Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: JimGoshorn on June 16, 2015, 06:16:20 pm
-
Hi,
Just thought I would inquire what kinds of experiences those of you with the 2013 Mac Pro are having and what config you got. My old 2009 Mac Pro is getting a bit long on the tooth and it's getting near time to consider upgrading...
Thanks!
Jim
-
Had mine for nearly 18 months now. It's all good! I bought the base model but BTO'd to the 6 core. That works out a bit cheaper than ordering the 6 core outright as I figured the base model's GPUs would be more than good enough for non-video work. 512GB SSD. 32GB RAM.
-
I did a lot of serious research over month long period - Lloyd Chambers is an excellent resource -- before deciding that as I do not do a lot of video work, the 27"- Retina iMac with the 4GHZ processor and the higher capacity vGPU just made more sense for still photography. I bought additional RAM from OWC to take it up to 32GB.
I really wanted to go with the Mac Pro but this machine just made more sense.
-
@Phila - I was thinking of going from my current 8 down to a 6 core to save $$. I thought maybe the D300's would become outdated too soon?
@Ellis - I read Lloyd's reviews and he returned his iMac because of concerns over overheating, profiling the screen and too few TB2 ports. Have you had any issues with those? I also seem to recall that the iMac didn't play well with LR (and Illustrator).
Thanks!
Jim
-
@Ellis - I read Lloyd's reviews and he returned his iMac because of concerns over overheating, profiling the screen and too few TB2 ports. Have you had any issues with those? I also seem to recall that the iMac didn't play well with LR (and Illustrator).
Thanks!
Jim
I do not think Lloyd Chambers really wanted to buy the iMac... he has a very fast MacPro... he just wanted to test it...so he returned it within his legal return period.
-
I have had the MacPro for over a year and somewhat regret its purchase. I find that even now in the video world, not enough apps are sufficiently multi-processor and GPU aware. Even Apple's Compressor is considerably faster for a single video's compression on a MacBok Pro or iMac-R (https://larryjordan.com/articles/video-compression-speed-test-2/). Hello Apple??
IMO this seriously calls into question the economics of the MacPro vs either of those Macs mentioned above.
I would suggest doing very careful research before committing your dollars.
(Parenthetically, Capture One 8 is specifically engineered for the MacPro)
-
I have had my Mac Pro for 5 months having replaced a dying Mac Pro 2009. It is OK and I think a lot of my issues have been Yosemite related and not hardware related. I stayed with the base graphics set-up and used OWC to push me to 64 G. I have been surprised that it isn't really all that subjectively faster than my old 2.9 G machine from 6 years ago. I wanted to wait but the machine (2009 Mac Pro) would have needed extensive repairs to continue working.
If you can, I would wait for the next Mac Pro iteration or go with the iMac 5k.
Dave S
-
@Phila - I was thinking of going from my current 8 down to a 6 core to save $$. I thought maybe the D300's would become outdated too soon?
@Ellis - I read Lloyd's reviews and he returned his iMac because of concerns over overheating, profiling the screen and too few TB2 ports. Have you had any issues with those? I also seem to recall that the iMac didn't play well with LR (and Illustrator).
Thanks!
Jim
To be accurate: Lloyd's concern wasn't about profiling the Retina iMac, it was that he couldn't calibrate the display. Calibration and profiling are two separate processes. The Retina iMac profiles very well- I know because I have done it with an i1 Display Pro and i1 Profiler software. To get a better display than the Retina iMac has - such as the NEC's Lloyd and many other s like likes or a top of the line Eizo - you'll be spending as much as you will on the entire iMac Retina, and at best you'll have a 4K display.
Too few Thunderbolt ports: How many does the 2013 Mac Pro have? Six. How many Thunderbolt devices do you have? How many are you expecting to buy and use before Thunderbolt 3 comes out (which I've seen reported will use a different connector)? AlsoI think the Mac Pro uses Thunderbolt 1 and not Thunderbolt 2 like the Retina iMac does.
