Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: douvidl on June 24, 2012, 06:18:38 pm
-
I am running an iMac with 8gigs memory, 3.06ghz Intel core duo. I use two externals one for Time Machine and the other to store all my photo files via LR 4. The Hard Disk is the primary and one of externals as the scratch disk.
I use Photoshop CS6, with a series of various filters and occasionally Raw Therapee V3 and LR4
My machine is tired. It runs slow both in accessing apps and rendering the files.
Because Apple has not yet announced a new iMac and the rMBP seems too small for my use (15in.)(pricey, especially after adding all the things necessary to spec out the machine), I am looking for an interim solution.
I read the thread about MBP vs iMac for large files and found it confusing and beyond my technical skills. So a thought is to seek your advice as to some alternatives till the Apple world becomes clearer. Another thought is to use an SSD as the primary for photoshop and use the external as the scratch disk.
Your help and suggestions would be much appreciated. I suspect there are many people out their in my position.
Thanks
David
-
Can you add more RAM? How full is your iMac's internal HDD? Have you seen http://macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html ? have you looked at one of the current i5 or i7 27" iMacs?
-
I am maxed out on memory. And yes, I've checked out the current iMacs. To no avail.
But thanks for responding.
David
-
You have a several generation old, 32 bit machine. Going to a current gen iMac would be a 3-4x speed difference. Don't use externals for working files or scratch, you are slowing yourself down (unless thunderbird).
-
Your machine is very similar to my (almost retired) desktop; it has the potential to run very quickly, although it has limited power for heavy lifting. Your machine has two slowdown points that I can detect: one is filesystem fragmentation, and the other is external scratch disk. I would recommend that you buy a SSD drive (something with a good record for reliability and speed), and install OS and applications on it, and use the HDD as internal data storage and scratch/swap/tmp disk.
This should completely remove all the delays in accessing files and running apps, and I can tell that for sure because I'm writing this on a core2duo Air, which is even weaker than your machine, but the SSD makes all the difference and there are no perceptible delays anywhere, although, of course, it is limited in the number crunching department.
-
You have a several generation old, 32 bit machine. Going to a current gen iMac would be a 3-4x speed difference.
Not necessarily. Geekbench for his machine should be about 4646. For the current (soon to be replaced, though) iMac i7 3.4, it's 11479. This is 2.47x difference.
*HOWEVER*, his described slowdown points have nothing to do with this. His filesystem is fragmented and a defrag app would make a significant improvement, but installing OS on a good SSD would completely remove the slowdown and his perceived speed would be increased to the point of never having to wait for an app to start. So my advice would be to go to SSD now and wait for the 2012 iMac. This current generation is on the way out.
Don't use externals for working files or scratch, you are slowing yourself down (unless thunderbird).
You mean thunderbolt? But yes, that's true.
-
I have the same machine, though mine is the Core 2 Duo. A couple of years ago I tested the speed of Photoshop scratch disks, and using the internal disk was faster by a wide margin. Assuming you have the 1TB internal drive, and it's mostly empty, use it for scratch.
The newer iMacs can take an SSD internally -- perhaps there's a way to add one to yours (remove the optical drive? Not sure.) If so, use the SSD for boot and apps and the internal hard drive for photos. That will substantially improve the responsiveness of the machine and may give you another couple of years of use.
-
Daniel
I want to make sure I understand your recommendation. That is to put Lion on a SSD and used the internal hd for scratch, storing running the applications. etc. I would have to used the SSD as an external as there is no way, for me, to install it in the iMac.
Do I understand you correctly?
David?
-
Daniel
I want to make sure I understand your recommendation. That is to put Lion on a SSD and used the internal hd for scratch, storing running the applications. etc. I would have to used the SSD as an external as there is no way, for me, to install it in the iMac.
Do I understand you correctly?
David?
My recommendation works with the premise that there is sufficient space within the core2duo iMac for installing SSD internally and keeping the HDD as a second drive. Of course, I wouldn't recommend you to attempt this yourself, but I am certain you can find a trained professional who will do it for you for a reasonable amount of money. It can obviously be done: http://ssd.youds.com/
-
Daniel
My iMac is a 24" early 2009. How do I find out if it can take an SSD drive? And if it can't can I use an external drive with the same configuration?
David
-
Daniel
My iMac is a 24" early 2009. How do I find out if it can take an SSD drive? And if it can't can I use an external drive with the same configuration?
David
I'm afraid I'm no expert in this, I just saw some of those stripdowns on the net, and I think it would be the best if you consulted with someone who repairs Macs and has experience with this kind of thing.
-
Daniel
My iMac is a 24" early 2009. How do I find out if it can take an SSD drive? And if it can't can I use an external drive with the same configuration?
David
I found out it can be done, but you need to take out the CD drive:
http://www.ifixit.com/Answers/View/72751/HDD+with+an+SSD+in+a+2009+iMac
There's actually an aftermarket part that holds the SSD in place.
