Possibly, need some more tests to tell. I'll try at the Apple store, if they let me...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
4 core vs 6 core for Photoshop/Lightroom/Illustrator?
- Thread starter Radiating
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Possibly, need some more tests to tell. I'll try at the Apple store, if they let me...
I think we can conclude for photoshop/illustrator you just need a maxed out mini. Save your money for a good quality display. Until Adobe get pshop using those dual graphics cards we're not going to see any big gains in the nMP against other macs which have ssd's and maxed out RAM.
That conclusion is just wrong in so many ways.
http://macperformanceguide.com/MacPro2013-CPU-cores-workflow.html
Yes PS can support more than one core but in most tasks it relies only on one core. Just like very partial GPU support for some tasks, multi-core operations are limited as well.
Would people really consider a Mac Mini a business machine for Graphic Designers? I know the Intel HD Graphics is great for onboard but compared to a dedicated GPU it can't compete surly?
IF the mini had the same GPU options as the high-end iMac, then the mini would be an interesting choice. But with no other options on that, the mini is a non-starter. A mini with 780M graphics would actually be pretty sweet.
----------
No. (See above).
I think it would be possible to have an external graphics solution with the Mini. If used for computations etc., the bandwidth in TB is actually enough for it to represent a faster solution than onboard Intel 5000. It is not enough for gaming, but that's not what we are talking about.
Nope. People keep trying to push the mini in these threads but for anyone using pro apps having a dedicated gpu is a must-have even for the small % of filters/features that utilize it in things like Photoshop. If you do any video/animation even more so.
Biggest jump is still from 2 -> 4 cores.. More is just nice to have.
Biggest jump is still from 2 -> 4 cores..
More than that is just nice to have
http://macperformanceguide.com/images/MacProWestmere2010/graph-AdobePhotoshopCC-scalability12.html
Biggest jump is still from 2 -> 4 cores..
More than that is just nice to have
http://macperformanceguide.com/images/MacProWestmere2010/graph-AdobePhotoshopCC-scalability12.html
I am on a 2006 Mac Pro now. I am doing strictly photography -- Lightroom and Photoshop -- and it has been a struggle since I upgraded to the 36 megapixel D800. I have been agonizing about what to upgrade to since the nMP prices were announced. Yesterday I finally decided to go for a maxed out MacBook Pro (3.6 ghz, 16gig, separate GPU, 1TB SSD). I ordered it yesterday -- $3300 including AppleCare from PortableOne ($700 less than it would be from Apple with the sales tax, and they even accept returns). A six core nMP would cost about 50% more money, and though it would certainly be faster for some things, I don't think 50% faster -- especially for Lightroom where I spend most of my time. Plus the MBP has the huge advantage of portability and the second (Retina) screen.
On the other hand, I am not happy about being stuck at 16 gig of RAM (though hopefully the speed of the SSD and Mavericks memory compression will help with the Photoshop swap files). And though this machine is definitely adequate for what I am doing now, I am sure I will end up replacing it sooner than I would a nMP, so it may not end up being cheaper in the long term.
Luckily for me PortableOne is out of stock on this model until the middle next week, so I can still talk myself into a nMP.
----------
Speaking of good links, anybody thinking about an nMP should listen to the last few episodes of the Accidental Tech Podcast...
http://atp.fm/
4 core vs 6 core for Photoshop/Lightroom/Illustrator?
I've been chugging along for the last couple of years on a Mac Pro 1.1 bought in 2006. I use it exclusively for Illustrator and flicking in and out of photoshop. Not huge files but big enough to slow after a few days work.
As the imac and Mac mini are much more powerful now than back in 2006(no way was an imac better than the Mac Pro quad back in 2006) I'm torn. A maxed Mac mini would keep me working and I could change/upgrade every two years and I wouldn't notice it or I could go nMP and keep it for 5-6years depending in processor upgrade options etc.
So apologies to anyone who thought I was pushing the Mac mini - I don't do motion pictures at 4k and just want the best value : productivity I can to run OSX. I guess there are a few in this camp and at the end of the day whatever gets the work done quicker (quietly!) is the best option.
I'd just love to see from photoshop/illustrator performance charts to see what a nMP will give me.
I've been chugging along for the last couple of years on a Mac Pro 1.1 bought in 2006. I use it exclusively for Illustrator and flicking in and out of photoshop. Not huge files but big enough to slow after a few days work.
