OS and programs (Not Apple brand).
I also have a cheap 22" monitor to view my events, I have a firewire800 docking station with a 3TB drive for backup and storage. I also have a thunderbolt docking station with a 3TB drive for FCPX projects and events. I aso have a keyboard and mouse.
The thunderbolt drive clocked in at 160MBps, then I added the SSD to my iMac and that boosted the Thunderbolt drive speed to about 180-200MBps. The SSD clocks in at about 260MBps and the firewire drive is about 70-80.
I'm still in school so I use this for school projects and small commercial work as well as a short (22min) "film" I shot this summer.
It's a good setup for what I do now and I have room to grow. When I graduate school next spring I'll probably need to get a 12TB Thunderbolt RAID setup to keep the computer current, hopefully the prices come down by then.
It's a badass setup and I'm stoked on it. It's crazy to think how slow this will be in 3 years compared to what we'll have then.
I also have a cheap 22" monitor to view my events, I have a firewire800 docking station with a 3TB drive for backup and storage. I also have a thunderbolt docking station with a 3TB drive for FCPX projects and events. I aso have a keyboard and mouse.
The thunderbolt drive clocked in at 160MBps, then I added the SSD to my iMac and that boosted the Thunderbolt drive speed to about 180-200MBps. The SSD clocks in at about 260MBps and the firewire drive is about 70-80.
I'm still in school so I use this for school projects and small commercial work as well as a short (22min) "film" I shot this summer.
It's a good setup for what I do now and I have room to grow. When I graduate school next spring I'll probably need to get a 12TB Thunderbolt RAID setup to keep the computer current, hopefully the prices come down by then.
It's a badass setup and I'm stoked on it. It's crazy to think how slow this will be in 3 years compared to what we'll have then.
Last edit: 26 Aug 2012 07:48 by Julian.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
26 Aug 2012 16:20 - 26 Aug 2012 16:22 #13475
by tpayton
Actually I do have dual monitors, but A/V output is a broadcast monitor (A 13" Sony CRT, and a 42" LCD TV) running off a Matrox MX02. I have not noticed any slowdown with dual monitors. However, when turning on A/V output it takes some more CPU cycles so on complicated composites I'll see some skipped frames. However, for just color correction and simple transitions, or with rendered material A/V output is pretty fantastic. Much better in that it can play any codec and do composites, unlike FCP 7.
Replied by tpayton on topic Re: What is everyone running fcpx on ? And whats the performance like ?
Don Rumsey wrote: Great Stuff tpayton!!!! I've heard if you run a second monitor it will slow it down as well. Any truth? Is that what you mean about your A/V output?
Actually I do have dual monitors, but A/V output is a broadcast monitor (A 13" Sony CRT, and a 42" LCD TV) running off a Matrox MX02. I have not noticed any slowdown with dual monitors. However, when turning on A/V output it takes some more CPU cycles so on complicated composites I'll see some skipped frames. However, for just color correction and simple transitions, or with rendered material A/V output is pretty fantastic. Much better in that it can play any codec and do composites, unlike FCP 7.
Last edit: 26 Aug 2012 16:22 by tpayton.
Please Log in to join the conversation.

