Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: Ernst on November 24, 2013, 11:00:40 am
-
I can get a lightly used Mac Pro 4.1. (early 2009), 2x2.26 GHz Quad-Core with 24 GB Ram at a good price. I would add a 500 GB SSD. Main use would be for LR and Photoshop. The alternative would be an actual Mac mini, fully upgraded. Which way should I go ?
Thanks
Ernst
-
Can the Mac Pro support the latest operating system?
-
Yes, it does.
Ernst
-
The reason I asked was that I don't think it's worthwhile to get an older Mac if it will lock you in to an earlier operating system, in which case software compatibility will increasingly be an issue.
I use a fully loaded Mac Mini for my work, and I have about 6 TB of images connected with a RAID system. Lightroom and Photoshop work just fine, and the Thunderbolt connection keeps things fast. The operating system could probably be a bit faster if I was doing a lot of video, but it is just fine for my daily work with still photographs.
-
I use the newest mac mini with a SSD and 16 Gig RAM. I put the RAM in myself and saved quite a bit. I find it to be a big boost from my 2007 imac. Still I'm not as fast as I could be because I get my images from an external HD using FW800.
-
For another perspective, see this -
http://pindelski.org/Photography/2013/11/25/mac-pro-buying-opportunities/
-
FWIW, a new top of the line Mini has a higher Geekbench score than that Mac Pro, see http://everymac.com/ (http://everymac.com/). Whether that translates into a practical difference in the real world is another matter.
-
I recently suffered through months of debating a similar choice.
I couldn't live with myself if I dropped $3000 on a Macbook with glued in batteries and soldered RAM, so I went about looking at other options. Thought about Mac Mini, but to me expandability is easier than an iMac, but not something I'm really keen on doing, or comfortable performing.
I started reading MacPerformaceGuide.com, and patiently waited for a 2010 6 core 3.33 ghz Mac Pro to surface in the local used ads based on the recommendations on that site and on the site Rajan posted
I found one with 26gb RAM and a 1 TB hard drive. I bought a 128gb SSD for the boot drive, bought another 1 TB hard drive (currently debating to RAID 0 or not), and will eventually max the RAM.
I work with 24mb RAW files, sometimes stitching 10+ images and it performs well for me.
I can sleep at night knowing in 3-4 years I can add another processor from OWC, expand the internal memory, add a PCIe card with integrated SSD, more SSDs and have a relatively fast computer for the next 5-7 years.
I suggest spending a few evenings readings reading the sites mentioned. I can say that they helped me a great deal.
Good luck!
-
I asked myself the same question 11 months ago: Should I stay with my Mac Pro, the same one you mentioned (2 x quad core Xeon @ 2.26 GHz) or go with a new Mac mini server? I bought the Mac mini server and have never looked back. When I benchmark it with processor intensive tasks, I see running 1.5 - 2 times faster (even though it only has 4 cores instead of 8 in the Mac Pro). If you can get by with the memory limitation, I think the Mac mini is great.
The only downside is that my computer no longer acts as space heater in my office during the winter.
Tim
-
Based upon my experience and that of others here, it appears that Apple lost a lot of MacPro sales by failing to update the line more quickly. It turns out that the Mac Mini works just fine for many photographers.
-
Based upon my experience and that of others here, it appears that Apple lost a lot of MacPro sales by failing to update the line more quickly. It turns out that the Mac Mini works just fine for many photographers.
The mini really is a sweet machine. Add a ssd as a second using the OWC drive double kit, bump the ram to 16 and you are good to go. I still have a workstation that I use for heavy lifting but the mini is not all that far behind, aside from graphics and the 16gb memory limitation.