Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

ow well does the BASE 4 core New MacPro perform with PS & LR?

hassiman

hassiman

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 30, 2006
120
11
San Diego
I have seen lots of benchmarks of the 6, 8 and 12 cor nMP but not much on the 4 Core... which is all I can afford after bumping the SSD up to 512GB.:eek:

Can anyone point me to the PS/LR5 benchmarks for the 4 core with D300 video?:confused:

Thanks.
 
hassiman said:
I have seen lots of benchmarks of the 6, 8 and 12 cor nMP but not much on the 4 Core... which is all I can afford after bumping the SSD up to 512GB.:eek:

Can anyone point me to the PS/LR5 benchmarks for the 4 core with D300 video?:confused:

Thanks.
Click to expand...

i haven't seen any quad-core results but the trend i've observed suggests that the quad-core might perform on-par with or a tad slow than the late 2013 iMac i7.

you can find data that i've posted for PS & LR from a 2013 iMac in various threads related to PS & LR.
 
hassiman said:
I have seen lots of benchmarks of the 6, 8 and 12 cor nMP but not much on the 4 Core... which is all I can afford after bumping the SSD up to 512GB.:eek:

Can anyone point me to the PS/LR5 benchmarks for the 4 core with D300 video?:confused:

Thanks.
Click to expand...

it suppose to be good/good enough on quad.
 
4 core nMP performance

I would assume that this means a 4 core nMP would be more than adequate for use with PS CS6/CC and LR5:apple: I do use big RAW files but it's not on a production basis and it should be worlds faster than my 2007 V1.1 4 cor 2.66 MP tower running 9GB of RAM.
 
hassiman said:
I would assume that this means a 4 core nMP would be more than adequate for use with PS CS6/CC and LR5:apple: I do use big RAW files but it's not on a production basis and it should be worlds faster than my 2007 V1.1 4 cor 2.66 MP tower running 9GB of RAM.
Click to expand...

yes, it will be much faster but:
a) most apps today are not optimized to take full advantage of the nMP's speed
b) your work probably will not max out the machine anyway.

a 2013 iMac will probably do as good or better, today at least, for you than an nMP.

you mention that the cost has you maxed out -- keep in mind that if applications do get optimized to speed up the nMP on your tasks it will most likely cost you more money to upgrade those apps.

if you want to see a performance boost right away, order the iMac. if you want to see a performance boost (at a bit higher cost) and take a bit of a bet on it being more future-proof, order the nMP (and wait).
 
analog guy said:
a 2013 iMac will probably do as good or better, today at least, for you than an nMP.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. iMac is better for PS, nMP is better for LR. But Adobe is updating both.

Some other points...

If you are using an old version of PS, it's not going to see any improvement over the iMac, since Adobe would be optimizing old software versions.

Do you already own a good monitor? If not, the iMac is a good choice.

If the nMP is really pushing your budget, saving some cash on the iMac might be good.

The nMP is going to likely last longer, and be a much more stable workhorse.
 
wildmac said:
Yes and no. iMac is better for PS, nMP is better for LR. But Adobe is updating both.
Click to expand...

unless you have seen something i haven't, we're not (yet) seeing huge gains on the nMP vs the 2013 iMac. have you seen any #s on the 4-core base version?

more powerful versions of the nMP are a bit faster, but not night-and-day (and also more expensive. the OP can also only afford the 4c.

thank you!
 
analog guy said:
unless you have seen something i haven't, we're not (yet) seeing huge gains on the nMP vs the 2013 iMac. have you seen any #s on the 4-core base version?

more powerful versions of the nMP are a bit faster, but not night-and-day (and also more expensive. the OP can also only afford the 4c.

thank you!
Click to expand...

Not huge gains... but gains. But as I said, it's a mixed bag.

But again, it's really about the rest of the picture. Does the OP already have a good monitor? How long does he expect the system to last?

