Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: dseelig on January 11, 2014, 11:26:55 pm
-
I have an old one with 4 hd going. I am using up to 36 megapixel cameras. Just wondering what people think. I am use to my 30 inch monitor. Go for the new model which is pricey for me. I would buy the base model and go to 512 internal memory. Or get the most souped up iMac. I use aperture mostly and photo mechanic some photoshop. Thanks David
-
Well, it all depends...(doesn't it always?)
The top end iMac is a really well speced machine equal to or perhaps better than the low end new MacPro 2013. But...will 32GBs be enough (if you are working with 36MP cameras)? The new MacPro can go to 64GBs (and don't dismiss this as available ram is a major Photoshop performance factor).
The internal SSD is gonna beet the pants of the iMac. External connections via ThunderBolt 2 (TB2) will be about the same. But the vid card (GPU) is much stronger in the McPro 2013.
Yes, you can pack the top end iMac to be a real powerful Photoshop/Lightroom machine...but the MacPro 2013 can beat the iMac if you go with the 6 or 8 core machine (the 12 core isn't really a Photoshop.Lightroom machine).
So, can you get a good digital photography machine with the top end iMac? Absolutely! Can you set up the new MacPro 2013 to be the best in breed? Yep...it all depends on what you are willing to spend to get what you think you need.
-
Well, it all depends...(doesn't it always?)
The top end iMac is a really well speced machine equal to or perhaps better than the low end new MacPro 2013. But...will 32GBs be enough (if you are working with 36MP cameras)? The new MacPro can go to 64GBs (and don't dismiss this as available ram is a major Photoshop performance factor).
The internal SSD is gonna beet the pants of the iMac. External connections via ThunderBolt 2 (TB2) will be about the same. But the vid card (GPU) is much stronger in the McPro 2013.
Yes, you can pack the top end iMac to be a real powerful Photoshop/Lightroom machine...but the MacPro 2013 can beat the iMac if you go with the 6 or 8 core machine (the 12 core isn't really a Photoshop.Lightroom machine).
So, can you get a good digital photography machine with the top end iMac? Absolutely! Can you set up the new MacPro 2013 to be the best in breed? Yep...it all depends on what you are willing to spend to get what you think you need.
1. It's hard to imagine it wouldn't be. With the way PS uses scratch disks it all comes down to how fast you perform the functions you use. 4gb will "work", 32gb is downright luxurious in most cases, 64gb.. you'd have to be working a ton of complex images a day to get much value from that.
2. Having PCIe SSD's in use and SATA3 SSD's on the same machine, on different machines, etc.. the difference is actually hard to feel. We'll have people who have never had a SSD, or only had cheaper slow ones, who will be impressed with the PCIe's performance. But anyone with a fast SSD, overall, will give it a "shrug.."
3. Curious what you mean by this? Is 12 cores just overkill and more appropriate for video applications, or is LR somehow limited on the cores? We know LR is CPU intensive so I'm curious.
4. Agreed, either, properly spec'd, will make a very good machine for still imagery. I think the current trend is people are buying a lot more hardware than they will really use.. If someone isn't working extensively with video, or isn't time crunched to process a high number of images a day, and otherwise is happy to work at a relaxed pace.. then they should error on the side of a good solid quad core machine with up to 32gb and not everyone needs that much. Many of us were/are recently using i7-920/930/950 machines with 8-12gb of RAM to process high MP images with relative ease.. I'd could process 400+ images a day with that machine without much effort. Few were complex, but still. With RAM being so cheap these day.. 32gb is a luxury most would be well advised to go to..
-
I sometimes shoot a few thousand images at a time to process or edit out of with that piece of info does that make a difference?
-
I sometimes shoot a few thousand images at a time to process or edit out of with that piece of info does that make a difference?
Well sure. This isn' t a "can do" or "can't do" situation between two computers, both can process images very well. It's more of a matter of do you need the speed to satisfy your requirements. We all should thousands of images a times, but are you under the gun to process all of them in a certain time frame? Or is it more a matter of you can get to them when you get to them?
We're talking saving a few millliseconds here, a few there, sometimes (like when using the blur and some other tools) the difference could be whole seconds, a few of them. How badly do you need these increments of speed?
Keep in mind with the Pro.. this much computing power hasn't been available before (at least not easily).. and pros processing for a living have been getting along just fine with the power available in quad core machines. I build machines for clients. I also might need to process 400 images a day so that's my bar. I could have built the most powerful computer available like some of my clients demand, but having used the machines in question I know the Haswell Quadcore with 32gb of RAM would be luxurious for my needs.
It's like having the new Corvette C7 Stingray in my driveway. Fast as hell. 467hp and 187mph is faster than I'll go and I regularly compete in SCCA events.. So, even if my bank account would allow.. I don't need that Bugatti Veyron Super Sport with 1200hp that can go well over 250mph.. I"d never go that fast. No need. And I think this is a fair analogy..
How fast you need to go, to process.. only you know that. But the information you're lacking is the experience of processing your workload on each level of machine. What machine are you coming from and how much RAM? And do you know a buddy who would give you some computer time so you could have a practical baseline?
