[Momir Alvirović]

Hello Max,
If I do understand your test results – you found that in moderate Premiere Pro workflow there is just slight difference between 2014 and 2015 MacBook Pro, while in moderate to intensive FCP X workflow there is significant gain in performance of 2015 over 2014 MacBook Pro. What makes me super-puzzled, and leaves me in strong disbelieve is side result of your tests which- if I got it right, same GH4 source files rendered in a same fashion to same output format resulted in similar output files sizes while FCP X regularly finished job approx. 10 times faster then Premiere Pro! If it was just for stabilization plugin I would ask for IQ comparison, but you got same relative difference even in simple recompress tasks! I can believe that there is always some difference in software optimizations and that one could be measurably faster then the other, but 10 times faster on same hardware and same OS just looks too extreme not to be praised on each and every corner of the Internet…
Pease, can you confirm my understanding of you findings..
Are you completely sure that you used same rendering methods and formats in both FCP X and Premiere Pro?

PS – if I understand your testing methodology – your H.264 settings are aimed at low bitrate internet delivery format, while there is no test of broadcast delivery formats or intermediate formats… Did you learn that PremierePro and AME can encode single pass and to/from ProRes 422 as well? In my everyday workflow I find ProRes quite useful in PremierePro where it is twice faster then Cineform codec, and faster then Avid DNxHR (I run i7 5960x rig).

[Momir Alvirović]

Hello Max,
If I do understand your test results – you found that in moderate Premiere Pro workflow there is just slight difference between 2014 and 2015 MacBook Pro, while in moderate to intensive FCP X workflow there is significant gain in performance of 2015 over 2014 MacBook Pro. What makes me super-puzzled, and leaves me in strong disbelieve is side result of your tests which- if I got it right, same GH4 source files rendered in a same fashion to same output format resulted in similar output files sizes while FCP X regularly finished job approx. 10 times faster then Premiere Pro! If it was just for stabilization plugin I would ask for IQ comparison, but you got same relative difference even in simple recompress tasks! I can believe that there is always some difference in software optimizations and that one could be measurably faster then the other, but 10 times faster on same hardware and same OS just looks too extreme not to be praised on each and every corner of the Internet…
Pease, can you confirm my understanding of you findings..
Are you completely sure that you used same codecs and rendering methods and wrapper formats in both FCP X and Premiere Pro?