From what I read about Snow Leopard having Apple’s Grand Central which will schedule processes to maximize multi-core systems, I would think the dual quad core would make more sense. Question is do we want 2.66 or 2.93 🙂
I know I want 16bg RAM and I guess the ATI 4870 would be the best bang for the buck.
The other question is get it now or wait a few months for Snow Leopard?
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
I was a bit surprised to read that with all the improvements, it is only 2x faster than my G5 Quad for PS. Doesn’t really matter though to me because I get a computer that will run Snow Leopard, has a current video card for CS4, 4 drive bays and gets rid of the potential for coolant leaks with the G5 Quad.
I’ve always kept the future in mind looking at the performance and capabilities of Hardware and software. That said, I would invest in the dual quad and max out the HD and RAM slots. I feel for Adobe writers who are constantly trying to catch up with Apple or vice versa, like a dog chasing its tail.
And how do you expect a rewrite of the UI code in Photoshop to affect performance?
So are you telling me that the so called rewrite of PSCS5 is only the UI code?
I have a question for you then. Why do operations like flattening layers or merging layers (there are many more) use less than half of a processor core. That seems to me to be a problem and a serious bottleneck to good performance.
From your understanding of Grand Central in the upcoming Snow Leopard, will that have any affect on PS? Apple makes it sound like G.C. will take control and spread tasks across processors so programmers don’t have to worry about writing specific code to handle multi-processors.
DYP – we never said we were doing a ground up rewrite – that would be a really, really stupid thing to do. <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html> All we’ve said we’re doing is rewriting the UI code, because we have to in order to deal with the impedence mismatch between Cocoa and modern UI frameworks.
Flattening and merging usually (not always) use a single processor ) because it’s limited by RAM bandwidth, not by calculation speed. If we used additional processors for an operation limited by RAM bandwidth, it would actually run slower. For blend modes and operations that are calculation limited: we do use multiple processors. Every release we go back and test which operations are limited by what factors and retune them for best performance. But best performance does not always mean using all the processors.
Jim – it won’t have any impact. Grand Central is designed for smaller applications with simple data flow. It’s sort of the beginners guide to multiprocessor programming, and not designed to handle professional applications. This was made quite clear at their WWDC presentations.
There must be some misinformation floating around out there.
All we’ve said we’re doing is rewriting the UI code, because we have to in order to deal with the impedence mismatch between Cocoa and modern UI frameworks.
Thanks for the reply Chris. I was hoping that Grand Central would be advanced enough to add performance to any application by splitting requests across processors. Maybe in future versions. I’m sure you wouldn’t complain if it eventually made your job easier 🙂
If my current comparison is a dual quad core 2.66GHz "old" Mac Pro, and want new "Nehalem" Mac Pro, where Photoshop performs equally.
Should I get a 2.66 Quad Core Mac Pro (given I accept the 8 GB RAM limit)? Should I get a 2.26 Dual Quad Core Mac Pro?
A logical flaw exists at "given I accept the 8 GB RAM limit." RAM is hella important; important enough that there is no way that it makes sense to move from a (32 GB max RAM) 2006 MP to an (8 GB max RAM) 2009 MBP.
Certainly waiting until Snow Leopard is released saves the cost of the new OS. With a 2006 MP in place personally I would wait at least until Snow Leopard and results of new graphics card comparisons using PS, maybe even until the first revision of the new MPs. In any event IMO the only sensible upgrade is to the 8-core CPU version.
Until Adobe can recode PS to take advantage of 64bit we will be limited to 3027mb. If Apple hadn’t changed the coding requirements, we might have been working in 64bit as Windows users are now. That said, Mac OSX has the ability to cache data so adding extra memory to a Mac is good to do so PS can access cached data beyond the 3027mb allocated.
As for performance, remember those numbers are based on 400mb files. Chris Cox said in one of the threads on the new Macs that the performance difference is noticeable with larger files.
No matter how much RAM I add to a machine, the only setting in RAM allocation I can use in Photoshop is limited to what Photoshop reports it can see, and that is 3072 MB.
Although apps can only directly address ~3 GB RAM, Mac OS X works with the apps to effectively utilize much more than that. E.g. Adobe engineer Adam Jerugim in 2008 posted: "CS4 (running on OS 10.5.x) will take advantage of all the RAM you have in your system as long as VM OS buffering is active (up to 32GB – I haven’t tested more than that)."
The ability under Mac OS X to access large amounts of inexpensive RAM is a big benefit to the tower configuration.
