General Discussions
Testing Project for RX5700 XT / RX5700 / VEGA 64 with FCP X and macOS
 

Testing Project for RX5700 XT / RX5700 / VEGA 64 with FCP X and macOS  

  RSS

iPhone4TW
(@iphone4tw)
New Member
Joined: 4 weeks ago
 

Hi , Guys

I am eGPU user from macOS 10.13.9, thanks to PurgeWrangler.sh

One of my setup is iMac27 5K late 2014 with AMD Radeon RX VEGA 64 via AKiTiO Node Pro.

The other one is ASRock Z390 with AMD Radeon RX570 via AKiTiO Node .

since macOS 10.15.1, apple support latest AMD Radeon new video card.

AMD RADEON RX5700 XT

AMD RADEON RX5700

First of all, I just want to know what's difference between VEGA 64 and RX 5700 XT

RX 5700 XT looks great !

But is it more powerful than VEGA 64 ?

iMac27 5K late 2014

You guys is more professional than I do , so I skip the video card comparisom.

As you can see my iMac27 with Built-in AMD Radeon R9 M295X

How I test

Here I can explain that how I test this project .

Most of my job is using iMac27 to video editing with Final Cut Pro X.

But, at this moment , we got two variables :

First one is RX 5700 XT need macOS 10.15.1 or later.

Therefore, macOS 10.15.1 Catalina will be the first variable.

Second one is since FCP X version 10.4.7, it began to support Metal, and also you can decide with graphic card you want to render/share.

those two variables are making my test project more complex.

Last, I am using these GoPro Hero8 footage for rendering test.

To measure how much time it use for export the final video.

This project I use a lot of video to make PIP effect , but that's all.

This video duration is 38mins, and all footage was shot by 1080P60.

I won't forget to delete all cache and render files

Observation Point

Beside of macOS version and FCP X version.

You guys can also watch CPU usage.

And GPU usage.

2013 MacBook Pro 15 Retina

First test

Using My 2013 MacBook Pro 15 Retina for testing.

With Build-in nvidia GeForce GT6500, it takes 8:30:18 to finish the job.

But through eGPU VEGA64, it takes only two hours to finish the job.

It's great improvement, right ?

iMac27 5K + eGPU VEGA 64

Let's test this on my iMac27 5K.

First one is VEGA 64, macOS is10.14.6,FCP X is10.4.6

Here, you guys can see that GPU usage is almost 100%, it takes 2:06:09 to finish the job.

then macOS is10.14.6,FCP X using latest version 10.4.7

GPU usage is below 50%, but it still take 1:40:51 to finish the job.

Next

macOS is10.15.1,FCP X is10.4.6

GPU usage is finally over 50%, CPU still looks chill, it takes 1:55:37 to finish the job.

macOS is10.15.1,FCP X is10.4.7

GPU usage is down below 50% again, but still using 1:36:55 to finish the job.

wow, how did that happen ?

It seems using FCP X 10.4.7 will be better while we are running macOS 10.15.1 .

iMac27 5K + eGPU RX 5700

Because of this video card can only work with macOS 10.15.1 or later.

Therefore, the variable is the FCP X version.

FCP X is 10.4.6,GPU runs in full power, it take 1:52:08 to finish the job.

FCP X is 10.4.7,GPU still runs in full power, it takes 1:34:13 to finish the job.

It's 20mins difference between 10.4.6 and 10.4.7. Wow!

iMac27 5K + eGPU RX 5700

Because of this video card can only work with macOS 10.15.1 or later.

Therefore, the variable is the FCP X version.

FCP X is 10.4.6,GPU runs in full power, it take 1:52:19 to finish the job.

FCP X is 10.4.7,GPU still runs in full power, it takes 1:34:47 to finish the job.

It takes almost the same with RX 5700.

We can said that with macOS 10.15.1, the same FCP X version 10.4.7, all those eGPU take almost the same time to finish the job.

iMac27 5K + build-in R9 M295X

At this point, I seems save a lot of money to purchase a new graphic card.

So, let's celebrate with the result of build-in graphic card.

As we can see that has huge improvement between R9 M295X and VEGA 64.

But...

WTF!

macOS 10.14.6 with FCP X 10.4.6, it only take 1:04:19 to finish the job.

GPU running with full power, and CPU usage is over 150%

macOS 10.14.6 with FCP X 10.4.7,it takes much longer,but still takes1:20:3 to finish the job,easily to beat eGPU on the ground.

