| Moderated by: chrisbet, | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...   |
|
|||||||
| Mac or ? - Page 4 | |
| Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat Jul 7th, 2012 07:36 |
|
31st Post |
Ed Hutchinson
|
Thanks Robert I thought that might be the case, but it never hurts to ask. You are right I really don't have a use for the server functions I read somewhere the quad core is better for working with photos, but I am using an old pentium 4 with 2.5 gigs of ram. sorry I hope I didn't shock you with my system I know it's over the top hi tech and all  All seriousness aside I really am very thankful that everyone here is so willing to help a computer dummy this whole thing started because I saw a way to escape from windows and the big M in the sky. I live 50miles from the campus and I can still see it ( it's like the batlight) I wonder if this could be a figment of my imagination and too much time on my hands I really need to get a computer and get to work!!!!!!!!THANKS ALL!!!!!! Ed 
____________________ R.O.C.E.D. retired old cranky extremely dangerous! |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jul 7th, 2012 08:51 |
|
32nd Post |
Robert
|
The Quad really is quite something, when you throw a heavy amount of work at it it goes into turbo mode the speed goes up and gains an extra 4 virtual cores. It's quite amazing to watch. it becomes an eight core 2.7 (I think) machine for as long as the load remains then ramps down to normal. I can't find anything about this on the web now, but that's what mine does.
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jul 7th, 2012 08:52 |
|
33rd Post |
rmoser
|
I don't know if quad core is better for photo's but it's definitely the case that 12 core Mac Pros definitely run Photoshop slower than 6 core Mac Pros. There are other programs that run much better on the 12 core machines, through. It's really all in how they're written and how amendable the work load is to spreading it over multiple cores. I'm currently running a xeon 6 core 3.33GHz Mac Pro for photoshop and it definitely outperforms my old i7 2.xx (I can't exactly remember the speed) Windows box doing the same things. But it's hard to generalize that kind of result. Would the same i7 running OS-X run photoshop the same? I kind of doubt it. Rob
|
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jul 7th, 2012 09:52 |
|
34th Post |
Robert
|
It seems more dependent on the OS than to hardware Rob, each of the OS upgrades has dealt with this a bit differently. Unless each of those computers was running the exact same build of OSX the comparisons are not really meaningful. We are seeing huge variations in speeds between builds and point versions on the same computers. Apple's goal is that the application software is not core aware, the OS deals with threading the memory and the cores. With the Mac Pro they are affected by the exact memory configuration, that determines the threading. With the Mac Mini's the i7 is much more powerful than the previous two base model Mac mini's I have. Not really a surprise... I found the base model Mac mini's perfectly OK for my needs. As was demonstrated by opening 1,750 D200 NEF's all at once. The use of the software was unaffected, It just took a while to save 1,750 JPEG's!
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jul 7th, 2012 16:44 |
|
35th Post |
rmoser
|
Well, I can tell you that I'm very happy with my Mac Pro  . 10TB of disk and currently 16 GB of memory. I'll replace the 1TB boot drive with a 300GB 15k drive as soon as it arrives.I'm toying with puttin the boot on an SSD, but will probably stick with the 15k drive. In case you haven't found this site, I think you'll find it interesting http://macperformanceguide.com/index.html Rob
|
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jul 8th, 2012 02:31 |
|
36th Post |
Doug
|
rmoser wrote:.In case you haven't found this site, I think you'll find it interesting http://macperformanceguide.com/index.html I recently received some very good advice from Lloyd Chambers during a 1 hour consultation when configuring a Mac Pro for a client
____________________ Recent & Popular posts ProCapture | Genius on Demand Blog |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jul 8th, 2012 02:37 |
|
37th Post |
Robert
|
Interesting Rob, thanks. If you are looking for real performance improvements then a 125Gb SSD for OS, for your Home folder and Applications would make a real difference together with a second SSD for a scratch disk would make even bigger improvements to speed. From my contacts I am told these make a real difference and are worthwhile in a working environment. I think OWC do a PCI card loaded with SDD chips, which slots into one of the Mac Pro PCI slots. These are even faster because they have direct and very fast access to the CPU Bus. http://9to5mac.com/2012/04/18/first-mac-bootable-pci-ssd-now-available-from-owc/ If you have spare PCI slots then this is a good way to go, because it leaves your normal HD slots available for HD's The OWC prices don't look too bad either... Although I do wonder what happens to the time saved at such expense. I like a crisp computer but it doesn't have to happen yesterday for me.
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jul 8th, 2012 04:08 |
|
38th Post |
jk
|
My MBA13" has a 256GB SSD and it is very speedy so I use it most of the time and only go to the MacMini when I want to do large screen image editing. The SSD makes the machine very speedy boot up is in a few seconds.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jul 8th, 2012 04:23 |
|
39th Post |
Robert
|
I venture to suggest SSD's will take over from HD's at least for primary internal drives quite soon. They are creeping through the Apple range now. With volume a SSD will soon become cheaper than a HD and more reliable. Look at RAM prices, compared with a few years ago. No moving parts.
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jul 8th, 2012 06:06 |
|
40th Post |
Doug
|
My just ordered MacBook 13" will get a boost from a data doubler (OWC) which will be holding a 750GB 7200rpm drive in place of the superdrive, a 128gb ssd in the normal drive bay and 16gb ram My clients new Mac Pro will benefit from a 240gb and 480gb pci card in addition to some other bits and pieces
____________________ Recent & Popular posts ProCapture | Genius on Demand Blog |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| This is topic ID = 242 Current time is 03:51 | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... | |
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Computer Hardware for Digital Photography. Computers, OS, Scanners, etc. > Hardware for Image Processing > Mac or ? | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Modern editor
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0677 seconds (69% database + 31% PHP). 82 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0677 seconds (69% database + 31% PHP). 82 queries executed.