Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: Chairman Bill on November 30, 2012, 06:57:48 am
-
My six-year old iMac is still going strong, but the RAM limit is an issue. I want a faster machine, with much more RAM (at least 8GB).
Here's my dilemma. Do I go for a new iMac, and if I do, is an i5 processor OK, or is the Intel i7 worth the extra cost? Alternatively, do I go for a Mac Mini & something like a NEC Spectraview monitor?
The iMac would be sleeker, and potentially better specced, but the NEC monitor is probably better for photo-editing, and future upgrades would be cheaper as I'd only be changing the Mac Mini, not the whole kit.
Advice would be most welcome.
-
Hi,
I have a MacPro but I may consider MacMini for my next platform. I would recommend this site for good info: http://macperformanceguide.com/index.html
If you want to upgrade your iMac you may check http://www.macsales.com , they often have more memory options than Apple themselves.
Best regards
Erik
My six-year old iMac is still going strong, but the RAM limit is an issue. I want a faster machine, with much more RAM (at least 8GB).
Here's my dilemma. Do I go for a new iMac, and if I do, is an i5 processor OK, or is the Intel i7 worth the extra cost? Alternatively, do I go for a Mac Mini & something like a NEC Spectraview monitor?
The iMac would be sleeker, and potentially better specced, but the NEC monitor is probably better for photo-editing, and future upgrades would be cheaper as I'd only be changing the Mac Mini, not the whole kit.
Advice would be most welcome.
-
I think that I would go for a Mini. The thing that bugs me with an iMac is that you literally have to throw away the display when you go upgrade to a new computer. On top of that, the NEC display is certainly better.
-
Thanks for the advice.
-
look the arstechnica article. very easy to understand. In summary if you have many active tasks then quad will benefit you if only one or two tasks at a time and simple photoshop (photographs etc.Not heavy duty ??)) then the extra cores may sit there and gather dust.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/10/core-i5-or-core-i7-does-your-computer-need-the-extra-juice/
max out on memory some studies and benchmarks have shown that with 16meg you may not even make enough use of fusion and will never pay for the upgrade.
Another thing to look at is the difference in disc speed for the 21 inch versus the 27 inch. the fusion drive may?? make up for the slower disc we will find out later...
If you go for mac mini go for the larger one (not server) max out memory, (end cost without monitor, keyboard, mouse close to the iMac)
whatever decision you make - someone else would have done differently. very confusing as we all have different needs.
cheers elo
just saw this thread on luminous How much faster is 3.33 6 Core than 3.2 Quad Core for Photoshop CS6?
-
I'm in the same situation. Right now I use my imac with a NEC monitor with Spectraview II. At this point I'm leaning toward going with the mac mini and living with one small 22 in monitor. The RAM is quite cheap to max out using someone other than apple. Right now scrolling through images in LR4 is painful.
-
Thanks for the advice.
Bill,
You might also want to read this: http://digilloyd.com/blog/2012/20121109_2-MacMini-for-photographers.html
FWIW, Lloyd Chambers is also the owner of the Mac Performance Guide mentioned by Erik above.
-
My six-year old iMac is still going strong, but the RAM limit is an issue. I want a faster machine, with much more RAM (at least 8GB).
Here's my dilemma. Do I go for a new iMac, and if I do, is an i5 processor OK, or is the Intel i7 worth the extra cost? Alternatively, do I go for a Mac Mini & something like a NEC Spectraview monitor?
The iMac would be sleeker, and potentially better specced, but the NEC monitor is probably better for photo-editing, and future upgrades would be cheaper as I'd only be changing the Mac Mini, not the whole kit.
Advice would be most welcome.
I have a late 2009 27" 2.66Ghz quadcore i5 iMac. The max RAM capacity is 16GB which I have installed. I have also hot rodded it a bit by replacing the internal optical disk drive with a 240GB SSD from OWC (Specifically this one: http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/SSDEX3G240/ which I use as my Boot drive (OS X 10.8.# + Applications. Applications include the full set of Adobe Creative Suite CS 6 Extended, Lightroom 4.3, PTGui Pro 9.1.5, and several other photo and business related programs.)) The internal 1TB HDD is used as a scratch disk for CS 6 applications and for hot projects. Since installing the SSD the iMac now runs significantly quieter and cooler.
