Performance Issue?

Can this be true?

I have just compared the relative performance of FCPX and FCP7 when rendering a vignette filter applied to a clip from an EX1r. Tests were made using both native XDCAM and ProRes codecs. The FCP7 results are in parenthesis:

Time taken - 1'40" (37 seconds), CPU utilisation - 53% (37%), Memory utilisation - 1.2GB (612MB)

The above results are for the native XDCAM codec, but similar differences were experienced when using the optimised (ProRes) codec.

OK, this just one simple test that may not be comparable for other operations, but it clearly demonstrate that FCP is the more efficient software in this particular area despite the claimed advantages of a 64bit operating system for FCPX (Yes, the system was operating in 64bit mode). The MacPro used was a 2011, 3.2GHz quad core with 6GB RAM and a 5870 graphics card.

Is this performance typical or do I have a duff system/installation - the FCPX was installed on a new partition?

Geoff

The new partition will probably be slower. Great if you have a separate boot up disc.



www.strypesinpost.com

i also tried it on the original single partition, but there is no difference. What I don't unnderstand is why the CPU is only running at half throttle and so little memory is utilised. The media is on a separate internal raid, so no issues there. In practical terms FCPX appears to have a time disadvantage when it come to rendering, not what is expected. I would be interested if others could carry out a similar test so that I would know whether it was an FCPX thing or a poor installation/MacPro induced error.

Thanks in advance to any who may report on this.

Geoff

Well, there is little point of running multiple processors. The job needs to be split for multiple processors and then merged. For short clips, that process has little benefits, in fact it is slower. So that's where the CPU does little. Most of the grunt work would take place in the GPU, and they need to code the software to take advantage of it. Many of the effects (and some decoding/encoding of the formats such as h.264 and mpeg 2) would probably be coded for GPU acceleration, while most video formats would use the CPU. So you probably won't see that much speed differences for some of the formats, but effects rendering (and maybe h.264 and mpeg2 formats) may be much speedier.



www.strypesinpost.com