Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Mac Pro or iMac  (Read 8835 times)
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 776



WWW
« Reply #40 on: January 14, 2014, 05:06:18 PM »
ReplyReply

My bad Steve, I have an Ivy not a Sandy...

Still I keep getting similar results. 

The image file was part of the unzipped download folder and is 3.6 mb as noted by info in finder.

I just sent you a video of the test run from my iphone.  Again my finger timing shows 11 sec range.

Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1477



WWW
« Reply #41 on: January 14, 2014, 05:45:11 PM »
ReplyReply

My bad Steve, I have an Ivy not a Sandy...

Still I keep getting similar results. 

The image file was part of the unzipped download folder and is 3.6 mb as noted by info in finder.

I just sent you a video of the test run from my iphone.  Again my finger timing shows 11 sec range.



LOL!  Talk about being on different pages.. Smiley

We were 'just' running different tests.

With the test you ran I got 2.8s but I don't trust it.. seems too fast and I could count longer than 2.8s.. felt more like 7-8s..

I've got enough cooling to push this system to nearly 5g on over clocking like the other guys are doing, but I'm sure not going to run it that way so why bother?    That's what these tests lack.. realism.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 570



WWW
« Reply #42 on: January 14, 2014, 07:11:36 PM »
ReplyReply

hello Jerry, thank you for sharing; everybody wants to know how fast the new Macpro is for Photoshop ...
some interesting articles already appeared - i like the Anandtech review..
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/7
Anand Lal Shimpi does a very good job explaining what to expect from the new machine and what not.


I did the speedtest on my old macpro 3.1 ... 2008 - 2x 2,8 GHZ quadcore - 16gig ram- .. MacOSX10.6.8- Photoshop CS6
ran it two times:  17 second on both occasions.

If somebody has the latest and fastest iMac i would not be surprised it would be fastest on these tests.

cheers Pieter Kers

(Must say the tests do not give a very good insight in the computer as a whole; for instance the GPU works especially well with filters like liquify...and ramspeed is hardly addressed...but it seems a good multicore test...)


The tests are definately not optimized for the new hardware. Photoshop only uses one GPU in the new MacPro. I did notice faster results on my computer with 64GB Ram compared to a similar machine with 32. Geekbench 3 compares Macs to Macs. This website actsually explains core usage with Photoshop much better than any other I have read.  http://macperformanceguide.com/MacPro2013-CPU-cores-workflow.html

In any case, this is my first MacPro upgrade since I bought the 1,1 in 2006, so everything seems fast to me! Apple Aperture really flies with the new MacPro.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2014, 07:15:04 PM by jerryrock » Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 797


WWW
« Reply #43 on: January 15, 2014, 07:15:05 AM »
ReplyReply

...
In any case, this is my first MacPro upgrade since I bought the 1,1 in 2006, so everything seems fast to me! Apple Aperture really flies with the new MacPro.
...

i can imagine its a huge step forward!  interesting to see how long the MacPros keep on working! (but mine lost lost the video card after 5 years hard work...)

i just calculated that an imac with similar specs costs about 700 $ less than a Macpro.  On 4300$ i would find that not enough difference to move over to the iMac ; also i do not need the screen.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2014, 07:18:07 AM by kers » Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1477



WWW
« Reply #44 on: January 15, 2014, 10:23:22 AM »
ReplyReply

i can imagine its a huge step forward!  interesting to see how long the MacPros keep on working! (but mine lost lost the video card after 5 years hard work...)

i just calculated that an imac with similar specs costs about 700 $ less than a Macpro.  On 4300$ i would find that not enough difference to move over to the iMac ; also i do not need the screen.

Virtually any modern computer built from quality components will run indefinitely.  I have Core Duo machines from 8-9 years ago still running and in use, one favourite of the wife is her Dell 12" Pentium M.. (3lb notebook), uses it daily at school and plenty powerful enough for her needs (word processing, browsing, email) and I'm sure it's more than 10 years old.  Even older machines I've built are in use with family members with modest needs back from as long ago as 1998 that I can remember.  Keep them clean and plugged into a UPS and they'll run forever.

The ones that implode, pure Cra*, are the inexpensive notebooks that never get cleaned inside and whose plastic bits don't seem to last even a couple years.. or the really cheap pre-built desktops with the worst power supply designs knows to mankind.. there has surely been some real hooey put on the market.  But anything of quality, properly maintained.. will keep humming for years.

Can you share what build points you spec'd?  I tried but couldn't find anything similar.  Not the CPU, not the RAM, not the SSD's, and not the video card..    These components are all significantly different.. in another world really.  But maybe I missed something?
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 797


WWW
« Reply #45 on: January 16, 2014, 07:53:55 PM »
ReplyReply

...
Can you share what build points you spec'd?  I tried but couldn't find anything similar.  Not the CPU, not the RAM, not the SSD's, and not the video card..    These components are all significantly different.. in another world really.  But maybe I missed something?...

