For example, I exported a 4K version of the LaMetric Time hands-on that I posted yesterday.
The real interesting story unfolds when comparing real world exports. The difference between the two cards is there, but it’s not a big enough difference to make concrete assumptions about performance.
WILL A NVIDIA QUADRO K600 WORK IN A MAC PRO PRO
Over the past few weeks I’ve tested both cards extensively, and it’s become evident to me that if you’re primarily concerned with fast Final Cut Pro X exports, then the RX 480 (or a similar card) is the way to go.Īlthough the popular BruceX 5K test doesn’t always tell the whole story as far as overall performance, it is a highly used benchmark in the Final Cut Pro X community, so I wanted to include it.
WILL A NVIDIA QUADRO K600 WORK IN A MAC PRO WINDOWS
It’s also, as we’ve covered before, a much more competent gaming companion, and performs far better in Windows if you’re into dual booting.īut when it comes to exporting video in Final Cut Pro X, the difference can be huge. For instance, it yields more responsive performance and playback when scrubbing through a 4K timeline in Final Cut Pro X. In general I find that the 1080 Ti performs better in many tasks. For example, notice how close the two cards compare in the medium Neumann Mic scene. This test just underscores the fact that you can’t make general assumptions about OpenCL performance when comparing AMD and Nvidia cards. Subscribe to 9to5Mac on YouTube for more videosĪs you can see, the GTX 1080 Ti outperforms the RX 480 in all three LuxMark tests - as it should, given that it’s well north of double the price.
You’ll need to experiment to see what card might be best for your particular use case. Depending on the implementation, performance could be better or significantly worse. In other words, AMD cards shouldn’t be the automatic default choice for working with OpenCL tasks. LuxMark OpenCL benchmark scores prove otherwise. Unfortunately, there seems to be a general consensus that just because an Nvidia card doesn’t perform well with Final Cut Pro X that its OpenCL performance must be terrible across the board. Why might the RX 480 be the better choice for video editing on a Hackintosh? One reason is that Final Cut Pro relies heavily on OpenCL performance. The RX 480 pales in comparison to the 1080 Ti from a gaming performance perspective, but as you’ll see from our hands-on video, it’s worth considering if your main focus is on Final Cut Pro X. If your main focus is on using Final Cut Pro X, then in many circumstances you’d be better off adopting a much more cost-friendly AMD GPU, such as the Radeon RX 480. Sure, Nvidia GPUs with their CUDA cores are generally superior for editing in an Adobe workflow, but if you’re building a Hackintosh machine solely for video editing, chances are you’re interested in running Final Cut Pro X. If you’re interested in building a Hackintosh solely for video editing, however, then an Nvidia-powered GPU option might not be the best choice. Performance was a lot better, though, in a Windows environment, where Pascal GPUs can really thrive. Performance was good in a macOS environment even when using Nvidia’s beta web drivers. In our most recent Hackintosh build, we paired an Intel i7 6700k with Nvidia’s fastest gaming GPU, the 1080 Ti. If you’re looking to build a Hackintosh that can serve as a competent Windows gaming rig on the side, then a build powered by an Nvidia GPU is a good choice.
0 kommentar(er)
