Macbook too slow: Mac Mini good idea?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Selwin

Active Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
907
Location
The Netherlands
Lightroom Experience
Advanced
Lightroom Version
Classic
Hello forum!
This is my first post. I am looking for those who use a Mac Mini (current model: 2.4 GHz 2'1') with 8GB.

Question 1:
Does it run LR3.2 and PS CS4 smoothly, when used simultaneously? Will 8GB do? Processor fast enough?

Question 2:
Does it process 21 MP 5D-mkII files smoothly?

My hardware:
Macbook 2.' GHz/ 4GB RAM, 16'GB HD
Cinema HD display 3'"
Lots of drives

Additional Information:
My Macbook 2.' GHzwith 4 GB memory is full (Page-outs hits over 1 GB) when using LR3.2 and PS CS4 simultaneously. 4GB is all I can stash into it. Apparently I need more than 4 GB.
My 2.' GHz Macbook (mb466, late 2''8 model) is fast enough (well, acceptable) if I only use either LR or PS4 exclusively. LR3.2 will use up to 2.6 GB alone during full image processing. It will stay below 1 GB as long as I stay away from editing (local adjustment brush and such). If I render standard previews prior to image processing, LR3 performs OK when working on 12MP files (I use a Canon 5D).

Thanks for your input!

Selwin
 
Can't comment on the specific Mini, but it's less powerful than the current MacBook Pro model which i have - that machine runs ok but not mega-fast on 12mp files. By starting at 8gb you have already use up all of your expansion options, so a Mini maybe not a good long term proposition. There is a healthy Market in secondhand Mac Pro machines, which would be worth considering if the budget won't stretch to a new one - mine is over 4 years old and still going strong.

The reality is that you are paying the price for those 21mp files, and you're going to need a lot more horsepower.
 
Hi Selwin, welcome to the forum!

Can you be a bit more specific about where you're seeing the speed issues? That might give a few clues about your current bottlenecks. Also, where are the files stored?
 
The main problem with the MBP or the Mini will be disk speed access.
I would also suggest looking for a 2nd hand Pro.

A quick look on ebay suggests that you will need around £15'' for a machine.
 
[quote author=Victoria Bampton link=topic=11735.msg78819#msg78819 date=129'97629']
Hi Selwin, welcome to the forum!

Can you be a bit more specific about where you're seeing the speed issues? That might give a few clues about your current bottlenecks. Also, where are the files stored?
[/quote]
Hi Victoria,
Thanks for your warm welcome! :) I'll try to elaborate towards what you'd like to know:

In short:
- I get Page Outs up to 1-2GB when using LR3.2 and PS CS4 simultaneously. System will slow down considerably, sometimes almost to a halt. Waiting 1'-2' seconds to load next image.
- LR catalog is stored on the internal HD. RAW files are stored on external drive (LaCie d2 Quadra Hard Disk 2TB). It's a very fast drive, but my Macbook only supports USB.

In long:
When I start a typical photo editing session, I open LR3.2, import my 5D files and start flagging and adding keywords. OK so far on my 4GB Macbook & 3'" ACD. Source files (CR2 RAW files) are stored on a fast Firewire 8'' drive (LaCie d2 Quadra Hard Disk) connected however by USB cable, because the Macbook doesn't support any other. I got that drive for my older MBP 2.33GHz (Late 2''6) that in fact does support FW8''. Regretfully, the old MBP supports only 3 GB of RAM and gets outperformed by the Macbook, despite the faster interface.

If I render previews prior to working on the files (i.e. render at import or via the menu) then editing in LR works smooth enough. When I start advanced editing such as local adjustments, memory usage leaps to an unprecedented 2.5 GB. I usually stayed below 1 GB with LR 2.6 and under. Still no problem, because the RAM is there. When checking activity monitor, all RAM is used, no page outs/ins.

Then I fire up PS CS4 to make more advanced edits to some of my images. PS uses about 1-2 GB, depending on the size of the image. Sometimes I work on panorama's (5''MB PSD's) but usually it's just 5D CR2's that need to be edited. I usually work on one file at a time in PS and then close it before loading another. Except for manual HDR work of course.

