New to FCPX, Questions About Performance

Hey gang -

I'm working through my 30-day trial of FCPX, deciding on whether or not to buy it (T minus a half a month and counting...). My primary editing experience is with Adobe's Premiere Pro, but I'm not married to it. FCPX's UI is a bit different, but it didn't take long to figure it out.

My question centers around overall performance. Each of my projects is a collection of AVCHD footage along with a couple of WAV files. I cut, scale, crop, etc and then export to h.264 MP4. It appears to take over twice as long as the footage (2t) to export it. So if my footage is 20 minutes, it takes FCPX over 40. That's a bit... slow.

For what it's worth: I'm not using optimized media because I don't want FCPX transcoding during an import. That's too slow. And ProRes doesn't add any advantages for me.

What is FCPX using OpenCL for specifically? Has Apple ever made that public? Is it using it for rendering or something else? Specific effects? Scaling?

The rig:
Mac Pro 5,1 heavily modified
- 2 x 3.46GHz 6-core Xeons (x5690)
- 48G RAM
- upclocked nVidia GTX570 w/2.5GB (OpenCL works with it under Mountain Lion)
- SSD for boot/apps
- RAID0 for scratch (2 x 300G 10k drives)
- RAID1 for user files (2 x 1TB drives)

----
I'm not trying to start an NLE war, but I am going to offer an observation: on the same rig, Premiere can hand a lot of the work over to the video card. The footage imports with a snap of a finger, and exports in 1/2t. Literally half the length of the footage (same quality, same settings, etc).

Is this something Apple has said they'd work on: try to throw more stuff at the GPU(s)? It's obvious by the Mac Pro announcement that they have big plans for OpenCL. But it won't help much if their apps aren't tuned to throw as much as possible at the video cards.

Hi Jason, and welcome.

Yes FCPX takes advantage of Open CL for rendering and backgrounds tasks. But to be honest your card, even though it works extremely well for CUDA enabled applications in a Mac, is not so good for OpenCL. And that's what FCPX relies on.

Here's a conclusion by Barefeats after they tested different cards including the 570: If you are using After Effects CS6 to render Ray-traced 3D animations, there is much to be gained by switching to a CUDA compatible NVIDIA GPU. However, if you are rendering an OpenCL effect you won't gain any speed over a Radeon HD 5870.

Or this user experience on another forum: I'm running 10.7.5 and Premiere Pro flies with the 750 and does many layers of real time effects. That being said, Final Cut Pro X doesn't seem to run any faster than it did with my ATI 5770.

So while this card will offer speed bumps for CUDA applications (Mercury Engine) it will not offer the same advantage to OpenCL based apps. In short: your card is not really fit for FCPX.

Much will change with the new MacPro. This machine will have two workstation class GPUs that in no way can be compared to the kind of card we are talking about.

Apple has announced that FCPX will be optimized to take full advantage of this new power. And it's also great to hear that Adobe and Resolve will adapt their software for OpenCL. Two years ago OpenCL was nowhere where it is now. But things have drastically changed since, and we see many big software companies gradually crossing over. Anyway, FCPX will absolutely be a beast on this machine.

The best OpenCL card you can get for your current MacPro at this moment is probably the 7970 (non-flashed). We have one bay running this card in a MacPro and FCPX works perfectly on it.

ronny courtens wrote: Yes FCPX takes advantage of Open CL for rendering and backgrounds tasks.

Generally speaking, how quickly can it chew through those things? Is it substantially faster than using the CPU(s) or just a little faster? And can Compressor also take advantage of the same OpenCL libraries and card?

Here's a conclusion by Barefeats after they tested different cards including the 570

Sure. The hardware is there in the card. Apple's OpenCL support for nVidia cards has been spotty at best. And Adobe's support for OpenCL started with CS6, so it's not a great test. They are/were still getting their OpenCL feet under themselves, so to speak.

The best OpenCL card you can get for your current MacPro at this moment is probably the 7970 (non-flashed). We have one bay running this card in a MacPro and FCPX works perfectly on it.

Fair enough. I'm not going to throw money at AMD/ATI cards because generally speaking: they're garbage IMHO (and that's something I'll happily get into a pissing match about. ) I was mainly interested in what kinds of things FCPX will throw at the video card. Adobe actually lists them out specifically; I was wondering if Apple had or has done something similar.

Aside the OpenCL GPU FCP X is much faster on Ivy or Sandy Bridge processor since the code makes good use of the AVX on those processors. Older Mac Pros just don't cut it (no matter how many cores) like the new iMacs and MBPs. I've noticed this especially with H.264 material.

There was this thread on COW awhile ago:
forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/38013

Is it substantially faster than using the CPU(s) or just a little faster?

Substantially, if you use the right video card.

And can Compressor also take advantage of the same OpenCL libraries and card?

Yes.

Apple's OpenCL support for nVidia cards has been spotty at best.