I regularly work with multi gigabyte deeply layered large resolution stitched panoramics and while I am sure there are faster machines especially when it comes to compositing and stitching I would have to spend significantly more to get more than a fractional speed increase. I wish I could have waited a few months more before buying this machine as newer iMac i5 and i7 motherboards (I believe) can accomodate up to 32GB RAM.
This generation of iMac displays, while not quite as good as the top of the line NECs and Eizo CG monitors (I also have an Eizo CG I use as a second display) is definitely better than the one in your 2009 iMac, calibrates and profiles well and is fine for photography work. Yes there are better displays but you have to balance cost vs. benefits. I have yet to hear any complaints from my advertising or editorial clients, in fact I get compliments from print production houses on the quality of the color of the qwork my clients deliver to them. I also get very good screen to inkjet (Epson and Canon iPF) print results. I profile my displays with the Xrite i1 Display Pro and printing with the current Xrite i1 Pro Photo set up.
The iMacs that were recently announced supposedly have even better displays but I am not yet sold on the hybrid drive idea.
The one area I wish were better have to do with connections to peripherals: I wish my imac were two FW 800 channels. In a new iMac USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt probably make that a moot criticism.
-
The thing that bugs me with an iMac is that you literally have to throw away the display when you go upgrade to a new computer.
An integrated system like an iMac doesn't make sense for my use, but there's Target Display Mode (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3924?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US) on newer iMacs which allows you to use the iMac as an external display. Newer iMacs can do this with Thunderbolt, too.
-
I'd go for the Mac Mini. The new 2012 version with fusion drive and maxed RAM is a speed monster.
It blows away some elder Mac Pro and, since we really know nothing for sure about the real Mac Pro, the Mini is getting a best buy.
With USB 3 ports and Thunderbolt the machine itself is quite future proof.
Then, if you're geeky enough, you may in time stack several Mini's to build a Compressor cluster (if you do video work), deploy an home server or an HTPC.
The real Mac Mini downside is the GPU. There's no option for a discrete one, so you'd better not rely on GPU-bound applications.
Paolo
-
Build a PC and know real power and speed :)
-
Build a PC and know real power and speed :)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. An old TV set, some egg cartons & the innards from a microwave, and I can build a PC far, far more cheaply than any Apple machine. Allegedly.
-
I'm in a similar position, except that my aged machine is a huge, clunking Pro. Would the mini be able to drive two DVI monitors?
Jeremy
-
Hi,
Yes I think so. I have a mini driving a full HD projector and "HD-ready" projector at the same time using the display port and the HDMI port. Both work with DVI adapters. But, times are changing, you need to check!
Best regards
Erik
I'm in a similar position, except that my aged machine is a huge, clunking Pro. Would the mini be able to drive two DVI monitors?
Jeremy
-
FWIW, I´ve ordered a Mini; delivery date stated as Dec 12th.... So I´ll know something more a few days later..... ::)
Details: I have a 2007 MacPro w/ 2x2.66 Dual-Core Xeons and 7 GB of RAM. My monitor is a 30" Cinema Display, bought at the same time (and I intend to keep it). The MP is SLOW, and just putting more memory in isn´t economical; the correct type can still be got at an exorbitant price, but cannot be reused on anything more recent... I do have a SSD as system disk, but that one is indeed eminently reusable... So, need for an update, but the wait for an elusive new MP is too much.
After reading, among other stuff, the Digilloyd and ArsTechnica articles, I ordered the 2.6 GHZ QC i7 Mini, maxed out with 16 GB RAM and a 256 GB SSD (after reading more about the FusionDrive, I think I can do a better job myself of putting the right things on the right disk... ;)). I´ll need an external cabinet for the less demanding stuff, and a Time Capsule will (hopefully) take care of auto backup; I perform 2nd and 3rd backups manually, to disks kept in a safe or off-site. The Dual-link DVI adapter should work with the Cinema Display. The one thing that worries me just a bit is the absence of a separate GPU, but I never play games....
I anticipate a noticeably faster system, with less heat and noise, and fre floor space under my desk.... Now, let´s see if I really get it.... :-\
-
256 GB SSD (after reading more about the FusionDrive, I think I can do a better job myself of putting the right things on the right disk... ;))
I agree with most of the post but here you're wrong, IMHO.
