Creative COW SIGN IN :: SPONSORS :: ADVERTISING :: ABOUT US :: CONTACT US :: FAQ
Creative COW's LinkedIn GroupCreative COW's Facebook PageCreative COW on TwitterCreative COW's Google+ PageCreative COW on YouTube
APPLE FINAL CUT PRO:HomeFCP ForumFCP XFCPX TechniquesFCP TutorialsFC ServerBasics ForumPodcastFAQ

CC-CS6-X render comparisons

COW Forums : Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook
Oliver PetersCC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 14, 2013 at 7:00:47 pm

7:24 sequence with ProRes HQ 1080p/23.98 source media. Alexa Log-C at 60fps for 23.98 playback. Timeline set to render as ProRes422. Exports set to ProRes422 using render/preview files during export. Fast Corrector filter used for color correction in Premiere. Color Board color correction used for FCP X (Log processing turned off). Therefore each uses a similar accelerated effect that is optimized for that application. (Note: all times are minutes:seconds). Mac Pro 8-core 2.26 with 28GB RAM. ATI 5870 for Open CL tests and NVIDIA Quadro 4000 for CUDA tests.

RENDERS - ATI 5870 for emulation and OpenCL / Quadro 4000 for CUDA

PProCS6 render (emulation-only with ATI card) - 22:30
PProCC render (emulation mode) - 12:43
PProCC render (OpenCL acceleration) - 4:10
PProCS6 render (CUDA acceleration) - 6:08
PProCC render (CUDA acceleration) - 3:45
FCP X render (ATI 5870) - 2:26
FCP X render (Quadro 4000) - 3:39

EXPORTS (after rendering, using preview files in export)

PProCS6 export (ATI 5870) - 3:45
PProCC export (ATI 5870) - 1:24
PProCS6 export (Quadro 4000) - 6:09
PProCC export (Quadro 4000) - 1:26
FCP X export (ATI 5870) - 1:18
FCP X export (Quadro 4000) - 1:05

Clearly Adobe CC is better than CS6, but X beats them both. This might be affected by staying in ProRes, which is clearly best for X, but for which CC has also been tweaked. Also, if you want to run both CC and X on the same machine, get the ATI card over the NVIDIA.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Mathieu GhekiereRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 14, 2013 at 7:22:29 pm

I've also found that, when dealing with Prores, X is one very fast piece of software.
If you use the built-in tools, like the Color Board, rendering truly is fast in comparison with other software.

In FCP7, we use to put layers on top of each others, and put ONE timecode reader effect on the timeline. Rendering took forever once you got a timecode reader in there.
In FCPX, we make 6 long compound clips, all with their own timecode generator on, and put those 6 streams with timecode (by making smaller picture-in-pictures) on one image, unrendered, and it all plays back and exports really fast in comparison with FCP7.

One of the advantages of all-new code I guess.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bob WoodheadRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 12:04:48 am

Thanks for that, Oliver. Imagine what the results will be with the MacProTrashcan and an optimized version of FCPX.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Oliver PetersRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 12:12:29 am

[Bob Woodhead] "Imagine what the results will be with the MacProTrashcan and an optimized version of FCPX."

While that's true, I would imagine Adobe's apps will also be optimized. Maybe not to the same level as FCP X, but better than now. But, it depends on how Apple implements this horsepower. My own guess is that the new MP will be geared towards 4K and maybe they will use the 2nd GPU for dedicated background rendering. In other words, you may or may not see any huge advantages with 1080p media that doesn't require rendering.

In any case, I have tended to consistently find that CC is a bump up from CS6 and that FCP X / Motion 5 rendering is faster than Premiere / AE rendering.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Gary HuffRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 12:47:20 am

[Bob Woodhead] "Imagine what the results will be with the MacProTrashcan and an optimized version of FCPX."

FCPX won't be "optimized" for the new Mac Pro and more than you would say the current version is "optimized" for the iMac vs. the Mac Mini.

