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

MP 7,1 MacPro Base Model for FCPX editor ?

S

soamz

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 20, 2010
704
8
Orissa, India
Hi, I currently use my MacBook Pro 2017 top config for 4K editing and it works great standalone.
Its i7 2.9Ghz - 16GB - quad core - 4GB graphics.
But if I connect it to my 4K LG HDR monitor and do things on FCPX. the whole CPU GPU kerne task goes 600% and whole computer goes dead.
I always have to disconnect my LG 4K monitor to work on FCPX and its wasting my time.

So, I was lookin at the base 6000$ MacPro - 3.3Ghz Xeon W - 32Gb Ram - 580x 8GB graphics.
Do you think, this is more than enough for 4K editing and rendering ?
Currently my MacBook Pro takes around 30 mins to render a 5 min 4K timeline. And takes a lot of of time to transcode, background render, etc. I need a Mac Pro so things can happen on the fly and I dont have to wait.
I tried looking on Youtube, but did not find a single video showing base models FCPX performance.
I normally edit with multicam 3-4 cameras all on 4K sequence.
 
IndioX said:
the base model is a typewriter but for video you should
use the 16-core with at least 1TB SSD and the W5700X
Click to expand...
I disagree that the best model is a typewriter, it depends what you're doing with it. For someone like me who uses Photoshop and lightroom it's adequate. However if you're doing 4k work then I agree a 12 or 16 core would be better.
 
soamz said:
Hi, I currently use my MacBook Pro 2017 top config for 4K editing and it works great standalone.
Its i7 2.9Ghz - 16GB - quad core - 4GB graphics.
But if I connect it to my 4K LG HDR monitor and do things on FCPX. the whole CPU GPU kerne task goes 600% and whole computer goes dead.
I always have to disconnect my LG 4K monitor to work on FCPX and its wasting my time.

So, I was lookin at the base 6000$ MacPro - 3.3Ghz Xeon W - 32Gb Ram - 580x 8GB graphics.
Do you think, this is more than enough for 4K editing and rendering ?
Currently my MacBook Pro takes around 30 mins to render a 5 min 4K timeline. And takes a lot of of time to transcode, background render, etc. I need a Mac Pro so things can happen on the fly and I dont have to wait.
I tried looking on Youtube, but did not find a single video showing base models FCPX performance.
I normally edit with multicam 3-4 cameras all on 4K sequence.
Click to expand...

I hate to sound scandalous , but :

Are you having performance issues with 4K playback with your MBP with a 4K display connected ?

Or is it when you attempt to edit in 4K with the external 4K display ?

The reason I ask is , didn't editors in the past edit at lower resolutions than intended ( proxy files ) , edit with these lower res files and then once done replace the files with 4K versions before exporting ?

I guess that using proxy files is undesirable .

I'm not a pro editor - I just dabble - but I do build powerful Systems .

You might consider attaching an eGPU ( like a RX 580 ) to use as a rendering engine with FCPX , if the integrated GPU of your MBP is gasping for air .

I am confused why the CPU is so overtasked , when this should be a GPU based operation . I know its only a four core chip , but what would be dragging it to its knees ?

BTW , the base model Mac Pro 7,1 is an 8 core at 3.5 GHz with 32GB of memory . I had this config until I upgraded it's processor and memory kit into a 28 Core at 2.5 GHz with 1.5TB of memory .
 
Last edited:
soamz said:
Hi, I currently use my MacBook Pro 2017 top config for 4K editing and it works great standalone.
Its i7 2.9Ghz - 16GB - quad core - 4GB graphics.
But if I connect it to my 4K LG HDR monitor and do things on FCPX. the whole CPU GPU kerne task goes 600% and whole computer goes dead.
I always have to disconnect my LG 4K monitor to work on FCPX and its wasting my time.

So, I was lookin at the base 6000$ MacPro - 3.3Ghz Xeon W - 32Gb Ram - 580x 8GB graphics.
Do you think, this is more than enough for 4K editing and rendering ?
Currently my MacBook Pro takes around 30 mins to render a 5 min 4K timeline. And takes a lot of of time to transcode, background render, etc. I need a Mac Pro so things can happen on the fly and I dont have to wait.
I tried looking on Youtube, but did not find a single video showing base models FCPX performance.
I normally edit with multicam 3-4 cameras all on 4K sequence.
Click to expand...

