Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: GeraldB on March 01, 2018, 08:09:40 am
-
I am in the market for a new machine, moving away from an older PC to an apple product. I use it mostly for Lightroom and Photoshop with D850 size images. Most heavy lifting is in photoshop. Don't do any serious video. I do print on a 7900.
Does anyone have any experience on whether the increased core count on the pro vs the faster clock speed of the iMac is worth the extra money?
The 2 machines I would consider are:
iMac 4.2 Ghz, 32Gb memory, 1TB ssd
iMac Pro, 8 core, 32GB memory, 1TB ssd
thanks
Gerald
-
Hi Gerald, from what I'm understanding from some of the threads here is that the Pro is more suited to video as far as performance gains are concerned. Nice website by the way, the collection of the armor shots is very well done!! You may want to try having a peek over on YouTube, there are many folks putting reports together on their experiences with the iMac Pro.
Kevin in CT
-
Thanks Kevin. I have the same thought on the extra cores being more value in video. I'll check out the youtube videos.
I was hoping there was someone on the forum who has upgraded iMac to Pro and could provide their thoughts
-
I believe Kevin did a piece when he got his Pro, you might try checking with Chris as well.
Kevin in CT
-
I am in the market for a new machine, moving away from an older PC to an apple product. I use it mostly for Lightroom and Photoshop with D850 size images. Most heavy lifting is in photoshop. Don't do any serious video. I do print on a 7900.
Does anyone have any experience on whether the increased core count on the pro vs the faster clock speed of the iMac is worth the extra money?
The 2 machines I would consider are:
iMac 4.2 Ghz, 32Gb memory, 1TB ssd
iMac Pro, 8 core, 32GB memory, 1TB ssd
thanks
Gerald
I was in the market for a new iMac and had the same decision to make. Microcenter made it easy when they had the base model iMac Pro on sale for $1000 off. It wasn't much more than a similarly equipped non-Pro version. I'm not seeing significant advantages when working with images but I do plan to work with video more so I expected to see gains there. If I hadn't gotten the $1000 off I would have gone with the non-Pro and been perfectly happy.
-
For what it’s worth Digilloyd strongly recommends against the iMac Pro. Poor price to perfo ratio for photographers and important issues also.
I am personnally still ok with my 4 years old Mac Pro and will be waiting for the next gen pro to decide if I stay in the OSX world or go Win 10/11 with a high end workstation from HP.
I feel that today Win 10 is ahead in terms of scalability/perfo. Since most of the apps I use a lot are cross platform this would be pretty painless.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have the following:
27" iMac
4.2 GHz i7
40 GB RAM
Radion Pro 580 8GB
512 GB SSD
For storage I have 3 Drobo arrays. Probably overkill on the number but 2 of them are old USB/FW800 with the big one being Thunderbolt 2 (up to 20Gbs).
I'm quite pleased with the machine. I ordered it with 8GB RAM and added 32GB RAM from Crucial. Crucial saved me a bunch of money vs Apple on the RAM.
I mostly use Lightroom and Photoshop for my photography with some additional plugins and software.
I'm also doing some 4K video work with Apple's Final Cut Pro X. I wasn't into video much until I got a drone. Then I couldn't help myself. ;D
I also have a 25" 2560x1440 second monitor because it really makes Photoshop much easier for me with all the pallets and such on the second screen.
When I first got the machine I was a bit disappointed because having the newer, better hardware Lightroom wasn't any faster. Grrrrr.... That said Adobe seems to have finally heard the seething masses and it is in the process of performance improvements for Lightroom. The latest update did provide some nice improvements in performance although not across the board but they say they're still working on it.
From my perspective the iMac Pro is awesome. I just wouldn't spend that much money for my use. If you were big into 4K or 8K video or having to handle thousands of photos daily then it would make sense. Just my $0.02
-
Hi,
This will be a wild guess, but I will expect Apple to upgrade the iMac line around June. I will expect those iMac to have the new Intel processors of 6 cores instead of 4 cores that the actual iMac uses. Now that Adobe is starting to use more than 4 cores in Lightroom, those iMac look quite interesting.