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/DDMMCL0GB/
There's a performance gain comparison:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5ejXJeb40U
-
Daniel;
You deserve a medal, or at least a drink.
I've checked out the sites you mentioned plus some others. The iFix it one had the best best info. So I am in the process of trying to find a "specialist " to do the install.
Thanks again,
David
-
Daniel;
You deserve a medal, or at least a drink.
I've checked out the sites you mentioned plus some others. The iFix it one had the best best info. So I am in the process of trying to find a "specialist " to do the install.
Thanks again,
David
Glad to help, cheers. :)
-
I didn't think that was possible with my late 2009 i27' iMac. Turns out that it is so thanks for the tip! Firing up the credit card now.
-
I did some noodling around on the OWC site this morning. It turns out my late-2009 27 inch iMac can handle 16GB of RAM -- I thought it was limited to 8. And the 16GB costs only $110 -- an easy and cheap upgrade that will help both Photoshop and LR, especially when running them together.
Then I looked at adding a second drive. OWC sells kits, like this one (http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20World%20Computing/DDMMSSD115/), that include an SSD, a caddy, and the necessary tools for installation. The SSD replaces the optical drive, which for me means buying an external Super Drive, but that's not expensive either. While I have the iMac in pieces, I'd install a new 2TB hard drive, too, which will have better performance than th stock 1TB that's there now.
Putting my system and applications on the SSD and my data on an internal 2TB drive, along with doubling the RAM, will provide a significant boost in performance. The total cost is around $450, which is not a bad price to pay for extending the usable life of my computer by several years.
[EDIT:] Adding an external Superdrive makes the total cost around $525.
-
Wow!!!
I think you guys should publish. Imagine being able to increase the life of a machine designed to be obsolete shortly after you buy it. Spread the word....joy to rational Apple devotees.
David
-
I did some noodling around on the OWC site this morning. It turns out my late-2009 27 inch iMac can handle 16GB of RAM -- I thought it was limited to 8. And the 16GB costs only $110 -- an easy and cheap upgrade that will help both Photoshop and LR, especially when running them together.
I RAM'd up my late 2009 i5 iMac early last year to 16GB: big performance difference. And now I will add the SSD option as well in place of the internal optical drive which I'll put i nan external housing if I don't get a BluRay external instead.
My only question is which size and which model of SSD to get. I spoke with OWC and the 6G SSD will work in my current iMac but at the speed of the 3G version. The advantage is that when I replace this iMac I'll be able to put it in the replacement machine and get 6G speed. As to size, I think the 120GB SSD will be adequate but I need to check on the size of my Lightroom catalog (the library itself will be external)
I am also not sure whether it will make sense to use the SSD as my boot /applications drive or as a scratch drive (in which case I can go with a smaller capacity drive.) I suspect the first option the better one.
-
And after that $500+ all you're doing is moving the bottleneck and improving a portion of your workflow. Next you will be made painfully aware of how slow your CPU and system bus is compared to a new machine - my advice - don't look at anyone working on a new machine for a while or you'll feel very bad ;)
No way I would pump $500 in to just speeding up part of an old machine. You REALLY don't know the overall difference until you see it. Head on down to an Apple store, bring some files on a USB drive and take some test drives for comparison. SSDs are great for what they do, but are of little importance once you launch the applications, and really how often do you boot, to realize that performance difference?
-
I understand what you're saying about processor speed, but I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion. My machine is 2.5 years old, and has an Intel Core 2 Duo running at 3.06GHz. It's not as fast as the latest i7 processors, but it's not the slowest part of my system right now (the lack of RAM is, and I can fix that for $110.) Given that my iMac cost only around $1250 as a refurb, even a $500 investment in speeding things up might be well worth it depending on how one uses the computer. Compared to spending $2500 on a new iMac with matching specs (i.e., the SSD and 2TB hard drives installed), that's a big difference to get upgraded processors.
Most of the professional photographers I know are incredibly conservative when it comes to cameras and computers. Part of that is just frugality - I want to eke out as much life as possible from my investment in equipment. Part of it is familiarity -- I know my camera works well, and I don't want to upgrade every year or two. (Which explains why I used my 1D Mark II bodies for almost six years, and still have them as backups or when I need remote cameras.) For me it's mostly an understanding that anything I buy will be outdated almost before it is delivered, so I don't worry about watching someone else work on a newer machine -- there will always be someone else with a faster computer. I'll replace my computer when it simply won't do the job, and until then, if I can make minor improvements at a reasonable cost, I'll do so.
All that said, this iMac is for my freelance and personal art work, not my day-to-day production work. So I'm not likely to do anything more than add the RAM upgrade, which is easy and inexpensive.
-
Like I said - you just don't KNOW till you do it. I just went from a Core2 Quad to an i7 and it's a HUGE difference overall. You can't just look at the numbers and know. I know where my bottlenecks are, I chose to put my money where it best balances the system. I could have easily spent 3x the cash for another 20% overall improvement, but that's just silly IMO.