FCPX takes advantage of CPU advancements in Sandy/Ivy/Haswell, and GPU acceleration via OpenCL. What more needs to be "optimized" for the Mac Pro?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 1:11:52 am

Apple's own words on the FCPX product page

http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/
"... Final Cut Pro will be optimized to take advantage of the incredible power built into the new Mac Pro."



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Bret WilliamsRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 2:03:32 am

The current version is optimized for the iMac vs the MacPro in that it takes advantage of specific Sandy/Ivy bridge technologies.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Marcus MooreRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 3:06:43 am

To be fair, that's what Phil Schiller made a special point of saying at WWDC.

"The Final Cut Pro team is hard at work on a version of Final Cut Pro 10 that will support all the performance and graphics capabilities of this machine".

What this means specifically beyond support for all the CPU cores and GPU power-- who knows. There's been some suggestion that one GPU will be tasked specifically with background rendering in this configuration. That would be sort of swell, and would only be possible in a Dual GPU machine.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Gary HuffRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 12:03:18 pm

[Marcus Moore] "o be fair, that's what Phil Schiller made a special point of saying at WWDC."

And Schiller writes a lot of code for FCPX, right?

I'm astounded that people here take the word of corporate marketing...do you also have indepth tech discussions with the booth babes at NAB?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Marcus MooreRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 3:17:56 pm

Until proven otherwise- why not? That's the official word. Both from Schiller and from the MacPro website. And I wager he has more conversations with the dev team that you do, so on the sliding scale of informed opinion I'll lean his way for the moment.

Didn't we just finish a year's worth of these semantic arguments about Tim's email about the MacPro? People parsing his words to try and pick apart what he REALLY meant- that it wouldn't be a MacPro at all, but something for the MacPro crowd... After all that, and what did we get? A new MacPro. Maybe not what everyone might have wanted (it couldn't have been no mater what it was) but it was a new MacPro.

Optimized for the machine means it will be in some form optimized for the machine.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Gary HuffRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 3:51:28 pm

[Marcus Moore] "Optimized for the machine means it will be in some form optimized for the machine."

Exactly how? What will FCPX be optimized for on the Mac Pro that it currently doesn't support on a high-end iMac? Outside of dual GPU, which I assume would be included as part of the OpenCL framework anyway.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jason Van PattenRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 3:53:18 pm

[Gary Huff] " Exactly how?"

If I had to guess: they overhauled how the software uses OpenCL so that it can take advantage of multiple GPUs.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Marcus MooreRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 4:56:30 pm

As I said, dedicated GPU background rendering is one possibility- and it's a possibility that's even hinted at in the MacPro blurb. Besides that, I don't know.

But you know how the best way to find out would be? Let's wait and see what comes out with the MacPro in a couple months. Then we can argue about if what they've DONE classifies as optimization, vs talking in the future/abstract.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Gary HuffRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 5:37:19 pm

[Marcus Moore] "As I said, dedicated GPU background rendering is one possibility- and it's a possibility that's even hinted at in the MacPro blurb."

What would prevent FCPX from doing that with the 680MX 2GB GPU in the iMac, albeit slower obviously?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 6:27:13 pm

I'd kinda bet that Grand Central Dispatch is also in play here.

Makes me wonder if they're using that to divy up tasks to send to the multiple GPUs in some intelligent fashion, rather than just sequestering one GPU for background rendering and leaving the other for timeline calculations.

But that's just a guess.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Marcus MooreRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 6:28:38 pm

Apple has in the past held back features from hardware where it doesn't feel the the user experience would be a net benefit- even though it's "technically" possible to run a feature on hardware X, Apple says the experience doesn't meet their threshold for "good".

For example, see how certain features at staged from one iPhone model to the next. Even if you can run iOS7 on your iPhone4 some features aren't deemed compatible based on the speed of the device.

I think unrestricted background rendering would definitely qualify here.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Erik LindahlRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 7:58:47 pm

When doing OpenCL work on the GPU the system can run into extreme responsiveness issues. What a next gen MacPro could do an iMac could not is dedicate X cores + 1 GPU for background rendering and leave the rest for the users front-end. As soon as user interaction stops it will use all 12 cores and 2 GPU's for rendering.

