Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Josh-H on August 15, 2008, 01:22:07 am

Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: Josh-H on August 15, 2008, 01:22:07 am
Just about to place the order for a new mac pro for my photo editing and thought I would just double check the proposed spec here as I have never ordered a mac pro before.

First off it will be running CS3 and LR2.

was thinking as follows:
3.0Ghz 8 Core
8 Gig Ram
2 x 1TB drives in RAID 1 for O/S and apps.
Secondary drive for Time machine
Third drive for CS3 scratch disc.
Standard video card that comes with the base unit. [any reason to upgrade this? - It will be paired with an NEC Wuxi 2690 SpectraView II monitor].

Will be mostly working with 1DSMK3 RAW and TIFF files and stitched 1DSMK3 files and probably next year some Phase 1 files if I can pick up a pre-loved P25+ or 45+ for the right price.

I think the above spec. should be adequete - any thoughts?

ta.
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 15, 2008, 03:57:08 am
Quote
Just about to place the order for a new mac pro for my photo editing and thought I would just double check the proposed spec here as I have never ordered a mac pro before.

First off it will be running CS3 and LR2.

was thinking as follows:
3.0Ghz 8 Core
8 Gig Ram
2 x 1TB drives in RAID 1 for O/S and apps.
Secondary drive for Time machine
Third drive for CS3 scratch disc.
Standard video card that comes with the base unit. [any reason to upgrade this? - It will be paired with an NEC Wuxi 2690 SpectraView II monitor].

Will be mostly working with 1DSMK3 RAW and TIFF files and stitched 1DSMK3 files and probably next year some Phase 1 files if I can pick up a pre-loved P25+ or 45+ for the right price.

I think the above spec. should be adequete - any thoughts?

ta.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just a few thoughts from a very longstanding Apple enthusiast:

1. You'll pay a hefty premium for the dual 3.0GHz rather than the "suggested" dual 2.8GHz (£500 at the UK store). I'd be surprised if it's really worth the money.

2. I'd suggest you don't buy RAM from Apple: it's horrifically expensive. Get the basic 2GB and top it up with memory from an independent supplier such as Kingston or Crucial. I added 8GB to my basic 2GB at less than half what Apple would have charged. In addition, there's no need to add the 8GB as 2x4GB cards, which are expensive: use 4x2GB cards. Same performance, half the price and you still have two slots left if you find you need yet more.

3. I'd use an external disk as my Time machine drive. I've no particularly good reason other than an emotional need to see a backup in a separate box, dependent on a separate power supply and able to be carried separately if I move. On the other hand, you will be backing everything up somewhere else anyway, won't you?

Jeremy
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: stewarthemley on August 15, 2008, 04:41:22 am
I'm in the same boat but I found this site     http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac_Pro (http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac_Pro)    and I think it might be a good idea to wait for the upgrade. At least  check it out.
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: Josh-H on August 15, 2008, 06:07:05 am
Quote
I'm in the same boat but I found this site     http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac_Pro (http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac_Pro)    and I think it might be a good idea to wait for the upgrade. At least  check it out.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215162\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks - I did see that.

It doesnt phase me too much - in the computer game if you wait for the new model you sort of end up waiting forever and always chasing your tail.

Im more interested in the time the mac pro will save me compared to the Vista machine I am currently using as my primary photo editing machine - time is money when editing photos. If I buy now I save time straight away.. if I wait I end up wasting time with Vista waiting for the new model mac pro. Doesnt make sense to me - but I do appreciate your suggestion and for taking the time to reply. - thanks.

As en edit to this - Intel only just announced the release of the new Xeon processor for Q4 this year - which in all likelyhood means you wont see it in a mac before 2009. Thats months away still. Can do a lot of editing in this time :-)
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: stewarthemley on August 15, 2008, 07:17:26 am
Quote
Thanks - I did see that.

It doesnt phase me too much - in the computer game if you wait for the new model you sort of end up waiting forever and always chasing your tail.