Since I am planning on getting a new Mac I went looking on my PS CS4 CD and I didn’t see any plug-in by that name. Is it something that is automatically installed on an Intel Mac?
Obviously whatever they are doing CAN make CS5 run in a 64-bit environment or John Nack and others would not have stated publicly that "CS5 for Mac will be 64-bit"!
And in my scenario this concludes that faster GHz is generally faster than more cores,
I don’t think it’s that simple. You can’t always look to just a single spec and conclude an improvement. A machine with a less powerful processor can actually perform better than one with a mightier processor if the architecture is faster. It’s about removing bottlenecks.
From the rest we know, that Photoshop CS4 will be about 1.2 times faster according to Apple
Remember, that the "1.2 times faster" benchmark from Apple is comparing it to the previous generation, 8-core 3.2GHz Mac Pro. Obviously you’d realize a higher performance increase compared to your 1st generation 2.66 Mac Pro. (I have the same machine)
I think we are placing too much weight on Apple’s benchmarks given we don’t know what their 45 filters/actions are or how they had PS configured for performance. Not to mention they only used 400mb files which are small files for many of us.
Soren – again, what hardware gives the best performance depends on a lot of factors (document size, content, exact operations and blend modes used, other applications running, etc.).
As for 64 bit – the only visible difference will be that Photoshop will use more than 4 Gig of RAM before hitting the scratch disk. The performance delta of compiling 64 bit is plus AND minus 15% or less – so that’s a wash. And if we’re careful, using Cocoa won’t slow things down too much (and we’re trying to be *very* careful about that).
What essentially is not cleared up is if I will gain the optimal situation for general Photoshop use on a Quad Core 2.9 GHz or on a Dual Quad Core 2.16 GHz?
Since there is no Dual Quad Core 2.16 GHz I will guess that you mean a Dual Quad Core 2.26 GHz. In that case I will restate post #14 and say that RAM is hella important; important enough that there is no way that it makes sense to buy a Mac Pro limited to addressing a maximum of 8 GB RAM today for Photoshop-type work.
Unless and until someone successfully hacks a 2009 Quad-Core MP to address 16 GB RAM without problems IMO the 2009 Quad-Core MP is not acceptable and need not complicate our decision making.
Oh, come on … not everyone works on multi-GB files or needs the biggest, baddest system possible.
In fact, I’d say for the vast majority of Photoshop users, the new base model would be a significant upgrade over their current system – even with an 8GB RAM limit. How many regulars here are using machines that are 5 or 6 generations old? Hell, even the new Mini would be an improvement!
My philosophy for purchasing a computer has never been so black and white – just buy the most machine you can afford.
Of course any 4-core Mac Pro with 8 GB RAM and appropriate graphics card will run any version of Photoshop very well, but you miss the point. The point is that we have multiple Mac Pro computer investment choices to choose among: boxes from 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 with various graphics cards and other architectural parameters to consider when choosing the "best" one for any given workflow and financial situation.
With 11 Mac Pros (further complicated by confusing graphics cards combinations) it behooves us to quickly remove what may be unacceptable investment choices from consideration. The one box of 11 that limits RAM is – IMO – easily identified as "unacceptable" and removed from consideration.
Moving forward 🙂 as app vendors evolve apps to better utilize available cheap RAM, OS 10.6 and boxes with more RAM access (like all the other Mac Pros ever made) ever-larger amounts of cheap RAM will become more useful. I paid US$450 to upgrade my 2007 Macbook Pro from 2 GB to 3 GB, and it was worth it. Today that much money will put 24 GB in a MP, and RAM prices continue to fall.
Under OS X Photoshop can already take advantage of at least 32 GB installed RAM. We do not know what 64-bit Mac PS will bring us in a year or so, but odds are pretty high that having lots of RAM available will be very desirable. IMO buying a 4-year-lifecycle pro tower in 2009 that is constrained to 8 GB RAM would be a poor purchase decision.
All the above comments assume heavy graphics app usage like CS3/4/5.
Easy? In what way? You have to have a PCI Express card slot as far as I know. I’ve got the LaCie eSATA card sitting right here and nothing to plug it in to.
I agree with you that the base model isn’t the best value from a dollar-to-performance perspective ($2500 is a lot of money for a hamstrung machine), but I can’t go along with "not acceptable", especially since you insist on speaking for "us". You don’t represent anyone – speak for you, not me. 🙂
To be honest, I don’t think any of the new Mac Pros are a good value. When the original Mac Pros were introduced, they were actually cheaper than the cost of a comparable home-built Win box using the same (then new), processors. (a big factor that pushed me to buy) Not so with the current line-up, by a long shot.