As you can see that GPU running with full power, and CPU usage is over 150%.

macOS 10.15.1 with FCP X 10.4.6,it is also amazing !

it takes only 1:09:33 to finish the job.

And with only 70% GPU usage, what was that happen ?

macOS 10.15.1 with FCP X 10.4.7, it takes 1:23:48.

Well, Build-in Graphic card need to work with FCP X 10.4.6 to get the best result.

What's going on there ?

As I can remember when I using eGPU for export FCP X video, it has at least 10%~15% faster than build-in graphic card.

What's wrong with my test ?

Is that I am using purge-wrangler.sh for the eGPU ?

2018 Mac mini i3 + Build-in

So, I got the 2018 Mac mini core i3 version from My friend, it's native Thunderbolt 3 official support for eGPU.

Becaue of new graphic card, so I only test macOS 10.15.1.

Build-in with FCP X 10.4.6,GPU usage is about 70%,CPU loading is much heavier, it takes 2:06:58 to finish the job.

2018 Mac mini i3 + VEGA 64

VEGA64 with FCP X 10.4.6,GPU is full power ,CPU is chill ,it takes 1:20:05 to finish the job.

VEGA64 with FCP X 10.4.7,GPU usage is below 50%,CPU is chill ,it takes 1:29:35 to finish the job.

2018 Mac mini i3 + RX 5700

RX5700 with FCP X 10.4.6,GPU usage is over 70%,CPU is chill,,it takes 1:23:16 to finish the job.

RX5700 with FCP X 10.4.7,GPU usage is below 50%,CPU is chill,,it takes 1:36:09 to finish the job.

2018 Mac mini i3 + RX 5700 XT

RX5700 XT with FCP X 10.4.6,GPU usage is over 70%,CPUcis chill,,it takes 1:23:40 to finish the job.

RX5700 XT with FCP X 10.4.7,GPU usage is below 50%,CPUis chill,,it takes 1:33:30 to finish the job.

The results

Here is all the result .

I am so confused.

iMac 27 with Build-in graphic card , with FCP X 10.4.6, it takes less than 1 hour and 10 mins to finish the job.

With new FCP X 10.4.7, it will need to take more time to finish, but it still around 1 hour to finish the job.

However,

Using eGPU for export, it take more than 1.5 hour to finish the job.

It's about 30mins difference.

The fastest one is using macOS 10.15.1 with FCP X 10.4.7, it take 1 hour and 34 mins to finish the job.

No matter VEGA 64, RX5700 or RX5700 XT, it takes almost the same time to finish the job.

And it's 30 mins more than using Build-in Graphic Card.

I am so confused.

For native support eGPU

Although 2018 Mac mini with core-i3, but it take the same time with my 2014 iMac27 via eGPU

And the best result was with FCP X 10.4.6.

I am so confused.

Question?

This result really make me so confused.

From the very beginning, dose eGPU not have any benefit for FCP X exporting video ?

Do those job was done with the CPU ? If so, when eGPU kicks in, it take the same time for the job. But how did that happen while using Build-in graphic card ?

it can takes 30 mins. less than others.

eGPU works great while edition

I am the big fan of eGPU, but this time I got a big defeat.

Seems eGPU has less benefit while we are exporting video by using FCP X.

But as you know it works great while video editing.

Especially in gaming , eGPU is much much powerful than build-in graphic card.

But I am using eGPU for video editing, gaming is not a job for me.

This SSD is my test drive for this project. Maybe you want to know how fast it is.

Pending: Add my system information and expected eGPU configuration to my signature to give context to my posts


Username liked
ReplyQuote
Topic Tags
mac_editor
(@mac_editor)
Famed Member Moderator
Joined: 3 years ago
 

@iphone4tw

Final Cut Pro has excellent optimization for internal GPUs. eGPU is very useful to improve timeline performance. Compared to MacBook Pro GPUs, eGPU provides significant timeline benefits. Over the last few releases of Final Cut Pro, export times over eGPU have declined. Final Cut Pro 10.3 was faster for export over eGPU vs internal GPU. What FCP needs to do is consider multi-GPU systems incorporating eGPUs - currently they support multi-GPU scenarios where all GPUs are internal (2019 Mac Pro).