As the imac and Mac mini are much more powerful now than back in 2006(no way was an imac better than the Mac Pro quad back in 2006) I'm torn. A maxed Mac mini would keep me working and I could change/upgrade every two years and I wouldn't notice it or I could go nMP and keep it for 5-6years depending in processor upgrade options etc.
So apologies to anyone who thought I was pushing the Mac mini - I don't do motion pictures at 4k and just want the best value : productivity I can to run OSX. I guess there are a few in this camp and at the end of the day whatever gets the work done quicker (quietly!) is the best option.
I'd just love to see from photoshop/illustrator performance charts to see what a nMP will give me.
I am sure you will not be disappointed with your MBP. It is a beast, and that's even when compared to a MP, especially the pre-2010 versions. I am sure though that it will not be as fast as an nMP - depending on the usage pattern of course.
My 2.8 Octo MP3,1 also struggled with the D800 NEF files, and I found that upgrading to the PCIe Accelsior SSD solution made the difference. Even with the referenced files stored on a NAS, with the Aperture library on the Accelsior, it is very fast, probably ~5 times faster than when I had the library on a Raid0 SATA array (in the MP3,1).
Upgrading to the GTX680 made some difference as well, but not much in my photography workflow - that was all down to the Accelsior...
Probably would be much faster with 32GB RAM, but for the MP3,1 that's mega bucks. Money I would rather put towards an nMP.
They are exactly the same until you hit the 5th and 6th cores and then the clock freq goes down 100MHz but you gain the extra cores. I would get the six for the extra headroom and lightroom uses all cores albeit inefficiently.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/4
Hilariously the AppleInsider crew mentioned how the Quad "feels" faster. That is hard to believe given Intel's specs.
Quite easy to believe if that "feel" is coming from the clock difference for basic tasks.
----------
That test was run again, now at 9.8 seconds or so, with another tester just over that (both those on Hex/500).
And I just tested at the Apple store with the base model and latest CC, and got between 8-11 seconds depending on my friend's fingers on his iPhone.
So, for lightweight stuff, Quad vs Hex doesn't matter.
What we need is some heavy PS tests to run to get a better idea, where the times are in the minutes, so variance in measurement is not an issue.
No Worries
Even when the MP was announced, I initially planned on waiting for benchmark results for Photo and Video (Adobe/Aperture/Final Cut Pro) programs.
I've read several of the questions and threads regarding the 4 vs 6 vs 8...core systems. Then I realized that I was caught in the "what if" loop. My oMP is from 2008 and still runs great. This new MP purchase was based on future requirements, as I don't plan on replacing it for 3-4 years, and a lot is going to change between now and then.
You can argue that PS (or other programs) don't take advantage of more than XX cores. However, keep in mind, Apple sets the trend and others follow (here come the hater comments). After seeing how they tweaked Final Cut Pro to maximize all 12 cores, I am confident the remaining programs will follow (and yes, that includes the full Adobe gambit). And it is for this reason that once I determined what would suffice, I selected at least one option better.
I didn't upgrade the RAM or graphics card for my oMP until late 2011. That was the biggest Wow factor for me. Now that I have the financial resources, I will be configuring for the future, even if today's test show there is no benefit with PS at 6 or 8 cores.
Whatever choice you make, I'm confident you'll be satisfied. Best of luck to everyone in their artistic endeavors.
Even when the MP was announced, I initially planned on waiting for benchmark results for Photo and Video (Adobe/Aperture/Final Cut Pro) programs.
I've read several of the questions and threads regarding the 4 vs 6 vs 8...core systems. Then I realized that I was caught in the "what if" loop. My oMP is from 2008 and still runs great. This new MP purchase was based on future requirements, as I don't plan on replacing it for 3-4 years, and a lot is going to change between now and then.
You can argue that PS (or other programs) don't take advantage of more than XX cores. However, keep in mind, Apple sets the trend and others follow (here come the hater comments). After seeing how they tweaked Final Cut Pro to maximize all 12 cores, I am confident the remaining programs will follow (and yes, that includes the full Adobe gambit). And it is for this reason that once I determined what would suffice, I selected at least one option better.
