iMac with eGPU without external display for fcpx and Davinci Resolve?

[Rasta4i]

Hello everyone i’m wondering if anyone’s tried this combo, there’s a script called set egpu that allows you to harness most of the egpu power without using an external display.

I’ve been looking at many options but they all involve me selling too many things and buying a lot more which is what I don’t want todo at the moment.

So i’m wondering if the Razer Core X and a vega 64 connected to my iMac can help me bridge the gap as that’s where the bottleneck that affects my projects current is.

More information can be found here

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/9to5...on-internal-display-mac-apps-macos-video/amp/

 

[zlogs]

Hello everyone i’m wondering if anyone’s tried this combo, there’s a script called set egpu that allows you to harness most of the egpu power without using an external display.

I’ve been looking at many options but they all involve me selling too many things and buying a lot more which is what I don’t want todo at the moment.

So i’m wondering if the Razer Core X and a vega 64 connected to my iMac can help me bridge the gap as that’s where the bottleneck that affects my projects current is.

More information can be found here

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/9to5...on-internal-display-mac-apps-macos-video/amp/

We need more information. What is your current setup for eGPU? Does your iMac have thunderbolt 2 or thunderbolt 3.

In response to the razer core and AMD 64, yes it would make it to where you wouldn’t have to use an external display. Also, having another display doesn’t really create a bottleneck unless you are rendering something actively on the display (gaming). Leaving it up as extra work space while you are editing videos and photos isn’t going to yield a noticeable difference in rendering times.

 

[Rasta4i]

We need more information. What is your current setup for eGPU? Does your iMac have thunderbolt 2 or thunderbolt 3.

In response to the razer core and AMD 64, yes it would make it to where you wouldn’t have to use an external display. Also, having another display doesn’t really create a bottleneck unless you are rendering something actively on the display (gaming). Leaving it up as extra work space while you are editing videos and photos isn’t going to yield a noticeable difference in rendering times.

Well I'm using a 2017 iMac with thunderbolt 3 and I'd like to boost rendering times not really too concerned with export times but its the rendering times that delay my workflow and timeline smoothness. So there shouldn't be an extra bottleneck as because im not using a second display because Im not using it for gaming or such?

 

[giffut]

This is a possible way to do it:

https://egpu.io/how-to-egpu-accelerated-internal-display-macos/

 

[joema2]

...there’s a script called set egpu that allows you to harness most of the egpu power without using an external display....Well I'm using a 2017 iMac with thunderbolt 3 and I'd like to boost rendering times not really too concerned with export times but its the rendering times that delay my workflow and timeline smoothness...

I don't think you need the script on Mojave. This was mentioned in the below video by Max Yuryev.

Re whether a Razer Core X / Vega 64 would benefit FCPX timeline rendering, except for effects this is usually CPU-limited not GPU-limited. "Rendering" is transcoding from the camera native codec to the ProRes 422 internal render format. If the camera uses a "long GOP" codec like H264, HEVC/H265, XAVC-S, etc, this cannot be meaningfully accelerated by a GPU, whether internal or external.

If you are using computationally-intensive effects, and IF those are (a) GPU enabled and (b) make heavy use of the GPU, THEN a high-end eGPU might help in FCPX. However many effects only make partial use of the GPU and accelerating the GPU portion of the algorithm only puts the bottleneck on the non-GPU portion. E.g, Digital Anarchy Flicker Free and Imagenomic Portraiture are extremely compute-intensive effects but a faster GPU only provides limited benefit.

Resolve might be different as the make more consistent use of the GPU, but nothing changes the fundamental issue that H264/HEVC decoding or encoding cannot be meaningfully accelerated by a traditional GPU.

If you want better timeline smoothness on FCPX your best option is use proxies or optimized media. Resolve also has proxy capability.

In general it's best to edit in phases. You normally do the creative and content editing first, and only later add most effects. Otherwise you burden the early timeline development with compute-intensive effects and it's sluggish when you're making rapid, exploratory changes. In particular it's best to defer to the later editing phase compute-intensive effects like stabilization, video noise reduction, de-flickering, skin processing, etc.

