Does FCX render faster than FCP7?

Hi Folks,
So I'm using FCP7 and I despite how long it takes to render files.
I have a quad 2.66 MP and I know it's not the fastest MP, but it would be nice to use all cores during a render (and for exporting files to self-contained QT files)!!! Of course, for the latter, I just read that I could use Compressor for that and it would use all cores?
So does FCX use all cores to render? I know it does alot in background processing, but can I force it to use all cores if I wanted to step away and have my timeline ready to go?  Currently, once I'm done editing, I sometimes need to render a 2 hour SD movie for various reasons and seeing the processes work at 25% or so is frustrating.  Adding to the fact that it takes hours to do and I could almost start to cry.
Cheers,
Keebler

FYI - In a different thread someone reported poor performance with the GT120. You will probably need to upgrade to the 5770 to get good performance from FCPX. If you have a 2008 or later Mac Pro, you also have the 5870 as an option (but not for the 2006 Mac Pro).

Similar Messages

  • Why does audio run faster than video after burning my iMovie project in iDVD?

    I created a project in iMovie HD and shared it to iDVD 6. When I played the finished disc, I noticed that the audio ran much faster than the video. I rechecked my movie and audio clips in iMovie to make sure they were matched correctly, and I saw no problem there. I burned the disc again through iDVD and got the same problem when I played it in a DVD player.
    I have never had this problem before and I've been working on dvd projects all week. I think the only difference with this movie project is that I had movie clip audio and background audio playing at the same time at some parts of the movie, but I don't know if that's the issue.
    Any suggestions?

    Hi
    And just to add to OT-s brilliant suggestions - really - Do a Save as a DiskImage ! IMPORTANT !
    • When free space goes down on the Start-Up hard disk to 5Gb or less - strange things occurs - Yes even audio out of sync - to not working DVD at all.
    I secure a minimum of 25Gb free space when using SD-video to iDVD - if HD material I would guess 4-5 times more as it has to be re-calculated into SD and this needs space.
    DVD - is as standard SD-Video (as old time CRT-TVs) - even if You use DVD-Studio Pro or iDVD or Roxio Toast™ - That's what it is and using HD material doesn't improve a bit (may be even give a lesser result)
    Yours Bengt W

  • Does having multiple GPUs installed let motion render faster than just one?

    if you have 2(or more) GPU's installed and hooked up to monitors, does motion split the work, i.e. render twice as fast? or does it just pick one and use it?
    I have 2 cards, but only one monitor, and motion renders using whichever card has a monitor attached. so i wonder if i picked up another monitor and run it from the other card would that speed up my rendering process?
    thanks

    Heya,
    Motion renders (IIRC) on your system's primary GPU, which is the monitor that has the titlebar menus (File, Edit, etc). Adding additional GPUs does not speed things up.

  • Why does Premiere render the same sequence sometimes fast and sometimes really slow?

    I use Premiere Pro CC 2014.
    I have a Nvidia GTX 590
    Intel Core i7 X990 @ 3.47GHz
    24GB RAM
    Windows 7 (64)
    200GB free space on an SSD drive and 2 more drives with each 1TB free.
    I'm having trouble with performance when rendering sequences.
    The sequences themselves are pretty simple. They contain MOV files from my Canon EOS 5D Mark III and transparent PNG files as overlays for titles and additional graphics.
    I also use lumetri looks and have turned on Cuda rendering. As a codec for exporting I use H264 (fullhd, 25fps, 20mbits, 2pass, max render quality, max depth)
    Whether or not I export in Premiere or via AME doesn't matter, the problem stays the same.
    Now, when I start exporting, at one point, which is seemingly random (sometimes at 35%, sometimes at 60%, sometimes at 2% - I'm talking about the same sequence!) rendering becomes really really slow (~1 hour for a 3min video), and I don't understand why. I keeps slow until the whole sequence is finished. But before that, rendering was fast!
    But sometimes, I'm lucky, and - after restarting my computer and Premiere, the same sequences render in whole, in under 2 minutes!
    So obviously my computer is able to render fast. But it does not always do that. Sometimes - even after a fresh reboot, I'm out of luck and the same sequence renders in an hour - but only after a random point in the sequence.
    It's as if Premiere stumbles and can't get up again. The only thing that CAN help (though does not alway), is rebooting the system and hoping for the best.
    Where does this strange behaviour come from? I use ordinary footage, ordinary filters and an ordinary export codec. I have lots of RAM and lots of disk space
    I have not found a topic in this forum with a similar problem

    Similar problem here but on a Mac.   AME is always much slower than directly exporting from Premiere, but if I start to get slow renders a reboot always sorts the issue out.

