It creates a very short timeline at a high resolution: 5120 by 2700 (at 23.975 fps). This test puts enough pressure on main memory and GPU memory to separate older generation Macs from more recent computers.Over at the the FCP.co forum, qbe asked me to do the ‘Far Far Away’ test on my new late 2013 MacBook Pro 15″ using only the built-in Iris Pro Graphics and also on only the Discrete GeForce GT 750M GPU which I included in my BTO Mac.It turns out that the test wasn’t tough enough to show a difference between the two GPUs:MacBook Pro late-2013 Discrete GeForce GT 750M 2GB 18.8 secondsMacBook Pro late-2013 Intel Iris Pro Graphics 1GB 19.2 secondsI’ve come up with a test that shows the differences between these GPUs and other Macs… The BruceX benchmarkBruceX is a small Final Cut Pro X XML file that you import into Final Cut Pro. The Intel Iris and Iris Pro are every bit the match or master of discrete NVIDIA Mobile GPUs — at least when it comes to OpenCL acceleration.Although it is great news that integrated GPUs are getting better, many are worried that the MacBook Pros should be avoided until Iris Pro has improved a little more.A speed test proposed by FCP.co was to time the render of Final Cut Pro X’s built-in ‘Far Far Away’ title on a 23.975 1080p timeline. Take a look at a new post at Bare Feats:In the past we sneered at the integrated GPUs and their puny performance. Editors want to know if the integrated Intel Iris and Iris Pro Graphics GPUs are powerful enough to run professional software well.Early testing shows that Iris Pro graphics are better than many expected. New Mac software is depending more and more on GPU power.Click the new ‘BruceX Test – 5K ‘ project timeline (this makes the Share command selectable)5. Use the ‘File:Import:XML…’ command to import the ‘BruceX Test – 5K.fcpxml’ file to create a very short but complex 5K project.4. In Final Cut Pro X, go to ‘Final Cut Pro:Preferences…’ – in the Playback tab make sure ‘Background render’ is off.3. Have both QuickTime Player and Final Cut Pro X open at the same time.2. Short instructions…and time the export of a 5K master file from the timeline. As it uses many layers of complex content, it requires lots of GPU RAM.The Bruce X benchmark is based on timing how long a Mac configuration takes to export the project.In the Save sheet, choose a name and location for the export – export to your fastest drive connected using your fastest connection.11. Click the ‘Next…’ button in the bottom-right of the dialogue box10. From the ‘When Done’ pop-up menu, choose ‘Open With QuickTime Player’9. In the ‘Video Codec’ section choose a flavour of ‘ProRes’8. In the dialogue box that appears, click the ‘Settings’ Tab7.
![]() ![]() Hack with 660Ti took really long, acording to specs it should be way more powerful than 750m, but that is a hack and i for one know, cannot take it as general rule/basis without broader specimens.The second instance worth noting is performance of previous rMBP (early 2012), 750m should be only little faster than 660m, the big difference here is amount of VRAM. Your configuration’s BruceX Score is the average export time in seconds. Before timing the next export, restart Final Cut (otherwise the exports speed up each time because X does a little caching renders to save time).These results include those posted at the FCP.co Forum and from BareFeats.com.The results show that BruceX tests processor power, but also shows that Iris Pro Graphics has some way to go to match a discrete graphics GPU in the new MacBook Pro 15″ with RetinaMacBook Pro late-2013 2.6 Ghz Quad Core i7( To choose which GPU to use for the test on my MacBook Pro, I used gfxCardStatus by Cody Krieger – a Shareware app downloaded from gfx.io )From results two instances are noted. If possible do the export at least three times. LuxMark on the other hand scales much better:But I guess that’ll change with OSX 10.9.1 and FCPX 10.1 with support for the new mac pro.So rendering H.264 failed to export Error 12348. Especially with enabled Intel HD everything is bottlenecked by the internal graphics (at least on my Hackintosh). Previous generation rMBP become viable alternative though, which makes the decision harder.Thanks for the test and your time Alex4D, much apreciated!Here are my results, all with Mavericks 10.9.0, FCPX 10.0.9 and rendered to SSD.I tested my new Hackintosh with different GPU configurations:Internal Graphics Iris Pro, Intel HD4600:Intel HD4600 + ATI R9 280x (single and dual)Single ATI R9 280x (HIS IceQ Boost Clock) Internal GPU disabledDual ATI R9 280x (HIS IceQ + Gigabyte Windforce 3x OC Rev.2) Internal GPU disabledInteresting to see that FCPX doesn’t scale very well with multiple GPUs (yet). Apple Final Cut Pro X 10.2.3 720P Videos OnWhen testing compression of 720p videos on green screen with background power points and audio compressions and color correction the mac pro took 2 times the rendering time of the iMac’s 4 minutes and 23 seconds render time with our 27 mins and 4 sec video. We are testing it between our iMacs. Humm that is related to MacBooks only.The Mac Pro is on loan from apple. File size 71.5 MBSo I didn’t change any hardware settings on the iMac don’t know if it was using the iris or Nvidia. Aimbot for fortnite ps4After researching why the iMac out performed the Mac Pro, tell me if i’m wrong, but the Mac Pro’s GPUs can not be used when compressing videos on single pass, but the iMac can.Same test but selecting for better quality. 99 GB with the iMac and file size with Mac Pro was 1.5 GB. Shared as exported file with better performance selected. Mac pro took 3 mins and 59 secs. With better quality are we now getting into the double pass rendering where the mac pro’s GPUs can be utilized?I’m doing another test, but will share as mater file pro res 422. The iMac took 20 minutes and 30 seconds.Can anyone explain this. Redering master file uncompressed at 10 bit. With the same file sizeThis is fun another test. 83% okay iMac took 6 mins. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorTara ArchivesCategories |