As en edit to this - Intel only just announced the release of the new Xeon processor for Q4 this year - which in all likelyhood means you wont see it in a mac before 2009. Thats months away still. Can do a lot of editing in this time :-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215178\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree. And no matter what you buy it's going to be "outdated" by the time you get it home and plug it in. I might hang on for the faster processor and multi core aspect, though I'm not sure how they will speed things up in the real world. Right now I'm editing big files, 223mb before adding layers, and though the Macbook Pro is coping, it has to run two screens and I need more speed. Good luck with your purchase.
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: Edhopkins on August 15, 2008, 09:39:49 am
Quote
Just about to place the order for a new mac pro for my photo editing and thought I would just double check the proposed spec here as I have never ordered a mac pro before.

First off it will be running CS3 and LR2.

was thinking as follows:
3.0Ghz 8 Core
8 Gig Ram
2 x 1TB drives in RAID 1 for O/S and apps.
Secondary drive for Time machine
Third drive for CS3 scratch disc.
Standard video card that comes with the base unit. [any reason to upgrade this? - It will be paired with an NEC Wuxi 2690 SpectraView II monitor].

Will be mostly working with 1DSMK3 RAW and TIFF files and stitched 1DSMK3 files and probably next year some Phase 1 files if I can pick up a pre-loved P25+ or 45+ for the right price.

I think the above spec. should be adequete - any thoughts?

ta.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=215138\")

I am getting to buy a Mac Pro as well. And it is because we now have a 1DSMK3 with its 21 mb files to deal with.  So I am making the same decisions you are.

I will be going with the 3.0Ghz 8 Core processor--though I intend to do more research on this before making the final decision.  (I tend to want to get the fastest processor I can afford. This is hard to upgrade later.  And this is the most important single factor in performance.)

I agree with the recommendation to buy memory after market. (At Other World, you can get 12 GB--in 2GB modules--for $479.)

I intend to also buy my internal drives after market. I will get the minimum configuration-- 1 320 gb--and then put in at least 3 more 1 tb aftermarket drives.  I will get sATA drives from Other World Computing.  Much cheaper.  I might throw away the 320 and make it a clean sweep and install 4 1 tb sATA drives.  (I will do Timemachine backups to internal drives until I run out of room and then move to an external drive.  I suspect that at some point in Time Machine will be upgraded to allow backups to multiple drives.)

I intend to go for an upgrade to the video card, getting the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB for a mere $150 more. (We have used slide show making programs which require more memory in the video cards for the rendering.)

I was not going to shell out the bucks for RAID. and SAS drives.  (You don't mention getting SAS drives with the RAID.  Aren't the faster drives the point of getting the RAID?)  

My general sense is that I want maximum performance for the processing of a single photo and that I need a fast processor and as much memory as Photoshop can use.  I assume--perhaps wrongly-that with 12 GB of memory, Photoshop will not be using the scratch disk when processing a photo--trying out filters, uprezing, other cpu intensive PS tasks--but will only be using memory.  Hence  don't go nuts in getting super fast disk access.  

I read the following on the Adobe web site:

If you have more than 4 GB (to 8 GB), the RAM above 4 GB is used by the operating system as a cache for the Photoshop scratch disk data. Data that previously was written directly to the hard disk by Photoshop is now cached in this high RAM before being written to the hard disk by the operating system. If you are working with files large enough to take advantage of these extra 2 GB of RAM, the RAM cache can increase performance of Photoshop.

One link for this is:  [a href=\"http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb401089]http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewConten...rnalId=kb401089[/url]


This is my two cents and I look forward to others showing me the errors of my thinking.

Ed

Baltimore
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: Ken Bennett on August 15, 2008, 12:25:03 pm
Not sure why you need two disks in RAID 1 for your boot drive if you have a Time Machine disk. If your boot disk fails, you can restore from the TM disk.

If you have separate data disks, not backed up by TM, then the RAID 1 config makes sense.

Other than that, I concur with the above suggestions to buy your RAM from Crucial or OWC or another vendor. The hard drives are so ridiculously easy to install that you can buy them separately as well. It's nice to have a very fast disk for the PS CS3 scratch.