Fusion drive not only is way bigger than a single SSD (128+1000 GB), but it uses CoreStorage routines to move single chunks of the files. The ones you use the most. No matter what the file system you use.
In other words you may have parts of an application or parts of a huge document that are often referred to on the SSD, while the rest will be kept on the slower HDD. From the outside the performance is almost equal to a single huge SSD.
You just can't do that by hand.
-
FWIW, I´ve ordered a Mini; delivery date stated as Dec 12th.... So I´ll know something more a few days later..... ::)
I'm interested to hear how you get on with the new mini. I have the previous version (2.7 i7, AMD graphics, 16Gb ram) with a 27" Eizo CG275W monitor. Photoshop CS6 performance is extremely sluggish - after adjusting sliders in ACR I have to wait several seconds for an on-screen update. No fun at all when working to a deadline.
-
I agree with most of the post but here you're wrong, IMHO.
Fusion drive not only is way bigger than a single SSD (128+1000 GB), but it uses CoreStorage routines to move single chunks of the files. The ones you use the most. No matter what the file system you use.
In other words you may have parts of an application or parts of a huge document that are often referred to on the SSD, while the rest will be kept on the slower HDD. From the outside the performance is almost equal to a single huge SSD.
You just can't do that by hand.
OK, maybe I wasn´t very clear.... I don´t mean I´m going to move things ´dynamically´ between disks, just that I decide what´s important enough to keep on the SSD and what´s not (if necessary, one can always make a symbolic link to something on the HD if it´s necessary to ´pretend´ it´s on the system disk). For example, if I were to keep Garage Band at all, I would put it, and it´s very substantial Application Support folders on the HD, likewise all of my raw image files except possible the ones I´m still working actively with. The Lightroom data base and previews, however, would stay on the SSD.
In fact, this is exactly what I´m doing right now on my old MP, which does have an SSD as system disk, and a 1 TB HD for the rest (the other 2 bays are for backup purposes). With the Mini, I´ll use a 1 TB HD in a FW 800 enclosure for the same ´rest´; remember that the HD part of the Fusion drive is a 5400 rpm one.
Finally, my conclusion is obviously not based on personal experience with a Fusion drive, but mainly on this Digilloyd article (http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2012/20121108_3-Fusion-MacMini.html), along with similar ones from ArsTechnica. In the linked article, Lloyd specifically states that
"What I have NOT been able to find is any intelligent migration activity: repeated viewing of images which are known to be on the hard drive does NOT cause migration to the SSD. Hence performance remains poor for reads on files that I’ve used for real-world viewing over and over.
Hence storing a Lightroom catalog or similar on a Fusion drive is massively inferior to storing it on an explicit SSD volume. Where people get fooled is starting to use a Fusion drive which has an SSD still with ample space. That’s not Fusion at work, that’s just the SSD not yet full."
That just about settles it for me...
(And, Elliot, I´ll return with my experience when I´ve got the delivery and get up and running again...)
-
OK, maybe I wasn´t very clear.... I don´t mean I´m going to move things ´dynamically´ between disks, just that I decide what´s important enough to keep on the SSD and what´s not (if necessary, one can always make a symbolic link to something on the HD if it´s necessary to ´pretend´ it´s on the system disk). For example, if I were to keep Garage Band at all, I would put it, and it´s very substantial Application Support folders on the HD, likewise all of my raw image files except possible the ones I´m still working actively with. The Lightroom data base and previews, however, would stay on the SSD.
In fact, this is exactly what I´m doing right now on my old MP, which does have an SSD as system disk, and a 1 TB HD for the rest (the other 2 bays are for backup purposes). With the Mini, I´ll use a 1 TB HD in a FW 800 enclosure for the same ´rest´; remember that the HD part of the Fusion drive is a 5400 rpm one.
Finally, my conclusion is obviously not based on personal experience with a Fusion drive, but mainly on this Digilloyd article (http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2012/20121108_3-Fusion-MacMini.html), along with similar ones from ArsTechnica. In the linked article, Lloyd specifically states that
"What I have NOT been able to find is any intelligent migration activity: repeated viewing of images which are known to be on the hard drive does NOT cause migration to the SSD. Hence performance remains poor for reads on files that I’ve used for real-world viewing over and over.