-
I have a 2.93 quad mac pro 2009 16 gb ram Being in Idaho now much to see where I live. I wish when editing I could see the images after in photo mechanic and aperture as it seems to take seconds for the images to render properly.
-
It's like having the new Corvette C7 Stingray in my driveway. Fast as hell. 467hp and 187mph is faster than I'll go and I regularly compete in SCCA events.. So, even if my bank account would allow.. I don't need that Bugatti Veyron Super Sport with 1200hp that can go well over 250mph.. I"d never go that fast. No need. And I think this is a fair analogy..
Well you could be the star in 'Fast and Furious, Part 12: The Photo Edition' :D
-
I would like the fastest iMac but without the screen.
32gigabyte ram is enough
4 cores and 8 logical processors is usually all Photoshop uses.
and the imac also has PCI-flash and thunderbolt.
I call it the trashcan mini.
-
3. Curious what you mean by this? Is 12 cores just overkill and more appropriate for video applications, or is LR somehow limited on the cores? We know LR is CPU intensive so I'm curious.
Unless you are doing something that can be split into many multiple threads, you really start to loose efficiency of flooding the 12 cores. Also note that for 12 core, the actual CPU speed drops quite a bit. The one benefit the new MacPros have is that the ram is really, really fast and that helps keep multi-cores working. But, the 12 core won't really be much faster than the 6 or 8 core for most Photoshop/Lightroom functions.
Compare that to video apps that spread the threads across more cores much more efficiently...so the 12 core MacPro is really more of an A/V machine than a Photoshop machine. Same deal with the dual vid cards...really handy if you are running multi-high rez displays and if the apps you run really leverage GPU.
-
So between 6 and 8 cores, which gives you the better performance for PS and LR? I don't think ID or Ai will care. One also has to wonder how long it will be before Adobe starts making use of the dual GPU's.
Jim
-
I have a 2.93 quad mac pro 2009 16 gb ram Being in Idaho now much to see where I live. I wish when editing I could see the images after in photo mechanic and aperture as it seems to take seconds for the images to render properly.
I dare say you would be disappointed with the newest and best Imac. For fun, run the geekbench overall score. A new Mac mini running the same quad core chip and 16gb of RAM and a super fast SSD scored a 14,445 here in this review I wrote. (http://www.bangkokimages.com/Articles/Equipment/entryid/1229/Mac-Mini-Quad-Core-2-5g-i7-Screaming-Fast.aspx) I suspect a dual quad core of that vintage will do better.
-
Well you could be the star in 'Fast and Furious, Part 12: The Photo Edition' :D
Only if the movie morphs to a bunch of 50 year olds.. ::) I think they've done that on Street Outlaws..
-
Unless you are doing something that can be split into many multiple threads, you really start to loose efficiency of flooding the 12 cores. Also note that for 12 core, the actual CPU speed drops quite a bit. The one benefit the new MacPros have is that the ram is really, really fast and that helps keep multi-cores working. But, the 12 core won't really be much faster than the 6 or 8 core for most Photoshop/Lightroom functions.
Compare that to video apps that spread the threads across more cores much more efficiently...so the 12 core MacPro is really more of an A/V machine than a Photoshop machine. Same deal with the dual vid cards...really handy if you are running multi-high rez displays and if the apps you run really leverage GPU.
Thank you. I knew what software worked best on each, but couldn't articulate as well as you've done. Now I understand.
-
So between 6 and 8 cores, which gives you the better performance for PS and LR? I don't think ID or Ai will care. One also has to wonder how long it will be before Adobe starts making use of the dual GPU's.
Actually, apps like ID & IL that don't do much multi-core threading will be faster with less cores and faster CPU speed. I would say the 6 core would be a sweet spot for Lightroom that doesn't do a lot of multi-core flooding and the 8 core machine for Photoshop which does more multi-core options.
-
Thanks Jeff! Wasn't sure since there haven't been any reports out on the new Mac Pro and how it works with LR and PS.
Jim
-
There are some surprising results being reported with Photoshop CC. See -
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=200558&page=46
-
Unless you are doing something that can be split into many multiple threads, you really start to loose efficiency of flooding the 12 cores. Also note that for 12 core, the actual CPU speed drops quite a bit. The one benefit the new MacPros have is that the ram is really, really fast and that helps keep multi-cores working. But, the 12 core won't really be much faster than the 6 or 8 core for most Photoshop/Lightroom functions.
Compare that to video apps that spread the threads across more cores much more efficiently...so the 12 core MacPro is really more of an A/V machine than a Photoshop machine. Same deal with the dual vid cards...really handy if you are running multi-high rez displays and if the apps you run really leverage GPU.
Very useful as Steve has already noted. For those of us who still build our own workstations and mainly use LR with an occasional trip to PS, a good speedy i7 CPU with enough RAM and a decent video card is all that is needed. As long as we are not doing video or 3D rendering anything above this is really not needed.
-
For those of us who still build our own workstations and mainly use LR with an occasional trip to PS, a good speedy i7 CPU with enough RAM and a decent video card is all that is needed.
Don't forget the 3rd part of the equation...fast drives!