My concern about the 2014 Retina iMac is not thunderbolt but the number of USB 3.0 ports. To help with that I bought an OWC Thunderbolt 2 dock https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/Thunderbolt/Dock/OWC/Thunderbolt2-Dock/ which also adds an additional Tbolt port and HDMI.
I am having zero problems using either Lightroom or Photoshop (both now at CC 2015). I don't use Illustrator.
-
To be accurate: Lloyd's concern wasn't about profiling the Retina iMac, it was that he couldn't calibrate the display. Calibration and profiling are two separate processes. The Retina iMac profiles very well- I know because I have done it with an i1 Display Pro and i1 Profiler software. To get a better display than the Retina iMac has - such as the NEC's Lloyd and many other s like likes or a top of the line Eizo - you'll be spending as much as you will on the entire iMac Retina, and at best you'll have a 4K display.
But, what is your final output? Do you make prints, or have them made by another party? Or just show others your images on that screen? If it's the former, sorry, but, you need a different screen that can be calibrated seriously to a print output. Sorry, and I'd like to believe the IMac is appropriate for my needs, but I've concluded that I have to spend 5-6000 for a MacPro/Eizo setup, if I want accurate color on the screen represented for output.
I have seen older MacPros (previous generation) on Craig's and elsewhere going for pretty cheap, relative to a new one. Besides hard drive wear and tear, how exactly can an older machine get "long in the tooth" and necessitate a newer one, if relatively lightly used?
-
I am still working on a 2008 MacPro 8core- i needed only one new GPU during that time. Paid way too much for that of course thanks to Apples closed ecosystem.
That said i upgraded it with 32g RAM an SSD for my system and a RAID0 for my data. Now i can do all with it reasonably fast but 4K video. I make very large panorama's with over 10GIG psb files.
Also i can still run 10.6 ( even 10.5) with some old software on it. Secondhand you can buy the fastest old Macpros for 1500€
A problem with the new MacPro trashcan is that you also have to buy a new ecosystem and that costs a lot too. cables, thunderbolt raids, dvd readers etc...
Probably a new version might appear within a year time with the latest Xeons in it.
just noticed jduncan has its own thought about it:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=100884.0
-
Thanks everyone for your input! It's not a clearcut decision so I thought I'd ask others.
As far as long on the tooth, I was thinking of a post that said that Apple doesn't consider computers supported (forget the exact wording) after 7 years. My computer (2009 dual 2.93) would need to have a new graphics card and more RAM (I'm only at 16gb) and possibly an SSD but I question how advisable that would be given the computer's age and it's technology.
An article I read on BareFeats which did a comparrison of a 2009 8 core and the 2013 8 core and said the 2013 is 21-43% faster but those results don't necessarily reflect what I would be doing so I figure about a 25% increase. As Chris said, it's a concern that a little more than 1 year after the computer has been available, there are few apps to take advantage of the GPU architecture (and how about OpenCL?). Kers made a good point that it's not just the cost of the computer but then TB device(s) to go with it.
As far as output goes, I make prints.
Jim
-
Well, the way I'm looking at it, if I find a lightly used late (11-12) MacPro on Craigs or somewhere (Craig's allows me to insist on running it through some paces before purchase), I'm confident of at least sub 2000 dollars, to maybe even a thousand. I'm lucky that I live in the NY Metro, a bit of a trek to Manhattan, but still able to travel into one of, if not the biggest graphics professional markets in the country. Throw in the geeky gamers and music "producers", and you get a lot of towers changing hands. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that computer will be functional with plenty of Ram installed for, at least, five years. The death knell would be an introduction of an OS that can't be run on that computer. So, fine. Buy the latest thing then, or do the same as the last time, and nail a used machine at a 50% discount.
I've worked with the best Macs of their time for about 25 years (at my employer's expense), and one thing I can say is that they don't break, and I have been on machines that are worked 2-3 shifts a workday. Rock solid. And now we have reached an interesting point in PC development for photography, when maybe where we are, is good enough, and the industry has moved on to cater to the video geeks. You know, how much faster can some things get? Sure, instantaneous, but we're pretty close.
