WOW New 15inch Macbook no faster than Old 13 in Final Cut Pro.

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Stormbitch, May 26, 2019.

  1. Stormbitch macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 26, 2019
    #1
    I demo'd a 15 inch MBP today in store.

    It was the

    Touch Bar and Touch ID
    2.6GHz 6-Core Processor

    • Radeon Pro 555X with 4GB of GDDR5 memory
    • 16GB 2400MHz DDR4 memory
    • 256GB SSD storage
    And I put it against my 1967 Macbook Pro

    2015
    2.9 GHz Intel Core i5
    8 GB 1867 MHz DDR3
    Intel Iris Graphics 6100 1536 MB

    The main issue I have is FCPX 10.3.1 - on my Old Pro its unusable when using 4k clips, and laggy in any FCPX projects that last around 8 mins or more EVEN WHEN TRANSCODING.


    I plugged my USB 3 into the NEWEST mac to see how it might perform and opened the library in the shop. in their newer slicker FCPX 10.4.1

    I noticed the same issues:

    1. Delay when hitting space bar to play project. (Similar for both)
    2. Delay when selecting the different view panes in FCPX i.e. show library, show effects etc.
    3. Rendering was almost exactly the same speed.
    4. 15 was marginally able to cope with playback of 4k.


    Surely the 15 inch should race and be a noticably faster machine?????

    Noting that 32gb wont make any diff to FCPX I was shocked I could have spent £2345 approx on a machine that would not be much better. Certainly to me - even the guy in the Mac Store was like "Oh, these two machines look to be performing about the same"

    And where did £3k for a better MPB suddenly come from, have we gone to another planet!
     
  2. flyespresso macrumors newbie

    flyespresso

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2015
    #2
    This is a flawed test, FCPX is highly dependent on GPU, storage speed & what file system the drive is formatted. Not the resolution of the files (say 1080p, 4K, 8K).

    Using an external, USB3 drive, to work off of will slow it down and make it overall laggy. If this is the same drive you work off on your older machine, I bet it'd be faster with a Thunderbolt connected SSD. 4K is incredibly taxing from a storage perspective, even a 550 MB/s USB3 SSD won't in all cases be fast enough for you to edit with no delay. Further, is your catalogs cache on the external drive or internal? If it's internal, but your project is external, the machine you're trying it on is having to re-cache/render everything. Perhaps copy it to the demo machine and verify the cache/library settings.

    I haven't loaded any projects on my new 2019 13" i7 equipped MBP, but the Black Magic speed test is giving me 2750 MB/s Read 2550 MB/s Write. It's amazing! I've had no issue doing 4K edits on a 2015 12" Macbook (YES, MACBOOK) with FCPX while on a trip.

    FCPX scales really, really, well to non-beastly hardware. Adobe Premier Pro? Not so much...
     
  3. buran-energia macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2017
    #3
    If it's not faster, then you're doing something wrong (e.g. the reason is USB 3.0 drive).
     
  4. Stormbitch thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 26, 2019
    #4
    Thanks for taking the time mate v much.

    What is Beastly hardware?

    Secondly is the Transcend 1TB not an SSD? I though it was....it has a up to 10gb ps speed and is using thunderbolt.

    Transcend its formatted to Mac.

    How long where your 4k edits and where were the libraries and clips stored?
     
  5. nicho macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #5
    You need to decide if it is using USB3 or thunderbolt. They're not the same thing.

    I suspect from what you've said you have the model with both USB3 and Thunderbolt (1) ports. How did you attach it to the in-store mac which doesn't have either of the ports that the included cables fit into? If you used a USBC cable, it's not using the thunderbolt interface. Even if it were, it'll be nowhere near as fast as the SSD in the new machine. In fact, I'd hazard that it will still be significantly slower than the internal SSD in your 2015 MBP. IIRC that's when they really ramped up the speeds vs my 2013/2014 models.
     
  6. leman macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #6
    Did you copy the files to Mac or where you opening them from the USB drive? If the later, we’ll, that’s your problem just there.
     
  7. jerryk macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #7
    Think of it as a water hose. You put a kink in the hose by using a USB 3 external drive. Copy those test files to the new system's internal drive and rerun your test.
     