Lightroom does a lot of small packet data exchanges to/from/back to the catalog. That pushes the read/write needs of the hard drive even more in some cases than sustained reads/writes. That's why SSD and raid arrays are really good for Lightroom. I keep my catalog on a small super fast stripped SAS drives and my main image storage in a big external (and slower) raid. But that was then...with my new MacPro, I'll use the internal SSD for boot and put in a pair (at least, maybe 4) SSDs for LR catalogs (and Photoshop scratch). Don't exactly know yet what I'll end up with. I'll let you know when I do...
-
AS I mentioned I use aperture any aperture users out there with real knowledge of the new machines compared to iMacs. I find lightroom a clunky mess and really hate it also after what Adobe has done after being a loyal supporter for over 18 years trying to stare clear of even photoshop now.
-
There are some surprising results being reported with Photoshop CC. See -
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=200558&page=46
I'm very very skeptical of the reported 1.8 second time...
-
I'm very very skeptical of the reported 1.8 second time...
So am I. I am eager to see how CC fares on the 6-core nMP since it is my intended system.
-
I entered that benchmark score.
That benchmark test itself is sketchy as it requires your reaction time to stop and start a stopwatch as well as click to start the test and click the stopwatch as you see the end of test indicator. A better test would use the timing function of Photoshop's drop down menu.
-
I entered that benchmark score.
That benchmark test itself is sketchy as it requires your reaction time to stop and start a stopwatch as well as click to start the test and click the stopwatch as you see the end of test indicator. A better test would use the timing function of Photoshop's drop down menu.
So did you actually time the test with a stopwatch? Your result looks very much like the time required to complete the final setup in the action as timed by the Photoshop timer function. I don't doubt your new machine is fast, just not this fast.
A 4 core runs the test in 11 seconds and yours runs 1.8 sec?
Why not do a quick video so we can time it our self.
-
Don't forget the 3rd part of the equation...fast drives!
Lightroom does a lot of small packet data exchanges to/from/back to the catalog. That pushes the read/write needs of the hard drive even more in some cases than sustained reads/writes. That's why SSD and raid arrays are really good for Lightroom. I keep my catalog on a small super fast stripped SAS drives and my main image storage in a big external (and slower) raid. But that was then...with my new MacPro, I'll use the internal SSD for boot and put in a pair (at least, maybe 4) SSDs for LR catalogs (and Photoshop scratch). Don't exactly know yet what I'll end up with. I'll let you know when I do...
Quite right. I was amazed when I built my new system earlier in the year and put in an SSD and a faster hard drive. Look forward to hearing about your final set up when it's configured (though it still won't convince me to go the Mac route!).
-
So did you actually time the test with a stopwatch? Your result looks very much like the time required to complete the final setup in the action as timed by the Photoshop timer function. I don't doubt your new machine is fast, just not this fast.
A 4 core runs the test in 11 seconds and yours runs 1.8 sec?
Why not do a quick video so we can time it our self.
You're exactly right, I did use the Photoshop timer function and as such probably drew a false result. I did that test after completing this one, which produced a more accurate and predictable result.
http://ksimonian.com/Blog/2010/02/24/improved-photoshop-benchmark-cpu-speed-test-for-both-mac-pc-free-radial-blur-filter-test/ (http://ksimonian.com/Blog/2010/02/24/improved-photoshop-benchmark-cpu-speed-test-for-both-mac-pc-free-radial-blur-filter-test/)
14.5 seconds to complete your radial blur test. (Note: Photoshop only makes use of one of the two installed GPUs)
Late 2013 MacPro 3.5 GHz Intel® Xeon Processor E5-1650 v2, OSX 10.9.1 (Mavericks), Photoshop CC ( CS6.1.2 )
Adobe Photoshop Version: 14.1.2 (14.1.2 20130923.r.427 2013/09/23:23:00:00) x64
Operating System: Mac OS 10.9.1
System architecture: Intel CPU Family:6, Model:62, Stepping:4 with MMX, SSE Integer, SSE FP, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, HyperThreading
Physical processor count: 6
Logical processor count: 12
Processor speed: 3500 MHz
Built-in memory: 65536 MB
Free memory: 43700 MB
Memory available to Photoshop: 62834 MB
Memory used by Photoshop: 70 %
I also did the Blackmagic Disk Speed Tests that are already recorded in this forum. If you have any other specific tests you would like performed please let me know.
-
Thanks for the clarification Jerry
-
Quite right. I was amazed when I built my new system earlier in the year and put in an SSD and a faster hard drive. Look forward to hearing about your final set up when it's configured (though it still won't convince me to go the Mac route!).
Time is a strange thing.. I'm pretty sure it was this forum (the only photography forum I bother with) where I got a load of static and challenges and middle fingers when I dared suggest SSD's could be used to great effect in LR. (especially the catalog). I suspected then.. and feel the same now.. the disagreement came from those who hadn't yet purchased one of those new fangled digital thingamabobs.. ::)
-
... I suspected then.. and feel the same now.. the disagreement came from those who hadn't yet purchased one of those new fangled digital thingamabobs.. ::)
I totally agree!