Of course you are right about the other world; What i did was compare the price of a loaded Imac with quadcore 3,5 GHZ i7 1 tb flash and a 2Gb videocard to the 4core macpro tb flash and 2GB firepro 300 cards. I did this because i expect for photoshop that the speed difference will be minimal as is shown by the the geekbench performance and other sources as well
Since the macpro 2013 does not contain PCI cards and harddisks trays that difference is gone between the two.
If i would be doing video i would go for the macpro, but if i run photoshop i do not need so many cores, nor dual gpu's.
Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1477



WWW
« Reply #46 on: January 16, 2014, 08:43:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Of course you are right about the other world; What i did was compare the price of a loaded Imac with quadcore 3,5 GHZ i7 1 tb flash and a 2Gb videocard to the 4core macpro tb flash and 2GB firepro 300 cards. I did this because i expect for photoshop that the speed difference will be minimal as is shown by the the geekbench performance and other sources as well
Since the macpro 2013 does not contain PCI cards and harddisks trays that difference is gone between the two.
If i would be doing video i would go for the macpro, but if i run photoshop i do not need so many cores, nor dual gpu's.


IC..  I've thought for some time "generally" those processing still images would be well served with a modern quad core with 16-32gb of RAM.  This could take the form of a Mini Mac like I wrote about in my article, an extremely fast budget concious high quality computer (those words normally don't come together in this way which is what made it such a stand out) that's even competent on light video.  Someone could spend $1000 for this set up, another $1000 of a quality NEC 27" PA271 ($799 @ B&H) and top quality mouse and keyboard.. and be up and running in style.  The only advantage to an Imac over the mini is marginally powerful discrete video card add-on, with that huge 27" disadvantage you can't get rid of (the screen)..

Another quad core option is a quality PC build either in a Win7 or OsX hackentosh (or both) Haswell build with 32gb, the sky is the limit with the video card choices.. so let's say $1500 for such a system with a quality power supply and video card and simple SSD/systemOS and 2tb wd Black drive options.. Or as much as $2500 with a great case, luxury MB, and SSD cache and 2-3 more storage  HDD's..   

If you consider the NEC PA271 27" monitor as the base for all three systems, all three are separated by $1500.. with that $1500 bringing you more/better drives, faster video card, great PS, better optioned MB that you could easily OC 15-20% without breathing hard..     

Which one do you need?  Some like the idea of lower spending and an attractively small Mini, some like the very nicely spec'd desktop class Win7/OsX build,  and sharing the top end at $2700-$3000.. is (compared to the Win7/OsX build)  the very limited Imac.. You're stuck with the build in monitor, no room for drives, marginal video card, marginal PS, build and performance wise not in the same class IMO.. 

And then there are the power users.  Those into video, complex PS actions with large files, stitcher's,  pano masters, etc..  The nMP looks good or in the Win or Win/Hack platforms and equal performing multiple xeon system..

We live in good times.. really good times.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 797


WWW
« Reply #47 on: January 17, 2014, 08:49:56 AM »
ReplyReply

....
We live in good times.. really good times....
I almost forgot about the Mac-mini, If a new version comes it will be even faster and probably with pci-flash in it... maybe even smaller..?
the 16 gig ram limit is the only thing i do not like - i want/need  32. I am running with 16gig now and see it is completely used- photographs will be larger than 36MP in future for sure.
But in the end i will buy a 6 core macPro i think, but not this year... it is about 2x faster than what i have and costs far too much considering all the extras i also need to buy. Next year all the thunderbolt stuff will be cheaper i hope.

Meanwhile it is interesting to see how Apple and other software developers are going to use the extra power from the double GPU units. If that power is well used we will see huge performance jumps. It seems the new smart Sharpen tool in Photoshop CC uses it to make sharpening much faster. ( http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2014/20140116_7-MacPro2013-PhotoshopCC-GPU-sharpening.html )





« Last Edit: January 17, 2014, 01:06:40 PM by kers » Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1739


WWW
« Reply #48 on: January 17, 2014, 03:44:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Meanwhile it is interesting to see how Apple and other software developers are going to use the extra power from the double GPU units. If that power is well used we will see huge performance jumps. It seems the new smart Sharpen tool in Photoshop CC uses it to make sharpening much faster. ( http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2014/20140116_7-MacPro2013-PhotoshopCC-GPU-sharpening.html )
Not yet.  This article states that it is not clear that both GPUs are being used.  It's my understanding from the current technical literature that this is not the case; only one GPU is being used for processing and the other for display.  Perhaps down the road we may see this but even then it's doubtful that one will see huge differences for most photo applications.  Dual GPU processing is likely to impact video more.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5543


WWW
« Reply #49 on: January 17, 2014, 04:50:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps down the road we may see this but even then it's doubtful that one will see huge differences for most photo applications.