Your machine is spec'd out quite nicely for the intended purpose. Have fun.
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: LA30 on August 15, 2008, 01:15:15 pm
To add a few links/thoughts...

Phase one......

The forum for them is down now...There is a thread on building a machine for C1Pro.  

Faster processor makes faster tiff files from Raw files, not ram or hard drives ( to a point)

Faster hard drives make faster thumbnails when shooting tethered.

The Phase tech wrote that ram isn't really an issue, like 2 gigs is fine.

Now that is for C1, not photoshop, photoshop likes ram.

Look into "Ram disks" and using more than 3 gigs of ram as there are still issues.  I have read somewhere that you can make a ram disk, mount it and use it as a scratch for PS, this isn't as automatic as it seems.

Oh, looking at running a lot of actions.  SET history to 1 state and cache to 4 and RESTART Photoshop and then run actions.  Makes a big difference.

For Fun run this speed tests on what you have now.

http://retouchartists.com/pages/speedtest.html (http://retouchartists.com/pages/speedtest.html)

Here is a very fast drive, be carful which version you get as there are issues with fitting it in a Mac Pro...READ the WHOLE ARTICLE.  They now sell the drive with a different heat sink, no heat sink and standard heat sink.  

http://www.barefeats.com/hard103.html (http://www.barefeats.com/hard103.html)

and read the update about sleds/fins/bare drives.

http://www.barefeats.com/quick.html (http://www.barefeats.com/quick.html)

Raiding 2 drives to act as one can be very fast but dangerous as if you loose one you loose everything, but as stated above with Time Machine you are covered.

If you need to restore from TM by the way, you need to put in a new HD THEN in stall the OS and then restore from TM.

Also take a look at "SuperDuper!" in google, if your machine dies you can just boot from the SuperDuper drive and keep working, you don't lose 4 hours rebuilding your system but it isn't as sexy as TM.

I have also heard that custom configuring the Pro with the upgraded graphics card for $150 is a good idea.

I hope this helps.
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: jerryrock on August 16, 2008, 11:08:29 am
I agree with Time Machine on an internal drive. My system is configured this way. I have had problems using external drives with Time Machine that I attribute to system bottlenecking. There is no faster connection than the internal drive which allows seamless performance.

I would not use Raid for the first two drives. You are loosing the total capacity of one of the drives and possibly a loss in performance if you use a software raid solution.  Time Machine does offer data security and if needed, additional backup on an external drive will give you added security.
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: Josh-H on August 17, 2008, 08:25:24 pm
Ok - which of the following would you reccomend?

Run 2 x 1TB drives in RAID 1 for redundancy
Or.
Run 2 x 1TB drives with the second drive for TM and save the money on the RAID controller
Or.
Run 2 x 1TB drives in RAID 0 for maximum speed with a third 1TB drive for TM

Bearing in mind.. I store my LR catalogue locally - but I store my actual photographs on an external RAID 5 server, which is locally referenced.
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: Rick_Allen on August 17, 2008, 08:44:34 pm
If speed is your main goal without sacrificing safety what about: 4x300gb Velociraptor drives configured as two sets of raid 0 that are also raid 1. this is for your OS and apps. then route the two sata ports that are spare on the board with an internal-external pci bracket and have a couple of 1Tb drives in an external enclosure for TM. My current system is basically this but i have the OS on the external drive and have captures going to the raid0+1 internal. I dont use TM with this system as I wipe the OS once a month.
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: BernardLanguillier on August 17, 2008, 11:20:38 pm
Quote
If speed is your main goal without sacrificing safety what about: 4x300gb Velociraptor drives configured as two sets of raid 0 that are also raid 1.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215719\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Is it possible to install the Velaciraptor in the drive bays of the Mac Pro?

My understanding was that the SATA connectors of that drive were not located at the standard location.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: francois on August 18, 2008, 02:10:56 am
Quote
Is it possible to install the Velaciraptor in the drive bays of the Mac Pro?

My understanding was that the SATA connectors of that drive were not located at the standard location.

