Premiere pro vs final cut pdf#
Premiere pro vs final cut mac#

Premiere pro vs final cut mac#

Playing around with 10 two hour long HD streams of Apple ProRes 422 in multicam mode in Adobe Premiere Pro on the fastest Mac currently available on the market (as of January 2019), with media stored on its blazing fast internal SSD storage, works pretty well in general. Media stored internally on the iMac Pro 4 TB SSDДЎ0 two hour long Apple ProRes 422 Standard 1920x1080 25i QuickTime MOV files, at 120 GB each.ДЇiles recorded/created by an EVS XS Production Server.

Radeon Pro Vega 64 with 16 GB of HBM2 memoryДЄdobe Premiere Pro 2019, Version 13.0.2 (Build 38) Apple Final Cut Pro XДў.3 GHz 18-core Intel Xeon W CPU, with Turbo Boost up to 4.3 GHz Multicam video playback performance test Adobe Premiere Pro vs. I have included the text from the test below. You can also see TCP stream analysis of single-stream video playback in the PDF.

Premiere pro vs final cut pdf#

See the full test with graphs and metrics in the PDF above. Adobe-vs-Apple-multicam-performance-test.pdf Final Cut Pro X is using less 50% of the total CPU capacity on this old iMac, which is very impressive. The fact that even an old 2015 iMac 5K with a 4-core 4GHz Intel i7 CPU and 16 GB memory is able to play the same 10 streams of media in вЂњHigh QualityвЂќ both from local storage and a NAS via 10 Gbit Ethernet and SMB3, while at the same time on the same machine doing a screen recording at full 5K resolution with Telestream ScreenFlow using 1 full CPU core of the 4 (8) available.

Final Cut Pro X: Give me as much data as needed to play the video in a predictable way.ДЄpple's approach with Final Cut Pro X appears to be quite beneficial.

Premiere Pro: Give me as much data as possible, as fast as possible, regardless of what I actually need to play the video, and let's hope for the best.

It is also interesting (and strange) to see how the playback is a lot less resource intensive when playing from the beginning of the timeline, compared to hitting play right after moving the timeline indicator forward.Д¬omparing Premiere Pro to Final Cut Pro X, the test results kind of indicate two very different approaches in terms of video playback: It seems like Adobe is asking for data faster than actually needed, which results in the video playback engine choking (dropping a lot of frames) unless you have insanely fast storage in addition to a lot of fast CPU cores and a lot of memory. To make sure storage wasn't a bottleneck, i tested using internal 4TB flash storage for the media files, as you can see below. The extremely aggressive/excessive pre-fetching is certainly not working in favour of Premiere Pro, especially when playing video via TCP/IP from a NAS. Take it for what it's worth.ДЄs I say in my final notes, the inefficiencies in resource usage/management in Premiere Pro appears to be a problem in general for video playback performance, which becomes very noticeable when adding additional streams of video. This is not a scientific test by any means, but I have tried my best to visualize the differences to maybe help explain why there is such a big performance difference. I thought this could be of interest for more people, and I really wonder what Adobe has to say about this. I have done some recent tests, comparing multicam video playback performance in Adobe Premiere Pro to Apple Final Cut Pro X.