Hence storing a Lightroom catalog or similar on a Fusion drive is massively inferior to storing it on an explicit SSD volume. Where people get fooled is starting to use a Fusion drive which has an SSD still with ample space. That’s not Fusion at work, that’s just the SSD not yet full."
That just about settles it for me...
(And, Elliot, I´ll return with my experience when I´ve got the delivery and get up and running again...)
With all the respect to you and Mr. Chambers, that review (maybe more than the Fusion technology) is mediocre at best.
The author writes that even opening an image a number of times the data is kept on the HDD. How many times did he try? We don't know.
Who tells that after how many times a block is moved? Who tells wether it's the same no matter what the size of the read data?
Any serious test clearly demonstrated that reading many times the same file (maybe even just one more than what Mr. Chambers did), it (or some blocks) get moved indeed.
I don't have any Fusion Drive test, I only spoke with computer engineer colleagues that have one.
It would be questionable to move data after a small number of reads. That would stress the mechanics over necessary.
Other sources:
Fusion Drive: An Overview (http://www.macworld.com/article/2013805/fusion-drive-an-overview.html)
Pushing a Fusion Drive to its limits (http://www.macworld.com/article/2017365/lab-tests-pushing-a-fusion-drive-to-its-limits.html)
As for you example, you may leave very small portions of GarageBand on the SSD, or none, depending on your usage. Remember: blocks are fragmented at MB sizes, not GB. It's a very fine granularity.
I disagree with the author regarding the Lightroom Catalog. My one (and most probably yours too) gets modified -several times- a day. It's the most common candidate to be left on the SSD. Being the catalog a SQLite DB, in the worst case it may leave old portions which weren't accessed since a long time, yet I think that most of it will always remain on the SSD.
Regarding the 5400rpm disk, benchmarks show about 80 MBps in sustained write speed. Even FW800 may struggle to reach those speeds. Definitely not a bottleneck.
The dual approach has a single advantage over the Fusion. You may decide what to keep where no matter what. However, since you'll most probably decided basing on performance, you'll end to do what Fusion does for you under the hood, with much less flexibility. Is it worth it? Maybe, or maybe not. :)
-
FWIW, Tim Cook has said that Apple has not forgotten the pro user and is working on a new Mac Pro that he thinks people will like that should be out next year. Just Google MacPro 2013.
Jim
-
Well, as I said, I have no personal experience with the Fusion technology, which makes it rather futile to argue in depth about its merits and faults. Obviously, the Fusion drive (or at least its marketing) is mainly aimed at ´consumer´ users, who want a fast and easy-to-use Mac for their intended use. Nothing wrong with that; it is exactly my own attitude towards my car... :) And most of MacWorld´s contents is primarily aimed at that market segment, too. For all I know, the Fusion may be a gift from heaven for them.
My own conclusion, based on my previous experience, plus reading up the subject from more deeply going sources like ArsTechnica and Lloyd, is that the technique is simply an unnecessary complication for me and my needs, also one that leaves me with far less control than I like. Space on a modern SSD isn´t THAT limited and expensive, so some informed deliberation over what goes where will leave one with an SSD system volume with enough free space to run well, plus a HD volume for the rest, a volume rather seldom accessed, and thus mainly silent (the HD portion of a Fusion drive gets up and running for each and every R/W operation to that logical volume, even if only the SSD is involved; something that never happens with my present setup). And, in case either the SSD or the HD goes belly-up, I have only one volume to restore; the Fusion goes bust in its entirety. Obviously, backups, or disk clones are important in either case, but the task of getting back up is simpler with separate volumes.
Like most decisions, mine may prove wrong. But I can´t see I risk very grave consequences if it does; it´s like getting a manual gearbox for a car instead of an automatic one (which happens to be my choice for my own car): it´s just a tiny bit more footwork - but far more control.
-
Well, as I said, I have no personal experience with the Fusion technology, which makes it rather futile to argue in depth about its merits and faults. Obviously, the Fusion drive (or at least its marketing) is mainly aimed at ´consumer´ users, who want a fast and easy-to-use Mac for their intended use. Nothing wrong with that;
Per, I do respect your opinion, believe me. However, maybe being a computer engineering and knowing the matter quite well, I strongly disagree with the consumer aspect.
