Benchmark Tests: Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 vs. Apple Final Cut Pro X

Interesting read. I'll try FCP X again when it gets a few more adjustments. In the meantime, Premiere Pro CS6 is my go to and FCP 7 is by number 2
 
Well i'm a FCPX user and I must say i'm surprised at the results, I dont have CS6 to do a comparison or run some tests myself but i used to have CS5 and FCP 7 and yes the mercury engine did make a big difference, but I find FCPX a ferrari to FCP7... I'll keep an eye on this thread.
 
I didn't look back at the link, but if Premiere CS6 was running on a 2011 MacBook Pro, then it was also using OpenCL (as long as it was OSX Lion).
 
So this test was sponsored by Adobe, and some of the footage was provided by Nvidia? Hmmm...

As Ben mentioned the computer used was nicely optimized for Premiere with the mercury engine, but not so much for FCPX.

If there was a test sponsored by Apple with footage provided by ATI/AMD people would be up in arms about possible bias, so what would be the point....?
 
indentical performing machines with different graphics (at same clock speeds and ram maybe) could make this significant... the big render shootout? muhaha
 
simonpwood said:
So this test was sponsored by Adobe, and some of the footage was provided by Nvidia? Hmmm...

As Ben mentioned the computer used was nicely optimized for Premiere with the mercury engine, but not so much for FCPX.

If there was a test sponsored by Apple with footage provided by ATI/AMD people would be up in arms about possible bias, so what would be the point....?
Click to expand...

What's the point? Do you really think, footage that comes from ATI renders faster on a Mac?
And how can you "nicley optimize" a Mac at all? It´s not a PC, there ain't much you can do on a Mac.
So what does the Test say? Premiere with a Cuda card performs better than FCPX with the same card, using Open GL.
No surprise, it's common knowledge that Cuda is faster than GL.
The point was not, this vs. that, the point was: what to buy when you need top performance.
Would FCPX have performed better with an ATI card?
I doubt it - but I reserve the right to be wrong.

Frank
 
Postmaster said:
What's the point? Do you really think, footage that comes from ATI renders faster on a Mac?
And how can you "nicley optimize" a Mac at all? It´s not a PC, there ain't much you can do on a Mac.
So what does the Test say? Premiere with a Cuda card performs better than FCPX with the same card, using Open GL.
No surprise, it's common knowledge that Cuda is faster than GL.
The point was not, this vs. that, the point was: what to buy when you need top performance.
Would FCPX have performed better with an ATI card?
I doubt it - but I reserve the right to be wrong.

Frank
Click to expand...

No worries man.

However I also reserve the right to question a test when I see that the results promote 2 companies, both of whom have had a hand in the test (irrespective of how neglible the input was). Fair enough?

Hey, it could be that the world is full of happy coincidences.

For a guy who doesent like Macs you sure spend a lot of time talking about them! :)
 
I don't think it matters in the end anyway. Isn't it pretty much common knowledge that if you need the absolute cutting-edge in raw processing speed, that Macs are not the route you should take? If I, personally, had the resources to build the (at this moment in time of course) fastest workstation possible, it would have to be a Windows machine.

I also don't think that a difference of a minute or two in render times will turn someone off from FCPX. I think there are plenty of other factors that are more important when it comes time for an editor to choose an NLE of choice.
 
simonpwood said:
Fair enough?
For a guy who doesent like Macs you sure spend a lot of time talking about them! :)
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

For the record: It's not that I don't like Macs (I grow up on them and never touched Windows till 2001) - I just don't buy them anymore.
Give me a Mac with the same hardware specs as my Workstation, but for a better (or even same) price and I'm all in.

:beer: Frank
 
Last edited:
Gary Huff said:
I also don't think that a difference of a minute or two in render times will turn someone off from FCPX. I think there are plenty of other factors that are more important when it comes time for an editor to choose an NLE of choice.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but as an FCP X user myself, it's a bit deceiving to say it's about a time difference of one minute or so. It's about Premiere Pro being often 2 times or 3 times as fast (1 minute export versus 3 minute export... Not a 2 minute difference on a 60 minute program, for instance). Considering how CS6 seems like a pretty mature suite, and FCP X is still maturing (but interesting none the less), these kinds of tests are important for making decisions.

That being said, it seems this isn't a truly independent test in the sense that the system was optimized for Premiere Pro but not for FCP X.
I would like to see a comparison with FCP X and another graphics card, and see if that makes the difference (a lot) smaller or not.
 
FCPX utilizes OpenCL for its GPU acceleration purposes. When Adobe was first looking into hardware-acceleration for the Mercury Engine, they originally went solely CUDA because OpenCL hadn't been ratified yet. Given CUDA's three-year head start, I wouldn't be surprised if it's better optimized, and thus would explain some difference.
 
Postmaster said:
Fair enough.

For the record: It's not that I don't like Macs (I grow up on them and never touched Windows till 2001) - I just don't buy them anymore.
Give me a Mac with the same hardware specs as my Workstation, but for a better (or even same) price and I'm all in.

:beer: Frank
Click to expand...

I understand. I was the other way round; always preferred the low cost of PC's until a couple of years ago when I jumped on the mac bandwagon (to do with my perceived reliability issues with windows, and a number of laptops that died on me).

Horses for courses. Cheers.:beer:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top