http://store.apple.com/us (http://store.apple.com/us)
Best,
Mitchell
(...anyway, my 2.5 year old MacPro looks just the same as the new one )
Interesting, there is no more FIREWIRE 400 !A Firewire 800 port defaults to Firewire 400 when you plug a Firewire 400 device into it. The main downside is that you have to have a cable with the Firewire 800 connector on one end, and the Firewire 400 connector on the other. But once you have that cable, you can plug in Firewire 400 devices.
Photoshop only 1.2x faster than previous. Did you check out the price increase for adding the two fastest processors?
I nearly fell off my chair in shock (here in the UK)
I would be willing to bet the farm that you would not "use" anywhere near 32GB of ram. First load the iStat Pro free widget for OS X and activate the menu version to view ram usage in real time, easier than the activity monitor. Keep track of peak ram usage. I have 10GB and just peak that on a G5 with plenty of photo apps running.
You have just lost a farm, how do you want to proceed for the hand over?Photoshop and other 32-bit applications can't address more than about 3.5GB of RAM each. While 32GB is most likely far more than is needed, you'll certainly be able to run more applications with that much RAM and still avoid swap, to a point.
What I typically do in parallel is:
- export sveral 140 MB tiffs from C1,
- queue several x00 megapixels panos in PTgui and Autopano pro,
- open images in PS CS4 that average 1.x GB
I hit the swap bad most of the times I use the Mac.
Cheers,
Bernard
Photoshop only 1.2x faster than previous.Point taken - will be interesting so see some real-life benchmarks on apps that are of relevance for us mere photgs. I am still working of a G4 MDD 2x1.42Ghz, which has been upgraded over the years with memory, graphics and storage and serves me very well. The recent releases of Lightroom and Photoshop get very clunky indeed, so I believe it's time for an upgrade.
I would have bought the previous version of the MacPro were it not that (for the moment anyway) the price has been kept at pretty much the same level. The newer one was only a couple of 100 euros more expensive. To get a faster video card with 512mb of memory instead of 256 was one thing (especially Phocus appears to really like video memory), 6Gb instead of 2Gb of main memory was another, a larger drive,etc..
When I would have expanded the old version MacPro to that level it would have cost me about the same or probably even more. This is just skipping the whole part of the newer machine that might or might not be faster. Remember, years ago we had Pentium4's that ran above 3Ghz as well, clockspeed isn't everything.
I needed to get a MacPro in the first place, I was already waiting since October last year which was kind of annoying. So now I just did get it. It always feels like such a waste of money having to spend on computers (if I could have bought lenses for it as well ). Anyway, I will receive it somewhere in 4 days and am looking forward to it.
I am pretty sure I would not have upgraded when I already had an 8-core MacPro.
Jack,
Not the same situation here unfortunately. If I would have been able to get a substantial price difference between the 'old' and new version I would have undoubtedly taken the old one. I was actually in the market for the 'old' one but apparently even Apple finds this 'upgrade' not enough to warrant price cuts on the 'old' model. Now if that isn't a real tell-tale sign.
Ah well, you have got to get one in the end anyway. Compared to the 3year old dual core PC I was using before it will be most definitely a step forward
Indeed, I hope the better cache. 1066FSB speed, etc.. will make up for the difference in clock speed in the end.
Like I said, load the widget show me that it maxes out for 32GB when you install all that. I doubt it.
Bernard et al,
With all due respect...
1) Hitting the swap is NOT a reliable indication that RAM usage is maxed -- instead it almost always means the programs you are running cannot efficiently utilize it. Most machines cannot efficiently use more than 8G or so of RAM. My machine has 16 and if I run C1 in batch (very effectively uses all 8 cores), Helicon Focus (also efficiently uses all 8 cores), CS4 (very definitely does *NOT* efficiently utilize all 8-cores) and AutoPano Pro (does not use multi-core well) ALL AT ONCE I tag maybe 12 Gig total of my ram. Yes, CS4 tags the scratch disk as does APP. (See note #4)
- process 200 images from C1,
- at the same time open a 3GB file from Bridge in PS CS4
- launch a first pano with PTgui on say the 40 first images,
- launch a parallel HDR pano in Autopano pro at the same time
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
*IF* you regularly perform ALL of that type of tasking AT THE SAME TIME, then yes, yo can probably utilize all the RAM you can stuff into your machine. However, if like most folks, the heaviest load most of the time is processing 200 raws in the background while you're working up some files in CS4, then most likely 16G is going to be adequate. If you regularly add say having APP generating a pano in the background while C1 and CS4 are being utilized per above, then yes, 32G is advised for you...