Your kind reply is mostly an "I don't know what it is but I know how to work the old way with a fast SSD". Nothing wrong with that, just please try to avoid judgments like that :)
Faster HDD = evolution. Bigger SSD = evolution. Sum of them = (maybe?) revolution.
-
FWIW, Tim Cook has said that Apple has not forgotten the pro user and is working on a new Mac Pro that he thinks people will like that should be out next year. Just Google MacPro 2013.
Jim
Indeed. Unfortunately, except for Tim's word and a bunch of crystal balls, why don't know absolutely nothing more. :-\
-
It would be questionable to move data after a small number of reads. That would stress the mechanics over necessary.
Assuming I want to read data five times and it doesn't get moved, I use the hard drive and "stress the mechanics" 5 times
Assuming that after 2 read operations, a third one is devoted to moving the data during idle time, I "stress the mechanics" 3 times.
Also, is that your qualified opinion that reading data off a hard "drive stresses the mechanics"?
Any specific reason that would prevent me from using a third party SSD and a third party hard drive to exploit the "Fusion" concept? If there is a specific reason, would you put it at the hardware or at the OS level?
You mention "Fusion" is a revolution? Where does the revolution term come from? Storage tiering? Virtual drives?
Regarding the 5400rpm disk, benchmarks show about 80 MBps in sustained write speed. Even FW800 may struggle to reach those speeds. Definitely not a bottleneck.
If 80 MBps sustained is not a bottleneck, any reason why people are selling, buying and using faster devices?
-
Indeed. Unfortunately, except for Tim's word and a bunch of crystal balls, why don't know absolutely nothing more. :-\
Unless you're a Beta tester for OSX and then I could might tell suggest to you that the drivers for one of the best video cards in the industry are in the latest build. A full size, very powerful video card that will not fit in an iMac. You can't test the drivers in the OS unless you've got a Mac that runs the card and they're not adding the drivers just for fun.
That's also where the Mini takes a significant back seat to the latest iMacs. Video is integrated, not bad, but not a separate and much more powerful card.
Now also give some thought to the new iMacs having a significantly less (70% claimed) reflective display than the model it replaces. It's the very same display but the glass that gave it the reflective issue is now gone. I have last years 27" iMac and the display calibrates very well. I'm expecting the new display will be much more widely accepted for photo and video post work and will find it's way to a much wider acceptance in the trade.
-
I know that K.C. 😄
Unfortunately we can't say anything more. It's happened in the past that kexts were found but then didn't translate in a commercial product.
A single test kext means nothing. Maybe within the next months we'll know more. I hope so! :)
-
Also, is that your qualified opinion that reading data off a hard "drive stresses the mechanics"?
That's not what I wrote. Read better. Moving data continuously between the hard disks is the stress factor.
Any specific reason that would prevent me from using a third party SSD and a third party hard drive to exploit the "Fusion" concept? If there is a specific reason, would you put it at the hardware or at the OS level?
You may succeed, you can create the volume via terminal and the OS should recognize the dual storage. It's still a new technology and Apple is know to prevent you some operations even if they're technically possible. Using a Samsung 830 SSD may be the best choice.
You mention "Fusion" is a revolution? Where does the revolution term come from? Storage tiering? Virtual drives?
So you just can't have more than one revolution in a field? That's questionable. I don't agree with you.
If 80 MBps sustained is not a bottleneck, any reason why people are selling, buying and using faster devices?
Again, read better. It was a compare between the speed of FW800 external disks and "slow" 5400rpm internal ones. As the internal disks reach the speed that the FW800 struggle to, it's NOT a bottleneck. Older 5400rpm 2.5" disks were slower, that's not the case.
-
I'm still confused. For the digital darkroom would I benefit from a fussion drive rather than using the ATA drive? Do I dare try to put a third party SSD drive in myself or pay apple for the fussion? I have no problem putting in RAM, but it sounds like replacing the drive is more intensive work.
-
I'm still confused. For the digital darkroom would I benefit from a fussion drive rather than using the ATA drive? Do I dare try to put a third party SSD drive in myself or pay apple for the fussion? I have no problem putting in RAM, but it sounds like replacing the drive is more intensive work.
Here are several guides for work on a Mini (http://www.ifixit.com/Device/Mac_Mini_Late_2012), among them drive swapping. As you will see, you have to dismount almost everything to get at the drive... and obviously the warranty will be void. Still, it doesn´t look all that scary; I´ll certainly do it myself if the 256 GB SSD proves too small, after all.