After upgrading to LR3.2 I find myself closing LR when I go to PS and vice versa. If I don't, I get too many page outs (1-2 GB) and the system slows down considerably.

Based on this, my feeling is that the Macbook processor capacity is enough for my current needs, but RAM falls short. If I get a Mac Mini loaded with 8GB, my guess is that this problem should be dealt with, at least for the next 2-3 years. I know I won't be doing serious video editing or the like. My business is photography.

I know that I will be better prepared for the future if I get a Mac Pro with 8 GB of RAM. However, I can get the Mini now for 1''' Euro, 55' of which will be paid by my employer. A Mac Pro would cost 25'' Euro, minus the same 55' Euro is still about 2''' Euro. And the mini can serve as a home cinema/sound center with the appropriate software. I feel I like the mini for price and versatility.

Still the main thing it should be capable of properly is editing my 5D images, using current LR and PS versions for the next 2-3 years. And that is what this question is about: will the 8GB put the swapping to a halt (no more page outs) with simultaneous use of LR3.2 and PS-CS4, and has anyone on this forum put this model to that test yet.

Hope this makes it clear.
 
[quote author=Graeme Brown link=topic=11735.msg78818#msg78818 date=129'976'12]
There is a healthy Market in secondhand Mac Pro machines, which would be worth considering if the budget won't stretch to a new one - mine is over 4 years old and still going strong.

The reality is that you are paying the price for those 21mp files, and you're going to need a lot more horsepower.
[/quote]
Hi Graeme,
Thanks for tuning in! You are probably right about the Mac Pro being worth considering in my situation. But it may be more than I need. Even if money were not much of an issue (but it is), the main criteria for all the stuff I buy is "how much do I need to spend to get a task done?" I don't like to spend more than I need. 3 years ago I switched from PC to Mac and spent close to 5''' Euros on a MBP with 3'" ACD. I did that because I figured I'd be more productive using a Mac and it proved to be so.

My use is not professional (I don't make a living out of photography, altough I'd like to ;)) so I'd only spend a lot of money on a Mac Pro if I really need to.

Now I'm not saying I already made up my mind about this, because then I'd be trolling this forum and I certainly am not. Here are my thoughts:
The new mini's are more powerful than their predecessors. A current mini has:
- the same processor power (2.4 GHz) and video display adapter (NVIDIA GeForce 32'M, 256 MB DDR3 SDRAM) as the newest macbook series.
- a fast FW8'' port that I could really use, because my RAW files are on a fast Lacie FW8'' drive that now connects to my Macbook only by USB
- up to 8 GB of RAM, which I will order if I get one

This sounds like a significant improvement over my current setup. But is it enough for my needs? It would be if this setup keeps the swapping away for at least 2 years, maybe 3. My current setup falls 2GB short, which means I would need 6 GB. Instead I get 8 GB. That's 2 GB for Adobe to play with in developing more demanding software.

Now I'm getting to your remark about the megapixels. I'm a realist and I have no doubt that I will get a 21mp camera sooner or later. Are you saying that 21mp files are significantly harder to process (CPU-wise) that I need a Mac Pro? I'm very interested which tasks need that power in particular. Are they:
- labeling (LR)
- cropping (LR)
- local adjustments (LR)
- exporting (LR)
or is it just the photoshop CS tasks that you are talking about, like applying filters?

Hope to hear from you soon!
 
[quote author=edgley link=topic=11735.msg78856#msg78856 date=1291'3''3']
The main problem with the MBP or the Mini will be disk speed access.
[/quote]
Hi Edgley,
What do you mean by disk speed access? Is it about the internal hard drive? or about the peripheral drives?

Thanks!
 
The average Xbench benchmark score for a Macbook is 1'', for the Mini it's 1'6 - that's not a great improvement for the amount of money you're considering investing. By comparison my 4 year old Mac Pro scored 15' against an average score of 169 for all Mac Pro models. But that's all just numbers ....

Although I understand your logic I think you're placing too much emphasis on the amount of RAM in your system, my Macbook Pro has only 4GB and runs perfectly satisfactorily. Personally if I was looking to upgrade the first thing I would do would be to get a bigger & faster internal hard disk, and have your files stored there rather than on the external drive.

