Need Mac Pro Advice

March 17, 2009 9:08 PM

I'd like to get one of the new Mac Pros, mostly for use in digital photography. But which one?

I am currently using a first-generation 2006 MacBook (2 GHz, 2 gigs RAM) to organize my photos and post-process using Lightroom. I'd like to get back into using Photoshop, but it (and Lightroom) pretty much choke on the RAW files my camera generates. I don't want to sink any more money into the MacBook, given its vintage. And I think I'd like to have a desktop again that I can monkey with, and install multiple drives in, etc.

I haven't bought a computer based on its power in about a decade (always laptops for portability). What's overkill at this point? Is it worth the $800 to get the extra 4 cores and twice as much RAM (I know that Apple jacks you on the RAM; I'd happily source it elsewhere and install it myself). Do the Adobe programs even take advantage of the second processor?

posted by Admiral Haddock to computers & internet (12 answers total)

My opinion would be that another $800 for 4 more cores would be total overkill for digital photography. The only two things that seem to make photoshop run much faster for me is RAM and keeping a good chunk of hard drive space open.

That being said, the largest photoshop files I tend to work on are about 100-125 meg with 20-30 layers. So if your files are getting way up there, maybe it would be different.
posted by Wink Ricketts at 9:17 PM on March 17, 2009

To your last question--yes. If you're going to be working in any kind of graphics, and especially video but also high-end photography apps like Aperture, you want that dedicated graphics card. This applies to any computer--laptop, desktop, PC, Mac. Actions like rendering images is much better.
posted by zardoz at 9:20 PM on March 17, 2009

Can you wait a few weeks? I've heard a rumor that the Mac Pros will come down in price in early April. I parted out the new MPs and Apple's margin is twice what the old Mac Pros were. So its my guess that once other vendors (Dell, HP) can sell servers and workstations with the Xeon Nehalem chips in them (they aren't officially released until March 30th), Apple may lower its prices. I would expect the models to come down $500 each, if not more.
posted by SirOmega at 9:22 PM on March 17, 2009

I built myself a desktop Hackintosh just because the current Mac offerings aren't good value for semi-serious digital photography (not interested in something portable, Mac Mini's underpowered, Mac Pro's overpowered, and the iMac [whose specs are just right] has a super glossy display). For about $700 I built a quad-core desktop that runs Aperture and Photoshop simultaneously much faster than my previous C2D Macbook Pro, I have far fewer wires running over my desk with all my drives internal, and I can use my matte display that I much prefer to the iMac's display.

Of course, there are issues with going that route (spending a couple of days getting the video card to work right, praying with every system update that my computer doesn't get borked).
posted by alidarbac at 9:49 PM on March 17, 2009

I am going through a similar thought process myself. In fact, you'll find a discussion on exactly this topic here.

In my case, my current desktop machine is the last gen 24" white iMac. It's been a great machine, but due to a number of circumstances it's likely to go to a new home. Instead of getting the newest iMac, I've started thinking that the Mac Pro has hit a performance level with the 8-core versions that could realistically meet my digital photography needs for the next 5 years or so. I had always targeted around 3 years for my iMac before tech improved enough to justify the upgrade.

I'll likely be getting the 2.26GHz 8-core for future expandability. Plus, there's lots of talk about the multi-threading / hyper threading capabilities of the new processor and how 10.6 will take full advantage. For me, probably overkill today, but also probably right at the sweet spot two years from now.
posted by michswiss at 10:19 PM on March 17, 2009

I work in print publishing and bought a Mac Pro last fall. I chose to save money by only getting a single quad-core, putting some of the difference into a larger hard drive.

I have MenuMeters set up to show a graph for each of the four cores, and rarely do I even come close to maxing out the processor. I'm sure I could briefly, if I tried, but in normal usage there's plenty of processor cycles available. For the very large scans I receive, hard drive speed is more of a bottleneck.

I just opened a .raf (Fuji RAW) file from an older camera (2848 by 2136 pixels) using Photoshop's RAW converter, and dragged around some of the more processor-intensive adjustment sliders. Each of the four cores was using around 50% of capacity.

Then again, if you have money to burn, get the eight-core and be done with it.
posted by D.C. at 10:41 PM on March 17, 2009 [1 favorite]

Apple just released new Mac Pros. As of last Friday, the previous generation was discounted to $1800 or so. They may or may not still be available.

The new machines are noticeably faster if you run massive parallel computing jobs, as I do. But the old ones are still very fast machines. I think few users will see a difference.
posted by ryanrs at 12:12 AM on March 18, 2009

ryanrs, can you point me toward the $1800 Mac Pros? I want to get one if they're actually selling for that price. Thank you.
posted by letitrain at 12:43 AM on March 18, 2009

I used to have a Mac Pro. Then I needed money for more important things and now I run Aperture on a 2.4 GHz iMac with 4 GB of RAM and while it isn't as fast, it's still worlds better than a laptop. Got this one refurb for a little north of $1000 and the glossy screen doesn't bother me that much.
posted by Brian Puccio at 1:54 AM on March 18, 2009

You should check out Barefeats.com -- especially its comparison of three fastest Macs (this comparo looks specifically at Photoshop, Aperture, etc, so it's especially relevant). Note that that article dates from Dec 2008, and there have been updates since, but in terms of relative performance, it should be about right.

That doesn't show how performance would be relative to what you've got now; take a look at xbench for that.
posted by adamrice at 6:06 AM on March 18, 2009

adamrice, the barefeats link is interesting. My understanding though is that the new Nehalem architecture Mac Pro's could be twice the performance of the previous generation. I'm not enough of a gearhead anymore to verify that myself.

I don't think the iMac's got nearly as much of a kick in the last round so the delta in performance should be larger. I don't think the Mac Pro's level of performance is essential for many. But it does open up new creative avenues that might have been slightly frustrating on a less capable machine. And, here's my main thinking, it's a base machine that will still have legs in several years.
posted by michswiss at 6:55 AM on March 18, 2009

One potential issue: I believe the new quad core Pro is limited to 8GB RAM. I don't know if that's a limitation for you now, or a potential one in the future, but at least be aware of it. Barefeats has a test of various RAM configurations using the new machines. I have done quite a bit of reading on the new Pros and the general opinion I'm getting is that the fastest of Mac Pros are just about the fastest thing you can buy today (in that general market segment) but the new low end Pros provide the same or even less power than the previous low end (low end being relative of course) at higher price points.

Me, I'd probably keep my eye on Apple's refurbished store were I in the market for a Pro. It's not up right now but the other night I saw a refurb quad core for $1999 and, being the previous generation, I don't think had the same 8GB RAM limit. YMMV and all that but I don't think the current quad core is a particularly good value.
posted by 6550 at 9:40 AM on March 18, 2009