I really can’t understand Apple’s pricing scheme. For the Dual 8 Core, Apple wants an additional $1400 to go from 2.26 GHz to 2.66. The same processor (x 2) from Newegg can be had is $576 (not to mention you’re not buying from nothing, but swapping a part – Apple still has the 2.26 CPUs to sell) The 2.93GHz option will add $2600 to the order. Newegg? Less than $1200 for the pair.
All I can say is I’m very glad I’m not in the market for a new machine right now.
Man, your right – I haven’t checked prices in while but RAM is crazy cheap right now. 16GB for the new Mac Pro for less than $300 from OWC? Wow. (I paid $400 for 2x1GB when my Mac Pro was new) On the other extreme, the 4GB chips are crazy expensive.
OWC 2GB x 8 = $290 4GB x 8 = $5, 000
Yikes! Even if it does become possible to use 4GB chips on the base model (nothing I’ve seen so far suggests it will), it wouldn’t make financial sense anyway.
and most consumer-level Mac users don’t even know what eSATA is.
More and more external HDs are coming with USB and eSATA as standard. I agree that Apple needs to jump on the eSATA train. I wouldn’t they’re "stupid" at this point, but they’re getting there.
Easy to love the new MacPros. Hard to love the price of the new MacPros, but IMO that is just Apple’s classic (very successful) skim-the-cream pricing model in action.
I agree with you that the base model isn’t the best value from a dollar-to-performance perspective ($2500 is a lot of money for a hamstrung machine), but I can’t go along with "not acceptable"
Probably I was intentionally too polemic with my verbiage (to emphasize how strongly I feel that about buying a new MP limited to 8 GB), and we really only disagree about the semantics. You say "isn’t the best value" and I say "unacceptable from a life cycle analysis standpoint."
Certainly I agree that the 8 GB MP box would be totally acceptable if one does not have to pay too much for it. That should be obvious since I did list the much weaker new Mini as worthy of consideration.
since you insist on speaking for "us". You don’t represent anyone – speak for you, not me.
Often the language I use includes the editorial "we," and most of my posts have IMO in them anyway so IMO 🙂 you need to just get over it.
What I said was eSATA is easy on Mac Pros and Macbook Pros, and it is easy. All pro Macs either have access to eSATA via PCI or via EC/34.
Also I said Making it also easy on consumer Macs would just cannibalize sales of Pro Macs. Of course, many folks would like to be able to configure a cheap desktop Mac with full Mac Pro capabilities but that is not IMO logically in Apple’s best interest.
Don’t get me wrong, Allen, I’m interested in what you say.
Also I said Making it also easy on consumer Macs would just cannibalize
sales of Pro Macs. Of course, many folks would like to be able to configure a cheap desktop Mac with full Mac Pro capabilities but that is not IMO logically in Apple’s best interest. << Exactly my point, it IS in Apple’s interest if they want to be serious about market share. You can make way more money with volume than with high end , and I defy anyone to prove me wrong. Removing a SuperDrive for an HD is a little bit nuts, and i presume you are talking about the new mini? An eSATA connector would solve several problems. It would give you high storage and fast external startup now, and very fast HD when solid states go to 500 gB in the near future. Plus what ever goodies will then be available as well, like an eSATA Superdrive, heh heh.
I’m going to the benefit of my marketing savvy to my inside guy at Apple and revolutionize their thinking. Watch the skies!
Given all of the above, would it be advisable to get the previous generation Mac Pro 2 x 2.8 Quad (if I can still find some locally, refurbished), with the proviso that it is a machine that I’d like to keep for at least 5 years, or would it be better to get the new 2 x 2.23 Quad. I mention the time period as I would expect to follow the system software updates which might prove more taxing on the long term for the former. The primary use of the machine would be for the selection and processing (Raw conversion, and subsequent processing and preparation for printing in PS) of fairly large individual digital camera files (no batch).
Thanks for your reply. Your views are well-founded and converge with the available benchmarks and Lloyd Chambers’ report mentioned above. And as much of these observations that I have managed to assimilate, I have taken, together with your views, to heart. Hence you may notice that both the Mac Pros I indicated can, I believe, take up to 32 Go of Ram, although for the current model at the sacrifice of some internal organs.
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