-
I'm still confused. For the digital darkroom would I benefit from a fussion drive rather than using the ATA drive? Do I dare try to put a third party SSD drive in myself or pay apple for the fussion? I have no problem putting in RAM, but it sounds like replacing the drive is more intensive work.
It's not as hard as swapping the HDD for an iMac, but it's still not that easy.
Not only you have to take your time, but then you have to buy the kit with the tools to dismount the whole Mac. Finally you'll have to create a fusion drive via command line.
If you add the cost for the SSD you'll probably still save money but… is it worth it? The choice is yours.
-
It's not as hard as swapping the HDD for an iMac, but it's still not that easy.
Not only you have to take your time, but then you have to buy the kit with the tools to dismount the whole Mac. Finally you'll have to create a fusion drive via command line.
If you add the cost for the SSD you'll probably still save money but… is it worth it? The choice is yours.
When I did my homework about replacing the optical drive in my 27" iMac for an SSD I looked at these factors -time and tools, testing the system, and my level of expertise- and decided it was better to let a professional do the job. Some people like opening up computers and working inside them but while I am naturally curious about how everything fits together I decided it was worth the $150 or so to let a professional do the job, and I'm the kind of guy who likes working on cars. I have the skills to do the job, just wasn't interested in doing it. Sometimes you have to delegate.
I have respect for those who do enjoy this kind of work, it is just not my cup of coffee.
-
For the digital darkroom would I benefit from a fussion drive rather than using the ATA drive? Do I dare try to put a third party SSD drive in myself or pay apple for the fussion?
It seems that the "Fusion Drive" software can be applied to any combination of SSD and HDD, including an external HDD. So maybe one option is getting a fast and fairly big internal SSD, and "fusing" it to a big and fairly fast Thunderbolt external drive. Any experience or comments on this?
-
It seems that the "Fusion Drive" software can be applied to any combination of SSD and HDD, including an external HDD. So maybe one option is getting a fast and fairly big internal SSD, and "fusing" it to a big and fairly fast Thunderbolt external drive. Any experience or comments on this?
Do not try that unless you really know what are you doing!!! :o
The system won't boot without the external disk attached and God knows what will happen if you accidentally unplug the external disk. The whole volume may become unreadable.
A fusion drive with an external disk is a one way ticket to madness.
-
Upgrading RAM on new iMac practically impossible (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9234218/Upgrading_RAM_on_new_iMac_practically_impossible):
"... Apple mentions the impracticality of memory upgrade only in a side note hidden on the iMac's options page. There, Apple said: "Every 21.5-inch iMac comes with 8GB of memory built into the computer. If you think you may need 16GB of memory in the future, it is important to upgrade at the time of purchase, because memory cannot be upgraded later in this model."
The not-yet-available 27-in. iMac will continue to sport four external memory slots. Customers can boost the RAM at the time of ordering to 16GB (for an extra $200) or 32GB ($600), but those prices are exorbitant compared to third-party RAM that users install themselves. An additional 8GB of memory -- which would raise the iMac's total to 16GB -- costs just $40 at Crucial.com, for example..."
-
Anand (as usual) has a good article explaining Fusion Drive:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6406/understanding-apples-fusion-drive
I liked his description describing it's behavior of "pinning" frequently used files to the 128GB SSD portion, only 4GB is used as a cache.....
I was honestly considering the iMacs until I saw iFixit's teardown.....
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iMac+Intel+21.5-Inch+EMC+2544+Teardown/11936/1
-
Upgrading RAM on new iMac practically impossible (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9234218/Upgrading_RAM_on_new_iMac_practically_impossible)
Unfortunately, for those who knew Steve's thought, the strange value by iFixit was the 7/10, not the 3/10 :-\
-
re Mac Pro 2013: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/apples-mac-pro-may-be-fading-away-11012011.html?campaign_id=otbrn.bw.tech
-
re Mac Pro 2013: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/apples-mac-pro-may-be-fading-away-11012011.html?campaign_id=otbrn.bw.tech
Ahmmm... have you noticed that the linked article is more than one year old?
-
Ahmmm... have you noticed that the linked article is more than one year old?