 

[giffut]

You need the scripts on any mac with thunderbolt 1/2 ports. Apple blocked them from utilizing native egpu support via software lock.

 

[Rasta4i]

I don't think you need the script on Mojave. This was mentioned in the below video by Max Yuryev.

Re whether a Razer Core X / Vega 64 would benefit FCPX timeline rendering, except for effects this is usually CPU-limited not GPU-limited. "Rendering" is transcoding from the camera native codec to the ProRes 422 internal render format. If the camera uses a "long GOP" codec like H264, HEVC/H265, XAVC-S, etc, this cannot be meaningfully accelerated by a GPU, whether internal or external.

If you are using computationally-intensive effects, and IF those are (a) GPU enabled and (b) make heavy use of the GPU, THEN a high-end eGPU might help in FCPX. However many effects only make partial use of the GPU and accelerating the GPU portion of the algorithm only puts the bottleneck on the non-GPU portion. E.g, Digital Anarchy Flicker Free and Imagenomic Portraiture are extremely compute-intensive effects but a faster GPU only provides limited benefit.

Resolve might be different as the make more consistent use of the GPU, but nothing changes the fundamental issue that H264/HEVC decoding or encoding cannot be meaningfully accelerated by a traditional GPU.

If you want better timeline smoothness on FCPX your best option is use proxies or optimized media. Resolve also has proxy capability.

In general it's best to edit in phases. You normally do the creative and content editing first, and only later add most effects. Otherwise you burden the early timeline development with compute-intensive effects and it's sluggish when you're making rapid, exploratory changes. In particular it's best to defer to the later editing phase compute-intensive effects like stabilization, video noise reduction, de-flickering, skin processing, etc.

thanks for the info, that video is a bit outdated apparently fcpx incorporates the eGPU more now, also transcoding is going from camera native codec to prores, rendering is when I do any kind of effects or transitions and it actually comes up as rendering. Anything rendering is usually GPU based if almost completely and I've monitored the cpu and gpu while this is going on.

Thanks for the advice on different phases it makes a lot of sense.

 

[joema2]

thanks for the info, that video is a bit outdated apparently fcpx incorporates the eGPU more now, also transcoding is going from camera native codec to prores, rendering is when I do any kind of effects or transitions and it actually comes up as rendering. Anything rendering is usually GPU based if almost completely and I've monitored the cpu and gpu while this is going on...

That video was only October 3 and he tested Mojave. How is that outdated? Are you saying there has been a major change since Mojave was released in how FCPX uses a eGPU? He apparently tested FCPX 10.4.3 on Mojave. Since then FCPX 10.4.4 was released, but I'm not aware of a significant change in how FCPX uses a eGPU between 10.4.3 and 10.4.4.

Some effects might be accelerated by an eGPU beyond the Radeon Pro 580 in your 2017 iMac with Thunderbolt 3. That machine does not require running the eGPU script.

In FCPX, rendering means translating the list of edit directives to the ProRes 422 internal render format. For 4k H264 this is often CPU (not GPU) oriented which fortunately is accelerated by Quick Sync. However this assumes you follow the proper editing procedure of not applying compute-intensive effects until late in the edit phase. Things like stabilization, skin processing, de-flickering, video noise reduction, etc.

Rendering the timeline can only be improved by a faster GPU if the effects are GPU bound. This is not always the case. A good tool to evaluate this is Neat Video which allows adjusting the % of CPU vs GPU contribution.

 

[Rasta4i]

That video was only October 3 and he tested Mojave. How is that outdated? Are you saying there has been a major change since Mojave was released in how FCPX uses a eGPU? He apparently tested FCPX 10.4.3 on Mojave. Since then FCPX 10.4.4 was released, but I'm not aware of a significant change in how FCPX uses a eGPU between 10.4.3 and 10.4.4.

Some effects might be accelerated by an eGPU beyond the Radeon Pro 580 in your 2017 iMac with Thunderbolt 3. That machine does not require running the eGPU script.