RAM is important, but so is CPU power and hard disk performance. Obviously generating previews, output files, or files for editing in Photoshop takes much more processing for a 21mp file compared to a 1'mp one; I feel sure that if you go down the Mac Mini route and subsequently get a 5dMkII or similar you will be back complaining that previews & exports take far too long now.

The Mac Mini is basically an older laptop without a screen or keyboard, I have one in my studio to run the projector display and it's good for what it is. I still think an older Mac Pro will be a better investment, there are plenty available from reputable secondhand dealers starting from around £1''', which will allow you to use much more RAM and put in full size hard disks - the performance difference will surprise you. Alternatively a similar amount of money will buy you a recent Macbook Pro model, which will take 8gb and has FW8''.

One thing I have learned over the years is that small, incremental upgrades are often a false economy and you end up spending more in the long run.
 
Ok everybody seems to tell me to go Mac Pro and I value your opinions because you seem more experienced than me. So I won't ignore that. I will see what is available here in the Netherlands and at what price. I have a few questions though:

I figured out the following strategy when looking for a refurbished or second hand Mac Pro:
- Get a mainboard that will last at least 4 years
- The video adapter supplied need not be really fancy, just a dual link DVI and a standard DVI will do.
- RAM should be upgradeable to at least 16 GB
- external 3GB/s eSATA port would be great
- No hard drive needed, I have a couple in my drawer to start with
- I still have my 3'" ACD, fast external hard drives

That's all component types I need for photo editing, right?
Then after getting the Mac Pro, I can add:
- RAM 8GB to start with (2x 4GB modules)
- Faster internal hard drive if necessary

Questions:
1. which mainboard / processor should I be looking for minimum?
2. After 1-3 years: Is the processor upgradable? Do I need a specific mainboard type in order to upgrade to the latest processors?
3. After 3-5 years: Is the mainboard upgradable (I guess it should be)? Can I keep the RAM and plug it into the new mainboard?
4. I like my RAW files on a fast external drive, because I can take them to another place (another room or another house) to work on them. If I get a high speed FW8''/eSATA port, shouldn't that be the same performance as an internal drive?
5. (off topic) I regularly transfer my LR catalog (just the .lrcat file, not the previews file) to another machine. For example I spend a lot of time each day in a commuter train each day when going to work. I copy the .lrcat file to my Macbook, slip it into my backpack and work on tagging and flagging while on the train. I keep two copies of the previews, 1 on my Macbook and 1 on my other machine (my old MBP). This works fairly well, except that LR seems to want to rebuild previews that I am sure I previously had. Anyone have experience with this? If I get a Mini or Mac Pro I will need to swap my catalog regularly between computers.

Thanks for your input, I really appreciate that.


Selwin


PS I still find it strange that many have an opinion about a current 8GB Mini without actually having tested one. It's supposed to be faster than your minis serving as media centers or printer servers. And with 8GB now. Specwise it's better than my Macbook and I really like my Macbook for Lightroom work, as long as I stay away from Photoshop and run into RAM problems. I do notice Photoshop filters taking time, I do. But then again I don't use many other filters besides Smart Sharpen and Lens corrections. The latter not so much now after switching to LR3.2.

But I will investigate the Mac Pro route. I will
- go to my Mac Store and test a new 8GB model with my applications
- download a bunch of 5dmkII RAW files and work on them on my Macbook to see how that works.

I'm pretty serious about this.

Will be back to you guys and hey - I really like this forum so far, and it's just been a day!
 
I have a Mac Mini last gen tucked away running as an FTP server and media server. Decent little machine, but I'd rank it pretty close to my laptops in terms of performance. Certainly if you're running out of RAM, then the higher maximum would help. If you're happy with the general processing power of your laptop, then you'd probably be happy for now.

That said, with LR becoming more processor intensive over time (new noise reduction, lens corrections, etc), and the fact that 5D Mk2 files are big and will therefore be affected by disc speed, I'd certainly consider a second hand or refurb Mac Pro. Even my backup Mac Pro, which is 3 years old, outperforms my more recent Mini and MBP by a fair distance.