Have seen any Mac Pro since this article was written ? Just saying ;D
Henrik
-
Have seen any Mac Pro since this article was written ? Just saying ;D
Henrik
Henrik, let's keep those links for MacRumors. :)
Here people have to decide based upon released products or product lines.
I'd be more than happy to suggest a Mac Pro in 2013, but it doesn't exist and none of us knows or will tell. :)
-
ooops, sorry guys, I did not notice the date on this BusinessWeek bulletin which I saw yesterday in Bloomberg. My mistake and my apologies...
-
I picked up a 2010 27" iMac i7 refurb at a very good price from Apple. The IPS panel calibrated well, and the gloss has proven to be no problem in a controlled environment. So far, very happy with it.
With 12GB RAM it is fast enough for LR and PS processes with full frame files. I also installed a Seagate 750GB Hybrid drive for the system, and relegated the 7200 RPM HDD for image file storage. Previous to this I was using a Mini with a 24" NEC IPS panel monitor. The new machine is an improvement over the old one. I do have a 2010 C2D Mini server that I operate as a client machine. It's the emergency backup and also serves as a HTC in the meantime.
A note on SSDs, if your system doesn't support Garbage Collection you won't get the full benefit. To date, only Macs that ship with SSDs support it. That's why I went the Hybrid route, as well as getting 750GB for $140 as opposed to $300+/- for 256.
PS - I don't "throw away" computers or monitors. When all was said and done, I used the Mini/NEC combo for about three years and my out of pocket was about $400. When the iMac needs replacement...
-
On the chance that the OP is still reading this thread now that it's digressed well beyond his questions...
My six-year old iMac is still going strong, but the RAM limit is an issue. I want a faster machine, with much more RAM (at least 8GB).
Anything you buy is going to be so much faster than what you have it's really kind of silly to discuss the fusion drive. Any new Mac with a current generation HD is going to boot and open apps several times faster they what you've been working with. With a fusion drive installed by Apple you'll have a machine that boots and launches apps in seconds. If that's worth the money to you go for it. Trying to create you're own isn't typically the territory of someone who lives with a machine for 6 years and asks the questions you're asking.
No matter which you buy, the Mini or the iMac, you'll need external drives. Once your apps are open the fusion drive does little to affect your work experience editing images in any app. Consider how much external storage you'll need to work and have duplicate backup drives. Then look again at the cost of the fusion drive and decide what's most important.
The iMacs that were recently announced supposedly have even better displays but I am not yet sold on the hybrid drive idea.
The new iMacs have exactly the same displays as last year. They've just had the glass that covers them removed and 70% of the glare along with it.
Geeking out on a home grown fusion drive takes time and adds to the potential for problems. Sticking to factory built machines with Applecare leaves you free to be a photographer.
-
....
A note on SSDs, if your system doesn't support Garbage Collection you won't get the full benefit. To date, only Macs that ship with SSDs support it. That's why I went the Hybrid route, as well as getting 750GB for $140 as opposed to $300+/- for 256.
...
Download, install and run Trim Enabler (http://www.cindori.se/en/#3) if you mount the SSD yourself! Works great (of course; it´s a Swedish product! :D).
BTW, my Mini setup has just arrived, ahead of schedule ;D. Works great so far; will return to this thread when I´ve finalized the setup....
-
Just to update people on this - Lack of desk-space meant a 27" iMac was never an option, and after due consideration, I've bitten the bullet & ordered a 21.5" iMac, with an i7 processor & 16GB RAM (for which I had to pay through the nose - yeah thanks Apple).
I've already got back-up drives (One for Time Machine backups, two more for other file back-ups, one kept off-site, and when that comes home for a new back-up, the previous one goes off-site in its stead). I will now need to get a seperate CD/DVD drive though.
As the old iMac is still going strong, and where the limited RAM isn't an issue still functions fine, it's going upstairs as a replacement for the kids' eMac (which is pretty much done for).
Hopefully I'm set for the next five years or so.
-
Download, install and run Trim Enabler (http://www.cindori.se/en/#3) if you mount the SSD yourself!.
Agree. The best choice would be to get the same controller Apple mounts on their Mac, so maybe a Samsung 830 SSD like I did. You'll find it on Amazon in a lot of capacities.
Same product, way cheaper ;)
-
The 27" iMac offers a choice of video cards. The standard is an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX 1GB GDDR5; an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB GDDR5 is available for (in the UK) an extra £120.
