I'm still waiting on mine (no change to the Sept. 19 ship date), but has anyone run Aperture on a 1900XT Mac Pro? It looked pretty lackluster on the 7300 1GB machine, but I'm assuming it will fly with the 1900XT and 2GB of RAM. Would love to hear real confirmation, though....
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.
MacPro with 1900XT and Aperture?
- Thread starter PALitig8r
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you don't get a reply before my Mac Pro arrives in a week or so, I'll post back with results for you.
I have a better question...
Why would you code a software program to use the GPU when
YOU HAVE FOUR FRACKING PROCESSORS RUNNING AT 3.0GHZ???
Duh!
(FWIW I have Aperture and secretly hate it.)
Why would you code a software program to use the GPU when
YOU HAVE FOUR FRACKING PROCESSORS RUNNING AT 3.0GHZ???
Duh!
(FWIW I have Aperture and secretly hate it.)
I have a stock Mac Pro and an aperture library of ~5000 RAW files from a D70. I have to admit, i've been a little disappointed with the performance. It's worlds better than my iMac G5, but I expected it to really fly and it doesn't. I think more RAM will definitely help, and that's my next upgrade. I might see how the PC graphics card thing plays out, too, since getting a PC 7800GT is cheaper than the Apple X1900XT upgrade. not quite as good a card, but still a nice upgrade.
That's why I'm very curious to see it run on the 1900XT. The heavier GPU should make a big difference ... I have really come to like Aperture but find it way too slow on my iMac G5. I'm hoping for no more beachballs with a 2GB Mac Pro and 1900XT. If mine ever ships, I'll post reflections...
PALitig8r said:
If you have Motion, run the Fire Mortise 2 template and render a RAM preview...time it, and report back.
ipod4le said:
Might be a stupid point but Appeture are a 2D application and I don't expect it to be quicker if you buy a *insert-whatever-graphics-card-you-want-here.
Of course more VRAM on the card helps to use large resolutions, and CoreImage will load off the CPU a bit. But i think the real problem is the RAM in the box.
RAW images are ... well.. LARGE! and just letting osx swap a portion of those to VIRTUAL MEMORY is bad bad bad
. If you use Aperture i would spend my bucks on the ram..
studiox said:
Aperture uses CoreImage for all image rendering and effects, so the graphics card in the computer (theoretically) very much affects the performance of the program. That said, Aperture also seems to love RAM so that may make a bigger difference (or at least more noticeable) than upgrading the graphics card.
iGary said:
I understand Core Image is used to drive Aperture mainly, but they really should have coded it to assess whether to use the GPU or CPU(s) depending on which would give best performance. Seems a bit silly to have a Mac Pro with 4x3.0GHz cores sitting largely idle just because the user maybe went for the 7300GT rather than the X1900XT
iGary said:
There are 2 processors in the Mac Pro, each running at 2, 2.66, or 3 GHz, right? Each one contains 2 proc cores. The sum of the proc strength, in my case 2.66, is split up between the 2 cores. So each core is running at 1.33 GHz, I think. Is that right?
Fuzzy Orange said:
Solid logic, but no.
To me, it just doesn't make sense to have to have the biggest baddest GPU when you have 4 of the biggest baddest processors. Why in hell would you offload that work when the processors are full capable?
You were thinking of HT which if you had a 2.66 GHz CPU with HT technology the OS would think it was two different processors each running at 1.33 GHz. Although dual core technology is different because they basically put two whole CPUs onto one CPU so you have basically two 2.66GHz CPUs.Fuzzy Orange said:Ehhh... I give up. Can someone explain to me how it works?
Fuzzy Orange said:Ehhh... I give up. Can someone explain to me how it works?
Each processor has two independant cores. Each core runs at 2.66 or 3.0. That means there are FOUR separate cores running at the advertised clock speed. There's no division involved. Simply 4 * 2.66.
Fuzzy Orange said:
Nope. Each core runs at 3.0GHz or 2.66GHz or whatever the clock rate of the processor is sold as.
Seriously? Wow. So I got a machine even more powerful than I thought. Also iGary, why do you hate Aperture? I was considering buying it with a X1900XT when I got my Nikon D80. Is it worth the $150 I would spend?