-
Okay, we can't have someone posting a benchmark with the nMP claiming a 1.8s.. and not get curious can we? Well, can we? :D
With nothing else running, anti virus disabled, etc.. I achieved a best 16.2s A worst of 39.2s with everything turned on which would for me would include Outlook email client, Firefox with 8 tabs, Utorrent (hard at work), and a handful of gadgets.. This is with a 4770k with 32gb, GTX-770, Win7 x64 Ultimate, and a Vertex 4 SSD for the system disks. My other 2 SSD's (LR catalog and system/PS Cache disk. No over clocking or other tricks.
I can't help but think it should be down in the 11-12s range.. Any suggestions?
-
Time is a strange thing.. I'm pretty sure it was this forum (the only photography forum I bother with) where I got a load of static and challenges and middle fingers when I dared suggest SSD's could be used to great effect in LR. (especially the catalog). I suspected then.. and feel the same now.. the disagreement came from those who hadn't yet purchased one of those new fangled digital thingamabobs.. ::)
How big is your LR catalog? Right now my catalog is sitting on a WD Caviar Black HDD which is one of the fastest around and it's fine for my purposes (it's already much faster than my old system which just had a HDD and no SSD). I'm pretty ruthless about deleting bad images so my total catalog is probably much smaller than others here. With the cost of SSDs coming way down, I can add a second one for the catalog.
-
Okay, we can't have someone posting a benchmark with the nMP claiming a 1.8s.. and not get curious can we? Well, can we? :D
With nothing else running, anti virus disabled, etc.. I achieved a best 16.2s A worst of 39.2s with everything turned on which would for me would include Outlook email client, Firefox with 8 tabs, Utorrent (hard at work), and a handful of gadgets.. This is with a 4770k with 32gb, GTX-770, Win7 x64 Ultimate, and a Vertex 4 SSD for the system disks. My other 2 SSD's (LR catalog and system/PS Cache disk. No over clocking or other tricks.
I can't help but think it should be down in the 11-12s range.. Any suggestions?
It should be faster. Mine is 11.2 ...sandybridge I7, 32gb, gtx670, Vertex 4 system, Agility4 scratch. The system is a hack running 10.9.1, CS6
-
I am on an almost 6 year old Macpro 3.1 2x 2,8ghz
it takes 18 tot 21s ; 10.6.8 seems to be about 5-10% faster than 10.9.1 (Photoshop CS6)
So i am a bit disappointed with small difference with the new processors if they cannot even double the speed.
-
It should be faster. Mine is 11.2 ...sandybridge I7, 32gb, gtx670, Vertex 4 system, Agility4 scratch. The system is a hack running 10.9.1, CS6
Yours sounds right. Would you mind changing your scratch to the same as your system and and disabling your current scratch SSD? I know this isn't optimum, but it's what I'm running at the moment since I re-designated my scratch SSD to.. well.. nefarious purposes. :o :o
This will let me know how much of a priority replacing it will be.
-
How big is your LR catalog? Right now my catalog is sitting on a WD Caviar Black HDD which is one of the fastest around and it's fine for my purposes (it's already much faster than my old system which just had a HDD and no SSD). I'm pretty ruthless about deleting bad images so my total catalog is probably much smaller than others here. With the cost of SSDs coming way down, I can add a second one for the catalog.
At the moment nearly 550gb and on a WD Black as well. I've tested it on a 1tb Evo and it's a new machine. But I've re-purposed my scratch and catalogue SSD's at least for now.
Later this morning I'll run the same setup as a hack and see if the operating systems exact a price.
-
Yours sounds right. Would you mind changing your scratch to the same as your system and and disabling your current scratch SSD? I know this isn't optimum, but it's what I'm running at the moment since I re-designated my scratch SSD to.. well.. nefarious purposes. :o :o
This will let me know how much of a priority replacing it will be.
Time is unchanged Steve.
-
Time is unchanged Steve.
I just spent about the last hour wondering what the heck.. Win7 CS6x64 nets me 14.2 and that's the best. CCx64 16.2
OsX Mavericks CS6x64 16.3 CCx64 16.1
Maybe it's something in the BIOS.. I assume you're not over clocking? What do you have your RAM memory set to and your CPU settings? Maybe I turned off the turbo boost enable.. will check later when I have some free time.
-
Okay, we can't have someone posting a benchmark with the nMP claiming a 1.8s.. and not get curious can we? Well, can we? :D
With nothing else running, anti virus disabled, etc.. I achieved a best 16.2s A worst of 39.2s with everything turned on which would for me would include Outlook email client, Firefox with 8 tabs, Utorrent (hard at work), and a handful of gadgets.. This is with a 4770k with 32gb, GTX-770, Win7 x64 Ultimate, and a Vertex 4 SSD for the system disks. My other 2 SSD's (LR catalog and system/PS Cache disk. No over clocking or other tricks.
I can't help but think it should be down in the 11-12s range.. Any suggestions?
The instructions for the original test (that I initially screwed up) were to set history states to 1, cache levels to 4 and memory to 100% under the performance tab. Install the Photoshop action, reboot the computer, start Photoshop, load the test image and run the action.
Test can be found here: http://clubofone.com/speedtest/?%3f%3f (http://clubofone.com/speedtest/?%3f%3f)
After some prodding I ran the test again (twice) using the stopwatch of my iPhone this time. Test results are as follows:
1st run: 9.10 seconds
2nd run: 9.08 seconds
Again, without using the Photoshop auto timing function, your reaction time comes into play.