You've got 3 main factors - RAM of course, disc speed in moving from image to image in Develop, and processing power when working in Develop or exporting/rendering previews etc.
 
These days, the bottleneck on just about any system is disk access; look how people are snapping up expensive SSDs.
I cannt help with how fast a Mini will be, but I can tell you what I can do with my 3 year old Pro:

I have 2x2.8 Quads, with 1'GB of RAM; on average I have 1' proper applications and 5 light weight ones open at once (inc LR and PS) and I still have (just) a little RAM left. I do have to close one or two if I have a load of images in PS, but that is only to decrease swap time.
The only time my CPUs peg is when working on an image with Lens correction on, now I am running in 64b mode, the delay does seem slightly less.

So no problems for me regarding CPU and RAM. However, disk access is another thing.
I am running software RAID, giving me about 24'MB/s write and 17'MB/s read, which is a whole lot faster than my laptop can do, and its a year newer than my Pro. So I am considering a hardware RAID card, or RAIDing up some SSDs.

In answer to your questions:
1-3 In 3 to 5 years time you will want to get a new system, there will be a whole load of new tech out by then.
4- In theory, depending on how many devices are on the bus at the same time.
5 - Maybe DropBox can help with that. It might be possible to store the file on there, and thus on The Cloud
 
Ok I dug into the Mac Pro route. As far as I've discovered:
- there is no way to upgrade the processor of a Mac Pro
- there is no way to upgrade the main board of a Mac Pro
- the only Mac Pro I could afford at all is the lowest spec, a 2.8 GHz quad core
- I would load it with either 12 or 16 GB of RAM
- CS5 can actually address all that memory where CS4 could only address 3GB

As I must stick to its mainboard and processor, I need to get it right first off or leave it and get a Mini and see what happens.
The ideal configuration would in fact be the 2.8 Nehalem quad core, standard with 3GB of RAM it will cost 2355 Euros. Upgrading RAM to 16GB will cost an extra 3'5 Euro (not Apple RAM) so total will be 266' Euro. Take off 55' that I get refunded and I pay 211' Euro instead of 45' for the Mac Mini.

That's 166' Euro's extra for some extra speed. Now let's assume for a minute that if I'd go the Mini route and get a 8GB Mini now, I will need another higher-spec Mini in about three years at most, maybe sooner. That will be an extra 1''' Euro in 3 years time. And let's assume the Mac Pro I would buy now, would actually last for 5 years. Then I'd pay 66' Euro's extra and get 5 years long a faster machine. That's 132 Euro's a year. Sounds like a bargain.

Key question:
??? will the Mac Pro I suggested perform adequately for my needs for 5 years without major upgrades? To be more specific: will this machine, three years from now, outperform the then latest Mac Mini or similar Mac I could get for 1''' Euros in 2'13 ???

Because that is the reasoning I hear on this forum: A Mac Pro will be a better investment.

Such a 2'13 Mac Mini could probably be loaded with:
- at least a maxed out RAM size of 16GB, more likely 24 or 32 GB (it usually doubles each 1,5 years doesn't it?)
- a processor that equals the present 2.8 Nehalem Quad core (ok not too sure about that, but maybe coming close)
- a fast hard drive (not eSATA but eWARP or whatever interface is next) that is faster than the eSATA drive in the current Mac Pro

Now I know that some of you argue that their 4-year-old MacPro still outperforms their Mini. For me it feels a bit like a stretch into the unknown.

Hope to hear your opinions on the machine I suggested and my key question!

Thank you so much guys,

Selwin

PS the down side of starting to think about a Mac Pro is that it may be hard to roll back to my original Mini plan, because I'm learning things about the MP that the Mini can't do..... :-[
 
[quote author=Selwin link=topic=11735.msg7894'#msg7894' date=129113'716]
Ok I dug into the Mac Pro route. As far as I've discovered:
- there is no way to upgrade the processor of a Mac Pro
- there is no way to upgrade the main board of a Mac Pro
- the only Mac Pro I could afford at all is the lowest spec, a 2.8 GHz quad core
- I would load it with either 12 or 16 GB of RAM
- CS5 can actually address all that memory where CS4 could only address 3GB

As I must stick to its mainboard and processor, I need to get it right first off or leave it and get a Mini and see what happens.
The ideal configuration would in fact be the 2.8 Nehalem quad core, standard with 3GB of RAM it will cost 2355 Euros. Upgrading RAM to 16GB will cost an extra 3'5 Euro (not Apple RAM) so total will be 266' Euro. Take off 55' that I get refunded and I pay 211' Euro instead of 45' for the Mac Mini.