Cheers,
Bernard
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=215727\")
According to MacBidouille (article [a href=\"http://www.macbidouille.com/news/2008-08-14/#16863]here[/url]), a special version with standard connectors should be available shortly.
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: Christopher on August 18, 2008, 05:29:12 am
I really don't want to start a mac vs pc debate here. I love to work on both. The only thing I wanted to add is that if you have a tight budget a PC will always be faster.

My current workstation is a PC
Intel Q6600 @ 3ghz
8GB memory
2*160 Raptor harddrives
2*500 normal harddrives
Vista 64
PS CS3

I have run the that time test and I got a time of 21 second.

Now the point is that for this system I would sepnd today around $1500.

I'm certain that some highend Mac pro for double the money is 2-3 seconds faster, but that's just to much money for a few seconds.

Now back to topic, as many said buy the memory not from apple and sorry but the 3.0ghz and 3.2 ghz are just overpriced.

Chris
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: ctz on August 18, 2008, 06:06:48 am
I have run the that time test and I got a time of 21 second.


well, congratulations! i've ran the test on macpro 4X2.66, scratch disk2Xraptors in raid0 and i've got 34sec...
and if you take a look at the other results http://www.retouchartists.com/pages/results.html (http://www.retouchartists.com/pages/results.html) well, it looks like you have the fastest machine on earth.
 
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: Christopher on August 18, 2008, 06:24:35 am
Quote
I have run the that time test and I got a time of 21 second.
well, congratulations! i've ran the test on macpro 4X2.66, scratch disk2Xraptors in raid0 and i've got 34sec...
and if you take a look at the other results http://www.retouchartists.com/pages/results.html (http://www.retouchartists.com/pages/results.html) well, it looks like you have the fastest machine on earth.
 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215753\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well I know my computer is fast, I build all my workstations myself and I know what I'm doing. Still 21 seconds is fast but not as fast as it goes. Get you CPu to 4ghz and you will be under 15seconds. get your 2.66 to 3.0 and you will get something like 21-26 seconds.

The problem of this test is that it nearly only tests cpu speed. We all have so much memory that we would need a larger file to do a test to see what changes with different hard drives etc.
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: BernardLanguillier on August 18, 2008, 06:39:21 am
Quote
According to MacBidouille (article here (http://www.macbidouille.com/news/2008-08-14/#16863)), a special version with standard connectors should be available shortly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215739\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's what I thought, so I wonder how Rick did with his Mac Pro.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: Christopher on August 18, 2008, 06:42:34 am
Quote
That's what I thought, so I wonder how Rick did with his Mac Pro.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215760\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes and what would be even more interesting is using a different image. Something like a 1 GB and a 4GB file. It would be interesting to see how much faster then a system with two raptors in raid 0 would be.
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: Josh-H on August 18, 2008, 06:43:39 am
Quote
I really don't want to start a mac vs pc debate here. I love to work on both. The only thing I wanted to add is that if you have a tight budget a PC will always be faster.

My current workstation is a PC
Intel Q6600 @ 3ghz
8GB memory
2*160 Raptor harddrives
2*500 normal harddrives
Vista 64
PS CS3

I have run the that time test and I got a time of 21 second.

Now the point is that for this system I would sepnd today around $1500.

I'm certain that some highend Mac pro for double the money is 2-3 seconds faster, but that's just to much money for a few seconds.

Now back to topic, as many said buy the memory not from apple and sorry but the 3.0ghz and 3.2 ghz are just overpriced.

Chris
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215748\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thanks - but I have no interest in a Windows based machine - thats what I am replacing.

In my experience VISTA SUX - and is a slug of an O/S compared to Leopard. I am de-VISTAering myself for good.

Yes - you can build a fast PC for less money - but I know which I would rather drive.
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: Christopher on August 18, 2008, 06:50:51 am
Quote
Thanks - but I have no interest in a Windows based machine - thats what I am replacing.

In my experience VISTA SUX - and is a slug of an O/S compared to Leopard. I am de-VISTAering myself for good.