I think our point is the jump from 16G to 32G in any system is a quantum jump in cost -- 16G of 3rd party RAM in either the new or old system is only around $300, yet 32G of 3rd party is $1000 in the old system and $5000 in the new system! -- and rarely is the need for that second 16G really there, at least until OS's and software get to the point they can better utilize that second 16G...
Jack,
Yes, this is exactly the kind of operation I do every time I come back from a shoot (on top of that I do typically add 5 or 6 panos to the queue of PTgui and use the highest quality settings in APP). I also typically stream music and surf the web at the same time too.
That was my very point really. I have decided to upgrade to 32GB because I believe that I will get much better value per $ with the older Mac compared to an upgrade to the new line considering that a new line machine would cost me a total of 6000+ US$ compared to 970 US$ shipping included for my 32GB upgrade (not taking into account the possible resell of the 16GB modules).
But the proof is in the pudding, I'll try out the test I propose and will report the results.
Cheers,
Bernard
I just ordered one. I initially figured buying the previous 8-core model thinking it would be priced more favourably. I have been told by several Apple resellers Apple is not planning to drop the prices on that machine. I am not willing to pay the same amount of money as a year ago on hardware that is now more than 1 year old.
Euh.... Rainer. I think you mean Moore's Law? Or don't you? In both cases I hope you are right actually...ups.
2) The new *BASE* machine is a 2.26 GHz processor, 8 of them yes, but they run at 2.26, or 30% SLOWER than the current 3.2... The *FASTEST* new Mac Pro at 2.93 GHz ran programs like Aperture about 20% faster than the previous 8-core 3.2 machine; however, most of that gain is likely due to the added throughput of DDR3 RAM, and not anything else.I was wondering about this and found this informative article (http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/04/what-you-need-to-know-about-nehalem.ars). There's several significant hardware changes that are definitely forward looking, such as the this:
The radical change in Intel's system bandwidth situation that Intel's new QuickPath Interconnect (QPI) represents is perhaps the largest single factor that shaped Nehalem's design. Between QuickPath and Nehalem's integrated memory controller, a Nehalem processor will have access to an unprecedented amount of aggregate bandwidth, especially in two- and four-socket implementations.
I hear you -- and in that circumstance it certainly makes sense. In fact, I may do the same thing eventually. But I'm going to wait a bit as a friend has graciously agreed to be a guinea-pig and has ordered a new 8-core 2.93. Should be here next week and he will absolutely put it through its paces, albeit with only 16G ram since the entry fee for 32 is ridiculous. Once that report is in, I may just decide to pop for the added RAM too
Jack,
I posted at the following a quick report on my tests:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=32712 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=32712)
Cheers,
Bernard
Thanks for that report Bernard - it helps my dilemma. I'm upgrading from an old G4 tower and need help deciding between the Single Quad Core 2.93 GHz and the Dual Quad (8 Core) 2.26 Gz - both with 8 GB RAM. The price is almost the same for these two configurations. I'm wondering which setup will run PS CS4 faster ?
An advantage of the 8 Core is that later on I could upgrade the RAM to 16 GB, whereas the Quad Core is limited by a 8 GB maximum.
Jack,
I posted at the following a quick report on my tests:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=32712 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=32712)
Cheers,
Bernard
Roy,
It might be best to wait for actual rest reports.
My guess would be that a 4 core with a higher clock speed would run CS4 faster since CS4 is currently poor at using multiple CPUs. I would hope that Snow Leopard and CS5 would help in the future with this though.
On the other hand, the limitation to 8GB might indeed be an issue if you intend to use large files with many layers.
Cheers,
Bernard
Pretty much agree. The problem is what do you do with the 4-core and 8G limitations when CS5 and Snow Leopard come out and can finally utilize lots of cores and more of the 32G RAM efficiently? I suspect when that happens you'll wish you had both more and faster cores as well as more memory capacity...
One other note: DDR3 1600MHz RAM is already out, and I suspect next year's Mac Pro will utilize that. Also, we are on the brink of SATA 3 drive speeds (6Gb/s) coupled with cheaper and faster SSD's that can actually achieve those SATA3 speeds, probably by the end of this year -- not sure firmware can address that on current mother-boards. Whole lot of opportunity on the horizon that will likely be here sooner rather than later.
Cheers,
I found some web sites which go into this question in some detail:
www.MacPeformanceGuide.com (http://macperformanceguide.com/)
www.BareFeats.com (http://www.barefeats.com/)
After reading this it appears that memory and scratch disk access speeds are more important than processor speed when using Photoshop (PS).
The exception is when opening and closing files as PS uses only 1 Core at these times, so processor speed will speed these functions up.