Tehnically incorrect. Some nVidia cards work wonderfully with OpenCl inside Macs, others do not work at all. This depends on the type of card and on the drivers that are available for these cards. Both the cards and the drivers are supplied by the card manufacturers, not Apple.

because generally speaking: they're garbage IMHO (and that's something I'll happily get into a pissing match about.

I'm sorry but we don't do pissing contests here . Most of us are working professionals who decide on what gear they use based on experience and sharing of knowledge. We don't really care who makes the gear, the only thing that matters is finding the gear that best fits a specific workflow. And each workflow is different.

ronny courtens wrote: Substantially, if you use the right video card.

Is there any way to know whether FCPX is actually using the hardware, like Adobe does with PPro?
Are there specific things FCPX can do with OpenCL-enabled hardware? Like I asked before: is there a list somewhere?

Both the cards and the drivers are supplied by the card manufacturers, not Apple.

nVidia regularly provides downloadable drivers for OS X, but Apple also includes them (older/slower) in OS X updates. ATI doesn't, as far as I know, provide drivers for OS X. They're only available through Apple.

ETA: I don't mean to sound combative and I apologize if that's how I'm coming across. I'm sincerely trying to hunt down info so I can make a good decision on my next NLE purchase.

In my experience, all the tech info on paper won't matter one bit. It all eventually comes down to which interface do you like better? Then get the hardware for that NLE. They'll both perform equally with the proper hardware configuration. The "which is faster" argument is a waste of time, as with proper hardware configs, they're the same speed. And slight hardware changes can make for drastic performance differences. There are too many hardware configs around to compare equally side by side. IMHO

Hahaha, I was just typing exactly the same reply, but Ben beat me to it by a second. I must be getting old...

Sorry I haven't read the entire thread, but my observations:

My MacPro is a 3,1 (16GB) 8 core. I have both GTX570 and ATI5770 cards available to me.

If I'm doing a lot of Premiere Pro work I'll put the GTX570 in it because Premiere Pro works a LOT more smoothly with it. But with the ATI5770 it's a bit lame (with with the hack for Open CL support).

If I'm doing a lot of FCPX work I'll swap to the ATI5770 because FCPX flies with the ATI5770 compared to the GTX570.

Given a little bit of time I guess I'll try to produce some benchmarks, but it's not going to be today.

@soundwise - that thread from COW is right on the money. I have a 2008 MacPro 8 core, and despite 12gb RAM, SSD boot drive, Radeon 5870, hiding other Events and Project, etc., it still gets sluggish on anything longer than a 5 minute video. The rendering/playback doesn't bother me - it's not too slow for my hobbyist needs doing volunteer videos for local non-profits in retirement. What does drive me crazy is the general sluggishness. Changing tools, changing Inspector tabs - it even takes 2-3 seconds to update the Inspector info once I click a clip in the Timeline. That's the kind of annoyance that doesn't show up in speed tests. My wife's summer 2011 i5 iMac is faster in general use, but of course slower in rendering.

So, later this fall I'll either get a new MacPro, Retina MacBook Pro, or tricked out iMac. Just waiting to pricing and performance. I'll keep the 8 core for other duties. Is it possible to have Compressor include in in a cluster?

For what it's worth: the tech may not be important to some, but it is to me. So is my time. It's why I build and/or buy fast machines. Or at least: try to. The differences in feature set and UI between the two NLEs of interest aren't really a concern. Performance ultimately is. I'd like to get the editing over with and have the exported file in place as quickly as possible.

I did some more testing yesterday. I think soundwise's specific post was the most interesting because he brought to light the AVX extensions in the newer Intel chips, and that FCPX can use them. I didn't know that. That's tech, and it's interesting to learn. Referencing my first post, the Mac Pro I have in my office (no slouch of a machine by any stretch) handles one of my movie exports in 2t, where t is the length of the movie. However, my "puny" Macbook Pro Retina (2.6Ghz Core i7, 16GB RAM, SSD, 1GB 650M video) did it in t. Real time.

That's quite stunning, in fact.

If I can get it down to 1/2t like PPro can do, I'll be even more stunned. I'd like to believe that the addition of a flashed 7970 could do just that, but I'm having a lot of trouble accepting that. Specially since the machine I'd be adding it to is already at a slight disadvantage (ie, no AVX). Those "poor" old and busted Westmere chips...

I'd like to get the editing over with and have the exported file in place as quickly as possible.

I agree that is the case for small projects under heavy deadlines. That's why at the Olympics we used FCPX on MBPs to spit out our daily reports for national television, and not on MacPros. I was surprised at how fast these setups worked. Just one example: in the second week of the Paralympics we went live on satellite after one of our athletes won gold on the 200 meter. We did the 5 minute live interview outside the uplink van, mixed with edited footage of the preparations and the race that had been ingested, edited and rendered in FCPX in less than 10 minutes. In such cases both the speed of the gear and the skills of the editor are equally important.