My (i)Mac Pro base model (which is pretty similar to Mac Pro base model) exports--
A) 5 minute long 4K ProRes timeline to h.264 (no effects, just video)
Total time: 4 minutes flat from Adobe Premiere Pro.

B) 5 minute long 4K ProRes timeline to h.264 (no effects, just video)
Total time: 3:45 from Final Cut Pro

That's with no transcoding, or background rendering. Just straight timeline export.

If you want to compare, you need to run a similar test (Im assuming your timeline contains effects and such, which adds variables and is not the best to test raw speed).
 
Last edited:
If your 2017 MBP works fine without the attached monitor, you will find the base MP 7,1 to be delightfully fast. Don't listen to the folks above who say you need 16 cores. Some people do need that many, but if 6 laptop cores work fine now, 8 desktop cores will do you nicely. If the new MP fits your budget, go for it.

On the other hand, if you otherwise like your laptop, you might consider an eGPU. It would vastly improve FCPX speeds, and would take the task of driving the external monitor off of your laptop. I put a 580 graphics card in my 5,1 and the improvement in FCPX performance blew me away.

BTW, could you tell us how your power is connected?
 
vinegarshots said:
That's with no transcoding, or background rendering. Just straight timeline export.
Click to expand...

For the pedantic folks here: that actually is transcoding. You're turning your ProRes source files into h.264 destination files, which means you're transcoding them. And at those speeds, you're using hardware encoding.
[automerge]1589293388[/automerge]
pertusis1 said:
If your 2017 MBP works fine without the attached monitor, you will find the base MP 7,1 to be delightfully fast. Don't listen to the folks above who say you need 16 cores. Some people do need that many, but if 6 laptop cores work fine now, 8 desktop cores will do you nicely. If the new MP fits your budget, go for it.
Click to expand...

Don't be too sure of that. His MBP has Intel's QuickSync for hardware encoding, and the Mac Pro does not. Hardware encoding is, in most cases, significantly faster than software encoding, with associated caveats in place. He'll get hardware encoding with the AMD GPU in the base model, but it's not very fast; AMD's h.264 and h.265 encoding is pretty low-rent stuff. It works, it's just not super fast.

(This all assume's he's exporting to long-GOP files, of course).
 
jasonmvp said:
For the pedantic folks here: that actually is transcoding. You're turning your ProRes source files into h.264 destination files, which means you're transcoding them. And at those speeds, you're using hardware encoding.
[automerge]1589293388[/automerge]


Don't be too sure of that. His MBP has Intel's QuickSync for hardware encoding, and the Mac Pro does not. Hardware encoding is, in most cases, significantly faster than software encoding, with associated caveats in place. He'll get hardware encoding with the AMD GPU in the base model, but it's not very fast; AMD's h.264 and h.265 encoding is pretty low-rent stuff. It works, it's just not super fast.

(This all assume's he's exporting to long-GOP files, of course).
Click to expand...

So this is interesting (also a little unexpected):

Just ran some more tests in Premiere Pro on my iMac Pro.
Software-only 5 Minute timeline Prores 4:2:2 to H.264 Encode: 3:44 Encode Time
Hardware-Accelerated: 2:59 Encode Time

Confirmed by looking at Activity Monitor-- software-only is using no GPU at all. Hardware-accelerated is using 94% GPU (Vega56).

So even just using the CPU (no Quicksync, etc), still getting super fast export times. Only saving about a minute with GPU.
 
vinegarshots said:
So this is interesting (also a little unexpected):

Just ran some more tests in Premiere Pro on my iMac Pro.
Software-only 5 Minute timeline Prores 4:2:2 to H.264 Encode: 3:44 Encode Time
Hardware-Accelerated: 2:59 Encode Time

Confirmed by looking at Activity Monitor-- software-only is using no GPU at all. Hardware-accelerated is using 94% GPU (Vega56).

So even just using the CPU (no Quicksync, etc), still getting super fast export times. Only saving about a minute with GPU.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that saved minute scale? So if it was a much longer project, that would add up to considerable time saved...
 
vinegarshots said:
So even just using the CPU (no Quicksync, etc), still getting super fast export times. Only saving about a minute with GPU.
Click to expand...

Hardware encoding is quicker than software encoding, but you'll want a longer sample to really see the difference. Try a 20 or 30 minute video. And do something other than 1080p/60, too. Run something up to 4K/30 or /60.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back