The author of the Mac Performance Guide (http://macperformanceguide.com/) has some negative comments about the new Quad Core Mac Pro see - What is Apple Smoking? (http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2009-03-blog.html#_20090303MacPro)
The Mac Performance Guide (http://macperformanceguide.com/) has alot of detail about optimal setup (disks, RAIDs, RAM) and use of PS to optimize speed.
It would be nice to wait for something faster, but I already waited 3 months for this new Mac Pro.
I'll likely wait for some benchmarks but will probably order the 8-Core 2.26 GHz with 8 GB RAM and then upgrade the RAM with another 8 GB of 3rd party RAM, and 3 more 1 TB drives in a striped RAID. It is interesting how Lloyd talks about partitioning HDs and using the partition on the fastest part of the disk in a striped RAID for the scratch disk.
Ciao,
Roy
A question for those who use an 8 cores (even the previous one).
Do photoshop use all the 8 cores while performing filters as "surface blur"? And does C1 when zoomed to 100%, get the previews sharp much quicker than with the older quad cores? ex the 2.66 mac pro quad, (which is the one I have).
if someone can share his experience, I would be grateful.
The author of the Mac Performance Guide (http://macperformanceguide.com/) has some negative comments about the new Quad Core Mac Pro see - What is Apple Smoking? (http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2009-03-blog.html#_20090303MacPro)
Yes and yes. But it is not an earth-shattering difference in either software IMO.Thank you Jack.
Thank you Jack.
I was just wondering if it was worth to upgrade the processors from 2.66 2 cores to 2.66 4 cores.
It would be a couple of hours of work and 8/900$ for a pair of new processors.
Okay just to throw I want to slit my wrists now comment.
On a old 2.4 667 mhz with 6gb of Ram MacBook Pro with mind you a Intel 80gb SSD drive
Same 10 P45 plus files it took in batch 4:27
i obviously need a new laptop now. LOL
BTW Box 1 above was my desktop
How did you get 6gigs of ram in a mbp?
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/MacBook/Pro/Core2/ (http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/MacBook/Pro/Core2/)And yes, it works - I have 6G in mine too - and it provides a notable boost in performance over 4G -
Yes it really works well with CS4. Like as soon as you get past 4 there is a nice improvement
Does the 6GB kit work with the unibody MacBook Pro 15"?
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Appl...ro/Upgrade/DDR3 (http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Apple_MacBook_MacBook_Pro/Upgrade/DDR3)
Ah, sorry, I should have checked myself. It is late and I am tired. I'd better go to bed. Btw, that is a bit pricier, so I guess I'll hold off for now, until I can prove to myself that I really need more
I hope to receive my new 2.26 8-core somewhere end of this week. I am looking forward to it First thing I will do is take out the HD and replace it with a 1.5Tb and see if I can put some 4Gb modules of Ram in it (not ordered via Apple that is ).
It seems many people are screaming and are obviously not impressed with this update. I think it might be a surprise, the ideas behind this update appear pretty valid to me. Yes, I also would have liked to receive more for less, don't we all. I am really curious to comparisons between the new one and the previous one.
I might even go for the Raid card and do a Raid5 and use an external for additional backup.
I wasn't thinking about the Apple raid card more like the Highpoint Rocketraid which is priced a lot friendlier.
Does anyone know if the MaxConnect for Mac Pro Optical Drive Bay Disk Mounting Assembly (http://www.maxupgrades.com/istore/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&product_id=158) works on the new Quad-Core or 8-Core models? These products utilize the two extra SATA DATA channels available on the previous logic boards. I have not been able to find if these data channels are on the new boards. Has anyone used these products on previous models? I'm thinking this could work as a back-up within the Mac Pro rather than an external drive enclosure.
Ciao,
Roy
identical Nehalem machines have been out for 6 months now for Windows users.
quite frustrating it still takes Apple so long to react, I thought the switch to Intel was meant to close that gap.
Really worthwhile read:
http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProNehalem.html (http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProNehalem.html)
Lloyd Chambers' tests on the new machines. Seems like last year's models may be the way to go if you can find them at discount.
Agreed. Just read the whole thing and most notable is the conclusion that the new 2.93 machine is at best going to show about a 15% improvement over the last gen 3.2 and the new 2.66 will about equal it. So he basically says jump on a last gen 3.2 refurb at a discount while supplies last and put the money you saved into RAM and drives.