The above wouldn't be possible on todays systems with out severely sacrificing user-interaction performance. The new MacPro virtually has about 2-3 iMac's of CPU power and probably 4-6 of it's GPU's. This opens up a lot of possibilities.

So, background rendering with out affecting "normal" working conditions would be a huge selling point for many I would imagine. If Apple goes that route. They have stated dual GPU as standard and even lower end FirePro GPU's will provide quite a lot of horse-power.

There's also been talk of what i/o the MacPro will have. We know there will be six Thunderbolt 2 ports and one HDMI-port but we don't know exactly what all these ports will support. Will the HDMI-port be able to work as a real video-out port at up to 4K and is that HDMI-port going directly off the GPU, i.e. no more monitoring lag? This could for example lessen the need for a dedicated i/o box over Thunderbolt - again a selling point for quite a few.

Summary: The above would be unique MacPro features unless Apple opens up GPU-support for Thunderbolt chassis. That said, the above would probably work relatively good in a current-gen MacPro given you have high-end GPU's. The next-gen will boot a lot of VRAM which helps for GPU-processing work (Adobe requires a minimum of 1GB for example).


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris KennyRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 8:44:41 pm

[Gary Huff] "Exactly how? What will FCPX be optimized for on the Mac Pro that it currently doesn't support on a high-end iMac? Outside of dual GPU, which I assume would be included as part of the OpenCL framework anyway."

OpenCL certainly lets you use two GPUs, but I don't think this is entirely automatic — you'd have to set up a second dispatch queue, at least. And OpenCL supports reserving portions of GPUs for its own use, which you'd probably want to do differently on a dual GPU system. So there's that.

Apple's wording also almost makes wonder if maybe the HDMI port on the machine can actually be used directly for broadcast monitoring, and FCP is adding support for that. (Though I'd consider this a bit unlikely.)

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Marcus MooreRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 9:44:16 pm

If not for Monitoring, what could the rationale behind an HDMI 1.4 port be?

Granted, even if it does give users a 4K display out, it likely won't be compatible with some 3rd party products like Resolve, which still require a BlackMagic I/O for monitoring from DaVinci.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris KennyRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 9:54:47 pm

[Marcus Moore] "If not for Monitoring, what could the rationale behind an HDMI 1.4 port be?"

It could just be feeding a typical 'computer' video signal. That's what the HDMI ports on Apple's other systems do. Of course if Apple adds 10 bit monitor support in Mavericks, makes sure the system's color management doesn't get in the way, and has sufficiently high-quality software de-interlacing in FCP X, a 'computer' video output could actually be a viable alternative to a 'real' broadcast video interface for most purposes. Whether this will happen is anyone's guess. The fact that in the keynote they went from discussing triple 4K support to showing a photo of a guy with three monitors — one of them being a broadcast monitor — sure is suggestive, though.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bret WilliamsRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 1:59:32 am

Unless you'd like to use AE in ray trace mode of course.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Daniel FromeRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 11:57:42 am

Impressive numbers for FCPX. Although I must admit, for the multi-OS piece software, Adobe CC is really showing strong numbers for OSX.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 12:03:32 pm

One of the other things I'm seeing is that when you send log profile video (Alexa, BMD Film, etc.) to any third party filter that uses a preset browser (MB Looks, Sapphire Edge), levels are wrong with X and right with Premiere.

In general real-time, unrendered playback performance favors different cards depending on the developer's own optimization. Sapphire filters run better with the NVIDIA card, while FxFactory filters appear to be better with the ATI.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Mathieu GhekiereRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 1:38:45 pm

Oliver,

have you sent feedback about that to Apple?

Kind regards,

M.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Santiago MartíRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 2:47:24 pm

Premiere Pro CC does support dual GPUs right now, it would be cool to see those benchmarks too. I couldn't find any on the web.

