-
Why FCPX Seems Faster on Thunderbolt Macs
I’ve noticed several posts over the past year where people claim that FCPX seems to “just run better” on a 2011 iMac or MacBook Pro compared to a Mac Pro. We all knew from the NAB preview of FCPX that it was 64-bit, multi-threaded, and GPU-accelerated. So shouldn’t an 8 or 12 core Mac Pro with its 16 or 24 threads and it more powerful GPU at least be able to hang with an iMac or MacBook Pro with half the muscle? Why does FCPX sometimes seem choppy on a 2010 Mac Pro but smooth on a 2011 iMac?
Then I noticed something on the FCPX Features page on Apple’s site:
See that bit about “the AVX capabilities of Intel’s Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge processors“? That’s a pretty esoteric feature to highlight considering how much Apple tends to gloss over the technical details in its product pages.The thing is, AVX is the reason FCPX runs noticeably better on a Thunderbolt-equipped Mac than it does on a Mac Pro with more cores, more RAM, and a bigger GPU. Intel added AVX with the Sandy Bridge architecture, and as we are all painfully aware, Apple has chosen not to update the Mac Pro with the Sandy Bridge E5 Xeon chips.
So you aren’t imagining it- FCPX really is faster and smoother on an iMac or MacBook Pro (2011 or newer).
Best,
Andy -
60 Replies
-
Fantastic sleuthing, Andrew!
Thank you for shedding some light on this.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Andrew Richards] “FCPX seems to “just run better” on a 2011 iMac or MacBook Pro compared to a Mac Pro.”
Exactly what i have been thinking off late. People with newer Imacs and Macbook Pro seem to be getting better experience. I tried FCP X on my 8 Core Mac pro and results have been far from satisfactory. Playback seems extremely stuttery and skimming is even worse.
Good to finally find an explanation for this.
Sohrab
FCS 3 & Adobe PPro
AJA Kona Lhi, Mac Pro 2 X 2.66 Ghz Quad Core
Flanders Scientific LM-1760W“The creative person wants to be a know-it-all. He wants to know about all kinds of things: ancient history, nineteenth-century mathematics, current manufacturing techniques, flower arranging, and hog futures. Because he never knows when these ideas might come together to form a new idea. It may happen six minutes later or six months, or six years down the road. But he has faith that it will happen.” — Carl Ally
-
You sir just put the final tipping point for me. I am going to purchase a retina mac now. Thank you for the diggin!
Brooks
“I dream in 32bit float, don’t you?”Brooks Tomlinson
-
Thanks of that, Andrew. It explains a lot. I will now physically, mentally, and spiritually resist saying anything whatever derogatory about Apple. I’ll save that energy for the derogatory Microsoft posts that I’m sure are coming in the near future.
Tim
-
-
Quite serious. I appreciate the information. It was good of you though to do a such a diligent search for a fitting likeness of me.
Tim
-
[TImothy Auld] “It was good of you though to do a such a diligent search for a fitting likeness of me.”
Not trying to offend, just wasn’t sure if I should have read your post as sarcasm.
Best,
Andy -
You did not offend in the slightest. Quite the opposite. I got a good laugh.
Tim
-
[Andrew Richards] “So you aren’t imagining it- FCPX really is faster and smoother on an iMac or MacBook Pro (2011 or newer).”
Thanks Andy – and yes the Retina MBP does seem more attractive.
So with the Ram fixed at 16 GB the next issue might be what performance difference there might be between the 2.6GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7 processor and the 2.7GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7.
Any thoughts?
-
I was completely offended by the lack of offense that was taken slightly.
On a more serious note: I want to see/read about real world results with FCPX and the new MBPr. Could be pretty interested. Especially if it fairly cooks whilst running 3 monitors!
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up