  8. Stormbitch thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 26, 2019
    #8
    Right - thanks very much guys so far this is very interesting - the Mac bloke at the shop knows less than you lot then it seems!!!!

    I doubt they would let me do that in the shop but does make sense. That said, everything I read says NEVER edit on the machine running the software unless its a massive machine. I started using the SSD external and all my original problems went away.

    In the short term for my current machine. Would a much faster external make the difference then? If so what sort of numbers should I be looking at for read speed or transfer speed?

    My Transcend is wierdly:

    Up to 440MB/s read; 300MB/s write - but it says transfer rates of up to 10 GB/s - - makes no sense to me but then I am not the genuis here.

    I looked on the fc forum and that stuff is properly advanced raid stuff.
     
  9. nicho macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #9
    Think of Thunderbolt like a motorway and your particular SSD like a bicycle. Just because you can't reach 70mph doesn't mean the speed limit isn't 70mph - but it's still theoretical.

    How big is the SSD on your current laptop that it stops you from using it effectively? The internal SSD in the new MBP is faster than your internal one and a lot faster than the external one you have right now. Like literally up to 8x faster.
     
  10. MrGunnyPT macrumors 6502

    MrGunnyPT

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    #10
    If you want to work on via an external connection you gotta use something like an external SSD as in Samsung T5.

    Using a normal USB connection to an 5400RPM disc is gonna be heck of a slow one.
     
  11. jerryk macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #11

    Current internal drives SSD drives on a 2018 macBook Pro 15 can achieve transfer rates of over 3,000 MB/sec read or write for big files with a 2TB drive. While smaller size drives would be a little slower , but they will be over 2,000 MB/sec. The internal drives are blazing fast.
     
  12. Howard2k macrumors 68020

    Howard2k

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2016
    #12

    You're also conflating GB/s and Gb/s.
    USB3 is 10Gb/s, which is (only) 1.25GB/s, or 1,025MB/s.

    Your drive is probably up to (depending on file structure) 440MB/s and 300MB/s. So at best, around 1/3rd of the available bandwidth.

    As Jerryk notes, the MBPro internal SSD will do close to 10x the speed of your SSD.

    It's not like it's a little faster. Or even twice as fast. It's almost 10x the speed. :)
     
  13. nicho macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #13
    The 10Gbps number comes from the Thunderbolt port. USB 3.0 is 5Gbps.
     
  14. FFR macrumors 601

    FFR

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2007
    Location:
    London
    #14
    T5 is only up to 540MB/s.

    If you want a fast external ssd get a lacie Bolt with speeds of up to 2800MB/s.

    Now that drive is fast.
     
  15. Howard2k macrumors 68020

    Howard2k

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2016
    #15
    Quite correct!
     
  16. flyespresso macrumors newbie

    flyespresso

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2015
    #16
    Woah, the 2TB internal is faster than the 1TB internal on the MBP's? I didn't know that at all–Hmm, maybe I will swap the 1TB machine I got with a 2TB. I was just going to get a couple TB3 NVMe drives for different projects :D
    --- Post Merged, May 27, 2019 ---
    The suggestions of not editing on the machine is hold-overs from the era of spinning disks. Not our current world where SSD's–to which there is different standards–are the norm. They are absolutely gangbusters compared to a spinning disk with greater reliability and lower latency.

    By non-beastly, I mean a machine that isn't a top-spec Mac Pro. Length of a project also does not impact performance one bit. It's all bit-rate, what you're doing adjustment wise (are you color grading and using overlays? Are you stabilizing?).
     
  17. jerryk macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #17
    This is true regardless of brand of computer or SSD. Larger SSDs allow more parallel reads and writes. This is why I run one 2 TB NVMe drive in my desktop machine instead of 2 1 TB.

    But, don't overspend. The difference is 2,300 MB/sec vs. 3,000 MB/sec. These are both are blazing fast. And may inside an application make little performance difference, since the application needs to process the data once it is read from the ssd.
     
  18. flyespresso macrumors newbie

    flyespresso

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2015
    #18
    It's true at lower sizes, typically below ~512GB once you're above that it's limited by the controller/connection. Where have you seen a benchmark on the size difference on the MBP? I just was curious as I hadn't seen anything specifically for that.
     

Share This Page

17 May 26, 2019