Cheers,
My previous generation eight-core 3GHz Mac Pro
came with an ATI 2600 video card, and is very quiet,
This morning Bare Feats published benchmarks of the new Mac Pros with different memory configurations:
http://www.barefeats.com/nehal04.html (http://www.barefeats.com/nehal04.html)
My machine runs a little faster than theirs, possibly due to my scratch and OS RAIDs and/or possibly because I have 24G ram. MP08 8x3.2, 24G RAM and I get 36 seconds for Lloyd's speed test.
Regardless, it definitely seems the new machine can really cook!
I have a 2.26 Nehalem MP right next to me when I type this and besides a very slight hum from the 2 large fans it is silent. I have no old version to compare it with but my machine is IMO very quiet. Sofar I find it is doing what it is supposed to do without me having to wait for it which for me is the most important part.
Now I have to find some affordable 4Gb sticks (or wait for them to come down somewhat in price) and get 3 large drives (I have decided to stripe 3 drives and do backup external to save me the hassle of going the Raid5 route).
Jack,
I have my Mac Pro 2.26 GHz 8-Core now. I have a 3-Drive Striped Raid which is fairly fast. It looks like I can easily add a fifth SATA Drive in the 2nd optical drive bay. Both optical drive bays are wired for SATA. To secure the drive I'll use a Startech Adapter (http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/PID-MX5092(ME).aspx). I have 2 questions.
1) Does having the System on a 2-Drive Raid0 make a noticeable difference ?
2) The Mac Pro came with a WD Caviar Blue 640 MB drive - should the added drive for the 2 disk RAID0 be the same or would making the second drive Caviar Black make any difference ?
Thanks,
Roy
I have the same machine. Here are the XBench drive speeds. I have with a 3 disk RAID0 each with 2 partitions , the boot drive and a FW800Drobo.System Info(Using Code was the only way I could get the columns to line up as the formatting removes spaces otherwise)
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.5.6 (9G3553)
Physical RAM 8192 MB
Model MacPro4,1
Drive Number 1 2 3 4
Sequential MB/sec
Uncached Write [4K blocks 96.00 320.56 310.49 35.73
Uncached Write [256K blocks] 82.78 274.17 273.70 31.73
Uncached Read [4K blocks] 28.45 23.49 24.17 2.73
Uncached Read [256K blocks] 91.35 290.33 270.67 44.64
Random MB/sec
Uncached Write [4K blocks] 2.01 10.94 10.78 2.39
Uncached Write [256K blocks] 73.31 239.83 289.38 9.47
Uncached Read [4K blocks] 0.67 2.00 2.15 0.40
Uncached Read [256K blocks] 29.03 54.19 58.44 9.73
Drive 1 = WD Caviar Blue 640 Mb WDC WD6400AAKS
Drive 2 = WD RE3 WDC WD1002FBYS 1 Tb - 3 Drive RAID0 40 GB Inner (Fast) Partition
Drive 3 = WD RE3 WDC WD1002FBYS 1 Tb - 3 Drive RAID0 960 GB Outer Partition
Drive 4 = Drobo 800 FW with 3 1 Tb Deskstar 7K1000.B 1TB Drives
Interestingly, the small speedy outer partition is not any faster than the rest of the 3 Drive RAID0.
The RAID0 is significantly faster than the solo boot drive.
From the web research that I've done, it seems that PS benefits more from really fast drives and a separate raid scratch disk than from pure processor horsepower. Check out Macgurus.com (http://www.Macgurus.com) and Macperformanceguide.com (http://macperformanceguide.com/) for relevant tests.
When PSCS4 (I guess CS5) becomes true 64-bit capable, I think that you will see a performance increase in the PS tools. For now, I'm sticking with my 2007 original version MP 8core 3ghz w/12GB RAM. I have my OS and programs on a Raptor 10k 300GB drive, working data on 2x1TB Seagate drives in RAID 0, and the 4th internal drive is a 1TB Seagate partitions for alternative PS scratch disk and clones of my boot drive and user folder. I have an external eSata tower with a RAID 0 configuration in a pair of the drives for PS primary scratch. For the hobbyist like me, my set up is more than adequate.
Cheers.
Bud
Bernard et al,Hi Jack
With all due respect...
