Why FCPX Seems Faster on Thunderbolt Macs

[Andrew Richards]

[Mark Dobson] “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.”

Hmm…

$250 seems like a lot for just +100 MHz (at both normal and Turbo Boost) and +2 MB of L3 cache. Once upon a time you had to upgrade the CPU to get hyperthreading, but not anymore. This upgrade doesn’t look like it would move the needle much.

I think the $250 can be better spent elsewhere.

Best,
Andy

[Craig Seeman]

[Andrew Richards] “So you aren’t imagining it- FCPX really is faster and smoother on an iMac or MacBook Pro (2011 or newer).”

Now this might explain why there’s no MacPro listed in Apple’s FCPX In Action. While it’ll run it’s really not a computer to promote for FCPX use.

[Jim Giberti]

This is really good Andrew, thanks.

It makes me think more about what I was talking about with my partner this AM. We all know Apple isn’t going to tip it’s hand in it’s overall plan regarding FCPX, professional systems and industry standard power and speed. But what if they really are being really smart and innovative (who, Apple?) and around the corner, say 12-18 months everything came together regarding their next 10 years of pro production tools – hardware and software.

What if takes two years or so (as part of their plan) but between AV Foundation, GCD, TB, the new 64 bit FCPX, Motion (and I’m assuming another pro app shoe to drop in this period), and the new processors that they’ve been waiting on…what if they’ve envisioned a coming together of many things that add up to more than the heaviest iron systems running anything else.

I could easily see us moving to MBPs and iMacs and additional 30 screens whose feature sets provided a uniquely Apple

Now don’t anyone get all “fanboy”, I’ve been an admirer and critic of the Cupertino gang. But I’ve built a really fun and productive company around their innovations for over 20 years and I’m thinking I give them the benefit of the doubt right now.

I think a year from now the evolution of FCPX, Motion, Logic (and maybe a 3D surprise) combined with their new vision of the systems that will run them mobile and in studio, will prove to be the best creative ecosystem in the biz again.

I continue to work daily with both X and Motion and with the refinements and feature improvements I fully expect over the next year, I’m glad we stayed with them.

[Jeremy Garchow]

Great find!

Now if I could shove 16 CUDAs in a Sandy Bridge OSX handheld to project my real time holographic 2Pac assistant editor, I’d be living the portable dream.

[Tony West]

[Michael Hadley] ” I want to see/read about real world results with FCPX and the new MBPr”

One of my co-workers brought his MBPr into work the other day.

He had just got it so at the time had not had a chance to really work with it, but I watched him bring across a 5GB HD file with TB in a “flash” : )

It was very fast. He cuts with X so I will get back when he has a chance to cut some stuff.

The thing for me is, I love the flash HD

The main worry for me is a HD crash and with less moving parts it’s less likely to crash.

I’m surprised I have not seen more people talking about that flash HD.

Also many keep saying that Apple is walking away from pros.

Who in the heck needs a computer screen like this that is not working with super high end content?

I don’t get it.

This computer looks like a monster to me.

If you are the media manager on a RED EPIC 4K shoot, what is the downside to using this computer in the field?

[Davee Schulte]

Just so I’m clear…FCPX will run faster on a Thunderbolt EQUIPPED mac, meaning you don’t necessarily have to be running thunderbolt drives to see the improved performance?

Thanks for clearing this up. Still get the spinning beachball so this could help alot.

[Andrew Richards]

[Davee Schulte] “Just so I’m clear…FCPX will run faster on a Thunderbolt EQUIPPED mac, meaning you don’t necessarily have to be running thunderbolt drives to see the improved performance?”

Correct! Thunderbolt Macs are all using either Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge Intel CPUs with AVX. There is no need to be engaging the Thunderbolt bus to get the advantages of AVX processing. It is simply a facility of those microarchitectures that is not present in older microarchitectures like the one still in use in the Mac Pro (Westmere).

[Davee Schulte] “Still get the spinning beachball so this could help alot.”

Fast storage is also important, and you will beachball whenever the system is waiting on storage (among other things). AVX is for stuff like image processing in real time, so it won’t make up for slower storage, but it will perk up other aspects as many have noticed. I don’t know what specific aspect of FCPX it directly affects, but it seems to be the difference in why Thunderbolt-equipped Macs seem to run FCPX “better”.

Best,
Andy

[Davee Schulte]

Thanks! Tried reading the wiki on AVX and could understand about 1% of it. This is much clearer.

I’m waiting for the next FCPX update to see if I’m sticking with it and upgrading hardware or not. This certainly helps the decision!

[Andrew Richards]

I added an edit to my reply regarding beachballs while you were posting.

Best,
Andy

[Davee Schulte]

Got it. Thanks. Still running firewire 800, but thunderbolt drives certainly make sense for my next upgrade. Now I just have to go make more money to send to Apple 🙁