Here's a big one.. does the OP have external storage already? If not, he's going to have to buy some of that too, thus bumping the price.
 
My antique 3,1 machine with 10gb of memory and a 256mb SSD drive holds its own with Photoshop CC and lightroom every day! Where it bogs down is with slow third party plugins, and also with huge image files -- like panos created with dozens of 25 mpx images stitched together.
 
wildmac said:
Not huge gains... but gains. But as I said, it's a mixed bag.

But again, it's really about the rest of the picture. Does the OP already have a good monitor? How long does he expect the system to last?

Here's a big one.. does the OP have external storage already? If not, he's going to have to buy some of that too, thus bumping the price.
Click to expand...

agree on the cost-benefit with the monitor issue, but he asked about LR & PS. (and not sure if "PS/LR5 meant both PS CS5 and LR5.)

external storage is a wash. he'll pretty much need that either way. (well, i guess he could go with more internal storage on the iMac, but for *fast* storage they're about equal.)

----------
d-m-a-x said:
there are a few threads on the subject, why don't you use the search tool geez??
Just kidding, i hate it when people say that - here
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1690496/

it's the base core and has some cs6 benchmarks
Click to expand...

i only did a quick scan, but i searched 'cs6' on all 3 pages of that thread and didn't get any hits.

in any event, there won't be much difference between nMP & iMac on that photoshop speed test.

the nMP (6c & 8c) test faster than the iMac in the LR test mule, but my gut is that the 4c will be about the same as the iMac.
 
analog guy said:
agree on the cost-benefit with the monitor issue, but he asked about LR & PS. (and not sure if "PS/LR5 meant both PS CS5 and LR5.)

external storage is a wash. he'll pretty much need that either way. (well, i guess he could go with more internal storage on the iMac, but for *fast* storage they're about equal.)

----------



i only did a quick scan, but i searched 'cs6' on all 3 pages of that thread and didn't get any hits.

in any event, there won't be much difference between nMP & iMac on that photoshop speed test.

the nMP (6c & 8c) test faster than the iMac in the LR test mule, but my gut is that the 4c will be about the same as the iMac.
Click to expand...

ah whoops, this is the cs6 test forums.macrumors.com/threads/1690895/
 
analog guy said:
a) most apps today are not optimized to take full advantage of the nMP's speed
Click to expand...

And they may never be....

The new Mini Pro has half the number of cores of competitive systems, and a pair of mid-range graphics cards running an immature parallel GPU API that many apps can't exploit.

This is simply another round of "when all the apps are optimized for AltiVec the Mac will be killer". It never happened then....
 
AidenShaw said:
And they may never be....

The new Mini Pro has half the number of cores of competitive systems, and a pair of mid-range graphics cards running an immature parallel GPU API that many apps can't exploit.

This is simply another round of "when all the apps are optimized for AltiVec the Mac will be killer". It never happened then....
Click to expand...

Software will always be catching up to hardware. That has not changed since the dawn of time. If Pixelmator can support the new Mac Pro so can other software. The power is there, its up to the developers to take advantage of it.
 
linuxcooldude said:
Software will always be catching up to hardware. That has not changed since the dawn of time. If Pixelmator can support the new Mac Pro so can other software. The power is there, its up to the developers to take advantage of it.
Click to expand...

So you think these companies are going to go chasing after a tiny fraction of the market? I'm not sure why they would.
 
AidenShaw said:
And they may never be....

The new Mini Pro has half the number of cores of competitive systems, and a pair of mid-range graphics cards running an immature parallel GPU API that many apps can't exploit.

This is simply another round of "when all the apps are optimized for AltiVec the Mac will be killer". It never happened then....
Click to expand...

Why do you even hang out here?

----------
analog guy said:
unless you have seen something i haven't, we're not (yet) seeing huge gains on the nMP vs the 2013 iMac. have you seen any #s on the 4-core base version?

more powerful versions of the nMP are a bit faster, but not night-and-day (and also more expensive. the OP can also only afford the 4c.

thank you!
Click to expand...