  • Unable to bootup after Yosemite install. have to keep shutting down from rear button. it does come on after a few times but then hangs at user login again. If you get in it is great. Seems faster than Mavericks but there is some sort of issue, bouts

    unable to bootup after Yosemite install. have to keep shutting down from rear button. it does come on after a few times but then hangs at user login again. If you get in it is great. Seems faster than Mavericks but there is some sort of issue, bootup /login.

    Knock on wood, this seems to have been my problem as well.  I stumbled on this thread after dealing with this ridiculously-long boot times for the past several weeks.
    I just reinstalled McAfee Antivirus and my Macbook Air booted up in less than 1 minute.  No more hanging on the boot-up progress bar.  No more hanging after I click on my user's avatar on the log-in screen.  Bootup would often take 5+ minutes and sometimes never complete.
    This has been SUPREMELY frustrating.
    THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR POSTING YOUR RESPONSE!!!

  • Does anyone know if 256SSD is faster than 128SSD?

    I have a MacBook Pro Retina, 13-inch, Late 2012 SSD 128 GB .
    I want to know if 256GB SSD is really faster than 128SSD. My 128SSD rated at 307,4mb/s read and 446mb/s write.

    Ever Orlando wrote:
    Someone knows 256SSD disk speed tests?
    http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/ssd.html

  • Does JMF support RTP packets being sent "Faster than real time"?

    I have a situation where some stored audio is passed to a speech recogniser using RTP. This is all working well with JMF. However, since this operation is "offline" (i.e. no live person is actually speaking or hearing this audio stream) and the recognizer is capable of processing the audio very quickly, then the RTP stream could be sending the audio in "faster than real time". What settings in the following components would allow this?
    DataSource _dataSource = Manager.createDataSource(source);
    Processor _processor = Manager.createProcessor(_dataSource);
    TrackControl[] trackControls = _processor.getTrackControls();
    Codec codec[] = new Codec[3];
    codec[0] = new com.ibm.media.codec.audio.rc.RCModule();
    codec[1] = new com.ibm.media.codec.audio.ulaw.JavaEncoder();
    codec[2] = new com.sun.media.codec.audio.ulaw.Packetizer();
    ((com.sun.media.codec.audio.ulaw.Packetizer) codec[2]).setPacketSize(160);
    _processor.realize();
    DataSource dataOutput = _processor.getDataOutput();
    SendStream _sendStream = _rtpManager.createSendStream(dataOutput, 0);
    _sendStream.start();          
    _processor.start();I tried "setRate" on the processor but this had no effect. getRate showed that it was still 1.0
    Best Regards,
    Jamie

    I wrote my own RTP client in about an hour - (seemed simpler than navigating JMF options). It is very basic, but works as I want. The RTP server (the speech recognizer it able to consume the stream and gives exactly the same results).
    package com.sss.mrcp;
    import java.io.InputStream;
    import java.net.DatagramPacket;
    import java.net.DatagramSocket;
    import java.net.InetAddress;
    import java.util.Random;
    public class RTP extends Thread {
         InputStream is;
         String address;
         int port;
         int localPort;
         public RTP(InputStream is, int localPort, String address, int port) {
              this.is = is;
              this.address = address;
              this.port = port;
              this.localPort = localPort;
         public void run()  {
              try {
              DatagramSocket socket = new DatagramSocket(localPort);
              Random r = new Random();
              int sequenceNumber = r.nextInt();
              int syncId = r.nextInt();
              int timeStamp = 0;
              int len = 256;
              byte[] buf = new byte[len];
              int code = 0;
              int headerLength = 12;
              while ((code = is.read(buf, headerLength, len - headerLength)) > -1) {
                   int i = 0;
                   buf[i++] = (byte) 0x80; // version info
                   buf[i++] = (byte) 0x08;     // 8=alaw,0=ulaw
                   sequenceNumber++;
                   buf[i++] = (byte) (sequenceNumber / 0x100);
                   buf[i++] = (byte) (sequenceNumber % 0x100);
                   timeStamp += (len - 12);
                   int timeStampTop = (timeStamp / 0x10000);
                   buf[i++] = (byte) (timeStampTop / 0x100);
                   buf[i++] = (byte) (timeStampTop % 0x100);
                   int timeStampBottom = (timeStamp % 0x10000);
                   buf[i++] = (byte) (timeStampBottom / 0x100);
                   buf[i++] = (byte) (timeStampBottom % 0x100);
                   int syncIdTop = (syncId / 0x10000);
                   buf[i++] = (byte) (syncIdTop / 0x100);
                   buf[i++] = (byte) (syncIdTop % 0x100);
                   int syncIdBottom = (syncId % 0x10000);
                   buf[i++] = (byte) (syncIdBottom / 0x100);
                   buf[i++] = (byte) (syncIdBottom % 0x100);
                   DatagramPacket packet = new DatagramPacket(buf, code+headerLength, InetAddress.getByName(address), port);
                   socket.send(packet);
                   Thread.sleep(1); // this sets the speed of delivery "faster than real time"
              } catch (Exception e) {
                   throw new RuntimeException(e);
    }