Upgrading old systems to a degree is like putting gold rims and new seats on a 10 year old car. No matter what you do, the engine is always going to be slow compared to something modern. Sure you might enjoy it more but you could have put that cash towards something that will blow it away for many more years to come.
-
I second what kbennett said. I would rather put my $ into a camera upgrade.
-
The problem with upgrading Macs is that they are designed against it. You aren't supposed to be able to do it, they are designed as throwaway products. With a PC, when it gets too slow, I usually take the motherboard, CPU and RAM out and get the new stuff in. Also, every now and then a HDD either becomes full or dies, and I put the new one in. It's a straightforward process not unlike shopping for new shoes. But a Mac is like a laptop, you aren't supposed to just replace the stuff that got worn out or is behind the times. You're supposed to treat it like a single appliance without user-serviceable parts inside, like a toster or a TV.
And it really makes sense, at least for most people, who use the computer to perform standard task it was made to do well. But it's not for people who live on the bleeding edge of technology, using the latest Adobe products. That's why I love Mac laptops, but I'm less thrilled about having the entire desktop machine in a monitor. A desktop machine is the one I upgrade most often because I use it for heavy lifting - massive raw conversions, panoramas, etc.; the laptop is usually a typewriter, and even an IBM T41 was ok for me until it died. However, the tech of today is so good, I really don't expect it to grow exponentially. Even core2duo machines are very quick, expecially when you run them from an SSD.
-
Even core2duo machines are very quick, expecially when you run them from an SSD.
Not compared to an i7 system.
-
The problem with upgrading Macs is that they are designed against it. You aren't supposed to be able to do it, they are designed as throwaway products. With a PC, when it gets too slow, I usually take the motherboard, CPU and RAM out and get the new stuff in. Also, every now and then a HDD either becomes full or dies, and I put the new one in. It's a straightforward process not unlike shopping for new shoes. But a Mac is like a laptop, you aren't supposed to just replace the stuff that got worn out or is behind the times. You're supposed to treat it like a single appliance without user-serviceable parts inside, like a toster or a TV.
And it really makes sense, at least for most people, who use the computer to perform standard task it was made to do well. But it's not for people who live on the bleeding edge of technology, using the latest Adobe products. That's why I love Mac laptops, but I'm less thrilled about having the entire desktop machine in a monitor. A desktop machine is the one I upgrade most often because I use it for heavy lifting - massive raw conversions, panoramas, etc.; the laptop is usually a typewriter, and even an IBM T41 was ok for me until it died. However, the tech of today is so good, I really don't expect it to grow exponentially. Even core2duo machines are very quick, expecially when you run them from an SSD.
You seem to be confusing Macs in general with the iMac which does have limited user upgradeability. Mac Pros are very different machines from iMacs.
-
Not compared to an i7 system.
Depends on what you do with it. If you run many normal apps simultaneously and don't often run CPU-intensive processes, you might never see a real difference. For instance, watching full screen video on i7 isn't any better than on core2duo. You won't see dropped frames on either. Also, for typical raw conversions, you won't see much difference, except when you order a batch process of all selected files in the end, i7 will finish sooner. But if you render video or work with java app server, you will see significant difference.
For most applications, an i7 will be only marginally snappier than a well designed core2duo.
-
You seem to be confusing Macs in general with the iMac which does have limited user upgradeability. Mac Pros are very different machines from iMacs.
I know, but this speciffically is an iMac thread so I wrote in shorthand.
But, as a post scriptum, can you really gut the Mac Pro and perform a significant, generational upgrade? I mean, when the new Mac Pro with thunderbolt and all the goodies comes out, can you really upgrade your old Mac Pro box by buying a new motherboard from Apple? It's a beautiful box, but Apple still expects you to throw it away when the new one comes along. With PC machines, I'm not used to that. A box usually outlasts at least two motherboard replacements.
-
You obviously have not used both and have only theoretical information to base your opinions on. I use them, build them, fix them, upgrade them, test them. Believe what you wish, those of us that have first hand info on this know better.
-
You obviously have not used both and have only theoretical information to base your opinions on.
Not only have I used them, I even built them, so stick your ignorant arrogance where the sun don't shine.
-
Suuuure you have. Sorry but anyone comparing a core2 duo system to an i7 is full of it.
-
Suuuure you have.
I am amazed to find a person like you here. You usually troll gaming forums, but this place seldom attracts teenagers with bad attitude.
-
lol uhhhh wrong person :) 38, no gaming forums, ever :)
-
And here's someone else that just did the same testing - 4x improvement core2 to i7 :) http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=68330.msg540837#msg540837 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=68330.msg540837#msg540837)
-
I've ordered the OWC Data Doubler kit with a 240GB Mercury Electra 3G SSD to replace the optical drive in a late 2009 2.66Ghz quad core i5 iMac. it will be come my boot/apps and lightroom catalog disk with the existing 1TB HDD becoming the scratch disk and location for files I am currently working on. This iMac is already max'd out at 16GB RAM. Once installed and checked out I'll report back on the performance gains or lack thereof.