Mac Pro - best proc for CS3, etc?

[Lust4Life]

Ready to order a new Mac Pro G5.
Software used is CS3, Lightroom, Capture One and Dreamweaver.  Strictly landscape photography work but doing panoramas where single image after merge is 1.3GB.  Smallest files I ever work on is a single shot of 243MB (Phase One P45+ back).  Can have up to 10 layers in a single image file performing various tasks.

Question:
Will the above software make use of the processing power of the "Clovertown" two 3.0GHz quad-core processors?

Machine will have four 750GB drives and 8GB of RAM so I have that area covered.  Just don't want to "waste" funds buying a proc that the software will not access.

Thanks,
Jack

PS:  Will be selling my G5, dual 2.7GHz procs with 8GB RAM, contact me if you have an interest in it.

[jerryrock]

To answer the octo core question, no. There is a distinct advantage to the Clovertown processors when using high end video processing applications like Final Cut Pro or 3D rendering, but not much advantage for still image processing.

[Schewe]

Question:
Will the above software make use of the processing power of the "Clovertown" two 3.0GHz quad-core processors?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes...it will USE all 8 cores and yes, it will be a bit faster than a dual/dual...but not by a lot. The current limit with the Dual Quads is the memory bandwidth restrictions/core. The current motherboard designs tend to start cores of ram. Intel will need to revamp the the memory is shared between the cores to really get an advantage.

There's also an issue with Carbon apps vs Cocoa apps. With Leopard, true 64 bit processing is available but Apple decided to go back on their promise of 64 Carbon compatibilities and only Cocoa apps can move into the true 64 bit pipeline. Which means, for Photoshop it ain't gonna happen soon.

While Photoshop currently DOES use all 8 cores (I have a dual/quad) it's not optimal. You might be better off getting to dual/dual with 16 gigs (and using the VM Buffering optional plug-in) as well as getting a really, really fast stripped multi drive array for scratch. Scott Byer (Photoshop engineer) has written about optimizing a setup, see: [a href=\"http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/2007/09/photoshop_world.html]Photoshop World - Heavy Lifting[/url].

To read more about the VM Buffering, see:PHOTOSHOP CS3 VM BUFFERING OPTIONAL EXTENSIONS-MAC ONLY

[mistybreeze]

Jeff,

Thank you for the Scott Byer link. Extremely helpful info.

[jerryrock]

You might be better off getting to dual/dual with 16 gigs (and using the VM Buffering optional plug-in) as well as getting a really, really fast stripped multi drive array for scratch.

!6 gigs may be overkill for Photoshop as it can only access up to 8 gigs in OSX (anything over 4 and up to 8 is used as scratch disk before going to a physical disk). This Adobe article on memory management in Photoshop CS3 is also a very good resource:

http://www.adobe.com/go/kb401089

[mistybreeze]

Jerry,

That Adobe TechNote is also a helpful read. However, I noticed one section that contradicts Mr. Schewe's take on PSD, a subject covered in another informative thread here.

This current TechNote reads:

Flattening TIFF files

Photoshop allows layers to be saved in TIFF files. Layered TIFF files are larger than flattened TIFF files and require more resources for processing and printing. If you work with a layered TIFF file, save the original layered file as an Adobe Photoshop (.psd) file; then, when you are ready to save the file in TIFF format, save a copy without layers.

So, it seems Adobe continues to recommend saving layered files as .PSD (I assume that means editing in PSD as well), which was my old workflow until Jeff wrote his take on PSD.

And one wonders why digital photographers are confused and pulling their last three hairs out.

I see no reason to return to retouching in PSD because I haven't noticed any savings in file sizes. It seems much more efficient to:

1. Retouch photographic images on a TIFF (converted from Adobe Camera RAW)
2. Save the Master Retouch version as a layered TIFF.
3. Dupe the Master Retouch version and Flatten.
4. Prepare the Flattened version for Output.

I know this isn't the subject of this thread but feel free to tell me I got this wrong.

[Schewe]

I know this isn't the subject of this thread but feel free to tell me I got this wrong.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156634\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Adobe is wrong (they are touting the company line) and I'm right. There are a few obscure possible benefits to PSD (such as being able to "un-crop" a raw file from Camera Raw) but the bennies are outweighed by the downsides. And considering my position was influenced by Photoshop engineers themselves (who are constantly frustrated by the fact the PSD must serve the entire Creative Suite and is no longer Photoshop native file format), I think most people would be better served using TIFF rather than PSD. Yes, a PSD saved without "Backwards Compatibility" checked will be a "bit" smaller...but then the support for that kind of saved PSD is waning. You can't import a PSD without the BC into Lightroom, for example...