1) Hitting the swap is NOT a reliable indication that RAM usage is maxed -- instead it almost always means the programs you are running cannot efficiently utilize it. Most machines cannot efficiently use more than 8G or so of RAM. My machine has 16 and if I run C1 in batch (very effectively uses all 8 cores), Helicon Focus (also efficiently uses all 8 cores), CS4 (very definitely does *NOT* efficiently utilize all 8-cores) and AutoPano Pro (does not use multi-core well) ALL AT ONCE I tag maybe 12 Gig total of my ram. Yes, CS4 tags the scratch disk as does APP. (See note #4)
2) The new *BASE* machine is a 2.26 GHz processor, 8 of them yes, but they run at 2.26, or 30% SLOWER than the current 3.2... The *FASTEST* new Mac Pro at 2.93 GHz ran programs like Aperture about 20% faster than the previous 8-core 3.2 machine; however, most of that gain is likely due to the added throughput of DDR3 RAM, and not anything else. It is also a bad assumption to lump CS4 into this same class of software --- CS4 does NOT manage processor throughput or RAM nearly as well as Aperture. Frankly, I suspect that CS4 will run faster on the old machine due to the faster processors -- and probably proportional to processor speed faster -- at least until the time Adobe writes some modern code for CS4 that will utilize all the processing power and RAM available to it. To wit, a friend with a first generation Mac Pro with a single dual-core 2.66 processor and 8 G RAM can run most CS4 benchmarks about 20% slower than my 8-core 3.2 machine with 16G. (See note #4.)
3) DDR3 RAM, an interesting note... DDR3 is THREE channel RAM. The *new* 8-core machines still only have 8 RAM slots configured in a new but still 2 banks x 4 slots configuration. Can somebody explain to me how 2 sets of 4-bank memory slots efficiently use 3 channel RAM? Clearly they do, but it has a few of us surmising they are really only utilizing the full DDR3 in the first three slots of each bank, then let the last pair of slots fall to DDR2 speed or even let them act as DDR1 overflow memory. Again, most programs simply cannot utilize RAM well yet.
4) IMO disk I/O is still the significant limiting factor for most of what we as photographers do. It remains the major bottleneck in our machines. Here is where having a striped array (RAID-0) works wonders for boosting performance. I have 6 drives in my Mac Pro (see http://www.maxupgrades.com/istore/index.cf...Product_ID=158) (http://www.maxupgrades.com/istore/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&Product_ID=158)). I use WD 640's, but the newest high-density 1TB and 1.5TB drives are also screamers.
*** Of course RAID 0 is for speed and is *LESS* reliability than single drives, so redundant back-up is mandatory; one of the drives in either of my arrays WILL GO DOWN and when it does, I will be DOA on that array. But I can rebuild it in a matter of a few hours when that happens and the performance gained in the meantime is well worth the rebuild hassle.
Cheers,
Hi Jack
I am thinking of getting the 2.66 Quad machine with 8 GB of ram. My reason is that PS works mostly with a single CPU. I am also thinking of the 2.26 8 core but there is extra money. We are currently on a Power Mac 2.3 dual 8GB ram ( April 2005 ). We have to go to a Intel machine. what are your thoughts.
Denis
Jack,
Are you using a Ramdisk to get PS to use more than 3Gb of Ram? Or is that not necessary anymore with the later versions of OSX?
Next step this year will be SSD RAID arrays when the prices come down a bit. Digillyods did a review recently.
For me, I'm okay with my set up for now.
Bud
Hi Jack
I am thinking of getting the 2.66 Quad machine with 8 GB of ram. My reason is that PS works mostly with a single CPU. I am also thinking of the 2.26 8 core but there is extra money. We are currently on a Power Mac 2.3 dual 8GB ram ( April 2005 ). We have to go to a Intel machine. what are your thoughts.
Denis
Nope. I tested them back when I only had a 2-drive RAID-0 scratch partition and at the end of the day they simply didn't add any appreciable benefit, especially considering the added hassle of maintaining them. Note you can only set them up via terminal in 2G sizes, so you need to create 3 or 4 of them and have them mounted and at the ready for CS. And of course while mounted, they pull that RAM offline and it is no longer available to other applications...
Cheers,
Tough call. For me, the whole reason to invest in a Mac Pro is for performance with silent running. Next is as long as I'm already spending, why not future-proof, and we can assume that going forward software is going to be utilizing more available cores more efficiently. That said, the Quad 2.66 even with its memory limit (4 modules total) is going to outperform the next lower competitor in the Mac line significantly, so it definitely fills a niche. However, if you are a heavy user -- meaning you spend over 50% of your working time at your computer -- I'd consider going with the fastest configuration you can comfortably afford. In that and for me personally, I would spend for the 8 core 2.93 and eat beans for a month, though would not feel under-gunned at all with the 2.66. If money were tighter, or I spent less total time at my machine, then I would probably opt for the 8-core 2.26 over the 4-core 2.66 machine simply for the ability to add more RAM at reasonable cost. But I would certainly go for the quad 2.66 over an iMac for the added performance.Hi Jack
Cheers,
Hi Jack
Now looking at the 2.26 Octa & I will get 16 GB of Ram in it. Mac sales.com has 4x2GB of ram for $146.00 or less than $300 for 16gb of ram.