Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Ethosik

Contributor
Original poster
Oct 21, 2009
8,357
7,416
I recently got a 2016 MacBook Pro and just performed my first real test with FCPX and Compressor on it. It completely destroys my 2010 Mac Pro in this area, but I would still like a little bit more power. What I am doing, is taking a 2-hour h.264 video, cutting it up a bit, and rendering it out. My laptop, for every minute of source footage, takes a minute to render. So mine took two hours to render that video.

My 2010 Mac Pro takes around 4 hours, so there definitely is an improvement!
 
Nothing you can do software wise but if you need more oomph you can use something like Matrox MXO2 Mini with MAX (Thunderbolt) for compressor hardware acceleration.
 
Last edited:
Nothing you can do software wise but if you need more oomph you can use something like Matrox MXO2 Mini with MAX (Thunderbolt) for compressor hardware acceleration.

Should I use something other than h.264? I produced a master file h.264, and it was VERY fast. But it was 33 GB :(
 
Get a Mac Pro or PC. We render 10 minutes in 3 minutes on basic i7 PCs with Samsung 950 Pro drives, GTX 1070s, 32 GB of memory even with slow Adobe Premier. I think we have about $1500 into a system.
 
Get a Mac Pro or PC. We render 10 minutes in 3 minutes on basic i7 PCs with Samsung 950 Pro drives, GTX 1070s, 32 GB of memory even with slow Adobe Premier. I think we have about $1500 into a system.

PC is out of the question, I use FCPX.
Mac Pro was a LOT more expensive than my 2016 MacBook Pro.

I doubt it would save enough time to warrant a $4,000 difference in price either.. Should I use ProRes instead for smaller files?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.