  • If i export my project, it runs much faster than in the canvas. How can I fix that?

    If i export my project, it runs much faster than in the canvas. How can I fix that?
    I'm from germany, sorry for my english!

    When you export your project, it is "compiled" into video format. Any player will play it at its frame rate.
    Motion is a compositing application. It has to make many more times the calculations needed to animate everything and 90% of the time, it's just not possible for Motion to keep up with "real time".  It's to be expected. Learning to live with that fact will make life a lot easier for you, I promise.
    There are a few things you can do to help speed up Motion:
    Reduce temporary play ranges to no more than about 5 seconds at a time. You can move the Play Range In and Out markers from section to section. Motion does all of its real time rendering in RAM. The longer the play range, to more it has to work managing that memory.
    Remove Preview Icons from the Layers list ( View menu > Layers Columns > Preview will toggle the views)
    When you play your animation, turn off on screen guides: (command - / will toggle onscreen guides)
    In Motion 5, reducing the quality of playback from the Render menu does not make a lot of difference anymore, so you might as well keep the default settings of Dynamic, Full and Normal on. However, Motion Blur, Frame Blending, Field Rendering, as well as the lighting options will affect playback, sometimes by quite a lot. So if you have Lights, turning off Lighting, Shadows, and Reflections will get back a lot of real time playback speed (just remember to turn on all that you need before rendering, or these things will be left out of the export!)
    HTH

  • Mencoder H.264 20 times faster than Compressor 2

    I tested mencoder with compressor running with 5 G5s. the H.264 implementation of mencoder was four times faster than the 5 dual core quads clustered with compressor two and queermaster . my single computer alone with just a dual 2 ghz processor encoded a movie 20 times faster than compressor with Queerrmaster on this same machine.
    compressor costs more than mencoder(free in DVision). to get compressor you have to get an expensive Pro app.
    What's wrong with this picture?

    Well, I have heard this lament before with the G5s, and all I can say is that I guess Apple is slowly starting to drop support for the PowerPC generation (it was inevitable). I assume you've upgraded to 3.0.1?
    As for Motion 3 (and someone correct me here if I am wrong), I believe it's slower because of the full 3D integration. Whether or not you have a lot of 3D aspects, I think it still calculates for it, causing your response and render time to decrease.

  • New Mac Pro 8-core / D700 not much faster than an iMac... in PPro CC.

