Apple FCP and Compressor vs. Adobe CC, Timeline-to-Transcode Workflows, Part 1: Methodology

Why Macs?

This is another common question, and a fair one, but here’s our most pressing requirement: The two most popular pieces of NLE software—Final Cut Pro X (FCP X) and Premiere Pro CC—both run on a laptop using Mac OS X 10.9, but the converse is not true on a Windows 8.1 laptop.

In addition, we found that one major objection before had been the use of the NVIDIA card, which--while a statistically appropriate choice given NVIDIA’s market share--readers accused of being better-weighted towards the Premiere Pro outcomes given the CUDA instruction set. At the time of the 2012 tests, the QuadroFX 4800 graphics card had both Open CL and CUDA support, but as one reader pointed out, “Quadro is actually not the best card for FCP X's A/VFoundation engine, but great for CS6's Mercury engine.”

In 2014, thanks to advances in the Intel integrated graphics engines, as well as the discrete GPU found in the 2013 MacBook Pro 15” model (ME294LL/A), this specific NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M GPU is custom-picked by Apple to work with its software.

In other words, both FCP X and PP CC will be able to take advantage of the benefits of the discrete GPU.

Were There Sponsors?

In this particular workflow, for these discrete tests, we talked to an Adobe product manager and reached out to an Apple product manager. We did so to get their take on best practices for encoding with their respective products. We have no objection to having tests sponsored as long as the sponsorship is noted, as has been the case with both previous tests referenced here. That being said, neither company sponsored the testing.

Replicability

As a wrap-up to this article on methodology, we’ll conclude by saying replicability is a key point in any test of this type. If readers can’t replicate the testing, there’s only our word to be taken for the results. Unless you’re a family member, we wouldn’t expect anyone to blindly take our word—and there’s no true benefit to running the tests, short of filling column space—if you just take our results and don’t test for yourselves. We’d love to get feedback on both the methodology and, if you’re willing to run all the tests under the same parameters, details on the results you found.