Yes - you can build a fast PC for less money - but I know which I would rather drive.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215764\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Once again it always depends on the standpoint. A good configured Vista worksation works fine. Yes it is not as silky smooth as a mac, but again it depend on what you are used to. I grew up with PCs and haven't touched a mac until two years ago, so for me windows feels "better", for someone with a different background it will be the other way around.
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: Rick_Allen on August 21, 2008, 01:20:13 am
Sorry guys been away on a shoot for the last few days. this what I used to get the Velo's into my mac pro. http://www.maxupgrades.com/istore/index.cf...FTOKEN=18466287 (http://www.maxupgrades.com/istore/index.cfm?fuseaction=Product.display&product_id=180&CFID=968976&CFTOKEN=18466287)
They do run pretty hot so you may want to keep an eye on them.

@Chris My MacPro dual boots and running the retouch artists script yields pretty similar results with CS3 with PS7 however XP shaves a couple seconds. Though in XP I'm running on a single 1TB drive so maybe that is killing me.
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: fennario on August 22, 2008, 01:10:09 pm
Have been running a MacPro with two 4 core 2.8ghz, 10gb RAM, RAID Card, and 4 internal Segate Barracuda 1tb drives.  One drive is set as a single boot/program drive (in case RAID controller card fails) and the other 3 are in a RAID 5 set... all linked to an external 1TB Time Machine backup.

System has been up and running LR2 and CS3 for about a month now without issue.

The one thing to bear in mind is that this thing is a space heater... make sure you have a well ventilated room.  Also, If you want to use SAS drives (15K RPM raptor, etc.) then you will need the RAID card.
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: Edhopkins on August 24, 2008, 07:43:20 am
Quote
Have been running a MacPro with two 4 core 2.8ghz, 10gb RAM, RAID Card, and 4 internal Segate Barracuda 1tb drives.  One drive is set as a single boot/program drive (in case RAID controller card fails) and the other 3 are in a RAID 5 set... all linked to an external 1TB Time Machine backup.

System has been up and running LR2 and CS3 for about a month now without issue.

The one thing to bear in mind is that this thing is a space heater... make sure you have a well ventilated room.  Also, If you want to use SAS drives (15K RPM raptor, etc.) then you will need the RAID card.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216679\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am on the verge of getting a system like yours. Can you say more about your configuration?  Why do you have the RAID 5 set up without the SAS drives?  Did you chose it for redundancy or increased performance?  I can find nothing on the Apple site about increased read performance with the RAID set up if you do not have the RAID card.  

And I was thinking that increased read performance was unnecessary--if that was one of your goals--if you had 10 gb of RAM and your main performance goal was to get photoshop actions humming.  

But I am probably confused here.  

Thanks for revealing more of your thinking...

ed
Baltimore
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: Rick_Allen on August 24, 2008, 08:03:15 am
check this out http://barefeats.com/hard105.html (http://barefeats.com/hard105.html)
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: Edhopkins on August 24, 2008, 11:27:03 am
Quote
check this out http://barefeats.com/hard105.html (http://barefeats.com/hard105.html)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216928\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Rick

???? How does this address the question as to why you need raid 5 performance if you have 10 gb of memory?  I thought the whole point of 10 gb of memory was to avoid I/O during the processing of a single photo.  What am I missing here?  (I do understand how RAID might be useful if you were building thumbnails for hundreds of images.)

Thanks

Ed
Baltimmore
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: Rick_Allen on August 24, 2008, 06:43:43 pm
Hey Ed I wasn't really addressing your question when I replied.

If you are working on a single file in an action with enough ram for PS to keep it in ram then no a raid wont help you. Then its down to how well the on chip memory management works etc. One of the reasons I upgrade my 3.0 clover to a 2.8 harper despite the small ghz decrease my system is running faster than before. see this article http://barefeats.com/harper.html (http://barefeats.com/harper.html)

In regards to sas or not, as you as you can see in the first article I pointed to the Apple raid is limited to 320mb/sec so 4 sata drives will give you that and a bunch more storage for the buck.