    So.... my very preliminary testing with our new Mac Pro using the plugin I use most (filmconvert -FC) anyway, shows that Premiere CC needs more optimization for the dual GPUs. In fact, I'd say the CPU utilization is not up to snuff either.
    I know FC only uses one GPU presently from the developer. That will change. In the meantime, using a couple of typical projects with that plugin as an example, I'm only seeing 25-45% speed up in renders over our maxed out iMac (late 2012, 27") exporting the same project. That's significant of course but not the 100%+ one would think we would be seeing at the least given the MacPro config of 8 cores and dual D700s. Premiere Pro CC seems in fact to never maximize CPU (never mind GPUs). I have yet, in my very limited testing, see it "pin the meters" like I did on the iMac.
    Of course that's just testing now two short (under 5 min) projects, and it depends on what one is doing. Some stuff is much, much faster like Red Giant's Denoiser II or Warp Stabilizer VFX. The improvement there can be 3-4x faster anecdotally.  I used to avoid them for speed reasons unless absolutely needed a lot of the time but now they are fast enough to rely on quickly. Other stuff unrelated top PPro CC like DxO PRIME noise removal on RAW stills is much faster too, as is Photoshop CC.  Some effects like blur, sharpening, resize there are nearly instant now even on giga pixel files in Photoshop CC.
    And of course FCPX is much faster on it but I hate the whole editing paradigm. The timeline is just horrid on it; simple things like replacing a word in someone's dialogue is a multi click, multistep process that is nearly instant in Premiere and most every other NLE. Just to try to see your whole timeline is a chore, to see what your edits and sound are in detail are problematic, trying to keep things in sync is a chore, and you can't even zoom your timeline window to full screen! If anybody has edited for any amount of time, I do not understand how they use FCP X. If they start with that program, for example if they are young, then that is a different beast.
    I'm sure Adobe will improve over time. They have to to stay competitive. In the meantime I'll take my 45%... but I wish I saw much more improvement given the cost and hardware differential. Unfortiunately, for now, the mainstream reviews I have seen regarding PPro performance on this machine were right.

    That statement about 4k/5k in Premiere CC with the nMP is false, insofar as performance goes.
    I just tested 5K Red raw files just dragged into Premiere Pro CC (latest version). I expected this to be slow, given my HD experience. However, on my 8 core/D700, I can play 1/2 just fine, full speed. And I even can also do that with a very streneous plugin/filter attached - FilmConvert (in OpenCL mode), also at 1/2 which is quite impressive. I can even add a bunch of other Premiere filters and SG looks and it still stays at full speed at 1/2.
    Ironically, this is quite faster than FCPX which can't seem to play back 5K at all with that filter attached (it doesn't stutter, but it's not smooth... low resolution at "best performace" and reduced frame rate). Even if I remove all filters FCPX plays back Red 4k (again not transcoded) about the same as CC at 1/2, but with a seemingly lower resolution to keep it smooth.  It's a head scratcher. It's like Adobe's Red handling is much better coded than Apple's in this case.
    Or... it has to be attrituable to that particular plugin (other FCPX motion-based plugins don't suffer the same fate and are fast). But either way, filter or no, Premiere Pro CC is definitely and sharper looking at 1/2 when cutting Red 4k/5k with no transcode, playback in real time, than FCPX which needs to bump it down to what looks like a 1/4 or less rez to keep it smooth. So I have no idea what is going on.
    This experience is the opposite with HD, where FCPX is significantly faster (using the same filters/plugin, using C300 Canon XF for HD and 4 and 5K RedRaw alternatively).  Premiere seems slower in HD than FCPX by a good amount in HD and signficantly faster with Redraw 4k. Go figure.

  • Is FIREFOX 3.6.13 is faster than 3.6.8?

    Is FIREFOX 3.6.13 is faster than 3.6.8?

    I have no real idea, but I suspect
    * the changes will be more to do with security fixes etc (you could study the release notes) if anything 3.6.13 could conceivably be marginally slower than 3.6.8
    * it may be more appropriate to compare much earlier versions or the new beta firefox4; but when doing so remember also the changing capabilities, and requirements of modern browsers.

  • How can I get rid of this Lollipop update?  My phone drains faster than it can take a charge!

    I've just spent 4 hours on the line w/ Verizon support agents who were all very nice, but nobody could solve my problem.  Without anything else happening on my phone, I hit an icon to launch an app, and it takes like 2 minutes for anything to happen.  The battery drains faster than it can get charged in SAFE MODE!
    Is there a way to go back to the old OS without rooting?

    Thanks.  I have been using the built-in battery monitor as well as the application manager.  It helps seeing the processes that are chewing away at your phone's RAM and battery, but at this point, it's not even helpful anymore.
    I don't think 'Samsung.Settings' is something I can disable on my phone and that is what's hogging up 80% of my phone's resources.  (Fresh boot and all)
    What really irks me is that I've never signed up to be a BETA tester for Samsung which is basically what we all are doing... Factory reset, remove all apps, add each app back individually, find what app(s) are causing the problems, etc.
    No - this should have been vetted out long before they decided to push out an OS update that has no backward motion of loading the previous OS...
    <Rant off>

  • Is the iPad 3 faster than the iPad 2?