Now, if you can not wait. For just photography, I will go with the iMac over the iMac Pro. The iMac Pro will make more sense for video tasks or if you are doing very heavy focus stacking or panoramic image and you are not using Adobe software for doing that.
P.D.: BernardLanguillier, the surprise will be if Digilloyd talks about a piece of hardware that it is not from OWC or RRS that does not have very important issues.
Regards,
David
-
Thanks for the replies and thoughts on this topic.
One part of my question is based on future proofness. The iMac would most likely serve me well now, but what will it feel like in 5 years? Not that the Pro solves that problem either. The best possibility as mentioned by David is an iMac upgrade the the latest 6 core non zeon processors. They too have a turbo up to 4.6Ghz but I'm not sure that all cores can get there.
Gerald
-
The Pro has not been updated since launch and Apple have indicated that a significant redesign will be released this year, a modular version with more future proofing and customizabiluty. However we do not know when. WWDC, their developer conference, is in June and is the most likely announcement date. But who knows it may well be later. In any case I would not be buying a Pro with a view to future proofing. The iMac Pro is the bird in your hand.
-
Thanks for the replies and thoughts on this topic.
One part of my question is based on future proofness. The iMac would most likely serve me well now, but what will it feel like in 5 years? Not that the Pro solves that problem either. The best possibility as mentioned by David is an iMac upgrade the the latest 6 core non zeon processors. They too have a turbo up to 4.6Ghz but I'm not sure that all cores can get there.
Gerald
No, not all cores get there. For example, for the processor that I was mentioning, the Intel i7-8700k, Intel says it has a maximum turbo speed of 4.7 GHz. But that it is only if 1 core is being used. If 2 cores are used, the maximum turbo speed is 4.6 GHz, with 3 cores it gets down to 4.5 GHz, 4.4 GHz if 4 or 5 cores are used and 4.3 GHz if all 6 cores are used. This is the maximum, the minimum speed is 3.7 GHz. This is typical behavior for all multi-core processors now a days.
P.D.: Even more technical note. Intel Coffee Lake processors of the "k" series, like this one I mentioned, has an special mode that allows that processor to put all its cores at 4.7 GHz in turbo speed. Intel calls that enhanced mode. This comes with a price. The processor consumes more energy and temperature gets higher. This means that first your motherboards + PSU must be able to deliver that amount of power in an stable way and you need a good cooling system to avoid any instability. I don't think Apple is going to enable this mode in their iMacs, but that it is a wild guess from my part. More information: https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3077-explaining-coffee-lake-turbo-8700k-8600k
-
No, not all cores get there. For example, for the processor that I was mentioning, the Intel i7-8700k, Intel says it has a maximum turbo speed of 4.7 GHz. But that it is only if 1 core is being used. If 2 cores are used, the maximum turbo speed is 4.6 GHz, ...
How do these processors then compare to say an
Intel® Xeon® Silver 4110 Processor (2.1 GHz, up to 3 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 11 MB cache, 2400MHz, 8 core) ?
Typical entry level processor in an HP Z8 G4 workstation (which would cost around $400 extra over the base spec).
-
How do these processors then compare to say an
Intel® Xeon® Silver 4110 Processor (2.1 GHz, up to 3 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 11 MB cache, 2400MHz, 8 core) ?
Typical entry level processor in an HP Z8 G4 workstation (which would cost around $400 extra over the base spec).
Hi Manoli,
I haven't read too much about the new Intel Xeon Bronze/Siver/Gold/Titanium processors with the exception of benchmarking related to server-type software: https://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/4 . That I do it for work, but these are completely different scenarios. The main problem it is that these processors are two different type of beasts.