My last employer switched from the old MacPro tower to the trashcan a year and a half ago, justifying the cost by moving into 3D. That went FUBAR, but, I wasn't impressed by the difference of speed in Photoshop functions. It was a lot smaller, and looked really cool, and totally quiet. But, 2-3000 dollars for a little cool and quiet? Eh.
-
Coming from a 2008 pro, I got the 8 core high end version shotly after release, now with 128GB Ram. I was a good target with not much need for internal storage.
It works well, is fast and reliable.
It does what I expect of a computer, which is to just work.
Now, has it made me a happier man?... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ive been working on a 2010 Mac Pro Server with 64 Gig Ram - 8 core for the last few years. Its been rock solid. Runs 24/7.
I have an external promise Thunderbolt 2 RAID array sitting here on my desk doing nothing - which I purchased ready for the new Mac Pro 2013.
But.. due to travels I decided to wait as I am not around much to actually use the Mac Pro. Now.. Im ready to swap to a new Mac Pro, but frankly Im not paying Apple top dollar for 2 year old hardware. Apple won't drop the price of the current mac pro so I'll wait for the next mac pro speed bump - which I was hoping would be at WWDC. Now, I suspect it may not come this year.
-
I just checked Apple's refurb page and an 8 core 2013 with 32 gb, 1tb flash and dual D700's is still $6199. Compared a fully decked out 5k Retina iMac and a new 3.7 MacPro with 32gb, 1tb flash and dual D500's and the MacPro was only $500 more which if you have a good monitor and keyboard makes them basically even. Granted, the iMac will be a bit faster but the overall config will be better with the MacPro from my research so far.
Now if they come out with a MacPro with Broadwell, TB3 and improved graphics cards, that would be worth waiting for. TB3 will require the new USB C connectors tho or adapters for older TB devices. From what I have read some of the new graphics cards are rumored to generate even more heat so it will be interesting to see what Apple does to make them adhere to the heat requirements of the current design. Slowing them down so they run cooler has been discussed.
Jim
-
I have been wondering that maybe it's time to upgrade my MP, but can't find an Apple machine that seems worth buying. I use multiple monitors which Apple don't seem to to like and why I'm still on Mountain Lion.
Have even wondered about getting a PC. :-\
-
What monitors? I just got new rMBP15, connected it to 30"2560x1600, 27"UHD, 24"1920x1200 and all worked flawlessly (including Retina 15"2880x1800 display)
-
I have been wondering that maybe it's time to upgrade my MP, but can't find an Apple machine that seems worth buying. I use multiple monitors which Apple don't seem to to like and why I'm still on Mountain Lion.
Have even wondered about getting a PC. :-\
My MP is connected to a 30 inch NEc 302something as main screen and to a 27 inch LG 4K screen.
The LG is defective (it shuts down after 1 hour of usage) and needs to be sent to repair, but the MP, now running 10.10.3, deals with those without issues.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have been wondering that maybe it's time to upgrade my MP, but can't find an Apple machine that seems worth buying. I use multiple monitors which Apple don't seem to to like and why I'm still on Mountain Lion.
Have even wondered about getting a PC. :-\
I have stuck with Mavericks because of some of the issues I read about Yosemite on the Adobe forums. While I may not be happy about the current Mac/OS situation, I definitely would prefer to wait for things to straighten out than move to Windows. My significant other has a Windows 7 laptop and each time she asks for help with it, I end up a little balder ;D
Jim
-
I have stuck with Mavericks because of some of the issues I read about Yosemite on the Adobe forums. While I may not be happy about the current Mac/OS situation, I definitely would prefer to wait for things to straighten out than move to Windows.
I've got an older 2009 MacPro and a new 2015 MabookPro running 10.10.3 with very little problems other than the fact I don't really like the aesthetics (I really hate the flat look of 10.10x & IOS 8.x).
I think the disconnect for users is that some users are loath to wean themselves of legacy software...when I went to Yosemite I was coming from 10.7.5 which had already killed off older apps. On the laptop I went to 10.9.x but jumped from 10.7.5 to 10.10.3. The only real problems I has was to learn 10.10.3 System & Finder options I needed (Google helped).