I didn't upgrade the RAM or graphics card for my oMP until late 2011. That was the biggest Wow factor for me. Now that I have the financial resources, I will be configuring for the future, even if today's test show there is no benefit with PS at 6 or 8 cores.
Whatever choice you make, I'm confident you'll be satisfied. Best of luck to everyone in their artistic endeavors.
But basic tasks shouldn't need more than 4 cores, right? And then there shouldn't be a clock speed difference between the 4 and 6 core nMP's.
This doesn't appear to be true in reality. Max Turbo speed is like unobtanium. From the testing I've done on the nMP, the 6-core idles at 3.5GHz, and under any kind of multi-threaded load does to 3.6GHz. Very occasionally for extremely brief periods it will hit 3.7GHz with lightly threaded loads. I cannot get it to go to 3.8 or 3.9GHz.
More insights here...
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1694931/
I can see why they might say that. The 4-core will idle at 3.7GHz and under any kind of load hit 3.8GHz. Whether you can feel that or not, is a good question, but in lightly threaded loads, the Quad will be faster than the Hex.
A lot of people (including me) were mislead by the top turbo boost specs of these processors. It turns out you will never see them. In the research I've done, it seems that even on PC's hitting these top turbo speeds requires firmware support to put idle cores into C3/C6 sleep states which comes with overhead related to sleeping/waking cores. Apple doesn't appear to support these C-states (on any of it's products) which I'm probably thankful for... Sleeping/waking cores doesn't seem like a benefit to me for a couple hundred MHz.
Not sure how I missed your "in depth". Nice work. Makes all the sense in the world, unfortunately. I must be getting old though as i can only feel like 300MHz+ changes or something along those lines. I am with you and would rather have the cores at this point in programming for future proofing than the MHz. 4 years ago it may been the other way round. So glad you got one of these babies to slap all kinds of truth on us
Not sure how I missed your "in depth". Nice work. Makes all the sense in the world, unfortunately. I must be getting old though as i can only feel like 300MHz+ changes or something along those lines. I am with you and would rather have the cores at this point in programming for future proofing than the MHz. 4 years ago it may been the other way round. So glad you got one of these babies to slap all kinds of truth on us
LOL... I do feel fortunate to have gotten mine so quickly... the Apple production gods smiled down on me this time.
Michael. I can give you the opportunity to "do it over again." Your configuration was what I was going to order. Interested in selling it? I work with large photoshop files (750 mb - 1 Gb) and in FCPX so figured the 6 core and the D500 GPU would be the best way to go for me. I am going to order in the next few days, so please contact me directly if you would prefer the 4 core.
Thanks,
Drew Harty
drewharty@gmail.com
Glad I found this thread. I have a nMP Hex/32GB/512SSD/D500 on order - and (hooray) it shipped Friday and I should have it here in Florida on Wednesday afternoon.
So, happy to run the ReTouch Artists benchmark when I get it. I've run this many times over the last few years - and most recently in August for my 17" MBP/8GB/2.66Ghz - in august I was still on ML and now am on Mavericks and Photoshop CC 14.2 (which I updated yesterday). From their notes, this version is supposed to make better use of the GPU in my laptop (mine is not large by the standards of what's coming Weds) - and this change to Mavericks/CC-14.2 did not give me a speed boost (slowed by maybe 2 seconds in 36, actually) - anyhow I've always found a lot of variability in this test so I usually run it several times with PS restarts/reboots and take an average of the cluster of scores.
So, my current 17"MBP/8GB/2.66 running with a raid-0 stripe of two fusion drives runs in about 38 seconds. So.......really looking forward to testing the new machine.
So, happy to run the ReTouch Artists benchmark when I get it. I've run this many times over the last few years - and most recently in August for my 17" MBP/8GB/2.66Ghz - in august I was still on ML and now am on Mavericks and Photoshop CC 14.2 (which I updated yesterday). From their notes, this version is supposed to make better use of the GPU in my laptop (mine is not large by the standards of what's coming Weds) - and this change to Mavericks/CC-14.2 did not give me a speed boost (slowed by maybe 2 seconds in 36, actually) - anyhow I've always found a lot of variability in this test so I usually run it several times with PS restarts/reboots and take an average of the cluster of scores.
So, my current 17"MBP/8GB/2.66 running with a raid-0 stripe of two fusion drives runs in about 38 seconds. So.......really looking forward to testing the new machine.