Re: Premiere Pro CS6 vs FCP X Benchmarks

Benchmarks are out.

[www.streamingmedia.com]



www.strypesinpost.com

What if he tried it again with maxed out RAM and Mercury Playback ( = 2 Graphics Cards). Most, if any, of the things he did wouldn't need a render at all in Premiere.

To say that "nothing at all needs render in Premiere" is quite the fallacy as just about everything needs to be rendered for final output. Premiere Pro is great at realtime playback during editing especially if you drop the resolution down to 1/2 or 1/4 but you definitely have to render when you output. Particularly if you're working in native resolutions.

depending on your system, that render could be very quick or very very long.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Biscardi Creative Media
biscardicreative.com

Yes of course, figure a final master playout into the equation. But the point is, in PPro you don't get hung up rendering during work anywhere near as often, if at all. Creatively too, a huge difference. You do maybe take a hit at the end depending on all the usual variables, but still, bottom line, most editors are going to get done a lot faster, especially on a good machine.

Wow. There seems to be a debate in the comments. I do agree that the test results slightly favour Adobe, partly because Adobe sponsored it, and also they were doing the tests on an Nvidia card.

However, on fully maxed out systems, there is no comparison. Adobe's suite is far more scaleable than FCP X, especially as Apple has not done much short of a half assed update to the Mac Pro. Take a top of the line PC with a RED Rocket card, maxed out RAM and a Tesla or two Quadros, with 3 hours of RED footage for a spot, and you're spot is probably on its way to the network with fancy 3D text and particles, while the Mac Pro is still transcoding the footage to ProRes.



www.strypesinpost.com