How relevant is this speedtest in Final Cut Pro X?

Hi!

We're preparing to invest in yet another editing station so we can work on two projects the same time.

For now, we have a MacPro 4core D300 and we've been a bit disappointed with the performance in FCPX.

First, I was looking to get an iMac 5K because of the screen and because I'm a bit worried about the MacPro line not having had any real updates for almost 3 years.

Then my "Apple logic" hit me, and I started thinking that the extra price of MacPro MUST be worth if, because if not, the marked would not buy it - and a lot of pro's DO buy it.

The I saw barefeats.com/imac5k17.html and it got me thinking - how well does the test translate to FCPX?

Is it really true also in FCPX that the 8 core MacPro is the least performing or is this benchmark not that relevante in FCPX?

Living Smart TV wrote: ...
We're preparing to invest in yet another editing station so we can work on two projects the same time.

For now, we have a MacPro 4core D300 and we've been a bit disappointed with the performance in FCPX.

First, I was looking to get an iMac 5K because of the screen and because I'm a bit worried about the MacPro line not having had any real updates for almost 3 years.

Then my "Apple logic" hit me, and I started thinking that the extra price of MacPro MUST be worth if, because if not, the marked would not buy it - and a lot of pro's DO buy it.

The I saw barefeats.com/imac5k17.html and it got me thinking - how well does the test translate to FCPX?

Is it really true also in FCPX that the 8 core MacPro is the least performing or is this benchmark not that relevante in FCPX?

In general a top-spec 2015 iMac 27 is roughly as fast as an 8-core new Mac Pro, and faster at some things like exporting to H264 which uses Quick Sync.

The nMP is a great machine and very quiet. However I personally don't have any noise problems with my 2015 iMac 27. Lots of professional editors use a top-spec iMac 27 rather than a Mac Pro. The Hollywood feature film "Focus" starring Will Smith was edited mostly on iMacs and MacBooks, not Mac Pros.

The nMP is at a disadvantage since it's due for an upgrade but nobody knows when that will be or what it will entail. The lower price of the iMac enables getting a top-spec configuration and leaves money for a quality Thunderbolt disk array.

Hey Kenneth,

The test you have linked to is not relevant for FCP X, not for any video related application.

If you want to see an extensive comparison between the new iMac and the new MP for video editing, check this out:


Unfortunately, you have made the wrong chhoice with your MacPro. The 4 core D300 is absolutely minimum specs and will not perform half as well as any decent new iMac. The 6, 8 and 12 core new MPs with D700 are totally different machines. Most of the times it's better to get a maxed out iMac than a low specced MacPro. But a maxed out new MP will give you significantly more performance than a maxed out iMac, especially under heavy workloads. Only for H.264 encoding, the iMac will always be faster. Because the iMac processors have QuickSync, which the current enterprise class Xeon processors don't have.

- Ronny

98% of our productions are for straight upload and distribution on YouTube and Facebook.

Would it make sense - if possible at all - to export to another format than h264 on the MacPro for lower export-times or will it then just add up in lenghtier upload times anyway?

Living Smart TV wrote: 98% of our productions are for straight upload and distribution on YouTube and Facebook.

Would it make sense - if possible at all - to export to another format than h264 on the MacPro for lower export-times or will it then just add up in lenghtier upload times anyway?

Keep in mind -- even though a top-spec iMac 27 is faster at H264 export than a Mac Pro, this doesn't mean the Mac Pro is slow. E.g, H264 export on a Mac Pro is still way faster than Premiere.

Usually in the overall work of planning, shooting, editing, finishing, and exporting, the export (whether slow or fast) is just one phase. Yes the faster the better, but it's only one phase and you usually don't do that repetitively for the same project.

You need H264 or similar for Youtube since a lower-compression codec (even if faster to export) would be larger and slower to upload.

My recommendation is do single-pass H264, and select 720p not 1080p. IOW Share>Master File>Settings, Format: Computer, Video codec: H.264 Faster Encode, Resolution: 1280x720.

I have not seen a marked difference in visible quality after upload between "Faster Encode" and "Better Quality". Depending on the playback device you can sometimes tell a modest difference between 720p and 1080 but usually people using smaller screens and mobile devices will not see the difference.

Everything broadcast by ABC, Fox, ESPN, ESPN2, Disney, A&E and MLB Network is exclusively in 720p/60.

… may I bring Alex Gollners BRUCE X test back to memory?
www.fcp.co/forum/hardware/18250-brucex-t...k?limitstart=0#33437

I'm not interested in scientific tests, what impresses me, being at the low end of min.specs, is that any 'technical' benchmark declares my MacMini a better pocket calculator, but REAL LIFE (as measured in this test) proofs me, I handle up to 4k-multicam ... somehow :lol:

With that test, a beefed iMac is 'better' than a nMp for use of FCPX.

Hi LivingSmart
The BareFeats link you provided is not really the best they did in comparing the new iMac 5K for video work. This comparison has some better testing especially since you currently have a nMP d300… barefeats.com/imac5k18.html
BareFeats testing is good, but you have to do some interpreting of the data. What I really like about the site is that it compares some configurations you will not see on other sites, like using different GPUs including PC versions. It is also good for showing just how much life is left in the old legacy "Cheesegrader" MP towers if you soup them up.
I agree with Ronnie that when configuring a Mac for video, get the faster GPUs and more cores. Then add RAM and external media drives.
Thanks Ronnie for the link to Max's test, I'm really liking his videos but hadn't seen this one yet.
What can be overlooked (but mentioned) is that the nMP(current) are based on old Ivy Bridge hardware that Apple really had to cobbled together to make USB3 and TB work. See this review by Anandtech… www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013
New Skylake Xeons are due out this year with much smaller die sizes, I expect we will see up to 200% (or more) faster speeds for some operations. Maybe even throw in TB3, HDMI2(??), Who knows, maybe dual CPUs (more cores more likely) and dual Flash port connectors for larger boot drives or second internal flash based drive. Newer GPUs.
The newest iMacs are Skylake based, but utilize the a consumer mobile chips, while the MP are workstation based chipsets.
The iMacs are a good platform, and the 5K monitor got even better this year and is only missing a drool collector.
If you think you need MacPro's, I would wait if you can. I think this is the year for Skylake upgrades.

Hope this helps, Greg

Thunderbolt 3... yeah, like how many folks are maxing out the bandwidth of T'bolt 2, much less T'bot 1? Just saying...

BenB wrote: Thunderbolt 3... yeah, like how many folks are maxing out the bandwidth of T'bolt 2, much less T'bot 1? Just saying...

Is thunderbolt 2 fast enough to drive 2-3 Apple Cinema 5K displays, when ever Apple do realease them?

Driving multiple 5K displays is more a graphics card problem than a Thunderbolt one. By the time you wil find anyone who really wants to hook up 3 5K displays to an editing station, technology will probably be ready for this.

- Ronny