This post was modified 4 weeks ago

purge-wranglerpurge-nvdaset-eGPU
2018 MacBook Pro 15" RP560X + RX 5700 XT (Mantiz Venus)


iPhone4TW and itsage liked
ReplyQuote
iPhone4TW
(@iphone4tw)
New Member
Joined: 4 weeks ago
 
Posted by: @mac_editor

@iphone4tw

Final Cut Pro has excellent optimization for internal GPUs. eGPU is very useful to improve timeline performance. 

Thank you for your reply .

What if, we build up a hackintosh with VEGA 64 as an "internal GPU" .

Does it work much better than we using it external, and unlock all limitation ?

This post was modified 4 weeks ago

Pending: Add my system information and expected eGPU configuration to my signature to give context to my posts


ReplyQuote
mac_editor
(@mac_editor)
Famed Member Moderator
Joined: 3 years ago
 

@iphone4tw

I would think so. Performance would be similar/better than iMac Pro if similarly configured - its a good test to do.

You can check out some other benchmarks here: https://barefeats.com

This post was modified 4 weeks ago

purge-wranglerpurge-nvdaset-eGPU
2018 MacBook Pro 15" RP560X + RX 5700 XT (Mantiz Venus)


iPhone4TW liked
ReplyQuote
wimpzilla
(@wimpzilla)
Honorable Member
Joined: 3 years ago
 

@iPhone4TW

Congrats for the testing method and rigour, nice benchs.
Unfortunately this issue have been spotted long time ago, dunno if even the Black Magic eGPU got/get fully utilized by FCP.

The best way to solve the issue is to get used to another software that is not bound by apple god will, fully utilizing eGPU enclosures rendering and compute power.

This post was modified 4 weeks ago

2012 13-inch Dell Latitude E6320 + R9 [email protected] (EXP GDC 8.4) + Win10
E=Mc²


iPhone4TW liked
ReplyQuote
mac_editor
(@mac_editor)
Famed Member Moderator
Joined: 3 years ago
 
Posted by: @wimpzilla

The best way to solve the issue is to get used to another software that is not bound by apple god will, fully utilizing eGPU enclosures rendering and compute power.

A somewhat ignorant suggestion unless this was sarcasm (if so ignore this post lol). Even without FCP “fully” utilizing eGPU, it is already far faster than Adobe in most areas. Plus FCP is one-time pay - I despise software-as-subscription models such as those employed by Adobe. DaVinci Resolve is a good alternative performance wise, but my personal preference is still FCP.

purge-wranglerpurge-nvdaset-eGPU
2018 MacBook Pro 15" RP560X + RX 5700 XT (Mantiz Venus)


ReplyQuote
galad
(@galad)
Active Member
Joined: 5 months ago
 

The bottleneck is probably somewhere else. The gpu can accelerate only some kind of work, if you aren't using complex video filters or effects there isn't too much it can do.

It could be a bandwidth issue, a encoder/decoder bottleneck (if it's using a hardware encoder/decoder), etc… kinda hard to know without some internal knowledge of how FCP X works.

Pending: Add my system information and expected eGPU configuration to my signature to give context to my posts


iPhone4TW liked
ReplyQuote
wimpzilla
(@wimpzilla)
Honorable Member
Joined: 3 years ago
 

@mac_editor

The ignorant suggestion is to be stubborn continuing using a software even if you got better elsewhere.

You will learn that in the industry, there is no time to argue about things if one can simply get better elsewhere.

If there is better elsewhere, and there is, simply change your habit and evolve for something more profitable for your workflow.

As far i know other non apple users get along with the software without eGPU accelerations issues.

So again my best advice is to change tools if these are not suited for your workflow, since apple seems to not address this long time question!!!

This post was modified 4 weeks ago

2012 13-inch Dell Latitude E6320 + R9 [email protected] (EXP GDC 8.4) + Win10
E=Mc²


iPhone4TW liked
ReplyQuote
mac_editor
(@mac_editor)
Famed Member Moderator
Joined: 3 years ago
 

@wimpzilla

Generally I enjoy talking to you as you usually bring amazing insight. I only called your suggestion ignorant because:

  • You are claiming video editing is better (performance-wise?) elsewhere. This is not necessarily the case.
    There are plenty of examples (check Youtube). One is that Final Cut Pro stabilization takes seconds, Premiere Pro - minutes. You can find other comparisons online.
  • Video editing experience also matters. Just saying that its better (what is?) elsewhere without considering this matters significantly. Are you making this recommendation based on your experience as a video editor? Not clear here.
Posted by: @wimpzilla

As far i know other non apple users get along with the software without eGPU accelerations issues.

