+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: In FCP, how much faster is a 2.4 quad core MBP than a 2007 2.4 C2D MBP? (/showthread.php?tid=144501)
In FCP, how much faster is a 2.4 quad core MBP than a 2007 2.4 C2D MBP? - hal - 11-14-2012
I've got a friend that crunches HD video in FCP (the last version before the total rebuild) in 10.7 on his 2.4GHz 2007 MBP maxed out setup, but it is slow going.
Is considering a massive jump to a late 2011 2.4GHz MBP with 1GB ATI 6770.
I'm sure that this thing will do this work 4x faster at the very least... anyone with hands on experience have a better number??
Re: In FCP, how much faster is a 2.4 quad core MBP than a 2007 2.4 C2D MBP? - Lew Zealand - 11-14-2012
A single data point for you:
I moved from a 1.83 Core 2 Duo Mini to a 2.0 Quad Core i7 Mini and saw my Handbrake video encodes go 3.8 to 4x faster. Predictably, processor utilization went from about 195% to 795% (Hyperthreading faux cores included).
If FCP uses the processors similarly, you should see a similar improvement.
Re: In FCP, how much faster is a 2.4 quad core MBP than a 2007 2.4 C2D MBP? - mikebw - 11-14-2012
FCP itself was never very good at utilizing multiple cores. IF you could get Compressor to magically work then yes it would be much faster, but for just exporting straight out of FCP without considering any other tasks then no it would not be much faster than the C2D. Of course a faster disk, video card, bus and RAM all can have a net positive effect on his computing experience so an upgrade might not be worthless.
Re: In FCP, how much faster is a 2.4 quad core MBP than a 2007 2.4 C2D MBP? - Buzz - 11-15-2012
Send me a 240GB SSD for the Santa Rosa, and I'll do the comparison for you :-)
oh, and add a new version of FCP, as the 2011 was rolled back and runs SL, unless booted from an external drive. :-) :-)
The 2011 i7 quad has 16GB RAMM and a SSD, the Santa Rosa only has 4GB out of a[n] (expensive) max 6GB*, and a regular HDD, albeit 7200 RPM.
The newer MBP kicks butt, but the C2D is no slouch for its advancing age.
Since you can get 2.5 - 4 X RAM in the newer laptops, and 4X the VRAM w/ faster GPU as well, and the faster SATA bus, etc., just about any intense usage is gonna favor the newer one.
For casual fare, the SR still has legs, and I imagine adding a SSD would give it a pretty good boost.
==
*16GB of new stuff RAM is less than the 4GB stick needed to max out the old puppy.
///
Re: In FCP, how much faster is a 2.4 quad core MBP than a 2007 2.4 C2D MBP? - clay - 11-15-2012
what mikebw said. Faster CPU will only help marginally in FCP itself. Fast scratch disk (and SSD boot drive), enough RAM and a decent GPU (though that last one isn't crucial as FCP 6 and 7 didn't really utilize GPU as much as FCP X does) are they keys. I have had really good luck with setting up Qmaster in conjunction with Compressor to fully utilize all available processor cores when encoding video...makes a HUGE difference to have that setup...cuts encoding time in half on the same machine!
Your friend will appreciate that new machine for the encoding/compressing of video alone. FCP may seem a little snappier, but he'll cut hours off his encoding tasks, especially if he can utilize Qmaster.