So, for normal photographer usage, the better solution will be to go to an i7-8700k system or an i9 system if they need more cores because they also are doing some video editing. The Xeon W processors that Apple is using for their iMac Pro are more similar to these i7 or i9 than the Xeon processors HP is using.
Now, why HP decided to build their workstations with these other processors? For starters, because these processors support to be put in pairs into one system. So, you can buy two cheap Intel® Xeon® Silver 4110 Processors (they are around 400$ each) and get a 16 core system (32 core with hyperthreading). Also, these are server grade processors so they support ECC memory. It is not really important for a photographer, since memory errors are not common... but if you are running a several days simulation in one of these workstations, you will not like it to stop because a memory read/write error. Also, these processors support 48 PCI-E lines directly to the processors (the chipset adds more) vs the 16 lines of the i7-8700k, so you can put several GPUs at 16x speed directly talking with the processor, that it could be interesting for some kind of simulations. The chipset Intel gives to those Xeon processors comes already with 10Gigabit ethernet cards that could be interesting for a server/workstation place. They support up 768 GB of RAM, the i7-8700k "only" 64 GB.
At the end is a balance. For photography and even 4k vídeo editing, one of the latests i7 and i9 will be more than nice. If you are doing simulations or using software that benefits a lot of cores (Lightroom or Capture One are not the case), even if those cores are running at lower speed. Or your app benefits a lot tons of GB of RAM, etc...
-
Hi David,
There's the 'gotch'ya' only 64Gb of RAM in the vanilla iMac v 128 in the iMac Pro. I defer to your tech expertise (I'm not buying another computer without checking w/ you first :) ) but in my experience, particularly in photography, the additional RAM doesn't go to waste. So the question is for the OP , and others myself included - at what point does the cheaper Mac become , if not obsolete, a poor decision compared to the machine w/ the additional RAM.
Or, to put it another way, 64GB of RAM, today, seems to me to the very minimum requirement looking into the future. I haven't checjked the pricing , but my gut tells me that if I was a buyer today, I'd probably be inclined to go w/ the iMac Pro and it's 128GB capacity, $$$ permitting of course.
It'd be interesting if some of us who bought the trashcan MacPro when it came out, thinking of Bernard and Chris Sanderson, could give us some real-world experiences and feedback (that is when Chris isn't too busy locking threads and deleting posts .. [/leg-pull, Chris]
Anyway, David, thanks for your input.
Best,
M
Hi Manoli,
I haven't read too much about the new Intel Xeon Bronze/Siver/Gold/Titanium processors with the exception of benchmarking related to server-type software: https://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/4 . That I do it for work, but these are completely different scenarios. The main problem it is that these processors are two different type of beasts.
So, for normal photographer usage, the better solution will be to go to an i7-8700k system or an i9 system if they need more cores because they also are doing some video editing. The Xeon W processors that Apple is using for their iMac Pro are more similar to these i7 or i9 than the Xeon processors HP is using.
Now, why HP decided to build their workstations with these other processors? For starters, because these processors support to be put in pairs into one system. So, you can buy two cheap Intel® Xeon® Silver 4110 Processors (they are around 400$ each) and get a 16 core system (32 core with hyperthreading). Also, these are server grade processors so they support ECC memory. It is not really important for a photographer, since memory errors are not common... but if you are running a several days simulation in one of these workstations, you will not like it to stop because a memory read/write error. Also, these processors support 48 PCI-E lines directly to the processors (the chipset adds more) vs the 16 lines of the i7-8700k, so you can put several GPUs at 16x speed directly talking with the processor, that it could be interesting for some kind of simulations. The chipset Intel gives to those Xeon processors comes already with 10Gigabit ethernet cards that could be interesting for a server/workstation place. They support up 768 GB of RAM, the i7-8700k "only" 64 GB.