MacPro 6,1 3.5GHz 6-Core Intel E-5, 64GB 1866MHz DDR3 (OWC) RAM, dual AMD FirePro D500's, Apple 256GB PCI SSD.
Adobe Photoshop Version: 14.1.2 (14.1.2 20130923.r.427 2013/09/23:23:00:00) x64
Operating System: Mac OS 10.9.1
-
Time is unchanged Steve.
Craig -
I"ve been looking at this.. Your time for 11s seems out of this world compared to the listed results. You're in the company of a six core 3939k at 3.2k over clocked to 4.8ghz (10.8s, another one over clocked to 4.2ghz (11.7s) , and one more over clocked to 4.7ghz (11.8s). Then a dual core Xeon 2.93ghz Nehalem (13.4s), Now here's the CPU you have a i-2700k but over clocked to 5.1 (13.4s).. and waaaay down the list we get to the first non-over clocked 2700k at 19.0s..
It doesn't appear they've updated the list since the 4770k came out.. but my scores are looking perfectly reasonable in comparison to the list.
Yours.. well.. we're either running the test differently or you've been over clocking for the first time.. and if so doing a damn good job of it.. you'd have to be up there at about 6ghz.
One area we might be different is the file. When I download it from inside FF on my Windows half I get a 4.8mb jpeg.. From FF on my Mac half it isn't defined.. and is unusable. I had go to "open with" to get a file I could use.
Before I chase more ghosts could you give things another look again?
-
Again, without using the Photoshop auto timing function, your reaction time comes into play.
Thanks Jerry. I'm using the Auto Timing function.. you only have to use the stopwatch method once (with a phone or something similar) to realize what a folly that is.
Looking more closely at the test results.. your scores are a second or two faster than Ivy Bridge Hex Cores which are over clocked.. so I could see a second or two difference with your nMP until I'm guessing your not yet over clocked and they're well over clocked. Makes me wonder what magic they packed in the nMP, the PCIe (if that matters in this test and I don't think it does) might bring a second.. but if you consider we need to compensate for roughly 2 seconds, and considering they're over clocked.. I don't see 'only' a new CPU generation providing that much gain. RAM doesn't make a difference, apparently SSD's don't.. So when you compare hex core to hex core.. it's not making sense. And apparently the video card doesn't make a difference, I disabled mine GTX-770 and there was no difference.
What made the differences in mine were CS versions, x32 vs. x64, RAM usage (this made a difference, yet the amount doesn't make a difference? hmm..), history state settings, and how much "other stuff" I managed to turn off.. (biggest effect)..
-
Test results are as follows:
...
1st run: 9.10 seconds
2nd run: 9.08 seconds
...
hello Jerry, thank you for sharing; everybody wants to know how fast the new Macpro is for Photoshop ...
some interesting articles already appeared - i like the Anandtech review..
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/7
Anand Lal Shimpi does a very good job explaining what to expect from the new machine and what not.
I did the speedtest on my old macpro 3.1 ... 2008 - 2x 2,8 GHZ quadcore - 16gig ram- .. MacOSX10.6.8- Photoshop CS6
ran it two times: 17 second on both occasions.
If somebody has the latest and fastest iMac i would not be surprised it would be fastest on these tests.
cheers Pieter Kers
(Must say the tests do not give a very good insight in the computer as a whole; for instance the GPU works especially well with filters like liquify...and ramspeed is hardly addressed...but it seems a good multicore test...)
-
My bad Steve, I have an Ivy not a Sandy...
Still I keep getting similar results.
The image file was part of the unzipped download folder and is 3.6 mb as noted by info in finder.
I just sent you a video of the test run from my iphone. Again my finger timing shows 11 sec range.
-
My bad Steve, I have an Ivy not a Sandy...
Still I keep getting similar results.
The image file was part of the unzipped download folder and is 3.6 mb as noted by info in finder.
I just sent you a video of the test run from my iphone. Again my finger timing shows 11 sec range.
LOL! Talk about being on different pages.. :)
We were 'just' running different tests.
With the test you ran I got 2.8s but I don't trust it.. seems too fast and I could count longer than 2.8s.. felt more like 7-8s..
I've got enough cooling to push this system to nearly 5g on over clocking like the other guys are doing, but I'm sure not going to run it that way so why bother? That's what these tests lack.. realism.
-
hello Jerry, thank you for sharing; everybody wants to know how fast the new Macpro is for Photoshop ...
some interesting articles already appeared - i like the Anandtech review..
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/7
Anand Lal Shimpi does a very good job explaining what to expect from the new machine and what not.
I did the speedtest on my old macpro 3.1 ... 2008 - 2x 2,8 GHZ quadcore - 16gig ram- .. MacOSX10.6.8- Photoshop CS6
ran it two times: 17 second on both occasions.
If somebody has the latest and fastest iMac i would not be surprised it would be fastest on these tests.
cheers Pieter Kers
(Must say the tests do not give a very good insight in the computer as a whole; for instance the GPU works especially well with filters like liquify...and ramspeed is hardly addressed...but it seems a good multicore test...)