Santiago Martí
http://www.robotrojo.com.ar
Red One M-X, Red Epic X, Red Pro Primes, Adobe CS6, Assimilate Scratch


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jason Van PattenRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 3:50:43 pm

[Santiago Martí] " Premiere Pro CC does support dual GPUs right now, it would be cool to see those benchmarks too. I couldn't find any on the web."

Actually, it supports n GPUs, not just duals. And it seems to work with and without SLI (nVidia, obv) but appears to scale linearly when using SLI. That testing was done w/Windows and 2 Titans, if I remember correctly; there's a thread on the Adobe's forums somewhere. Since OS X doesn't support SLI right now, it'd have to be done sans it in a Mac Pro. But then again, it'd take a heavily modified Mac Pro with extra power supplies to power more than one card...


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Oliver PetersRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 8:25:01 pm

[Mathieu Ghekiere] "have you sent feedback about that to Apple?"

Yes.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jason Van PattenRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 3:44:32 pm

[Oliver Peters] "This might be affected by staying in ProRes, which is clearly best for X, but for which CC has also been tweaked."

That's a significant understatement, to be sure. Final Cut definitely prefers and works well with ProRes. The strength of the Adobe software is that it works fairly well with most anything. My own tests with the software have Premiere (CS5.5 and CC) handling my tasks in literally 1/2 the length of the clip. For FCPX? Twice the length of the clip. The main difference between my tests and yours: I'm not starting with, nor transcoding to/from ProRes. I'm starting with AVCHD and ending with h.264 MP4.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Ronny CourtensRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 9:11:28 pm

My own tests with the software have Premiere (CS5.5 and CC) handling my tasks in literally 1/2 the length of the clip. For FCPX? Twice the length of the clip. The main difference between my tests and yours: I'm not starting with, nor transcoding to/from ProRes. I'm starting with AVCHD and ending with h.264 MP4.

Nope. We have had this discussion on another forum. The most important difference is that you did your tests using an upclocked nVidia GTX570 GPU that is great for CUDA but lousy for OpenCL. So it's quite normal that PPro performs better than FCPX on your system. As another poster pointed out you are also running FCPX on a fast but older MacPro:

"Aside the OpenCL GPU FCP X is much faster on Ivy or Sandy Bridge processors since the code makes good use of the AVX on those processors. Older Mac Pros just don't cut it (no matter how many cores) like the new iMacs and MBPs. I've noticed this especially with H.264 material."

So with all due respect you are comparing apples with lemons. Oliver has done his tests using different cards, both for CUDA and OpenCL. That's why I think his comparison tests are reliable. As I have explained we have worked with native XDCAM HD 422 footage at the Olympics using FCPX on several new MBPs and we got faster than realtime exports. So this has little to do with ProRes or native footage.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jason Van PattenRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 9:53:01 pm

[Ronny Courtens] "Nope. We have had this discussion on another forum. The most important difference is that you did your tests using an upclocked nVidia GTX570 GPU that is great for CUDA but lousy for OpenCL."

Read the whole thread Ronny. Specifically the OP's machine specs. He's using a single 5870 card in a MUCH SLOWER SYSTEM than mine. Do you think that ancient AMD card is enough to make that much of a difference? (Answer: it isn't).

His results are so good because he didn't transcode. Period.

[Ronny Courtens] "As another poster pointed out you are also running FCPX on a fast but older MacPro:"

So is the OP. Your point?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Oliver PetersRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 10:13:06 pm

[Jason Van Patten] "Specifically the OP's machine specs. He's using a single 5870 card"

That's not exactly correct. I ran tests with BOTH an ATI 5870 AND an NVIDIA Quadro 4000. Only one card was installed at a time, but the PProCS6, PProCC and FCP X tests were run with each card.

FWIW - I was mainly interested in comparing CS6 to CC. The FCP X comparison was thrown in out of curiosity, since I have also found (and posted here) that I've had better render times with Motion than with AE on various types of similar compositions.

[Jason Van Patten] "His results are so good because he didn't transcode."