That's 166' Euro's extra for some extra speed. [/quote]

Nope, it's 166' Euros for a lot of extra speed. And, crucially, the ability to use larger, faster discs, and more of them. If it's all about speed, then you want your discs internally not external. Even 1TB won't last you long with 21mp files.

Now let's assume for a minute that if I'd go the Mini route and get a 8GB Mini now, I will need another higher-spec Mini in about three years at most, maybe sooner. That will be an extra 1''' Euro in 3 years time. And let's assume the Mac Pro I would buy now, would actually last for 5 years. Then I'd pay 66' Euro's extra and get 5 years long a faster machine. That's 132 Euro's a year. Sounds like a bargain.

Key question:
??? will the Mac Pro I suggested perform adequately for my needs for 5 years without major upgrades? To be more specific: will this machine, three years from now, outperform the then latest Mac Mini or similar Mac I could get for 1''' Euros in 2'13 ???
Click to expand...

My 4yr old Mac Pro outperforms the current Mac Mini, so I'd guess it will
Because that is the reasoning I hear on this forum: A Mac Pro will be a better investment.
Click to expand...
Here's another thing - a 5 year old MacPro has a substantial resale value, of 4'-5'% of the original price. A 3 year old Mac Mini has very little resale value
Buy a used MacPro, keep it for 2 years, you'll get almost all your money back when you come to sell it.

Such a 2'13 Mac Mini could probably be loaded with:
- at least a maxed out RAM size of 16GB, more likely 24 or 32 GB (it usually doubles each 1,5 years doesn't it?)
- a processor that equals the present 2.8 Nehalem Quad core (ok not too sure about that, but maybe coming close)
- a fast hard drive (not eSATA but eWARP or whatever interface is next) that is faster than the eSATA drive in the current Mac Pro
Click to expand...
The doubling ever 18 months rule doesn't really apply any more, the limitation is the operating system. Processors have improved a lot, but not by that amount.

Now I know that some of you argue that their 4-year-old MacPro still outperforms their Mini. For me it feels a bit like a stretch into the unknown.
Click to expand...
Benchmarks, you can't argue with benchmarks :) Buying a machine that is already old technology, with the intention of replacing it in 2'13 with a machine which may or may not even exist is a pretty big stretch into the unknown.
 
Thanks for your reply! Guess I expected another pledge for a Mac Pro, and apparently with good reason. It's nice communicating with you people!
[quote author=Graeme Brown link=topic=11735.msg78945#msg78945 date=129113442']
Nope, it's 166' Euros for a lot of extra speed. And, crucially, the ability to use larger, faster discs, and more of them. If it's all about speed, then you want your discs internally not external. Even 1TB won't last you long with 21mp files.[/quote]
You know the beauty of keeping the source files on an external drive is that I can take the drive and my laptop to another location and work on my images. So that is in favor of keeping them external. If you say an internal drive is (significantly) faster than an external 3GB/s eSATA drive attached to a Mac Pro, then I may have to reconsider and keep the source files internal. I could then sync them to the external drive and take that drive with the laptop in case I need to work on the images in another location.

My 4yr old Mac Pro outperforms the current Mac Mini, so I'd guess it will
Click to expand...
Another key question then: Was your Mac Pro basic or top of the line when it was bought it 4 years ago? The Mac Pro configuration I suggested looks basic compared to the total Mac Pro lineup. No 8 or 12-core, no 3.2GHz, no RAID, just basic. It's already more than I could afford and justify for my needs, but it seems a lot less than other systems tested on the web sites that edgley suggested. Therefore I am hesitant at this point to believe that this configuration will serve me well enough for the cash I would spend on it. Hope you are willing to elaborate on this.

Benchmarks, you can't argue with benchmarks :)
Click to expand...
Ok I will take a look. Hope to hear your reply on my additional questions....