The tests are definately not optimized for the new hardware. Photoshop only uses one GPU in the new MacPro. I did notice faster results on my computer with 64GB Ram compared to a similar machine with 32. Geekbench 3 compares Macs to Macs. This website actsually explains core usage with Photoshop much better than any other I have read. http://macperformanceguide.com/MacPro2013-CPU-cores-workflow.html (http://macperformanceguide.com/MacPro2013-CPU-cores-workflow.html)
In any case, this is my first MacPro upgrade since I bought the 1,1 in 2006, so everything seems fast to me! Apple Aperture really flies with the new MacPro.
-
...
In any case, this is my first MacPro upgrade since I bought the 1,1 in 2006, so everything seems fast to me! Apple Aperture really flies with the new MacPro.
...
i can imagine its a huge step forward! interesting to see how long the MacPros keep on working! (but mine lost lost the video card after 5 years hard work...)
i just calculated that an imac with similar specs costs about 700 $ less than a Macpro. On 4300$ i would find that not enough difference to move over to the iMac ; also i do not need the screen.
-
i can imagine its a huge step forward! interesting to see how long the MacPros keep on working! (but mine lost lost the video card after 5 years hard work...)
i just calculated that an imac with similar specs costs about 700 $ less than a Macpro. On 4300$ i would find that not enough difference to move over to the iMac ; also i do not need the screen.
Virtually any modern computer built from quality components will run indefinitely. I have Core Duo machines from 8-9 years ago still running and in use, one favourite of the wife is her Dell 12" Pentium M.. (3lb notebook), uses it daily at school and plenty powerful enough for her needs (word processing, browsing, email) and I'm sure it's more than 10 years old. Even older machines I've built are in use with family members with modest needs back from as long ago as 1998 that I can remember. Keep them clean and plugged into a UPS and they'll run forever.
The ones that implode, pure Cra*, are the inexpensive notebooks that never get cleaned inside and whose plastic bits don't seem to last even a couple years.. or the really cheap pre-built desktops with the worst power supply designs knows to mankind.. there has surely been some real hooey put on the market. But anything of quality, properly maintained.. will keep humming for years.
Can you share what build points you spec'd? I tried but couldn't find anything similar. Not the CPU, not the RAM, not the SSD's, and not the video card.. These components are all significantly different.. in another world really. But maybe I missed something?
-
...
Can you share what build points you spec'd? I tried but couldn't find anything similar. Not the CPU, not the RAM, not the SSD's, and not the video card.. These components are all significantly different.. in another world really. But maybe I missed something?...
Of course you are right about the other world; What i did was compare the price of a loaded Imac with quadcore 3,5 GHZ i7 1 tb flash and a 2Gb videocard to the 4core macpro tb flash and 2GB firepro 300 cards. I did this because i expect for photoshop that the speed difference will be minimal as is shown by the the geekbench performance and other sources as well
Since the macpro 2013 does not contain PCI cards and harddisks trays that difference is gone between the two.
If i would be doing video i would go for the macpro, but if i run photoshop i do not need so many cores, nor dual gpu's.
-
Of course you are right about the other world; What i did was compare the price of a loaded Imac with quadcore 3,5 GHZ i7 1 tb flash and a 2Gb videocard to the 4core macpro tb flash and 2GB firepro 300 cards. I did this because i expect for photoshop that the speed difference will be minimal as is shown by the the geekbench performance and other sources as well
Since the macpro 2013 does not contain PCI cards and harddisks trays that difference is gone between the two.
If i would be doing video i would go for the macpro, but if i run photoshop i do not need so many cores, nor dual gpu's.
IC.. I've thought for some time "generally" those processing still images would be well served with a modern quad core with 16-32gb of RAM. This could take the form of a Mini Mac like I wrote about in my article (http://www.bangkokimages.com/Articles/Equipment/entryid/1229/Mac-Mini-Quad-Core-2-5g-i7-Screaming-Fast.aspx), an extremely fast budget concious high quality computer (those words normally don't come together in this way which is what made it such a stand out) that's even competent on light video. Someone could spend $1000 for this set up, another $1000 of a quality NEC 27" PA271 ($799 @ B&H) and top quality mouse and keyboard.. and be up and running in style. The only advantage to an Imac over the mini is marginally powerful discrete video card add-on, with that huge 27" disadvantage you can't get rid of (the screen)..
Another quad core option is a quality PC build either in a Win7 or OsX hackentosh (or both) Haswell build with 32gb, the sky is the limit with the video card choices.. so let's say $1500 for such a system with a quality power supply and video card and simple SSD/systemOS and 2tb wd Black drive options.. Or as much as $2500 with a great case, luxury MB, and SSD cache and 2-3 more storage HDD's..
If you consider the NEC PA271 27" monitor as the base for all three systems, all three are separated by $1500.. with that $1500 bringing you more/better drives, faster video card, great PS, better optioned MB that you could easily OC 15-20% without breathing hard..
Which one do you need? Some like the idea of lower spending and an attractively small Mini, some like the very nicely spec'd desktop class Win7/OsX build, and sharing the top end at $2700-$3000.. is (compared to the Win7/OsX build) the very limited Imac.. You're stuck with the build in monitor, no room for drives, marginal video card, marginal PS, build and performance wise not in the same class IMO..