Photoshop has struggled dealing with dual GPU from the beginning when GPU was first added. Dual matching video cards did not cause problems, Photoshop would pick one and use it. But if you had two mismatched video cards you would end up with real inconsistent performance and in some cases, crashes unless you giggled the GPU preferences...

The new MacPro is, as far as I know, the first purpose built dual GPU setup (meaning two matching video cards being standard, not an option).

I know that the Photoshop team will be working on this for the future because there's a lot of potential with paired GPUs, but at the moment, Photoshop will only deploy one vid card. LR/ACR are not yet leveraging the GPU but there are signs that GPU may not be too far away (although no timetable is out there).
Logged
kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 797


WWW
« Reply #50 on: January 17, 2014, 05:11:30 PM »
ReplyReply

...
I know that the Photoshop team will be working on this for the future because there's a lot of potential with paired GPUs, but at the moment, Photoshop will only deploy one vid card. ...

Hello Jeff,
Could you explain in more detail what way Photoshop (CC) uses the GPU? I never found much benefit from turning GPU on..  the liquify filter is using it and then more important for me the new smart sharpening filter.
Thanks in advance,

Pieter



Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5543


WWW
« Reply #51 on: January 17, 2014, 05:42:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Could you explain in more detail what way Photoshop (CC) uses the GPU? I never found much benefit from turning GPU on..  the liquify filter is using it and then more important for me the new smart sharpening filter.

Pretty sure GPU has been slipped in a few additional areas such as Image Size (particularly the preview), certain painting, obviously 3D stuff and some of the other newer features like Blur Gallery. Every version update adds a few things. As far as I know, there's no hard list of what is GPU enhanced...sorry.
Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1477



WWW
« Reply #52 on: January 17, 2014, 06:34:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello Jeff,
Could you explain in more detail what way Photoshop (CC) uses the GPU? I never found much benefit from turning GPU on..  the liquify filter is using it and then more important for me the new smart sharpening filter.
Thanks in advance,

Pieter


I don't have Jeff's knowledge but I've read a bit on this.  The important thing to remember is certain video cards work better than others.  You can't really use Adobe's published list because it will have you using outdated GPU's, but it does make clear the path they're on and will support.  They support Nvidia more than ATI, and the support Nvidia non-workstation cards as well.

In the past if we had two GPU's we'd just bridge them either in SLI (Nvidia) or Crossfire (ATI) and let the scaling do the work, or in other words the bridging would take two compatible cards, bridge them, and the overall power of the GPU would scale by the amount of power added by the second card.  A rare exception were the dual GPU cards like ATI's 5970 and it's predecessors.. They're not bridged, game software had to address them differently to get the power to the ground and the game developers did a good job of this.  But Adobe chose to treat a dual GPU like a single.. and ignore the second GPU.  I fear this is what CS6 and CC will do with the nMP.. at least until Adobe gets with the program.   They will, I'm sure Apple has been on them a while already.

As far as what features.. if buying a card for PS make sure it had OpenGL (latest version google it when ready dto buy), and OpenCL.   Adobe says it best in the box you check that says "acceleration."  That's what it does for 98% of it's functions.  It accelerates them.   Others CS components use them differently.

GPU acceleration really helps for content aware, camera raw, mixer brush, video decoding, color correction, chroma keying, blur tools, and more.    Acceleration of existing functions vs. adding new function is how you want to approach this.

With that said, there are some things PS does with a GPU that it won't do without such as the way it "floats" an image to it's place vs. just dropping it in..  You'll see as you make the transition.

I do think we'll be seeing some big changes geared towards the nMP from Adobe soon..
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1477



WWW
« Reply #53 on: January 17, 2014, 07:08:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Kinda on topic:

My son asked for help helping a friend build a box to be used for word processing, browsing, basic games, and enough image editing to be able to sort, store, resize, crop, etc..  basic stuff.  The friend had a monitor, keyboard, mouse, and speakers from the past system.  Everything else had to be new.  And he wanted the best bang for the buck.. all 400 of them.

The end result was a micro box, PS, MB, 8gb of RAM, a 2 core Haswell, 128gb Samsung Evo SSD,  1tb 3.5 inch HDD, Lite-on DVDRW, and a USB 3.0 internal card reader.  We took advantage of some decent sales after Christmas, etc.

Frankly it was surprising how quick and powerful a system $400 can get you.   The only time I could tell a seat of the pants difference from my quad core 4770k system was when using layers, filters, and more advanced functions.