I have not pulled the trigger on the new Trashcan Mac Pro but will be soon. I need to finish my book (the update to The Digital Negative) before pulling the trigger.
At this point Adobe has been conservative in their GPU acceleration...LR CC/6 dipped their toe in while Photoshop keeps advancing. Newer powerful vid card really help (the current ACR 9.1 won't use my older vid card in my 2009 MacPro but will on the laptop).
In the future more GPU acceleration wiil come...Photoshop plans to use multiple GPU in the future and LR will get more advanced GPU use as well.
I think the iMacs (and certain Mac Minis) are really good deals but there's nothing like having 128GB of memory with a 1 TB flash drive and dual video cards with a 6 core MacPro.
My main hold up was waiting for enough 3rd part TB2 support to launch. USB 3 is established but TB2 (and soon TB3) have been slow to develop...
My philosophy is to buy the fasted, most loaded computer when I need to and use it (without regret for buying too soon) for years till it becomes time to upgrade. Between hardware & software advances, it all depends on your needs when determining when to pull that trigger.
-
I have been wondering that maybe it's time to upgrade my MP, but can't find an Apple machine that seems worth buying. I use multiple monitors which Apple don't seem to to like and why I'm still on Mountain Lion.
Have even wondered about getting a PC. :-\
jjj
I've got an NEC Multisync plugged into my RiMac & it seems to be behaving OK.
-
I have not pulled the trigger on the new Trashcan Mac Pro but will be soon. I need to finish my book (the update to The Digital Negative) before pulling the trigger.
In the future more GPU acceleration wiil come...Photoshop plans to use multiple GPU in the future and LR will get more advanced GPU use as well.
Jeff,
So you aren't inclined to wait for an update to the Mac Pro (maybe we should just call it the iCan ;D)?
When software makes use of the dual graphics cards, is that limited to only visual updating or can it actually do computations for things like PS filters?
Thanks!
Jim
-
What monitors? I just got new rMBP15, connected it to 30"2560x1600, 27"UHD, 24"1920x1200 and all worked flawlessly (including Retina 15"2880x1800 display)
My MP is connected to a 30 inch NEc 302something as main screen and to a 27 inch LG 4K screen.
I've got an NEC Multisync plugged into my RiMac & it seems to be behaving OK.
I'm not talking about being able to run multiple monitors. I'm complaining at the crappy implementation of full screen and multiple monitors.
OSX is still not as good in this respect as Windows was last century. :-\
I'd do screen shots to show as it's quite fiddly to explain, but I'm not using the later OSXs because of the problems. So can't do that.
Basically there are two settings to deal with this and both have a gotcha. IIRC one gotcha means a blank second screen and the other that I can't put programmes across entire desktop, only on just the one monitor
To illustrate part of the issue here's the keyboard shortcuts for window navigation...
[good luck with following the explanation]
If I have two windows from different apps I can switch with ⌘-tab.
If I have two windows from the same app I can switch with ⌘-`.
If I have two full-screen windows from the same app then ⌘-` doesn’t work but I can switch with ⌃-←→ (or ⌘-←→, I chose ⌃-←→ to avoid conflict with browser back/forward shortcuts).
If I have two full-screen windows from the same app on different monitors then ⌃-←→ doesn’t work but ⌘-` does.
If I have two full-screen windows from the same app on different monitors and the target window is currently not in front then ⌘-` and ⌃-←→ both fail to work. I have to ⌘-tab to another app that is on the target monitor, then ⌃-←→ to the target window. Correction: ⌃-←→ scrolls through spaces on the original monitor, not the target monitor, so there's actually no way to do this that I know of.
Aside: if I enable the keyboard shortcuts for “switch to desktop 1” and “switch to desktop 2” and use two monitors the shortcuts won’t work if the specified desktop is not assigned to the current monitor.
I was at Apple store recently trying to see if a Yosemite update had fixed the mess when using full screen/multiple monitors and the assistant was baffled as what the issue was as like most people she uses just the single screen. So I demonstrated how windows appear to vanish and the other quirks and she quickly realised how painful the issue was.
-
I think the iMacs (and certain Mac Minis) are really good deals but there's nothing like having 128GB of memory with a 1 TB flash drive and dual video cards with a 6 core MacPro.
I haven't done any rigorous performance analysis (something I used to do professionally in a previous incarnation), but based on my experience I think 128 GB of memory would probably be overkill on a 6-core Mac Pro. I'm running with 64 GB on a 6-core machine and I have yet to experience any significant demand-paging, even with Lightroom, Photoshop and several non-photographic applications executing simultaneously.
My philosophy is to buy the fastest, most loaded computer when I need to and use it (without regret for buying too soon) for years till it becomes time to upgrade.
Either the 8-core or 12-core models with 128 GB would no doubt be a killer single-user machine, but only if you ran enough coactive processes to saturate so many cores. At least for the time being, I think a machine with those specs would probably wind up with excess CPU cycles and unused memory almost all the time, if not always.
On the other hand, a 1TB flash drive is definitely a sensible investment, no matter which CPU configuration you buy. And of course the extra GPU on all the Mac Pro models is just waiting for Adobe (or any other software vendor) to exploit it properly.
-
When software makes use of the dual graphics cards, is that limited to only visual updating or can it actually do computations for things like PS filters?
As far as I know, there are no Mac apps that currently use dual GPU and you can't control which GPU is being used.
My main reason for not getting the iCan is that I was waiting for certain 3rd party TB2 hardware to ship. Then I got into the book writing and didn't think it was prudent to switch platforms in the middle of the book. I did update to 10.10.3 (which I kinda hate) so I could do screenshots that were "current".
I'll prolly pull the trigger a bit later in the summer.
-
I'll prolly pull the trigger a bit later in the summer
Lets hope there is a speed bump in the meantime.. I so don't want to pay top dollar for two year old hardware...
-
"My philosophy is to buy the fasted, most loaded computer when I need to and use it (without regret for buying too soon) for years till it becomes time to upgrade."
This is my take as well. I rather put my money into the current best (or the version thereof best suited to my requirements) than the already superseded.
-
But, what is your final output? Do you make prints, or have them made by another party?
yes I make my own prints (up to 24 inches wide) and for larger ones I use a lab.
Or just show others your images on that screen?
Sometimes I do that , when I take the iMac on a location shoot.
Some of my commercial and advertising clients are extremely picky about color and neither they or the production houses they use to prepare images for printing have a problem with the color and file quality I deliver. The production manager at of those production houses asked me what my set up was because my files come in so color and tone correct. With that particular client before they started using me, getting the color correct files from photographers has has been a constant problem. I know a couple of those photographers and I know their hardware set up is far more elaborate than mine, and from my clients I've seen the files that other photographers delivered. That client makes high end frames for art ranging from natural wood to high gloss painted wood to handmade gold and silver leaf. The metallic ones are really tricky to get right especially as leaf is hand applied over a special red clay base that sometimes (deliberately) shows through in places.
no If it's the former, sorry, but, you need a different screen that can be calibrated seriously to a print output. Sorry, and I'd like to believe the IMac is appropriate for my needs, but I've concluded that I have to spend 5-6000 for a MacPro/Eizo setup, if I want accurate color on the screen represented for output.
To each his own I guess. An argument with a stranger on the internet won't settle that. All can say is that my tools allow me to do the job the way I want it done
I have seen older MacPros (previous generation) on Craig's and elsewhere going for pretty cheap, relative to a new one. Besides hard drive wear and tear, how exactly can an older machine get "long in the tooth" and necessitate a newer one, if relatively lightly used?
Speed increases with newer generation machines ( why I tend to skip two to three generations between hardware updates0; and sadly components in computers can breakdown over time. Also how can you know if something you buy on craigslist or eBay has actually been "lightly used"? A lot of the Mac pros I have seen on those sites have been used for music and video production work.