And then there are the power users. Those into video, complex PS actions with large files, stitcher's, pano masters, etc.. The nMP looks good or in the Win or Win/Hack platforms and equal performing multiple xeon system..
We live in good times.. really good times.
-
....
We live in good times.. really good times....
I almost forgot about the Mac-mini, If a new version comes it will be even faster and probably with pci-flash in it... maybe even smaller..?
the 16 gig ram limit is the only thing i do not like - i want/need 32. I am running with 16gig now and see it is completely used- photographs will be larger than 36MP in future for sure.
But in the end i will buy a 6 core macPro i think, but not this year... it is about 2x faster than what i have and costs far too much considering all the extras i also need to buy. Next year all the thunderbolt stuff will be cheaper i hope.
Meanwhile it is interesting to see how Apple and other software developers are going to use the extra power from the double GPU units. If that power is well used we will see huge performance jumps. It seems the new smart Sharpen tool in Photoshop CC uses it to make sharpening much faster. ( http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2014/20140116_7-MacPro2013-PhotoshopCC-GPU-sharpening.html )
-
Meanwhile it is interesting to see how Apple and other software developers are going to use the extra power from the double GPU units. If that power is well used we will see huge performance jumps. It seems the new smart Sharpen tool in Photoshop CC uses it to make sharpening much faster. ( http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2014/20140116_7-MacPro2013-PhotoshopCC-GPU-sharpening.html )
Not yet. This article states that it is not clear that both GPUs are being used. It's my understanding from the current technical literature that this is not the case; only one GPU is being used for processing and the other for display. Perhaps down the road we may see this but even then it's doubtful that one will see huge differences for most photo applications. Dual GPU processing is likely to impact video more.
-
Perhaps down the road we may see this but even then it's doubtful that one will see huge differences for most photo applications.
Photoshop has struggled dealing with dual GPU from the beginning when GPU was first added. Dual matching video cards did not cause problems, Photoshop would pick one and use it. But if you had two mismatched video cards you would end up with real inconsistent performance and in some cases, crashes unless you giggled the GPU preferences...
The new MacPro is, as far as I know, the first purpose built dual GPU setup (meaning two matching video cards being standard, not an option).
I know that the Photoshop team will be working on this for the future because there's a lot of potential with paired GPUs, but at the moment, Photoshop will only deploy one vid card. LR/ACR are not yet leveraging the GPU but there are signs that GPU may not be too far away (although no timetable is out there).
-
...
I know that the Photoshop team will be working on this for the future because there's a lot of potential with paired GPUs, but at the moment, Photoshop will only deploy one vid card. ...
Hello Jeff,
Could you explain in more detail what way Photoshop (CC) uses the GPU? I never found much benefit from turning GPU on.. the liquify filter is using it and then more important for me the new smart sharpening filter.
Thanks in advance,
Pieter
-
Could you explain in more detail what way Photoshop (CC) uses the GPU? I never found much benefit from turning GPU on.. the liquify filter is using it and then more important for me the new smart sharpening filter.
Pretty sure GPU has been slipped in a few additional areas such as Image Size (particularly the preview), certain painting, obviously 3D stuff and some of the other newer features like Blur Gallery. Every version update adds a few things. As far as I know, there's no hard list of what is GPU enhanced...sorry.
-
Hello Jeff,
Could you explain in more detail what way Photoshop (CC) uses the GPU? I never found much benefit from turning GPU on.. the liquify filter is using it and then more important for me the new smart sharpening filter.
Thanks in advance,
Pieter
I don't have Jeff's knowledge but I've read a bit on this. The important thing to remember is certain video cards work better than others. You can't really use Adobe's published list because it will have you using outdated GPU's, but it does make clear the path they're on and will support. They support Nvidia more than ATI, and the support Nvidia non-workstation cards as well.
In the past if we had two GPU's we'd just bridge them either in SLI (Nvidia) or Crossfire (ATI) and let the scaling do the work, or in other words the bridging would take two compatible cards, bridge them, and the overall power of the GPU would scale by the amount of power added by the second card. A rare exception were the dual GPU cards like ATI's 5970 and it's predecessors.. They're not bridged, game software had to address them differently to get the power to the ground and the game developers did a good job of this. But Adobe chose to treat a dual GPU like a single.. and ignore the second GPU. I fear this is what CS6 and CC will do with the nMP.. at least until Adobe gets with the program. They will, I'm sure Apple has been on them a while already.
As far as what features.. if buying a card for PS make sure it had OpenGL (latest version google it when ready dto buy), and OpenCL. Adobe says it best in the box you check that says "acceleration." That's what it does for 98% of it's functions. It accelerates them. Others CS components use them differently.
GPU acceleration really helps for content aware, camera raw, mixer brush, video decoding, color correction, chroma keying, blur tools, and more. Acceleration of existing functions vs. adding new function is how you want to approach this.
With that said, there are some things PS does with a GPU that it won't do without such as the way it "floats" an image to it's place vs. just dropping it in.. You'll see as you make the transition.