Thanks again.
 
You know, if it's a cash problem that's holding you back, you might want to look at a Win machine . . . they are a bit less expensive for the same horsepower. (Ducking and running . . . .)
 
Bruce J said:
You know, if it's a cash problem that's holding you back, you might want to look at a Win machine . . . they are a bit less expensive for the same horsepower. (Ducking and running . . . .)
Click to expand...

Hi Bruce,
No need running, I'm really not that fast anyway. Actually the thought of switching back never occurred to me, because I am happier with the operating system than I was with Microsoft. However this is not a pro Mac talk, because I think everyone should get what works best for them and I'm not going to say Apple is everything and the rest is nothing because it's just not the case. I work with Windows based machines at work (for email and Office apps) and they work pretty well too. This buy is for my private work. I think decisions like these really come down to personal preference. Mine is to stick with Apple OS.

Thanks though for joining this discussion!

Best regards,

Selwin
 
Last edited:
Urgent! Decision time!

It's decision time. I have to apply for my new computer on tuesday (tomorrow) morning (I'm on european time). That is monday night Eastern Time. Basically I have just a couple of hours left.

So here it is:
Based upon your advice I am ready to spend a lot of cash for the following machine:
- Mac Pro
- Intel Quad core Xeon Nehalem 2.8GHz
- 16GB RAM
- 1 TB eSATA 7200 rpm hard drive
- ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB GDDR5 SDRAM
- 18x super drive
- magic mouse
- apple wireless keyboard
Peripherals include:
- Conceptronic NAS 1TB (CH3SNAS)
- FW800 LaCie 2TB external drive, containing all of my images
- Another identical drive for backups using SuperDuper!
- FW400 Maxtor 500GB drive for Time Machine backups
- USB hub for USB pen drives and manual system backups
- USB pen tablet

I went to the Mac Store today to compare the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro. They only had a 2.66 GHz Mac Pro (2.8 will be at least that fast) and a 2.4 GHz Mini. When comparing 5D files (12.8mp), the Mini wasn't so bad, really. The Pro won of course, but not convincingly with 12mp files. With 5DmkII files (21mp) the differences become significantly larger and the Mini is really sluggish compared to the Mac Pro.

Conclusion: I will go the Mac Pro route. But which one?

The bottlenecks seem to be:
- loading the next picture in the development module
- applying local adjustments
Both actions seem to be processor dependent. Even if I create full size previews, going to next image in development module doesn't speed up.

SO: big question! Actually a couple:
1. Is a 2.8 GHz Quad core substantially faster than a 2.66 GHz? I figured it would not be, but maybe there's more components that have been upgraded than just the processor.
2. Now that I see that the bottleneck operations are processor related, shouldn't I go for a 8 core instead or stay with the Quad core? Please note: 8-core = beyond my budget. No refurb. here in the Netherlands at this time. If I go new, I get 550 Euro's from my employer. If I go 2nd hand, I don't get any.
3. How many of you work LR3 with a quad core? Any using 8-core? Is the Quad core sufficient when using large (21mp) files? I ask this because the processor is the one part in the Mac Pro that I cannot upgrade.

If I go and spend a lot of cash, I want to get it right.

Thank you so much! Hope you find the time to reply soon. I have only a couple of hours left to decide.
 
Last edited:
Don't know about the 2.66/2.8 comparison, but logically it will be a bit faster. Is there still a 2.66 option? 2.8 seems to be the entry level, and that's the one I'd go for. 8 core will be faster, but as you've already proved from testing the quad core is fast enough. There's always something faster, if you had the 8 core you'd be wondering if the 12 core would be faster ..... 8 core is another EUR1100 or something, that's a lot of money for some speed, quad core is good value for money I reckon.

If you're using external drives then your bottleneck will be drive speed; far better to have your files on internal drives (MacPro takes up to four) and use Chronosync or similar to backup the drive with the images to an external. I'd also buy the RAM from a 3rd party like Kingston, Apple's RAM is usually way overpriced.
 