-
To be accurate: Lloyd's concern wasn't about profiling the Retina iMac, it was that he couldn't calibrate the display. Calibration and profiling are two separate processes. The Retina iMac profiles very well- I know because I have done it with an i1 Display Pro and i1 Profiler software. To get a better display than the Retina iMac has - such as the NEC's Lloyd and many other s like likes or a top of the line Eizo - you'll be spending as much as you will on the entire iMac Retina, and at best you'll have a 4K display.
Lets deal with facts:
iMac Displays. First thing you notice is whatever is behind you - they are far to reflective for serious soft proofing work.
Uniformity - No iMac display comes even close to the uniformity of an Eizo or SpectraView monitor. You don't have to take my word for it. You can measure this yourself. My Spectraview is within 2/10's of a stop from one side to the other. The Eizo I tested within 1/10th of a stop. Remarkable performance. The iMac cant get anywhere near this and its a visible difference. Try it.
Retina iMacs are a very poor choice if accurate soft proofing is your goal. For starters you cannot get the contrast ratio low enough to get even a reasonable match to a print.
Color accuracy and uniformity from an iMac at 100 to 120 Candellas? laughable compared to a high end display.
High End graphic displays like those form Eizo and NEC are about a lot more than resolution. And that 'more' is worth its investment if you want to get true accurate color and accurate soft proofing capability. Yes, they cost more - but they cost more for a very good reason. And an iMac is not a good alternative. Its a cheap alternative - big difference.
-
As far as I know, there are no Mac apps that currently use dual GPU and you can't control which GPU is being used.
The reason I asked is because Apple is using it as a selling point. If all the second GPU can do is faster screen updates that's nice but not a game changer. If it can in essence function like a second CPU then it really is important.
-
As far as I know, there are no Mac apps that currently use dual GPU
P1 claims that C1 can use not only all GPUs but embedded iGPU too, if present, at the same time = that makes 3 GPUs... ACR/LR on the other hand apparently have difficulty to properly use even one (code-wise) ;D
-
As far as I know, there are no Mac apps that currently use dual GPU and you can't control which GPU is being used.
If I am not mistaken at least Final Cut Pro X and C1 Pro 8 do use the 2 GPUs of the Mac Pro.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If I am not mistaken at least Final Cut Pro X and C1 Pro 8 do use the 2 GPUs of the Mac Pro.
Yep...I was wrong. I knew Final Cut Pro X was using both (to great effect from what I hear). Nice to know C1 is too. Hope that spurs Adobe to do so as well. I know it's on the road maps for Photoshop and Lightroom will be adding more GPU over time (not sure about dual cards though).
-
I have had the MacPro for over a year and somewhat regret its purchase. I find that even now in the video world, not enough apps are sufficiently multi-processor and GPU aware. Even Apple's Compressor is considerably faster for a single video's compression on a MacBok Pro or iMac-R (https://larryjordan.com/articles/video-compression-speed-test-2/). Hello Apple??
IMO this seriously calls into question the economics of the MacPro vs either of those Macs mentioned above.
I would suggest doing very careful research before committing your dollars.
(Parenthetically, Capture One 8 is specifically engineered for the MacPro)
The compressor test is for single pass, not normally use in professional settings and is due to the mac pro using a Xeon processor. Intel's consumer processors have hardware to accelerate some video operation (quick sync). Since it's a very big investment most people that buy Xeon based computers (mac or pc) are fully aware of this.
Best regards,
-
Hi,
Just thought I would inquire what kinds of experiences those of you with the 2013 Mac Pro are having and what config you got. My old 2009 Mac Pro is getting a bit long on the tooth and it's getting near time to consider upgrading...
Thanks!
Jim
Hi,
Terry white[1] the photographer and adobe envasador has an article were he does not recommend investing on a Xeon workstation for normal photography work. I agree with him in general. The exception I can see is if you like to keep your computers for long time. You could start with the 4 core and then move on. A good CPU to upgrade later. But it's not clear that Apple will not kill the Mac Pro very soon. We have no updates[1] or references to the mac pro by the press or by Apple in a long time. We have no rumors about the mac pro. The socket of the V3 family and the V2 is not the same, so you will be stock with the V2 Xeons.