I do think we'll be seeing some big changes geared towards the nMP from Adobe soon..
-
Kinda on topic:
My son asked for help helping a friend build a box to be used for word processing, browsing, basic games, and enough image editing to be able to sort, store, resize, crop, etc.. basic stuff. The friend had a monitor, keyboard, mouse, and speakers from the past system. Everything else had to be new. And he wanted the best bang for the buck.. all 400 of them.
The end result was a micro box, PS, MB, 8gb of RAM, a 2 core Haswell, 128gb Samsung Evo SSD, 1tb 3.5 inch HDD, Lite-on DVDRW, and a USB 3.0 internal card reader. We took advantage of some decent sales after Christmas, etc.
Frankly it was surprising how quick and powerful a system $400 can get you. The only time I could tell a seat of the pants difference from my quad core 4770k system was when using layers, filters, and more advanced functions.
Eye opening.
-
I have a related question:
Currently, I have a 2009 dual 2.93 which has a 64bit multiprocessor geekbench score of around 17,300. The new 8 core has around 22,400 which is approximately 33% faster which isn't a tremendous difference. One post I read about Intel's roadmap says the next gen chips will have up to 14-18 cores but I imagine there is just so much Adobe can split up to make use of more and more cores. So are we reaching a point of dimishing returns from the CPU and the only real increases are going to be from multiple GPU's? If that's the case, does one look at the 500 or 700 series cards?
Jim
-
I have a related question:
Currently, I have a 2009 dual 2.93 which has a 64bit multiprocessor geekbench score of around 17,300. The new 8 core has around 22,400 which is approximately 33% faster which isn't a tremendous difference. One post I read about Intel's roadmap says the next gen chips will have up to 14-18 cores but I imagine there is just so much Adobe can split up to make use of more and more cores. So are we reaching a point of dimishing returns from the CPU and the only real increases are going to be from multiple GPU's? If that's the case, does one look at the 500 or 700 series cards?
Jim
For reference a quad core mini with 16gb gets 14,435, a Haswell 4 core desktop 19xXXX.. so cores are becoming more and more capable.. which tells us we shouldn't necessarily be concerned the "number" of cores, but more concerned with the generation and capability of the cores we choose. Caches come into play we well.
Yes, as most imaging software is currently written, we've reached the point of marginal returns. But if that software isn't written to take advantage of RAM or GPU cores those won't help either. The developers will look at the big picture long term, make their best guess at what components (RAM/CPU/GPU) will most economically provide the most muscle for their products (long term) and then go with it.
Meanwhile we wait. Hurry up and wait.
-
One thing I have not read (might have missed it)
Monitors?
What about the screen we look at while we work on these images? I for one can't see myself looking at the iMac screen all day. That is the deal breaker for me on the iMac. I use the matt screen and I for one could not look at the iMac screen.
Food for though.
-
Worth a read for a purely Lightroom perspective:
http://www.tony-hart.com/blog/essays/2014/01/mac-pro-a-lightroom-perspective/
-
Thanks for the link.
Great read. Very informative.
-
What's new in Adobe Photoshop CC 14.2:
January 16th, 2014
Includes many new features, including Perspective Warp for manipulating multiple perspectives in an image, and linked Smart Objects for easier reuse of design elements. We are also delighted to deliver support for 3D printing in Photoshop CC. Now you can design, edit and print in 3D using the world’s best imaging tool.
JDI Features/Enhancements:
Mercury Graphics Engine performance boost (Smart Sharpen on GPU)
Enhanced Scripted Patterns and Fills (Trees, previews, and other improvements)
Added a “do not show again” checkbox to the missing fonts dialog
Enabled Share on Behance for more languages
Improved history states for editing text, editing and applying Character and Paragraph styles
Generator can export padding in image assets by using layer masks
Layer names can now be up to 255 characters
Generator now properly rescales Illustrator Smart Objects when exported at 200%
New option for Narrow Options Bar, for small displays
On a background layer, one click on the lock icon unlocks the layer
Set custom background color in New Document dialog
Better negative number support in curves adjustments
See recent colors in the Swatches panel
Change “Clear” to “Clear All” for the Color Sampler tool
Increase number of color samplers from 4 to 10
Change all color samplers in Info palette at the same time
Improved font transformations
Improved selection of shapes with white arrow tool (clicking in the middle reveals white knots)
Mac Pro Compatibility:
The Photoshop CC 14.2 update provides GPU compatibility support for the new Apple Mac Pro. The 14.2 update will allow Photoshop to take full advantage of one of the two available GPUs at a time.
We expect to add support for both of the new Apple Mac Pro’s GPUs, and continue to optimize our customers experience by supporting additional GPU operations in a future release.
Each of the two GPUs in the base model of Mac Pro are faster than the GPUs available in any other Mac model, and provide plenty of speed and VRAM (memory on the GPU card) for most operations. If you spend a great deal of time editing very large images using one of the GPU-accelerated Photoshop features such as Blur Gallery, Liquify, or 3D, we expect this gain to be significant. (The 6GB VRAM in the highest end GPU option would only be needed for the largest 3D models).
For additional guidance on hardware, OS and Photoshop configuration see this document on Tuning Photoshop for Peak Performance.