Hope that helps
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: petermarrek on August 24, 2008, 07:30:40 pm
Have the almost identical set-up. Saved a few bucks by getting a refurbished unit from theApple Store. Level 1 raid opens images much faster. The only disappointment is the 7300 nvidia card, it only lets me profile 1 NEC 2090. Simple solution, a second card is pretty cheap. Reallt like the machine. Peter
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: BernardLanguillier on August 28, 2008, 11:15:56 am
If I were to buy a new one now, I would put 32GB ram instead of 16GB like I did.

The price of 32GB now is exactly the price 16GB were one year ago.

That should pretty much make internal raid units useless in many cases (unless you do a lot of large panos like I do), and will not cost that much more.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: neil snape on August 29, 2008, 02:30:12 pm
Quote
Ok - which of the following would you reccomend?

Run 2 x 1TB drives in RAID 1 for redundancy
Or.
Run 2 x 1TB drives with the second drive for TM and save the money on the RAID controller
Or.
Run 2 x 1TB drives in RAID 0 for maximum speed with a third 1TB drive for TM

Bearing in mind.. I store my LR catalogue locally - but I store my actual photographs on an external RAID 5 server, which is locally referenced.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215717\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What I do is have a smallish 250 GB as a boot drive, 2x500GB Raid 0 for scratch and image storage, and a 1T drive set to back up the System every Sunday, home folder every day and the RAID every day (6:30 in the morning).
That way I'm free of a lot of cables, connectors and external boxes, but have a little bit faster open and save disc, yet saved out everyday in the case of one disc or  having problems in the RAID.
The only big problem would be if a big power problem fries the back up disc.
Oh I save out the images on optical too , you never know.
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: teddillard on August 30, 2008, 08:11:41 am
Quote
Just about to place the order for a new mac pro for my photo editing and thought I would just double check the proposed spec here as I have never ordered a mac pro before.

First off it will be running CS3 and LR2.

was thinking as follows:
3.0Ghz 8 Core
8 Gig Ram
2 x 1TB drives in RAID 1 for O/S and apps.
Secondary drive for Time machine
Third drive for CS3 scratch disc.
Standard video card that comes with the base unit. [any reason to upgrade this? - It will be paired with an NEC Wuxi 2690 SpectraView II monitor].

Will be mostly working with 1DSMK3 RAW and TIFF files and stitched 1DSMK3 files and probably next year some Phase 1 files if I can pick up a pre-loved P25+ or 45+ for the right price.

I think the above spec. should be adequete - any thoughts?

ta.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ted's 3rd Rule of Horsepower:  "If you can't double it, don't bother..."

This is what I decided, back when I was into building motors, after spending an entire winter blueprinting and porting a Yamaha RD350.  I got a measured 15-20% HP increase, (absolutely a miracle, if you know anything about building motors) enough to give me a total thrill for about a month.  After that, I was back to being bored.  

That said, the same applies to workstations, processor speed and all.  

I work with an Apple "partner", configuring workstations for design, video and photo studios, and, in spite of what most photographers "want", what you "need" is covered more than adequately by a baseline MacPro, even with the 2GB RAM.  Honestly, we've built quite a few 24" iMacs with fairly baseline specs, and had rave reviews from photographers throwing around huge files, who thought they needed a MacPro.

I just put together 2 MacPro systems for a guy shooting with the Hassey H3D...   we put 4GB RAM and hung a simple 2TB RAID off the thing and he's delighted.

Don't get me wrong...  there are certainly applications that need "big-block" horsepower.  We've built $10K systems for video production, and those bad boys need the speed.  I just don't see that desperate need in any photo production application, nor the ROI for that kind of money.  

Yes, RAM and hard drives from Apple are stupid expensive, but then there's the warranty issue.  If you do get Applecare and have non-Apple parts in the thing, you'll have to yank them before the tech will service it, and will thus remove them from the troubleshooting "matrix".  I would, at least, get the RAM and HD's "built" by an approved Apple service guy...

But, my point: whatever system, Apple/Vista, increased processor, amped-up RAM, internal or external RAID, even MacPro or iMac...  it will be more than sufficient to do what you need, and probably kick-ass faster than what you're running now.  