So my recommendation if you want to be on the Apple ecosystem and Photography is your main use: Buy a fast laptop or an iMac.
If you truly want the Mac Pro here are some upgrades disponible or to be disponible soon that I hope will help you gauge the performance potential of the machine:
1. The E5-2667 v2 3.3ghz 8 core, it has a turbo bust of 4ghz, and the proper thermal envelope, it's a V2 you should not have socket problems. (http://ark.intel.com/products/75273/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2667-v2-25M-Cache-3_30-GHz) [3]
2. Disregard the 2TB stick from OWC, it's slow and not that unexpressive, but barefeats has tested a 1TB 1.4GB/s ssd (http://barefeats.com/hard200.html)
3. OWC and crussial memory. Remember that the E5 and E3 Xeons have memory limitations: most of the 128GB memory sets will run around 1ghz not 1.8ghz that you see on 64GB set.
So that is a view of your upgrades when you want to extend the life of your machine. Maybe as process mature we could see a competitive 10 Core (clockwise). OWC has the processor but at this moment is as expensive as a entry level iMac, thus my recommendation: Buy the iMAC and change computers more often. If video is your bread and butter and you are willing to take the risk with final cut pro, then buy the Mac Pro it will be fast as crazy.
Best regards,
-----
[1] http://terrywhite.com/photographers-imac-retina-5k-vs-mac-pro/
[2] AMD introduced the W9100 and W8100 long time ago. Apple did not update the mac pro. The new Xeons are not much more faster if you don't have software that use the new FP instructions, but the new family of cards give immediate results.
[3] You could also peek 10core and 12 core CPUs but for Photography 8 core is very good and the extra clock will help.
-
Thanks for the references; I will include them in my decision process. Up to this point my interests have been photoshop, lightroom and illustrator. Plan on learning indesign as well. Generally, I like to keep my computers as long as possible and I don't know how long an iMac would last especially since Apple seems to update them more frequently than Mac Pros.
-
Generally, I like to keep my computers as long as possible and I don't know how long an iMac would last especially since Apple seems to update them more frequently than Mac Pros.
How often Apple updates has no real bearing on how long your machine should last.
Just buy whichever machine you want just after an update, as Apple can go long periods of not updating their gear despite advances in computing - which is part of the reason they are so profitable.
-
Lets deal with facts:
iMac Displays. First thing you notice is whatever is behind you - they are far to reflective for serious soft proofing work.
Uniformity - No iMac display comes even close to the uniformity of an Eizo or SpectraView monitor. You don't have to take my word for it. You can measure this yourself. My Spectraview is within 2/10's of a stop from one side to the other. The Eizo I tested within 1/10th of a stop. Remarkable performance. The iMac cant get anywhere near this and its a visible difference. Try it.
Retina iMacs are a very poor choice if accurate soft proofing is your goal. For starters you cannot get the contrast ratio low enough to get even a reasonable match to a print.
Color accuracy and uniformity from an iMac at 100 to 120 Candellas? laughable compared to a high end display.
High End graphic displays like those form Eizo and NEC are about a lot more than resolution. And that 'more' is worth its investment if you want to get true accurate color and accurate soft proofing capability. Yes, they cost more - but they cost more for a very good reason. And an iMac is not a good alternative. Its a cheap alternative - big difference.
Hi,
Just to underscore thatl I agree with you about the build in display. The new retina iMac don't have the massive issue with brightens but I will recommend buying a second display, like an Eizo or Nec. Also agree with you that uniformity is one of the key pluses of the pro monitors. The iMac will of course drive the external display (even a 4K one).
If someone is so inclined this couple of note shows the strong points and limitations of the display.
A little long but it contains good information :
http://www.avical.com/articles/apple-imac-with-retina-5k-display-calibration-review-how-good-is-it
This is a shorter:
http://blog.datacolor.com/c-david-tobie-the-retina-imac-for-photo-and-video-work-part-i/
Best regardsm '