At the end is a balance. For photography and even 4k vídeo editing, one of the latests i7 and i9 will be more than nice. If you are doing simulations or using software that benefits a lot of cores (Lightroom or Capture One are not the case), even if those cores are running at lower speed. Or your app benefits a lot tons of GB of RAM, etc...
-
Hi,
So, here we come again to the needs that you have right now. For example, my own needs as today... editing 42 megapixels images in Lightroom with very light usage of Photoshop. I also use Final Cut X editing around 20 to 30 minutes 4K videos. I’m doing it right now confortable with a MacBook Pro of 16GB of RAM.
If I have to buy a computer today, I will probably try it to have 32 GB of RAM. What I consider the double of my actual needs. I will be comfortable with this if it is upgradable to 64 GB of RAM (and RAM right now has gone crazy and expensive due to mobile phones all using 8GB of RAM now).
So basically, my personal rule is buy the double I’m using right now... and have at least the capacity of upgrade in the future to the double of that.
But this is going to depend in each case. For example, if you are really into video, extra cores of the Xeon processors will be ideal, since video processing is highly parallel task (a powerful GPU helps too... if miners give you the opportunity of buying one at a right price).
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
So basically, my personal rule is buy the double I’m using right now... and have at least the capacity of upgrade in the future to the double of that.
Yes, and I may well be wrong, but the new iMacs and I guess the iMac Pros aren't RAM upgradeable after the intitial buy. Once you spec & order it, that's it - you're cooked!
-
Yes, and I may well be wrong, but the new iMacs and I guess the iMac Pros aren't RAM upgradeable after the intitial buy. Once you spec & order it, that's it - you're cooked!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/9to5mac.com/2017/06/21/how-to-upgrade-ram-2017-5k-imac-video/amp/
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/9to5mac.com/2017/06/21/how-to-upgrade-ram-2017-5k-imac-video/amp/
Read some of the comments to find out why it's not the best idea, and the iMac Pro isn't upgradeable other than by authorised Apple techs.
But to get back to the OP, it's a $3,700 v $4,999 question.
I agree w/ David's rationale - but I'd pay the extra bucks. A sage person, though, would probably be wiser and save the extra $1,300 ...
-
Read some of the comments to find out why it's not the best idea, and the iMac Pro isn't upgradeable other than by authorised Apple techs.
But to get back to the OP, it's a $3,700 v $4,999 question.
I agree w/ David's rationale - but I'd pay the extra bucks. A sage person, though, would probably be wiser and save the extra $1,300 ...
Read them, not sure where you see the problem. Buy something recommended and ideally use just that type and keep the original Apple one handy. This seems trustworthy: https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/imac-2017-27-inch
To clarify, this only refers to the new iMac 27” 5K.
I have no intention to buy it but I found this few weeks ago when I was curious about what the iMac would offer.
-
Yes, and I may well be wrong, but the new iMacs and I guess the iMac Pros aren't RAM upgradeable after the intitial buy. Once you spec & order it, that's it - you're cooked!
iMacs are user upgradable in terms of RAM (with the exception of the 21 inch model), they have a door in the back that gives access to the RAM slots and you can add more RAM. The best idea with them it is to buy the lowest amount of RAM and upgrade them via third party so you don’t pay Apple RAM prices.
iMac Pros are not user upgradable... well, unless you don’t mind forgetting about the warranty and having to dissemble half of the machine to do so...
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
iMacs are user upgradable in terms of RAM ...The best idea with them it is to buy the lowest amount of RAM and upgrade them via third party so you don’t pay Apple RAM prices.
You'll no doubt correct me if I'm wrong but the initial 8GB of RAM on the vanilla iMac is SOLDERED onto the board. So you can only ADD extra memory - 'mix&match' , not ideal.
iMac Pros are not user upgradable... well, unless you don’t mind forgetting about the warranty and having to dissemble half of the machine to do so...
But you can have Apple techs upgrade it for you.
Read them, not sure where you see the problem. Buy something recommended and ideally use just that type and keep the original Apple one handy.