    Hi,
        Is the iPad 3 faster than the iPad 2? Also, how much better resolution is the iPad 3 from the iPad 2? I was just wondering because I heard that the new iPad isn't worth it's price.

    The New iPad is not remarkably faster, but does have a faster chip, which is required to handle the amazing Retina display.  The new display on New iPad is without question significatly better than iPad 2 and offers nearly 4 times the resolution of iPad 2.  Whether it's important to you, only you can know.  To see the difference, go to an Apple store where they still sell iPad 2 and New iPad.  For me, the difference was night and day, which is why I sold my iPad 2 and upgraded to New iPad.

  • The error console, I clear it and 4 minutes later it has 100's of yellow, pink & blue message lines in it, without me making 100's of clicks or commands ?? .... Other than the error console filling up faster than a superman, it seems to be working fine.

    The error console, I clear it and 4 minutes later it has 100's of yellow, pink & blue message lines in it, without me making 100's of clicks or commands ?? .... Other than error console filling up faster than a superman, it seems to be working fine. why does it register so many yellow, pink & blue warnings, errors, etc. ???
    This happens no matter where I am browsing, yahoo, google, mail or news. Clearing the console seems to help with the speed of FF after an hour or so of browsing, it slows down terribly and if not cleared and or shut down and relaunching FF, both actually, it is painfully slow, like dial-up.

    Hi Mac Attack,
    My computer will not disconnect from the internet.  It seems to find a clone router and continues even when I shut down and unplug my my own home iy
    Your main question was 'chopped' in the title. Please reply in the body of a reply box with the full question and anything you have tried. And no, the long report was not helpful .
    If the same website is opening each time you launch a browser (Safari?) hold down the shift key as you launch to prevent previous pages from opening.
    Have a look at your settings in Safari > Preferences. Especially General and Privacy.
    Reset Safari to remove cookies and other stored data.
    System Preferences > General
    Have a look at your settings in System Preferences >  Security & Privacy.
    Call back with more questions.
    Regards,
    Ian

  • How do you measure if a battery is failing faster than normal?

    How can you tell if your battery is failing faster than normal or acceptable?
    I bought 2 batteries with my G4 Powerbook 2 years ago. One now gives me an hour of battery life, and one 1.5 hours. This seems very low considering it's only 1 year of use per battery. Apple Care only asks about how long the battery has been owned... never how much it has been used, number of cycles, amps, etc.
    Battery Information:
    BATTERY #1
    Full Charge Capacity (mAh): 2703
    Remaining Capacity (mAh): 2170
    Amperage (mA): 637
    Voltage (mV): 12522
    Cycle Count: 190
    BATTERY #2:
    Full Charge Capacity (mAh): 3032
    Remaining Capacity (mAh): 3027
    Amperage (mA): 0
    Voltage (mV): 12417
    Cycle Count: 105
    Compare these numbers with my brother's PowerBook G4, bought just a few months after mine:
    My main battery has 209 cycles and a capacity of 3686 mAh. My secondary has only 29 cycles and a capacity of 4400 mAh.
    why does he have 3686 mAh after 209 cycles, and my bettery has 2703 after 190 cycles? Is there some way to tell if this is "inappropriate" loss of power?
    Thanks
    -Erika
    PowerBook G4   Mac OS X (10.4.4)  

    I did do several things wrong (that I only found out about now):
    1. I left the computer plugged into AC
    2. I stored whichever battery was not in use full, rather than half full
    But I did callibrate regularly (if only by necessity).
    I still think 1.5 hours at 2 years is not very good if you are using two batteries (that's really only one year each).
    However, I called AppleCare, and I was told they will only consider a battery if it has been owned for under a year, and has less than one hour of life at best. That still seems extremely low to me (I'd be upset if I had 1 hour at 1 year on my only battery), but such is life. I think the moral of the story is that it would help to give instructions about battery care with the computer, and don't buy an extra battery unless you really need it.

Maybe you are looking for