And as far as I know, Windows updates recently disabled AMD eGPUs on a lot of systems (including non-Macs).

Doesn't matter when Final Cut Pro is still outperforming alternatives overall. End result is that the user can choose whatever GPU they need for what they need to do and get faster performance because even the internal GPU can outperform things elsewhere. As said above, eGPU will deliver much improved timeline performance, especially at higher resolutions.

Posted by: @wimpzilla

So again my best advice is to change tools if these are not suited for your workflow, since apple seems to not address this long time question!!!

They just improved Final Cut Pro. It will keep improving. Updates are free. Alternatives such as Sony Vegas Pro cost 200$ just to upgrade. As a student, I got Apple's entire editing suite (FCP, Motion, Logic, etc.) for $200 forever. In these benchmarks above, sure the export times increased over eGPU - hence the discussion to start with. But we are still talking higher performance than alternatives. Codecs, etc. matter too. See eGPU advantages here: https://barefeats.com

I would change my setup if there was something better for me. If I needed CUDA for example, I wouldn't be on Mac. I definitely keep up to speed with what companies are doing on other platforms. I love the PC community as well - I am thinking of building one for gaming too. I make a conscious decision to stick to FCP (because its better). I game on Windows - because its better. I don't know what you have against Apple, but that's fine. To each their own.

This one is an interesting case:

This post was modified 4 weeks ago

purge-wranglerpurge-nvdaset-eGPU
2018 MacBook Pro 15" RP560X + RX 5700 XT (Mantiz Venus)


ReplyQuote
wimpzilla
(@wimpzilla)
Honorable Member
Joined: 3 years ago
 

@mac_editor

You are right i'm absolutely no expert in video editing, i can't give an advised opinion about which software is better and for what.
My point was solely based on the eGPU acceleration and the well known eGPU performances throttling when needed for the usual obvious purposes. 
FCP eGPU strange behavior was, if i remember correctly, already spotted some time ago and looking at these bench's, it seems it is not as stable as one would wish eGPU wise.

Also as far as i know, on window platform, software editors are less kind to throttle eGPU performances and often provide more stable native eGPU acceleration as flexibility feature.
Dunno if this kind of software industry trend changed, but i'm pretty sure that eGPU enclosures and gpu's manufacturers are pretty happy to sell unit to a growing number of TB3 users.
At last, if windows broke overall eGPU support as it did, not sure that software editors are to blame anyway, to be honest i have no clue why M$crosoft broke eGPU support like that.

My point, and looking at your answer i spotted it right, was about evolving if you know you can have something better elsewhere.
I really believe you when saying that FCP was improved and it is great, but again looking at the OP bench's, one can clearly notice a rendering performance roller coaster.
Sure thing if the GUI and user friendliness are your main focus and FCP propose the best why not, but if rendering time is you wait to go not sure FCP exceed in this field.

Also i know as student one is often funds limited, but the best way to evolve is, like you said, getting the best tool the field propose to improve directly your job skills.
That's why i will still advice you to go check elsewhere to be sure that the tool you use are the best of the current field and evolve is needed.
If FCP is the best for you now, as you said it's fine, but for sure the eGPU rendering performances are maybe not you main focus point as it can be for someone else.

This post was modified 4 weeks ago

2012 13-inch Dell Latitude E6320 + R9 [email protected] (EXP GDC 8.4) + Win10
E=Mc²


ReplyQuote
mac_editor
(@mac_editor)
Famed Member Moderator
Joined: 3 years ago
 
Posted by: @wimpzilla

My point, and looking at your answer i spotted it right, was about evolving if you know you can have something better elsewhere.
I really believe you when saying that FCP was improved and it is great, but again looking at the OP bench's, one can clearly notice a rendering performance roller coaster.
Sure thing if the GUI and user friendliness are your main focus and FCP propose the best why not, but if rendering time is you wait to go not sure FCP exceed in this field.

You are not sure about FCP performance so I suggest taking a look at some comparisons. There are many interesting results, some of which I mentioned previously. Check out barefeats for eGPU-specific benchmarks (you’ll see eGPU making a big difference and sometimes being worse - interesting results). eGPU load is not that simple.