Armand, you can't keep RAM that's been soldered onto the board 'handy'. and adding RAM, as you'll see from the comments below, is NOT the best idea.
Look , you're speaking with someone who has experienced RAM issues and downtime in the past. It's just not, IMO, worth the hassle and risk - especially not if you're using the machines in any kind of professional capacity.
Going back to the OP, the price differential is $1,400, cost of non Apple RAM, about a third - so the net differential is less than a $1,000. If you're in the US and have access to OWC , yes, perhaps something to consider. If you're not then, personally, I wouldn't.
But as always - YMMV.
The problem with 3rd party RAM and even storage is that if you have a problem, Apple can't help. The way they make RAM, it's serial number and OEM information is burned into the chips so their RAM test software/diag looks for Apple's name, part number and serial number is checked and if it's using 3rd party RAM, then you WILL get an error message to replace with Apple RAM and then Apple Support can help you. Same goes with SSD.
–
Specifically on the iMac 5K's it's important to install memory from the same production batch for optimal system stability. Adding the (excellent quality btw!) Crucial RAM to the pre-existing OEM stuff isn't a recommended configuration. It may work, but isn't ideal. Even the same RAM from Crucial from different runs isn't recommended (per their tech support). In one system we had 1 bad chip from Crucial. They replaced all of them to be sure they matched.
-
I had purchased Crucial direct from Crucial almost on the same day and within a week almost a year later, both of use had kernel panic issues and we both troubleshot it down to the RAM and Crucial sent out replacement RAM that didn't pass the memory test (3rd party test software) so they had to resend another replace module. so after it's all said and done, the downtime was over a week, WELL worth just spending the money on Apple RAM and not having the problem. I've not had any problems with Apple supplied RAM, knock on wood. And that's over the years since my first Apple II+ in 1977. They just have a good track record with quality RAM.
-
You'll no doubt correct me if I'm wrong but the initial 8GB of RAM on the vanilla iMac is SOLDERED onto the board. So you can only ADD extra memory - 'mix&match' , not ideal.
Two iMacs, 21 and 27 inches:
- 21 inches, it uses the same motherboard as the MacBook Pro, so Apple saves costs... RAM is soldered there. No upgradable at all.
- 27 inches, it comes with 4 user upgradable memory RAM banks. They are SO-DIMMs memory banks, the same ones that laptops use. The base 27 inch model comes with 8 GB in two 4GB memory modules. You can remove those two and upgrade to a top of 64 GB of RAM: https://9to5mac.com/2017/06/21/how-to-upgrade-ram-2017-5k-imac-video/ , no memory RAM is soldered to the motherboard and you don’t need to remove the screen like in the iMac Pro to do so.
Doing the last part yourself it is highly recommended, Apple asks for 720€ in Spain to upgrade the memory of an iMac Retina 5k to 32 GB of RAM. Two Crucial modules of 16GB cost in Amazon Spain 320€, you are just saving a bit more than half the price and you still have 8GB (the original ones that came with the iMac).
Regards,
David
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
The base 27 inch model comes with 8 GB in two 4GB memory modules. You can remove those two and upgrade to a top of 64 GB of RAM: https://9to5mac.com/2017/06/21/how-to-upgrade-ram-2017-5k-imac-video/ , no memory RAM is soldered to the motherboard and you don’t need to remove the screen like in the iMac Pro to do so.
Thank you for clarifying that, David - good to know.
M
-
Hi Manoli,
I haven't read too much about the new Intel Xeon Bronze/Siver/Gold/Titanium processors with the exception of benchmarking related to server-type software: https://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/4 . That I do it for work, but these are completely different scenarios. The main problem it is that these processors are two different type of beasts.
So, for normal photographer usage, the better solution will be to go to an i7-8700k system or an i9 system if they need more cores because they also are doing some video editing. The Xeon W processors that Apple is using for their iMac Pro are more similar to these i7 or i9 than the Xeon processors HP is using.