Eye opening.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
JimGoshorn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176



« Reply #54 on: January 18, 2014, 01:52:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a related question:

Currently, I have a 2009 dual 2.93 which has a 64bit multiprocessor geekbench score of around 17,300. The new 8 core has around 22,400 which is approximately 33% faster which isn't a tremendous difference. One post I read about Intel's roadmap says the next gen chips will have up to 14-18 cores but I imagine there is just so much Adobe can split up to make use of more and more cores. So are we reaching a point of dimishing returns from the CPU and the only real increases are going to be from multiple GPU's? If that's the case, does one look at the 500 or 700 series cards?

Jim
Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1477



WWW
« Reply #55 on: January 18, 2014, 02:32:36 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a related question:

Currently, I have a 2009 dual 2.93 which has a 64bit multiprocessor geekbench score of around 17,300. The new 8 core has around 22,400 which is approximately 33% faster which isn't a tremendous difference. One post I read about Intel's roadmap says the next gen chips will have up to 14-18 cores but I imagine there is just so much Adobe can split up to make use of more and more cores. So are we reaching a point of dimishing returns from the CPU and the only real increases are going to be from multiple GPU's? If that's the case, does one look at the 500 or 700 series cards?

Jim

For reference a quad core mini with 16gb gets 14,435, a Haswell 4 core desktop 19xXXX.. so cores are becoming more and more capable.. which tells us we shouldn't necessarily be concerned the "number" of cores, but more concerned with the generation and capability of the cores we choose.  Caches come into play we well.

Yes, as most imaging software is currently written, we've reached the point of marginal returns.  But if that software isn't written to take advantage of RAM or GPU cores those won't help either.  The developers will look at the big picture long term, make their best guess at what components (RAM/CPU/GPU) will most economically provide the most muscle for their products (long term) and then go with it.

Meanwhile we wait.  Hurry up and wait.

Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
westfreeman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22



WWW
« Reply #56 on: January 22, 2014, 09:03:07 AM »
ReplyReply

One thing I have not read (might have missed it)

Monitors?

What about the screen we look at while we work on these images?  I for one can't see myself looking at the iMac screen all day.  That is the deal breaker for me on the iMac.  I use the matt screen and I for one could not look at the iMac screen.

Food for though.

Logged
phila
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267



WWW
« Reply #57 on: January 28, 2014, 03:18:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Worth a read for a purely Lightroom perspective:

http://www.tony-hart.com/blog/essays/2014/01/mac-pro-a-lightroom-perspective/
Logged

westfreeman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22



WWW
« Reply #58 on: January 28, 2014, 06:41:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the link.

Great read.  Very informative.
Logged
jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 570



WWW
« Reply #59 on: January 29, 2014, 06:35:36 PM »
ReplyReply


What's new in Adobe Photoshop CC 14.2:

January 16th, 2014
Includes many new features, including Perspective Warp for manipulating multiple perspectives in an image, and linked Smart Objects for easier reuse of design elements. We are also delighted to deliver support for 3D printing in Photoshop CC. Now you can design, edit and print in 3D using the world’s best imaging tool.

JDI Features/Enhancements:
Mercury Graphics Engine performance boost (Smart Sharpen on GPU)
Enhanced Scripted Patterns and Fills (Trees, previews, and other improvements)
Added a “do not show again” checkbox to the missing fonts dialog
Enabled Share on Behance for more languages
Improved history states for editing text, editing and applying Character and Paragraph styles
Generator can export padding in image assets by using layer masks
Layer names can now be up to 255 characters
Generator now properly rescales Illustrator Smart Objects when exported at 200%
New option for Narrow Options Bar, for small displays
On a background layer, one click on the lock icon unlocks the layer
Set custom background color in New Document dialog
Better negative number support in curves adjustments
See recent colors in the Swatches panel
Change “Clear” to “Clear All” for the Color Sampler tool
Increase number of color samplers from 4 to 10
Change all color samplers in Info palette at the same time
Improved font transformations
Improved selection of shapes with white arrow tool (clicking in the middle reveals white knots)

Mac Pro Compatibility:
The Photoshop CC 14.2 update provides GPU compatibility support for the new Apple Mac Pro. The 14.2 update will allow Photoshop to take full advantage of one of the two available GPUs at a time.
We expect to add support for both of the new Apple Mac Pro’s GPUs, and continue to optimize our customers experience by supporting additional GPU operations in a future release.
Each of the two GPUs in the base model of Mac Pro are faster than the GPUs available in any other Mac model, and provide plenty of speed and VRAM (memory on the GPU card) for most operations. If you spend a great deal of time editing very large images using one of the GPU-accelerated Photoshop features such as Blur Gallery, Liquify, or 3D, we expect this gain to be significant. (The 6GB VRAM in the highest end GPU option would only be needed for the largest 3D models).
For additional guidance on hardware, OS and Photoshop configuration see this document on Tuning Photoshop for Peak Performance.
Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad