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.
octo core for photoshop?
- Thread starter Jebaloo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Octo core likes CPU intensive work but not memory intensive. It'll probably use more of the cores for the Final Cut Pro stuff especially when rendering video and act more like a Quad core for the Photoshop work which is more memory intensive. But I'm not a Final Cut user so I may be a bit off in that assessment.
hey
for photoshop the quad core is perfectly fine just make sure that you have lots of ram
but final cut it really depends on how heavy rendering you need and how fast your need it
final cut pro is still awsomely fast on a quad core but rendering will be faster with the 8 core
definently a noticable effect
if your not using this for professional work i would say just go with the 3 ghz quad
for photoshop the quad core is perfectly fine just make sure that you have lots of ram
but final cut it really depends on how heavy rendering you need and how fast your need it
final cut pro is still awsomely fast on a quad core but rendering will be faster with the 8 core
definently a noticable effect
if your not using this for professional work i would say just go with the 3 ghz quad
For Photoshop I think you'd want lots of RAM and fast hard drives.
It will make things go a lot faster then you'd think.
8-core is too much $$ anyway, you still need to get other upgrades.
It will make things go a lot faster then you'd think.
8-core is too much $$ anyway, you still need to get other upgrades.
Barefeats registered a 0% speed increase for the octo over the 3Ghz quad in their photoshop benchmarks. (benchmarks)
You would be much better off investing that money in about 8GB of ram and a raid 0 array for a scratch disk.
You would be much better off investing that money in about 8GB of ram and a raid 0 array for a scratch disk.
Hey, thanks for the advice. I'm not sure I could afford bot the 3ghz, and 8G of Ram...
I could maybe afford the 2.66, and 5 Gig of Ram?, would that be ok?
Can someone explain to me, what is a RAID 0, and what's the difference between that and a RAID 1? I've tried wikipedia, but it doesn't explain it in dummies language.
I could maybe afford the 2.66, and 5 Gig of Ram?, would that be ok?
Can someone explain to me, what is a RAID 0, and what's the difference between that and a RAID 1? I've tried wikipedia, but it doesn't explain it in dummies language.
RAID 0 divides the data over many drives. If you have two HDD RAID 0 will store the data half on each drive. If you have three HDD a third of the data on each drive. So on and so forth.
If you use RAID 0 and one HDD fails you lose all data. So if you use RAID 0 remember Jesus save only Buddha makes incremental back ups. you would want to be Buddha.
If you use RAID 0 and one HDD fails you lose all data. So if you use RAID 0 remember Jesus save only Buddha makes incremental back ups. you would want to be Buddha.
So you'd be suggesting, two 10000pm Raptor drives, 150GB each... in a Raid 0 array?
So I run the OS, and all my programs off this, and then just have one enormous backup drive for everything else (my backup of the scratch disk, and also my Archive of Files that I'm no longer working on)?
What, in three words, would be the benefit of this set up, ove just using one 10000rpm raptor as my scratch disk?
So I run the OS, and all my programs off this, and then just have one enormous backup drive for everything else (my backup of the scratch disk, and also my Archive of Files that I'm no longer working on)?
What, in three words, would be the benefit of this set up, ove just using one 10000rpm raptor as my scratch disk?
I just found this thread about RAID...
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/295950/
But I'm still a little unsure.
Really, the point of RAID 0 is purely to increase read and write times, am I right?
If I've already got a 10000 disk in my drive, and I'm not a pro (yet), then do you think that my money would be better spend on a simple backing up system? I.e. one big drive next to my computer, and one at a friends house?
I don't have endless resources, tht's all.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/295950/
But I'm still a little unsure.
Really, the point of RAID 0 is purely to increase read and write times, am I right?
If I've already got a 10000 disk in my drive, and I'm not a pro (yet), then do you think that my money would be better spend on a simple backing up system? I.e. one big drive next to my computer, and one at a friends house?
I don't have endless resources, tht's all.