Is this likely to be money well spent if I use LR and CS5?
Jeremy
-
The 27" iMac offers a choice of video cards. The standard is an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX 1GB GDDR5; an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB GDDR5 is available for (in the UK) an extra £120.
Is this likely to be money well spent if I use LR and CS5?
Jeremy
It makes more sense if you're going to use it with Photoshop CS6. The new version of PS uses Adobe's new Mercury Graphics Engine, which utilizes the graphics processor for a lot more functions than CS5 uses it for. You can read up about it here: http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/photoshop-cs6-gpu-faq.html#mercury
-
FWIW, I´ve ordered a Mini; delivery date stated as Dec 12th.... So I´ll know something more a few days later..... ::)
Details: I have a 2007 MacPro w/ 2x2.66 Dual-Core Xeons and 7 GB of RAM. My monitor is a 30" Cinema Display, bought at the same time (and I intend to keep it). The MP is SLOW, and just putting more memory in isn´t economical; the correct type can still be got at an exorbitant price, but cannot be reused on anything more recent... I do have a SSD as system disk, but that one is indeed eminently reusable... So, need for an update, but the wait for an elusive new MP is too much.
After reading, among other stuff, the Digilloyd and ArsTechnica articles, I ordered the 2.6 GHZ QC i7 Mini, maxed out with 16 GB RAM and a 256 GB SSD (after reading more about the FusionDrive, I think I can do a better job myself of putting the right things on the right disk... ;)). I´ll need an external cabinet for the less demanding stuff, and a Time Capsule will (hopefully) take care of auto backup; I perform 2nd and 3rd backups manually, to disks kept in a safe or off-site. The Dual-link DVI adapter should work with the Cinema Display. The one thing that worries me just a bit is the absence of a separate GPU, but I never play games....
I anticipate a noticeably faster system, with less heat and noise, and fre floor space under my desk.... Now, let´s see if I really get it.... :-\
Gee... Just realised I promised a follow-up after having received, setup, and run the new system. Seems I´ll just make it during the same year.... ::)
My impressions so far: decidedly faster than the old setup, MUCH faster download from camera SD cards via the built-in SD slot (had a USB2 reader before), and ample power for LR4 without having to terminate other running software. According to Activity Monitor, 16 GB is quite enough: very seldom less than 3-4 GB free, and no pageouts at all. The lack of a dedicated GPU doesn´t seem to be a problem at all, even with 2560x1600 screen resolution (don´t work with video, and not a gaming person....). And, after several weeks, I still haven´t heard the fan running. The entire setup (Mini, Display and 2 USB2 HD´s) draw just 5 W power when sleeping, 90 W fully running (the old MP station took almost 500 W!). It all rests comfortably on the foot of my CinemaDisplay, dead quiet.
The 256 GB SSD is definitely big enough; the LR database and previews reside there, as well as the entire system and all applications, plus my user Library, caches and all. If I ever need more room there, I could easily get rid of GarageBand, iDVD & c; with their accompanying Application Support files, they are several gigs that i never use. I certainly don´t miss a FusionDrive; I prefer the full control I have now.
Most documents, raw files, and videos are on a USB3 HD (small 2.5", 5400 RPM one) that fills the far more modest speed demands put on it. Also another USB3 HD for auto backups with ChronoSync (as an independent alternative to the TM backup to a TimeCapsule. I also make regular 2nd backups to disks in a safe, plus 3rd backups that are stored offside; I´m a backup paranoiac...).
In short, I got what I wanted, for far less money than a decent MacPro or a MBPR would have cost me.
-
thanks so much for the follow up. I'll definitely take your learnings into account when I finalize my MBP mid 2010 upgrade path.
cheers,
Leszek
-
Per,
So, if I understand correctly, you do your processing on the SSD and then when done, you export to external drives?
-
Per,
So, if I understand correctly, you do your processing on the SSD and then when done, you export to external drives?
Yes, you might put it that way. The ´actively used´ raw files are on the SSD, and so are the LR database and previews (plus the LR application itself). Older raw files are eventually moved to an external drive (and my experiments so far show there is very little performance loss if I have to access and work on them from there - as long as the database is on the SSD and the previews aren´t yet purged; I have LR setup to purge previews older than one month).