...now, if you just want to amp-up a system 'cause you have fun doing that, well then...  that's a different discussion.  
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: bjanes on August 30, 2008, 08:59:16 am
Quote
I really don't want to start a mac vs pc debate here. I love to work on both. The only thing I wanted to add is that if you have a tight budget a PC will always be faster.

My current workstation is a PC
Intel Q6600 @ 3ghz
8GB memory
2*160 Raptor harddrives
2*500 normal harddrives
Vista 64
PS CS3

I have run the that time test and I got a time of 21 second.

Now the point is that for this system I would sepnd today around $1500.

I'm certain that some highend Mac pro for double the money is 2-3 seconds faster, but that's just to much money for a few seconds.

Now back to topic, as many said buy the memory not from apple and sorry but the 3.0ghz and 3.2 ghz are just overpriced.

Chris
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215748\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My first computer was an Apple II, but I've been using PCs since the original IBM PC came out and have a lot of legacy 32 bit apps. The Mac OS X is likely a simpler and better OS than Windows; I understand it runs 32 and 64 bit programs seamlessly, whereas some 32 bit programs won't run under Vista 64. What is your experience in that regard with Vista 64?

On the other hand, PSCS4 will be 64 bit for Windows while the 64 bit version for the Mac will probably be delayed until the release of PSCS5. That is a real bummer for those working with large files having multiple layers.

Bill
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: Edhopkins on September 19, 2008, 08:03:02 pm
Quote
If I were to buy a new one now, I would put 32GB ram instead of 16GB like I did.

The price of 32GB now is exactly the price 16GB were one year ago.

That should pretty much make internal raid units useless in many cases (unless you do a lot of large panos like I do), and will not cost that much more.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217840\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard


We have the new 21 megapixel Canon and will be getting a new MacPro soon.  We need some computing power.  

I don't know of any way to use more than 8 GB of memory for photoshop. I was thinking of having 8 GB for Photoshop (and plug ins) and maybe another 4 gig for the system, etc. How could you make use of more memory if you have it?  What am I missing here?

Do you mind saying what your exact MacPro configuration is?

thanks

ed
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: Wayne Fox on September 20, 2008, 01:55:47 pm
Quote
Bernard
We have the new 21 megapixel Canon and will be getting a new MacPro soon.  We need some computing power. 

I don't know of any way to use more than 8 GB of memory for photoshop. I was thinking of having 8 GB for Photoshop (and plug ins) and maybe another 4 gig for the system, etc. How could you make use of more memory if you have it?  What am I missing here?

Do you mind saying what your exact MacPro configuration is?

thanks

ed
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=222773\")

Sounds like 8 gigs is the limit to me as well.  A quote from this article

[a href=\"http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb401089]http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewConten...rnalId=kb401089[/url]



Allocating Memory above 2 GB with 64-bit Processors

When you run Photoshop CS3 on a 64-bit operating system, such as Mac OS X v10.4 and later, Photoshop can access up to 8 GB of RAM. You can see the actual amount of RAM Photoshop can use in the Let Photoshop Use number when you set the Let Photoshop Use slider in the Performance preference to 100%. The RAM above the 100% used by Photoshop, which is from approximately 3 GB to 3.7 GB, can be used directly by Photoshop plug-ins (some plug-ins need large chunks of contiguous RAM), filters, and actions. If you have more than 4 GB (to 8 GB), the RAM above 4 GB is used by the operating system as a cache for the Photoshop scratch disk data. Data that previously was written directly to the hard disk by Photoshop is now cached in this high RAM before being written to the hard disk by the operating system
Title: New Mac Pro - specification
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 20, 2008, 10:30:40 pm
Quote
Sounds like 8 gigs is the limit to me as well.  A quote from this article

http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewConten...rnalId=kb401089 (http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb401089)
Allocating Memory above 2 GB with 64-bit Processors
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222898\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That is probably correct. As far as I am concerned I typically run in parallel Capture One and/or Raw Developper, Photoshop, PTgui and Autopano pro...

I often run in situations where some of these processes end up having to use the swap because all of the physical 16 GB are used...

Cheers,
Bernard