Final Cut Pro X performance, which MacBook to get?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by poohat1000, Nov 23, 2012.

  1. poohat1000 macrumors 6502

    poohat1000

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Location:
    London
    #1
    Would performance infact be better on the older macbook pros (due to not needing to render that high res)..?

    I know the 15" has diff graphics cards in them, would that affect rendering times or would it essentially be the same in the 13" just with a smaller screen size?
     
  2. nontroppo macrumors 6502

    nontroppo

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    #2
    My rMBP is certainly much faster than my housemate's 2012 cMBP, but they have a 512MB 650M... Being able to edit with 1080p footage easily visible along with decent UI without scaling is wonderful, again not possible except on retina...
     
  3. yusukeaoki macrumors 68030

    yusukeaoki

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #3
    I suggest anything above 13in.

    13in has lower CPU spec, no dGPU, etc.

    15in or refurb 17in has bigger screen, faster CPU and a dGPU.
    The performance is way better compared to 13in.
     
  4. poohat1000 thread starter macrumors 6502

    poohat1000

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Location:
    London
    #4
    ah ok thanks, between the higher spec 15 and lower 15, is there that much diff other than the .3ghz?
     
  5. Maggot FF macrumors member

    Maggot FF

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    Location:
    Oslo, Norway
    #5
    It really depends what you want to use it for. the 2.3 is by no means a slow machine, but if you intend to edit a lot (photo/video) and/or play games and what not, the 2.6 will speed things up for you. The price difference was worth it for me, but not the price difference from 2.6 to 2.7.
     
  6. poohat1000 thread starter macrumors 6502

    poohat1000

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Location:
    London
    #6
    there's a 2.7 version? I only see two 15' models on the apple site?

    15-inch: 2.3GHz
    with Retina display
    2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
    Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz
    8GB 1600MHz memory
    256GB flash storage1

    &

    15-inch: 2.6GHz
    with Retina display
    2.6GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
    Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
    8GB 1600MHz memory
    512GB flash storage1


    I'll be doing a lot of editing so the HD doesn't really matter much to me as 512gb is too small itself so most of it will be from external HD's anyway
     
  7. yusukeaoki macrumors 68030

    yusukeaoki

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #7
    When you go to buy, they let you select 2.7GHz for extra 250USD.
    I would go with bigger storage but if you dont have the cash, go with lower end.

    I understand how you feel lol
    I have 128GB SSD with 1TB optibay and still dont have space.
    Now Im living with 6TB of total external storage...
    Besides externals are becoming cheaper every day.
     
  8. Maggot FF macrumors member

    Maggot FF

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    Location:
    Oslo, Norway
    #8
    I usually feel better with externals. :p if my laptop gets stolen, it's replaceable, my files aren't. :p
     
  9. yusukeaoki macrumors 68030

    yusukeaoki

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #9
    Exactly! Back up everyday with my Time Capsule.
    All my videos, photos, and extra are all in my externals to save space.
    Besides, I dont need to watch the same video every day.
    Why keep them in my Mac? :D
     
  10. LS3 Machine macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2011
    #10
    I disagree

    You are misinforming the OP. The 2.6 15 inch non retina MBP has the SAME GT650M Invidia graphics card as the Retina model. In theory, it should actually be faster for graphics applications, since it doesn't have the pixel workload as the Retina model. When doing a comparison, it seems you should compare like items? If I was giving advise, I would say whatever macbook pro you want, just make sure you get one with the better GT650M card. It also depends on your budget.
     
  11. poohat1000 thread starter macrumors 6502

    poohat1000

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Location:
    London
    #11

    this is what I was wondering, although editing in fcp on a non retina screen may be a pain in the arse. Im used to a big imac screen but traveling a lot atm so i was thinking of investing in a macbook tbh I think I'll go with the lower 15' model. apple are using fcpx in all their promo for it so i doubt the performance can be thaaaat bad
     
  12. LS3 Machine macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2011
    #12
    New Macbook Pro

    I'm getting the Hi-Res Anti Glare 15 Inch BTO 2.7 Quad core. I don't care for glossy laptop screens. Good luck and keep us posted on what you end up doing.
     
  13. nontroppo macrumors 6502

    nontroppo

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    #13
    Sorry, I assumed the specs were obvious, but yes working on a 2.6GHz 1GB 650M retina is faster than a 2.3GHz 512MB 650M classic MBP; I suspect that is much more because of the extra VRAM than the 0.3GHz CPU difference...

    That was the best comparison I have from experience working with FCPX on the same 1080p project, I don't have access to two identically specced machines... Having to edit on the machine (our calibrated external was not available), the retina's IPS vs. the classic's twisted nematic display gave higher bit depth, wider viewing angles and less glare, and along with the brilliant resolution advantage makes the retina superior in the field, IMO.

    As to which would be faster if the specs matched, well you are trading the fact the retina has an overclocked GPU against the higher resolution it has to handle; note this is not actually about "resolution" which the 650M can easily handle, but whether the need for different scaling/interpolation triggers slowdowns in Apple's crap graphics drivers!

    In regards to externals, the Seagate goflex thunderbolt adapter works wonderfully with 3rd party SSDs, very fast throughput for HD editing.
     

Share This Page