In FCPX, rendering means translating the list of edit directives to the ProRes 422 internal render format. For 4k H264 this is often CPU (not GPU) oriented which fortunately is accelerated by Quick Sync. However this assumes you follow the proper editing procedure of not applying compute-intensive effects until late in the edit phase. Things like stabilization, skin processing, de-flickering, video noise reduction, etc.

Rendering the timeline can only be improved by a faster GPU if the effects are GPU bound. This is not always the case. A good tool to evaluate this is Neat Video which allows adjusting the % of CPU vs GPU contribution.

Since that video was released an update to Mac OS allows you to select Prefer external GPU on specific apps which basically forces the app to make more use of the egpu, whereas that wasn't possible at the time of this video from what I remember. I'm hoping someone does a review of a egpu under these new conditions before I end up buying one.

Also when I refer to rendering I'm talking about the background tasks tab in fcpx that is called rendering and only activates when I do something todo with effects or something graphical. FCPX refers to this as rendering within the program so thats what I understand rendering to be. Until thats done I usually can't see the effects on the timeline smoothly, but yes this is where I'm looking for extra performance even though I leave it mostly until the end of my projects it still takes a lot of time.

 

[joema2]

Since that video was released an update to Mac OS allows you to select Prefer external GPU on specific apps which basically forces the app to make more use of the egpu, whereas that wasn't possible at the time of this video from what I remember...

That option was available in the initial Mojave release which is what Max tested.

...Also when I refer to rendering I'm talking about the background tasks tab in fcpx that is called rendering and only activates when I do something todo with effects or something graphical...Until thats done I usually can't see the effects on the timeline smoothly, but yes this is where I'm looking for extra performance even though I leave it mostly until the end of my projects it still takes a lot of time.

In general you don't need background rendering enabled in FCPX and leaving it on has been historically associated with some bugs. Among experienced FCPX editors, there is a common recommendation to turn that off. If you have specific timeline ranges you need rendered to evaluate smoother playback, you can select only those and render with CTRL+R.

Even though you defer adding compute-intensive effects until late in the edit, you eventually need to render the timeline for smooth playback. IF those effects are truly GPU-bound, then a Razer Core X and a Vega 64 might help some. If you get this, make sure it's from a retailer with a good return policy. That way if you test it and the results aren't worthwhile you can return it.

I have a top-spec 2017 iMac 27 plus a 10-core Vega64 iMac Pro, and often edit the same projects on both. The Vega 64 in the iMP isn't as fast as the external one, but it's much faster than the Radeon Pro 580 in the iMac. In general I don't see a gigantic performance difference due to faster processing of GPU-bound effects.

Below are some test numbers I did on various machines using Neat Video. Note the iMac Pro tests compared using all CPU, all GPU and a mix. While useful, a faster GPU isn't a "magic wand" that makes all GPU effects 10x quicker.

Even without the uncertainty of a eGPU, a faster traditional GPU only made moderate improvements in this case. Every other effect must be evaluated individually.

Neat Video 4.5.5 NR on 31 sec clip XAVC-S 4k, after using Neat Video optimization to select best CPU/GPU combination. This utility is in Neat Video Tools>Preferences>Performance>Optimize. Note the cores used are virtual cores on a hyperthreaded CPU, e.g, a 4-core CPU will present 8 virtual cores, and the software can use whatever number it chooses.

2013 12-core Mac Pro (12 cores and 2x D700 GPUs): 6 min 58 sec
2015 i7 iMac 27 (5 cores and M395X GPU): 9 min 7 sec
2017 i7 iMac 27 (7 cores and R9 580 GPU): 8 min 3 sec

Neat Video 4.7.0 on 31 clip XAVC-S 4k (after using Neat Video opt. to select best CPU/GPU combo):

2017 10-core Vega64 iMac Pro (10 virtual cores and Vega64 GPU): 6 min 3 sec
2017 10-core Vega64 iMac Pro (Using only 10 virtual cores and no GPU): 6 min 51 sec
2017 10-core Vega64 iMac Pro (Using only 20 virtual cores and no GPU): 7 min 23 sec