Not sure what you looked at in my answer which clearly says:

Posted by: @mac_editor

I definitely keep up to speed with what companies are doing on other platforms. I love the PC community as well - I am thinking of building one for gaming too. I make a conscious decision to stick to FCP (because its better).

The following is only guesswork, is simply not true with respect to eGPU, and also does not explain why FCP would perform better:

Posted by: @wimpzilla

Also as far as i know, on window platform, software editors are less kind to throttle eGPU performances and often provide more stable native eGPU acceleration as flexibility feature.

eGPU compute is a complicated topic because we have no idea how (in this case) Thunderbolt works. A lot of pros on this forum focus on macOS issues/are macOS users, so you are bound to hear about macOS more - which does not imply Windows side does not have issues. I just look at all this at face value.

Posted by: @wimpzilla

You are right i'm absolutely no expert in video editing, i can't give an advised opinion about which software is better and for what.

Yet you make the following suggestion:

Posted by: @wimpzilla

That's why i will still advice you to go check elsewhere to be sure that the tool you use are the best of the current field and evolve is needed.
If FCP is the best for you now, as you said it's fine, but for sure the eGPU rendering performances are maybe not you main focus point as it can be for someone else.

I know the advantages/disadvantages of the tools I use extremely well (I am as curious as a cat haha). I was just sharing my insight on the matter of overall performance of FCP vs. elsewhere. This thread does not have any Premiere Pro or any other editor’s benchmarks, yet by looking at Final Cut Pro performance variance you have drawn a conclusion that FCP is throttled (blatantly incorrect terminology) and that elsewhere there is better performance (which you are guessing).

Finally, this sums up our difference in opinion as well:

Posted by: @wimpzilla

At last, if windows broke overall eGPU support as it did, not sure that software editors are to blame anyway, to be honest i have no clue why M$crosoft broke eGPU support like that.

Ya the video editing software isn’t to blame, but it’s inherently unusable over eGPU if the platform (which is as important as the software itself) fails to support it. Video editors using AMD eGPUs are adversely affected. Of course, on the forum we have workarounds (disable updates) and have learnt from @itsage that the XConnect team is aware of the issue - which is awesome. I can edit on macOS with a piece of mind - again, not saying that macOS is perfect - I’d be the first to highlight problems and issues - which there are as this benchmark shows, and you and I both agree that this variance is weird. That’s why I said this above:

Posted by: @mac_editor

Over the last few releases of Final Cut Pro, export times over eGPU have declined. Final Cut Pro 10.3 was faster for export over eGPU vs internal GPU. What FCP needs to do is consider multi-GPU systems incorporating eGPUs - currently they support multi-GPU scenarios where all GPUs are internal (2019 Mac Pro ).

Besides making a performance argument, I also wanted to convey the importance of the “entire package” when it comes to recommending something “better” - from a video editing standpoint. I hope you found our chat interesting, because I certainly (always) appreciate your contributions/guidance but hope that it can be more informed in the future.

One more example:

See 7:24 for chart where he adds Final Cut Pro to the chart. On the same hardware, Final Cut is more than 10 times faster vs. Premiere for 1min 4K HEVC.

And another example - this shows how other video editing software have improved as well plus cost-effectiveness of PC choice (changed now with 16-inch MBP):

This post was modified 4 weeks ago

purge-wranglerpurge-nvdaset-eGPU
2018 MacBook Pro 15" RP560X + RX 5700 XT (Mantiz Venus)


ReplyQuote
wimpzilla
(@wimpzilla)
Honorable Member
Joined: 3 years ago
 

@mac_editor

But in any shape or form you really take seriously the bench's posted by OP in your explanation.
Neither explain why the tool have such a rendering variance, tho being anyway better than the concurrence.
That why i felt your first answer was a bit off, rather than finding this bench behavior strange and interesting you just acknowledged it become better.

Also please do not call blatant thing that actually happen, i think you are taking this too personally, that why i said i spotted your answer right on!
Apple have not the best consumer practices, it is a fact, that reflect in each product that apple deliver, so please keep your "blatantly" for yourself!
I'm just trying to share some awareness about what OP numbers shown, but it seems you are clearly defending a product as it is yours.
This is the kind of awareness i would like to make you think about, from the beginning of this discussion, but i suppose i failed!