[jerryrock]

Jerry,

I see no reason to return to retouching in PSD because I haven't noticed any savings in file sizes. It seems much more efficient to:

1. Retouch photographic images on a TIFF (converted from Adobe Camera RAW)
2. Save the Master Retouch version as a layered TIFF.
3. Dupe the Master Retouch version and Flatten.
4. Prepare the Flattened version for Output.

I know this isn't the subject of this thread but feel free to tell me I got this wrong.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156634\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have always used PSD and will continue to do so. I see no issues with file incompatibilities by using PSD, which is a supported file format in all of the editing and Graphic Design programs I work with.

Contrarily, TIFF format does not support Duotones. Importing either PSD or TIFF files into a page layout program results in any vector content being rasterized.

The PDF format currently supports more features than any other graphic file format, and is increasingly becoming the most widely used because of this.

[Wayne Fox]

To read more about the VM Buffering, see:PHOTOSHOP CS3 VM BUFFERING OPTIONAL EXTENSIONS-MAC ONLY
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156441\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for that link Jeff ... very informative.

[Schewe]

I have always used PSD and will continue to do so. I see no issues with file incompatibilities by using PSD, which is a supported file format in all of the editing and Graphic Design programs I work with.

Don't use Lightroom huh?

Contrarily, TIFF format does not support Duotones.

Do a lot of duotones? I don't know many photographers that do...there are different file formats for a reason. But the "old reason" to use PSD files went away the moment that it was no longer the "native file format" of Photoshop. It's the native file format of the Creative Suite now...

Photoshop's ONLY file format that _IS_ native is PSB (large file format) and Photoshop doesn't need to worry about any compatibility issues except for within Photoshop.

The upside of TIFF is that it's publicly documented...PSD isn't. And you need extra special NDA clearance to get at the overview stuff of PSD let alone the private internals (which Adobe hardly EVER gives out to 3rd parties).

There's nothing "wrong" with PSDs, per se...but it ain't like the old days when it was "owned" by Photoshop. And, it was the Photoshop engineers themselves that suggested that many people move away from PSD to TIFF. I tend to believe what the engineers tell me. I won't mention their names cause it ain't the "party line" and no need to get them in Dutch...but it was more than just a handful that suggested TIFF over PSD.

:~)

[jerryrock]

I don't use Lightroom, I use the other product (Aperture). In any case, I always maximize compatibility of the PSD files. I never know where I may need to open them.

I do realize that technology changes and you have to keep up with the times. A recent tour of RIT's School of Imaging Arts and Sciences revealed that this is the last semester they will be teaching film based photography. This in the city of Eastman Kodak!

For me PSD works right now. I am a Photographer and Graphic Designer using Adobe Creative Suite Premium, Quark XPress, Aperture and even iPhoto occasionally. All support PSD file, and right now I have no reason to change. Who knows, I may even have to use a duotone one of these years!
 


Jerry

[Lust4Life]

Now what does any of this have to do with the topic?
Jack

[jerryrock]

Now what does any of this have to do with the topic?
Jack
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156910\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Did you get your answers? Do you have any more question?

[jjj]

I do.  

While Photoshop currently DOES use all 8 cores (I have a dual/quad) it's not optimal. You might be better off getting to dual/dual with 16 gigs (and using the VM Buffering optional plug-in) as well as getting a really, really fast stripped multi drive array for scratch. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156441\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What about those of us who may have many apps all open, maybe PS doing a batch action , You're editing in LR and Bridge is rendering a bunch of files and maybe InDesign is holding a layout for the images being dealt with? This lot alongside browsers, email clients, music players and CD/DVD Burning etc to go the full monty on app running? Asuming scratch disks etc are the same for dual or quad machine with same memory. Will a quad core make enough difference [to justify cost],when you have lots of applications open, as opposed to using just PS.

It'll be useful to know as close to buying a new desktop and I'm contemplating whether to go the whole quad core hog.

[Anthony R]

Hold off buying until next year if you can. The Pro is due for an update and I doubt it will be a cursory one what with the new CS3 Suite of Adobe and the new OS. Useful link perhaps http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac_Pro

Always buy more compter than you think you will need. The difference in price is negligible when 6 months from purchasing you are wishing for more and wondering why you wanted to save 400-500 dollars so badly.