Aperture Performance on the New Mac Pro?

[Bob Rockefeller]

Has anyone gotten their new Mac Pro and done any testing with Aperture? Are there any Aperture specific benchmarks that are being used? My Mac Pro should be here by the weekend and I can try some benchmarking myself then.

[KirbyKrieger]

I've still seen almost nothing.  Give a brief report, if you'd be so kind    .

Here is one thread with a little info.

[Bob Rockefeller]

Well, it's faster. How much faster is hard to tell. There are a number of benchmark results published on the web, but they are pretty general. I never found any Aperture specific benchmarks to run.

[KirbyKrieger]

Thanks Bob.  I'm not sure that's actionable, but it's helpful    .

[KevinA]

I run it on 3 computers old and new, no problem. Bench marks are no guide to workflow speed and how you use it day to day. As a DAM and raw converter delivering files to clients, keeping them in order, managing a lot of TB of drives, making it easy to search and find again, backing up, watermarking etc, it's the fastest there is. A geek with a stop watch will never understand that.

[trichardlin]

I run it on 3 computers old and new, no problem. Bench marks are no guide to workflow speed and how you use it day to day. As a DAM and raw converter delivering files to clients, keeping them in order, managing a lot of TB of drives, making it easy to search and find again, backing up, watermarking etc, it's the fastest there is. A geek with a stop watch will never understand that.

+1

[mj-perini]

Bob,
I did read at least two 'comparison tests' that both concluded that Aperture ran a bit faster on a high end iMac than on the new MacPro, I've been trying to remember where.
In both cases the conclusion had to do with Aperture not being optimized for the new hardware or dual graphics cards yet.
The tests were typical Aperture functions like import, preview generation , batch export to JPEG & TIFF. So not a comprehensive in use test.
I would think/hope at some point all the necessary optimizations will be added.
I'm interested as well, because I need to update an aging MacPro and replace my aging dual Cinema Displays with dual wide gamut displays.
I'd like to find the sweet spot for Aperture as well so as not to over buy. I've been leaning toward 6 core, 32GB Ram, dual 500's but am waiting for the air to clear about which Actually works, and 10bit display support.
Tough to find good information there.
I'd be interested to know your experience.

[KirbyKrieger]

I'm interested as well, because I need to update an aging MacPro and replace my aging dual Cinema Displays with dual wide gamut displays.

Not that I know anything anyone else doesn't (I don't) or that it is ever a good strategy to wait on software (it almost never is), but you might delay upgrading your system until Half Done — I mean, Yosemite — is out.

[mj-perini]

Kirby
I actually think that is a very smart Idea.
--for a couple of reasons ---  We all remember how every major version of Aperture arrived broken and took a while to get sorted out, and the new OS may well require a new version of Aperture.
Also, looking back on the FCPx debacle, and not even being able to open legacy files with a new version is another good reason to be wary.

It's also difficult to gauge Apple's interest in Professional Still Photography. It certainly seems as though it is very low on the priority list. I am a very big fan of Aperture, but if I were a betting man.........

I run it on 2 machines a 17" 2.5ghz MBP 16gb ram running the latest version. And my production machine a now ancient Quad core 3.0ghz MacPro 16gb with updated graphics and SSD Boot which I have frozen at 10.6.8 and an earlier stable version of Aperture 3.x.  Projects on that machine run to a thousand RAW files that ned to be edited and delivered weekly. It runs like a clock (if a bit slow at times)
But the machine cannot run Mavericks or newer. So at some point I'll have no choice.
The other thing the new OS may clarify is the whole 10bit color thing. I don't buy displays that often, and if that really is going to be the new standard, I'd rather buy into that.

7/9/14   I guess I should have been a betting man.........
Re the new MacPro: while the new MacPro has much to recommend it (especially for video) Inexplicably, Apple has (as I understand it) placed ALL the USB3 ports on a single buss, severely limiting throughput in multi device or RAID use. Something they did NOT do on a MBP (which is consequently much faster in multi drive applications)
This is even more important because although the new MPro has 6 TBolt ports, it only has 3 TBolt busses one of which is shared with the HDMI port. This is made worse because there is NO i/o expansion other than those 3 busses.
Lloyd Chambers outlines it here:http://macperformanceguide.com/MacPro2013-USB3-performance-limitations.html

So Apple's Fastest "most Professional" machine offers Apple's slowest USB3 performance, and there is apparently no way to fix it (short of a manufacturing change) because all the controllers are soldered in place.  Disappointing.
It's also a bit dishonest, because who would think to ask if Apple's top of the line has an antiquated USB3 implantation?
Michael