New Mac Pro

[Hellstan]

My PPC G5 is 3 1/3 years old. Works perfectly around the clock.
Feels the need for a change, as some apps (Aperture 2, Photoshop)
do get a bit slow.
Mostly, I decided to scan my 10 000 negs + (24x36 and 6*6), so I will
end with BIG files manipulations (RAW from 100 to 200 Mb).
Had an offer from Apple Europe for a 3.0 Mac Pro with all bells and whistles
and a 512 card.
Is it enough, or should I go upscale with a 3.2 ?
Kind advices would be welcome from distinguished members here.
All the best  
Johan

[Anthony R]

The more power the better, but the increase in speed of processing will be hard to notice. The 3.2 will have higher resale down the road, but also negligible. More important is going to be harddrive speed and the amount of RAM. Best to always buy more computer than you think you might need.

My PPC G5 is 3 1/3 years old. Works perfectly around the clock.
Feels the need for a change, as some apps (Aperture 2, Photoshop)
do get a bit slow.
Mostly, I decided to scan my 10 000 negs + (24x36 and 6*6), so I will
end with BIG files manipulations (RAW from 100 to 200 Mb).
Had an offer from Apple Europe for a 3.0 Mac Pro with all bells and whistles
and a 512 card.
Is it enough, or should I go upscale with a 3.2 ?
Kind advices would be welcome from distinguished members here.
All the best   
Johan
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=178234\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[GregW]

It might be worth looking more closely at the various graphics card options.  Macworld have released some preliminary findings which look very interesting if expensive.

http://www.macworld.com/article/132268/200...00gt.html?t=201

[budjames]

I saw the test report. The differences noted in the report are for gaming and should not be relevant to image editing tasks. Even the basic card available for the MacPro from Apple are adequate for Photoshop and image editing tasks. More important would be a good measure of RAM (at least 4GB) and a RAID 0 internal drive.

I purchased the first MacPro 8 core that my local dealer delivered in Mar 07. I purchased the middle level card at that time, the ATI Radeon X1900 (512 MB VRam), 12GB RAM and 4 internal 750GB drives. I have 2 of the drives configured for RAID 0 using Apple's system software (no RAID card).

This system screams compared to the Dell Precision 470 workstation that it replaced. Now with Leopard, it runs even better.

There was an early report when the 8-cores started shipping that in real world test for Photoshop and other graphics software, that the 8 core was only marginally faster than a 4 core MacPro. I'm not sure if this is still true now that Leopard is out.

In any case, I think that you find that even the basic level MacPro a considerable speed upgrade over your old Mac.

Enjoy.
Bud James
North Wales, PA

[Hellstan]

I saw the test report. The differences noted in the report are for gaming and should not be relevant to image editing tasks. Even the basic card available for the MacPro from Apple are adequate for Photoshop and image editing tasks. More important would be a good measure of RAM (at least 4GB) and a RAID 0 internal drive.

I purchased the first MacPro 8 core that my local dealer delivered in Mar 07. I purchased the middle level card at that time, the ATI Radeon X1900 (512 MB VRam), 12GB RAM and 4 internal 750GB drives. I have 2 of the drives configured for RAID 0 using Apple's system software (no RAID card).

This system screams compared to the Dell Precision 470 workstation that it replaced. Now with Leopard, it runs even better.

There was an early report when the 8-cores started shipping that in real world test for Photoshop and other graphics software, that the 8 core was only marginally faster than a 4 core MacPro. I'm not sure if this is still true now that Leopard is out.

In any case, I think that you find that even the basic level MacPro a considerable speed upgrade over your old Mac.

Enjoy.
Bud James
North Wales, PA
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=178607\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks, Bud,

Did'nt you consider a Raptor 10000 RPM as main HD dedicated to your system and core apps, to boost performance further ?

[budjames]

Thanks, Bud,

Did'nt you consider a Raptor 10000 RPM as main HD dedicated to your system and core apps, to boost performance further ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=178608\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have 2 x 750 Seagate Barracuda internal drives in RAID 0 for photos and videos. I just upgraded the system drive to a 1 TB Seagate. I didn't look at the 10k RPM Rapter because of their limited size and cost. I'm a recreational photographer and PS/LR user so what I have is more than sufficient.