Now, why HP decided to build their workstations with these other processors? For starters, because these processors support to be put in pairs into one system. So, you can buy two cheap Intel® Xeon® Silver 4110 Processors (they are around 400$ each) and get a 16 core system (32 core with hyperthreading). Also, these are server grade processors so they support ECC memory. It is not really important for a photographer, since memory errors are not common... but if you are running a several days simulation in one of these workstations, you will not like it to stop because a memory read/write error. Also, these processors support 48 PCI-E lines directly to the processors (the chipset adds more) vs the 16 lines of the i7-8700k, so you can put several GPUs at 16x speed directly talking with the processor, that it could be interesting for some kind of simulations. The chipset Intel gives to those Xeon processors comes already with 10Gigabit ethernet cards that could be interesting for a server/workstation place. They support up 768 GB of RAM, the i7-8700k "only" 64 GB.
At the end is a balance. For photography and even 4k vídeo editing, one of the latests i7 and i9 will be more than nice. If you are doing simulations or using software that benefits a lot of cores (Lightroom or Capture One are not the case), even if those cores are running at lower speed. Or your app benefits a lot tons of GB of RAM, etc...
Phase one say, in thread on their support forum, that Capture One can "use all the cores you can throw at it".
-
Phase one say, in thread on their support forum, that Capture One can "use all the threads you can throw at it".
So, for Capture One I don't doubt it. But, and saying this without seeing detailed tests like I saw for Lightroom, I doubt you will see much benefit from going for a 10 core to a 18 core for example. I'm not saying the software can no scale well. I'm saying a RAW image processing does not has that big amount of data to keep busy so many cores before the task that you are doing it is complete. I'm talking about typical scenarios. Importing images from trips, weddings, social events, news events, etc...
Taking in the case of HP Xeon processors workstations, you can build a system with 56 cores, that it is a lot of cores to keep busy, and RAW image processing it is not going to do that.
-
David ,
Up to now the discussion was a 4-core i7 v an 8-core Xeon-W. I'm not sure I see where 18-cores, let alone 56 entered into the equation ... [/levity]
-
Thank you for clarifying that, David - good to know.
M
Just saying, that's exactly the same link that I've posted several posts before ;D
-
Just saying, that's exactly the same link that I've posted several posts before ;D
Armand, that was in regard to the info about soldering RAM, it wasn't for the link or the article.
But you are quite right, you did first post that link and I didn't thank you for it - so here goes: thank you!
[/smiling-yellow-face]
Now guys, it's Sunday afternoon, or PM depending on your location, and I'm off to watch Manchester City v Chelsea ...
I wish you all 'bon divertimento' !
-
Armand, that was in regard to the info about soldering RAM, it wasn't for the link or the article.
But you are quite right, you did first post that link and I didn't thank you for it - so here goes: thank you!
[/smiling-yellow-face]
Now guys, it's Sunday afternoon, or PM depending on your location, and I'm off to watch Manchester City v Chelsea ...
I wish you all 'bon divertimento' !
Thank you for reminding me to set the recording.
I'm ok without credits, I was only pointing to the fact that they said in the article that only the 27" one had the user replaceable RAM while the 21.5" had it soldered.
-
David ,
Up to now the discussion was a 4-core i7 v an 8-core Xeon-W. I'm not sure I see where 18-cores, let alone 56 entered into the equation ... [/levity]
Well, the topic is iMac vs iMac Pro (the last one can have 18 cores). I was just commenting to the other poster that I really see complicated that for just one RAW image processing a RAW editor could get too much benefit of using 18 cores vs let’s say 8... the base iMac Pro model. Other thing it is if the use does high amount of batch image processing, for example, some focus stacking software programs will benefit from the number of cores.