I have really no interest in mac stuff but still try to get you think about the product most of the forum users are working on.
So again, i believe you when saying that FCP is a good tool and was made better, but maybe rendering time performance is not your main focus as it is for some others!
So be kind enough to explain me if these rendering difference posted by the OP are normal and fit with what you said about FCP.
Because you pointed out multi-gpu support, but on apple side i don't remember having the possibility to get Crossfire/SLI working, so TB3 would be what we are speaking about.
Obviously taking aside the desktops MacPro line that got maybe full multi-gpu support for FCP??

 

This post was modified 4 weeks ago

2012 13-inch Dell Latitude E6320 + R9 [email protected] (EXP GDC 8.4) + Win10
E=Mc²


ReplyQuote
mac_editor
(@mac_editor)
Famed Member Moderator
Joined: 3 years ago
 
Posted by: @wimpzilla

But in any shape or form you really take seriously the bench's posted by OP in your explanation.
Neither explain why the tool have such a rendering variance, tho being anyway better than the concurrence.

Which is why I called the variance in performance “weird” in my post above, in agreement. You also used the term throttling for GPU which is not an accurate explanation of the issue. As mentioned in my explanation, performance over thunderbolt has a variety of factors (which you and I don’t know). You are making claims rather than guessing, and not considering more data points.

Posted by: @wimpzilla

I have really no interest in mac stuff but still try to get you think about the product most of the forum users are working on.

So why recommend there’s something better elsewhere with unfounded basis (I’ve explained what better implies already). If you think these benchmarks are sufficient evidence alone (while ignoring other benchmarks conveniently) then let’s stop here.

Posted by: @wimpzilla

Because you pointed out multi-gpu support, but on apple side i don't remember having the possibility to get Crossfire/SLI working, so TB3 would be what we are speaking about.
Obviously taking aside the desktops MacPro line that got maybe full multi-gpu support for FCP??

They introduced multi-GPU support for FCP for Mac Pro. You need neither Crossfire nor SLI for multi GPU compute. I responded with (and clearly):

Posted by: @mac_editor

What FCP needs to do is consider multi-GPU systems incorporating eGPUs - currently they support multi-GPU scenarios where all GPUs are internal (2019 Mac Pro ).

Meaning they should consider multi-eGPU scenarios, because it is not a thing yet.

Posted by: @wimpzilla

So again, i believe you when saying that FCP is a good tool and was made better, but maybe rendering time performance is not your main focus as it is for some others!

Why would I even be arguing in favor of FCP performance if I didn’t care about it? I’ve already explained FCP performance. I’ve already said the variance is weird. Again, see other benchmarks with how the new update has improved performance. I respond to you because I care about your feedback/suggestions and hope to address your points, but at the same time, I wish to ensure accuracy of information on this forum. This thread doesn’t boil down to: FCP eGPU performance is varied so Apple does not have best consumer practices - that’s just funny. If only everything was that simple to explain.

Posted by: @wimpzilla

Apple have not the best consumer practices, it is a fact, that reflect in each product that apple deliver, so please keep your "blatantly" for yourself!

I never claimed they did - I dislike Apple for their current repair situation, where consumables such as batteries in macs are expensive to replace (besides the other reasons I have for criticizing them). I just look at FCP performance (and other things) more objectively instead - you seem to not as this comment indicates so there is no merit in discussing further.

This post was modified 4 weeks ago

purge-wranglerpurge-nvdaset-eGPU
2018 MacBook Pro 15" RP560X + RX 5700 XT (Mantiz Venus)


ReplyQuote
wimpzilla
(@wimpzilla)
Honorable Member
Joined: 3 years ago
 

@mac_editor

I agree with you, if you repute that there is no merit to argue further, no problem i will not answer back since if you don't care, i care even less!

But we should have stopped to be critics and stopped to argue also when major eGPU industry milestones have been reach through this forum.
And as you obviously know, my lack of objectivity made my discussion useless all theses years being on this forum!
Like half baked bandwidth, half baked eGPU acceleration, half baked eGPU hardware, without citing how much other eGPU stuff evolved.
Because you know better than me that the industry is solely dedicated to its users, features missing are only a little miss nothing else, as i already heard  here somewhere!

Concluding, i will take out your own words and experience with FCPs, OP result are only a weird behavior that do not need any further check or investigation!
FCP have been updated and it is better now, even if the eGPU acceleration is not complete and used only for its timeline benefits!

 

This post was modified 4 weeks ago

2012 13-inch Dell Latitude E6320 + R9 [email protected] (EXP GDC 8.4) + Win10
E=Mc²


ReplyQuote