Graeme Brown said:
Don't know about the 2.66/2.8 comparison, but logically it will be a bit faster. Is there still a 2.66 option? 2.8 seems to be the entry level, and that's the one I'd go for. 8 core will be faster, but as you've already proved from testing the quad core is fast enough. There's always something faster, if you had the 8 core you'd be wondering if the 12 core would be faster ..... 8 core is another EUR1100 or something, that's a lot of money for some speed, quad core is good value for money I reckon.
Click to expand...
OK that's what I needed to know.
If you're using external drives then your bottleneck will be drive speed; far better to have your files on internal drives (MacPro takes up to four) and use Chronosync or similar to backup the drive with the images to an external. I'd also buy the RAM from a 3rd party like Kingston, Apple's RAM is usually way overpriced.
Click to expand...
Good advice! The basic Mac Pro is 2399. That has 3GB of RAM. The upgrade to 16GB costs 350 Euros. Not from Apple obviously. Don't know which brand actually.....
 
1. Is a 2.8 GHz Quad core substantially faster than a 2.66 GHz? I figured it would not be, but maybe there's more components that have been upgraded than just the processor.

If the CPU options are the same as the UK, then there is more difference than just clock speed:
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT032510150223&p=8

2. Now that I see that the bottleneck operations are processor related, shouldn't I go for a 8 core instead or stay with the Quad core? Please note: 8-core = beyond my budget. No refurb. here in the Netherlands at this time. If I go new, I get 550 Euro's from my employer. If I go 2nd hand, I don't get any.

You can always add the second CPU at a later date. I got Apple to give a discount on mine as they didnt tell me they only had duel CPU in stock when I went to buy :)

3. How many of you work LR3 with a quad core? Any using 8-core? Is the Quad core sufficient when using large (21mp) files? I ask this because the processor is the one part in the Mac Pro that I cannot upgrade.

I have 14MB RAWS, all my 8 cores hit max when cropping with lens correction turned on.
 
Decided: Mac Pro. Undecided: 5770 or 5870 Graphics

I found a Mac professional reseller that says I should get a 5870 graphics card instead of the 5770. Apparently it helps speeding through the images in both Lightroom and Photoshop. On the other hand, it costs an additional 200 Euros, produces more heat and noise and it consumes more energy, I calculated about 50 Euro's a year, which means it costs another 200 Euro's in 4 years time.

I'd still do it if it really makes a difference though.

My question to you: what would you advise me to do? Get the basic configuration, or get the 5870 card?

Thanks!
 
For Lightroom purposes, the 5770 is already way more than you really need.....have a look at these benchmark stats: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

Yes the 5870 is 'better' than the 5770, but you would never be able to tell the difference! I have the 5750, not as good as the 5770, but perfectly adequate (even for gaming, which I don't do). These are all 'high-end' cards, not basic or middle-of-the-road....so save yourself the 200 euros would be my advice.
 
What about OpenGL?

TNG said:
For Lightroom purposes, the 5770 is already way more than you really need.....have a look at these benchmark stats: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

Yes the 5870 is 'better' than the 5770, but you would never be able to tell the difference! I have the 5750, not as good as the 5770, but perfectly adequate (even for gaming, which I don't do). These are all 'high-end' cards, not basic or middle-of-the-road....so save yourself the 200 euros would be my advice.
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,
That's what I figured meanwhile. I read a lot about 3D graphics and rendering and the 5870 to be better at those. But for pure 2D work (which I do exclusively), it seems as though there is not much to gain with it.

Just one thing: I read something about OpenGL. On my present system (the 2008 Macbook 2.0GHz) I get a message from Photoshop that it can only open 4 windows and apparently it has something to do with OpenGL. Would the 5770 graphics card do better on this already?
The entire PS message is:
"With the current settings, up to 4 OpenGL document windows can be shown at a time. Beyond this limit, OpenGL features will be disabled on any new windows. To enable [...] close one or more windows. This limit depends on the screen resolution, and the RAM available from the graphics card. See the Performance pane in Preferences for more information on OpenGL features."

In my case:
Screen resolution is 2560x1600
2006 MBP: ATY, RadeonX1600 - 256MB
2008 MB: NVidia GeForce 9400M, also 256MB

This seems VRAM dependent and both the 5770 and 5870 have 1GB.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top