+1... I think the iMac and nMP 4-core are going to be very similar at any task except perhaps FCPX or where you need more RAM than you can equip an iMac with.
 
Derpage said:
So you think these companies are going to go chasing after a tiny fraction of the market? I'm not sure why they would.
Click to expand...

Because your thinking average consumer, not professional. Macs still have a large chunk of the creative community. Multimedia, photography and so on. Macs still have a larger following at the 1K and up market, where budget computers & laptops don't go and can't run a lot of the performance hungry applications.
 
linuxcooldude said:
Because your thinking average consumer, not professional. Macs still have a large chunk of the creative community. Multimedia, photography and so on. Macs still have a larger following at the 1K and up market, where budget computers & laptops don't go and can't run a lot of the performance hungry applications.
Click to expand...

And people who buy budget PCs do not buy performance hungry applications anyway.

There is also an assumption that Apple is the only company that will be building multiple GPU configurations on their higher end systems. Just like Thunderbolt, there will be folks on the Windows side doing this fairly soon.
 
michaeljk said:
And people who buy budget PCs do not buy performance hungry applications anyway.

There is also an assumption that Apple is the only company that will be building multiple GPU configurations on their higher end systems. Just like Thunderbolt, there will be folks on the Windows side doing this fairly soon.
Click to expand...

Not sure how its an assumption as Its probably already being done on the PC side long before now. But Apple decided to concentrate more of the workload on the GPU and less on the CPU. Thunderbolt will get more wide spread on the PC already seeing numerous motherboards popping up.
 
linuxcooldude said:
Because your thinking average consumer, not professional. Macs still have a large chunk of the creative community. Multimedia, photography and so on. Macs still have a larger following at the 1K and up market, where budget computers & laptops don't go and can't run a lot of the performance hungry applications.
Click to expand...

No I'm not. Do you always tell people what they are actually saying? The new mac pro is a very small segment of the user population and hasn't been proven to be a new paradigm in any professional market. Typically it's the market which drives decisions, not hypothetical situations in which the computer may be more effective.

----------
michaeljk said:
And people who buy budget PCs do not buy performance hungry applications anyway.

There is also an assumption that Apple is the only company that will be building multiple GPU configurations on their higher end systems. Just like Thunderbolt, there will be folks on the Windows side doing this fairly soon.
Click to expand...

You really don't know what people run on their "budget" computers. SMH. Such conjecture.
Edit: I don't know how I missed the "fairly soon" comment. This is enough to have anybody from the PC master race rolling on the ground.
 
Last edited:
Derpage said:
Typically it's the market which drives decisions, not hypothetical situations in which the computer may be more effective.
Click to expand...

Typically perhaps, but not always. Increasing performance eventually hits roadblocks. Increasing frequency in gigahertz's have heating problems, so they increased core count. Doubling core counts only works for so long and starts decreasing in efficiency. The use of the GPU is one of the next steps.

If Apple listened to everything consumers wanted, they would probably not be as well off as they are today.
 
analog guy said:
agree on the cost-benefit with the monitor issue, but he asked about LR & PS. (and not sure if "PS/LR5 meant both PS CS5 and LR5.)

external storage is a wash. he'll pretty much need that either way. (well, i guess he could go with more internal storage on the iMac, but for *fast* storage they're about equal.)


the nMP (6c & 8c) test faster than the iMac in the LR test mule, but my gut is that the 4c will be about the same as the iMac.
Click to expand...

H could put the 3TB Fusion drive in the iMac, but would need external storage for the nMP.

That said, yeah, the performance will be in the same ballpark. nMP will show some gains on some things, the iMac on others.

The display is probably the biggest issue. If is monitor(s) is decent, then a nMP might be better for the long run, but if he needs a display too, then the iMac.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back