FCPX Performance on Mac Pro slower than expected

I am a novice with FCP.


I just purchased a new 2013 Mac Pro, 3.5 ghz 6 core Xeon, 256gb HD, 32gb Ram, with the D500 3gb graphics cards. My working disk is a Thunderbolt SSD.

I am also using a 2015 iMac 27", 3.2 ghz i5, 1tb fusion drive, 16gb RAM and M390 2gb graphics card. My working disk on this is also a Thunderbolt SSD.


Processing the same simple 2:38 video clip to 1080p and just a date/time title overlay with all things equal except the hardware, the Mac Pro takes almost 3 times longer to process (3:22) than the iMac (1:21).

How can this be right?

The Mac Pro has a clean install of High Sierra, fully updated, and FCP 10.4. No other programs or anything else added to it.

The iMac is my everyday computer and has a bunch of stuff on it plus was running Windows in the background through Parallels.

I would expect, at the very least, a marginal improvement on processing time using the Mac Pro over the iMac but certainly didn't expect 3x longer processing time!

I went as far as wiping the HD, installing ElCapitan and an older version of FCPX (10.3.4) but got almost the exact same end result.


Benchmarking both machines (Geekbench) is giving me expected results.


Am I missing something?


Thanks in advance

Posted on Jan 19, 2018 3:22 AM

Reply
Question marked as ⚠️ Top-ranking reply

Posted on Jan 19, 2018 11:41 AM

The late 2013 Mac Pro has CPUs that do not contain the QuickSync hardware, which is used to hardware encode H.264 files on some other Mac models. Although the higher end MP with the D700 GPUs is much, much faster at this, because it utilizes the very powerful GPUs.

4 replies
Sort By: 
Question marked as ⚠️ Top-ranking reply

Jan 19, 2018 11:41 AM in response to CSIU

The late 2013 Mac Pro has CPUs that do not contain the QuickSync hardware, which is used to hardware encode H.264 files on some other Mac models. Although the higher end MP with the D700 GPUs is much, much faster at this, because it utilizes the very powerful GPUs.

Reply

Jan 19, 2018 7:32 AM in response to CSIU

And I am wondering why my MacPro (same as yours) cannot handle EPICOLOR plugin by Lemkesoft in realtime without rendering, although my older 17" MacBook Pro can do so.

Seems like this model is end of the line, before it is getting end of the line. Very sad about this.

But it is still the most silent Mac I ever had which is very important for me. It only takes some more time to do his work, sometimes.

Reply

Jan 19, 2018 12:17 PM in response to BenB

Thank you Ben,

I suspected that was the case but couldn't find any definitive comparisons other than the new iMac Pro vs iMac 5k.

I really wish I would have known that before dumping the coin on this Mac Pro. Expensive lesson learned.


Since all of my video is h.264, I'm sending back the Mac Pro, taking the hit for the 15% re-stocking fee and ordering another iMac.

Would you think I should have a notable performance increase on a 2017 iMac, i7 with 32gb RAM, or do I go with the cheaper i5?

Even a 10% reduction in processing time would be worth the extra $$ for the i7 for me.


Thank you

Reply

Jan 19, 2018 12:20 PM in response to cigame2

That is a plug-in I'm not familiar with, so I can't say for sure, and I have on idea if the developer has updated it to take advantage of multiple GPUs. My guess is it isn't. I'd have steered you towards a 2017 iMac Pro 10-core instead. Remember, that Mac Pro is already 4 years old.

Reply

This thread has been closed by the system or the community team. You may vote for any posts you find helpful, or search the Community for additional answers.

FCPX Performance on Mac Pro slower than expected

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple Account.