Bud

[Hellstan]

I have 2 x 750 Seagate Barracuda internal drives in RAID 0 for photos and videos. I just upgraded the system drive to a 1 TB Seagate. I didn't look at the 10k RPM Rapter because of their limited size and cost. I'm a recreational photographer and PS/LR user so what I have is more than sufficient.

Bud
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=178821\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bud,
The Raptor is only designed to harbor the system and heaviest applications/drivers, it's not a stockage HD.
But you're right, your system is quite nice like that.

[luong]

Compare the % in speed increase compared to the % in additional cost, going from 3.0 to 3.2. For me, I decided the money was better spent on a fast scratch and more memory.

I did not use the raptor as a system drive (150GB is too small), but I used a pair of them as a RAID 0 scratch. The rationale was that one doesn't want to store anything on the scratch. Only the recent big drives are comparable in speed (some think they are faster), but the storage capabilities would be wasted.

[Hellstan]

Compare the % in speed increase compared to the % in additional cost, going from 3.0 to 3.2. For me, I decided the money was better spent on a fast scratch and more memory.

I did not use the raptor as a system drive (150GB is too small), but I used a pair of them as a RAID 0 scratch. The rationale was that one doesn't want to store anything on the scratch. Only the recent big drives are comparable in speed (some think they are faster), but the storage capabilities would be wasted.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=178932\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Je n'ai pas tout à fait saisi, Quang-Tuan.
Do you recommend or not the use of the Raptor ? Or the option 3.2 ?
I see you work also LF (will explore your site).
Mes amitiés
Johan F

[AJSJones]

Johan, Sorry to hi-jack your thread just a little!

Tuan,

I too was thinking of two Raptors in RAID 0 for (only) my scratch when I upgrade soon to a MacPro - I'll be getting back to acquiring and manipulating 4x5 scans at 48 bit and 2500ppi (read ~600MB scans - occasionally pasting 2 together for a 1.2 GB 4x10!) so scratch performance will be very important.  What do you see in terms of read/write performance with those drives and do you know how they'd compare with a pair of eSATA drives, as representatives of possible alternative recent drive tech (excluding SCSI esoterica ) ?

Alternatively, anyone have good, reasonable cost, suggestions for this quest - i.e. large capacity is less important than raw read/write speed for RAID 0 in a scratch role.

Thanks
Andy

[Hellstan]

Johan, Sorry to hi-jack your thread just a little!

Tuan,

I too was thinking of two Raptors in RAID 0 for (only) my scratch when I upgrade soon to a MacPro - I'll be getting back to acquiring and manipulating 4x5 scans at 48 bit and 2500ppi (read ~600MB scans - occasionally pasting 2 together for a 1.2 GB 4x10!) so scratch performance will be very important.  What do you see in terms of read/write performance with those drives and do you know how they'd compare with a pair of eSATA drives, as representatives of possible alternative recent drive tech (excluding SCSI esoterica ) ?

Alternatively, anyone have good, reasonable cost, suggestions for this quest - i.e. large capacity is less important than raw read/write speed for RAID 0 in a scratch role.

Thanks
Andy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=178948\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not at all, AJS Jones, it's exactly my question, so you're perfectly welcome.  
I will have a lot of 6*6 negs to scan from a large collection of African art I recently shot for a book project, and I'm afraid I'll lose a lot of time when doing it with my current G5.
Reason why I'm considering the Raptor when I will upgrade to Mac Pro later this year.

[GregW]

I saw the test report. The differences noted in the report are for gaming and should not be relevant to image editing tasks. Even the basic card available for the MacPro from Apple are adequate for Photoshop and image editing tasks. More important would be a good measure of RAM (at least 4GB) and a RAID 0 internal drive.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=178607\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I mentioned graphics cards because the OP listed Aperture as one of his applications.  Aperture relies almost exclusively on Core Image to do it's heavy lifting.  A faster graphics card will by definition make a significant difference to how Aperture performs.  Core Image works in a similar way to a 3D computer game.

An early barrier to Aperture adoption was the limited number of Macs it supported.  Many simply didn't have fast enough graphics cards.

As far as Photoshop is concerned I fully agree with your comments.