I tested only with ProRes, to keep the test a constant. I simply don't ever work natively with AVCHD, H.264, etc. if I can avoid it. So yes, that would affect performance.

It's also too much of a variable between Adobe and Apple, since each company has deemed to optimize their applications for different native codecs and wrappers. No way to control that. I would image that a test using only P2 AVC-Intra on a fast HP workstation and a fast NVIDIA card might yield results faster than X, too.

Again, not the original point of the test.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Ronny CourtensRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 10:15:47 pm

No Jason, Oliver has used different GPUs that are good for CUDA as well as for OpenCL acceleration.

Your card is perfect for CUDA, not good for OpenCL. This is what makes your comparison debatable. The fact that these tests were done on an older MacPro only has an influence on the overall results, not on the comparison.

And like I said: we do work natively in certain workflows and I see no difference between exporting from a ProRes timeline or a timeline with native footage. The only difference I see is that editing in a ProRes timeline is faster in FCPX.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jason Van PattenRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 10:20:16 pm

[Ronny Courtens] "No Jason, Oliver has used different GPUs that are good for CUDA as well as for OpenCL acceleration. Your card is perfect for CUDA, not good for OpenCL."

*head slap* Never mind.

I'll take "Missing the Point" for $600, Alex.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Erik LindahlRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 15, 2013 at 8:06:38 pm

Very interesting findings!


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Morten RanmarRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 16, 2013 at 8:19:40 am

Would be interesting to see a similar test with H264 footage.

- No Parking Production -

2 x Finalcut Studio3, 2 x Prod. bundle CS6, 2 x MacPro, 2 x ioHD, Ethernet File Server w. X-Raid.... and FCPX on trial


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Kevin MonahanRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 16, 2013 at 9:17:26 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Fast Corrector filter used for color correction in Premiere."

Hi Oliver,
I was curious as to why you are using a real time effect in testing rendering speed? And what is emulation mode? Are you referring to Software Only processing?

Cheers,
Kevin

Kevin Monahan
Social Support Lead
Adobe After Effects
Adobe Premiere Pro
Adobe Systems, Inc.
Follow Me on Twitter!


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Oliver PetersRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 16, 2013 at 9:35:21 pm

[Kevin Monahan] "I was curious as to why you are using a real time effect in testing rendering speed? And what is emulation mode? Are you referring to Software Only processing?"

Emulation mode is MPE Software-Only.

Since it's an accelerated effect it gains the benefit of CUDA and/or OpenCL hardware acceleration, since this hardware acceleration affects scaling and color correction only for the most part. Yes, it's "real-time", but that also means it's faster rendering, too.

Also it's an effect that *should* be similar processing to what Apple is doing with their built-in Color Board. As such it's sort of an "apple-to-apples" comparison.

In my opinion, ultimately nothing in Premiere Pro is truly real-time, since it requires rendering at some point, even upon export. As you can see from the render and export times, clearly there's a difference based on software emulation, CUDA and/or OpenCL acceleration. At least that what it seems to me.

Am I misunderstanding something?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Dennis RadekeRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 19, 2013 at 7:54:02 pm

I've been meaning to write up a quick post on this for many a month and this thread prompted me to finish it up in my spare moments.

Render Taxes

Have a great weekend everybody.

Dennis - Adobe guy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jason Van PattenRe: CC-CS6-X render comparisons
by on Jul 20, 2013 at 9:04:12 pm

[Dennis Radeke] " I've been meaning to write up a quick post on this for many a month and this thread prompted me to finish it up in my spare moments."

It basically re-iterates what I wrote in my first reply in this thread. Just in, perhaps, an easier-to-swallow format. ;)


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook


FORUMSTUTORIALSFEATURESVIDEOSPODCASTSEVENTSSERVICESNEWSLETTERNEWSBLOGS

Creative COW LinkedIn Group Creative COW Facebook Page Creative COW on Twitter
© 2014 CreativeCOW.net All rights are reserved. - Privacy Policy

[Top]