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
It'd be interesting if some of us who bought the trashcan MacPro when it came out, thinking of Bernard and Chris Sanderson, could give us some real-world experiences and feedback (that is when Chris isn't too busy locking threads and deleting posts ..
Pretty happy about the Mac Pro overall.
Mine has 8 cores, 2x700 GPU and 128 GB of Ram. It is still really fast with C1 Pro on D850 files and PTgui thanks to the optimized GPUs. It struggles a bit on H6D-100c files in even the latest version of LR (although it is better overall), but this is more an Adobe issue than anything else.
I spend a lot less time stitching than I used to since I have less time for serious landscape work, but the pro was doing a good job with highly multi-threaded tasks such as Autopano Pro.
Since I have externalized by storage through Thunderbolt disk arrays, to me the ability to add internal storage to a new modular Mac Pro would have limited value, but I would still appreciate the possibility to add more cores or high end GPUs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
P.D.: BernardLanguillier, the surprise will be if Digilloyd talks about a piece of hardware that it is not from OWC or RRS that does not have very important issues.
Fair enough, but his point on the limited value of the iMac Pro relative to the base one remains mostly valid.
Although one could argue that he tends to support upgradable hardware since they give him the opportunity to push readers to OWC and buy memory upgrades there. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Fair enough, but his point on the limited value of the iMac Pro relative to the base one remains mostly valid.
Although one could argue that he tends to support upgradable hardware since they give him the opportunity to push readers to OWC and buy memory upgrades there. ;D
Yes, I don't agree with the importance he gives to some issues, but he does very consistent tests. From his tests you can reach the things I commented before. For just Lightroom usage, iMac Pro is overkill. Unless you are doing serious video editing or doing a lot of Focus Stacking images, the increase of price will probably not compensate the increase of performance.
About the issues of the Soft RAID and boot drive, the first one there is a workaround: https://www.softraid.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=891&pid=2756#pid2756 until Apple or SoftRAID make a more permanent solution. About the secure enclave and boot drive, that I'm assuming it will be the norm for future Macs, it can be disabled: http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/12/12/imac-pro-debuts-custom-apple-t2-chip-to-handle-secure-boot-password-encryption-more . I suppose that enabling or disabling it will depend how the user feels about physical security of his/her machine, i.e.: If there is the risk unknown person physically booting the machine with other drive to gain access to the machine and install some kind of malware.
-
New test results are dramatically different with layest LR upgrade.
https://diglloyd.com/blog/2018/20180307_1434-iMacPro-Lightroom-ImportExport.html
Cheers,
Bernard
-
New test results are dramatically different with layest LR upgrade.
https://diglloyd.com/blog/2018/20180307_1434-iMacPro-Lightroom-ImportExport.html
Cheers,
Bernard
Importing and exporting files are much faster. OK, so how much time do you spend doing this compared to the actual post work ?
I'm smiling as I write this because I'm sitting in my studio right next to the $4K Para 133 I bought with the money I saved by not buying the iMac Pro and just buying the fastest iMac. The looser in the import/export test, work done in my studio over a bottle of wine and conversation with the client and talent from the days shoot.
The Para has returned my investment in it a couple of times in 2 months. The standard iMac works beautifully during my shoots and for post. Twin 8TB Thunderbolt raids make file transfer and post painless and safe. RAID 0 while shooting with a RAID 1 ingesting the files every 5 minutes as the first backup.
The next iMac Pro should be nice and by then Adobe may have re-written the code that really matters. Not just the easy parts.
-
A few months ago I asked if anyone had any numbers on relative performance of iMac vs iMac Pro.
I now have a few that I can share. I did not try to do a really scientific test, just a few scenarios measured only once.
See attached image.
-
Interesting results. What kind of graphics card did the different machines have?
-
The Macs have the standard graphics cards. I don’t have the numbers at the top my head. The PC has a low end AMD card. LRM and PS used to crash on my PC when tha graphics card was enabled. No such issues with the macs.