But at our post house we play in a different league editing narrative, documentary and episodical work for national broadcast. Most of our editors (15 in total) work many days or even weeks on one project. Here the real difference is exclusively made by the skills of the editor, and not by the time it takes to export your timeline because that's just an insignificant fraction of the total work spent on the job. So I guess it all depends on what kind of work you do.

ronny courtens wrote: So I guess it all depends on what kind of work you do.

Perhaps I should have included what I use the application(s) for. Bear in mind I'm not a pro, but a hobbyist. I'd prefer to stick with the professional tools because the hobbyist versions of said are usually lacking. In some cases, quite significantly.

I'm generally doing one of two things:

1. Recording 2 camera's worth of footage from my car while at the race track. Forward and rear-looking. Both are Sony digital Handycams that cut to AVCHD. I also record a separate WAV file using a Roland sound recorder. Each track session is about 20 minutes long. I sync the forward, rear, and sound file up, clip out the sound from the 2 cameras, then scale, horizontally flip, and crop the rear camera down so that it's sitting over my rear view mirror. I then scale the entire thing down to 720p (from 1080p) and export it as an h.264 MP4.

2. Recording in-game footage of Battlefield 3 across 3 1920x1200 LCD panels. The resulting AVI file (yuck!) is 5760x1200, and it needs to be cut down to 1080p. I use the app to trim out the 2 outer panels so that all that's shown is the middle one. Cut, edit, etc and then export to 1080p h.264 MP4.

The first of those two is ridiculously quick in PPro with a good CUDA card. Like I said previously: 1/2t with the GTX570. I'll bet even faster if I had one of the newer cards. The second of the two is purely CPU-bound because of the trimming.

Ah, I see. For the first kind of work you will find FCPX extremely fast to work with. And if you would use a new MBP instead of a current MacPro you could take it to the race track and upload the finished video straight from your car . But seriously: the new MacPro will be killer for this kind of work. And it's so small you can put it in your travel bag

I have an Early 2008 Mac Pro, 2x3.2GHz Quad-core Xeon, 16GB RAM, ATI Radeon HD 5870 1024 MB GPU, 30 inch late 2005 Cinema Display (which is only now starting to show it's age). I also have two 2TB drives as OS and OS backup, two 4TB drives as media and media backup internally.

Run Disk Warrior once a month religiously, and monitor free space on my drives daily.

I can edit native RED RAW faster and easier than on my new maxed out 15 inch retina MacBook Pro which is using an external Elgato single SSD Tbolt for media. I have no speed issues at all. Runs amazingly fast compared to anything else I've ever used. I've no issues with it.

I will be first in line to get an appropriately configured 2013 Mac Pro when they are released.

I make a living off of FCP, have since version 1. I'm also a retired IT engineer, and I've learned to not spend so much time running tests, and spend more time getting work done. The hardware stuff isn't an issue for me, personally. And most printed specs just don't hold up in the real world, anyway. I know what works, and what is worth spending time on.

I appreciate everyone's input. I won't be buying Apple's next gen Mac Pro because I don't believe in the direction they're going with it. Instead I'll likely be building my own Hackintosh which'll mop the floor with whatever they produce (think: 2 Ivy Bridge Xeons, not 1).

Saying things will just be "faster" isn't the sort of answer I'm after. If no benchmarks have been done, that's fine. Just say it. If you don't know how much faster (ie, timed), also perfectly OK. Just say so. I generally try to plan my purchases out carefully with an eye of making the next purchase because it'll gain me X speed/improvement/etc.

It's the engineer in me. Just saying, "It's better" isn't enough. Quantify it and prove it to me.

If Apple hasn't published a list of things FCPX can do with OpenCL, that's perfectly OK. I think that sucks, personally; it's no one's fault but theirs. And I'm not likely to convince them to change their mind on it.

Then, go for it.

Building a Hackintosh is fine for a hobbiest like yourself as you will have the spare time to constantly tinker with it in trying to get things to work properly.

For us who use our machines to earn a living a Hackintosh is not really an option.

ditto

When I have an issue, I need Apple Care to fix it in 24 hours so I can continue with my paying work. I don't have time to mess with computers myself anymore. And I'm a retired IT engineer, and I won't touch a Hackintosh.

I have full confidence that my Apple products will work, and if they don't, they get fix right away. Apple has the highest out of the box success rate of any computer manufacture in history. JD Powers has certified that for several years in a row now. Apple has the toughest quality testing of component batches of anyone in the industry. What they reject as not good enough gets sent back, boxed up, and sold off the shelf as OEM parts, that you put in your Hackintosh.

And I've been around long enough to know what real world performance is for FCP X systems, it doesn't take a lot of benchmarks or white papers for me to know that. Those can often be misleading, also. I'm very confident in my purchases and getting the most professional bang for my hard earned dollars.

ditto.

My one and only "test" hackintosh no longer works properly after a system update and I really don't have time to figure out why. All my macs still work perfectly. Go figure. I won't bother even trying to build another one. They really aren't worth the hassle for the majority of professional users.