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.
Will it be enough to get Mac Pro 2013?
- Thread starter mavericks7913
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
[doublepost=1511723242][/doublepost]^^^ Hi pl1984. Yup, That's why I bought the 6 core back in 2010 and not the 12 core
7 years later, CGI is a big part of my billing and my 3D APP runs twice as fast on the 12, while only slightly slower in photoshop. Yes, very good point to build/purchase your hardware with your apps in mind.
Last edited:
Is this the average file size?
[doublepost=1511726296][/doublepost]
Very interesting read from the link you provided.[doublepost=1511723242][/doublepost]^^^ Hi pl1984. Yup, That's why I bought the 6 core back in 2010 and not the 12 core
Not average but still saving and exporting files takes a lot of time compare to Mac Pro 2013.
Just remembered that OWC has fairly comprehensive bench testing that might be useful here, because the two tests are run in Photoshop (DigLloydHuge for big files and DigLloydMedium for medium sized files)
16GB
https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/apple/memory/iMac-5K-Versus-Mac-Pro-Speed-Test
32GB
https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/apple/memory/iMac-5K-Versus-Mac-Pro-Speed-Test
64GB
https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/apple/memory/iMac-5K-Versus-Mac-Pro-Speed-Test
96GB
https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/apple/memory/iMac-5K-Versus-Mac-Pro-Speed-Test
128GB
https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/apple/memory/iMac-5K-Versus-Mac-Pro-Speed-Test
- The biggest speed differences occur with the big file test. That makes sense, and useful because the OP is referencing 20GB images.
- The speedy single processor 6-core MP 5.1 , and the iMac Retina give you great price to performance ratio. And the iMac Retina tops the charts when there is a level playing field of 32GB Ram. But they both eventually drop off the performance map (where really big files are concerned) because they lack the additional ram slots of the dual processors.
- At 16GB Ram, in the huge file test ... the 2013 nMP is faster than the fastest Classic 5.1 by 83 seconds (40.6 Percent).
- At 128GB Ram, the 6.1 nMP is 11.06 seconds faster than the fastest MP 5.1 (a gap of 25.72 percent).
- Adding RAM
5.1, 3.46Ghz with 32GB = 162 Seconds
5.1, 3.46Ghz with 128GB = 54 seconds
The usual asterisks apply. This is bench testing, your real world results will vary.
16GB
https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/apple/memory/iMac-5K-Versus-Mac-Pro-Speed-Test
32GB
https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/apple/memory/iMac-5K-Versus-Mac-Pro-Speed-Test
64GB
https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/apple/memory/iMac-5K-Versus-Mac-Pro-Speed-Test
96GB
https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/apple/memory/iMac-5K-Versus-Mac-Pro-Speed-Test
128GB
https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/apple/memory/iMac-5K-Versus-Mac-Pro-Speed-Test
- The biggest speed differences occur with the big file test. That makes sense, and useful because the OP is referencing 20GB images.
- The speedy single processor 6-core MP 5.1 , and the iMac Retina give you great price to performance ratio. And the iMac Retina tops the charts when there is a level playing field of 32GB Ram. But they both eventually drop off the performance map (where really big files are concerned) because they lack the additional ram slots of the dual processors.
- At 16GB Ram, in the huge file test ... the 2013 nMP is faster than the fastest Classic 5.1 by 83 seconds (40.6 Percent).
- At 128GB Ram, the 6.1 nMP is 11.06 seconds faster than the fastest MP 5.1 (a gap of 25.72 percent).
- Adding RAM
5.1, 3.46Ghz with 32GB = 162 Seconds
5.1, 3.46Ghz with 128GB = 54 seconds
The usual asterisks apply. This is bench testing, your real world results will vary.
Last edited:
Short Answer: Depends on what you are doing, but generally speaking, almost everything in Photoshop will run quicker, and especially so handling really big images. In the links I provided, you can see the iMac, the cMP, and the nMP all get speedier with more ram.
Long Answer: When Photoshop runs out of Ram (this typically happens running filters on big images or lots of history states) Photoshop has a plan B. That plan B means it will starting writing and reading to whatever scratch disk/s you designate to figure out the computations of the edit request. The scratch disks can be either spinning HDDs or SSDs, but in either case, that's where things get REALLY slow.This explains why you see the fastest bench scores on the huge file test going to both the 6.1nMP and the 5.1 cMP maxed out with 128 MB RAM. The 2013 nMP you test drove had 64GB Ram while your current rig has 32 GB. I've got a strong hunch that is a partial explanation for the performance gap you are feeling.
Comparative: The cMP is never faster than the nMP in photoshop when the ram levels are even, but they are pretty close when both are max ram at 128. The single cores are faster in photoshop than the dual cores, (because adobe writes it that way) up until the point where you start doing things which are RAM intensive. There's situations where the the additional ram slots make the dual cores more speedy.
What I can't figure out : Why your activity monitor only shows 15GB ram usage with a 20GB Image. I don't know what edits you are doing to those 20GB files, but in my experience, doing just about anything on a file that big will be quicker with more ram.
Hope this makes sense!
Last edited:
If you are running BOTH photoshop as well as CGI apps ( I am assuming you will Rendering those files ) then you need to figure out fastest cores + max cores sweet spot.
If you can wait for the modular Mac Pro, whenever that unicorn shows up, then wait. Else right now the killer ‘pro’ Mac option would be the upcoming iMac pro ( might be just a few weeks if the launch plans stays - December )
It would be superior to any existing Mac Pro. That said we will have to see if cramming all that stuff into that chassis would be an impediment...with 18 core xeons and power hungry vega cards.
And oh ! you can never have enough ram.
If you can wait for the modular Mac Pro, whenever that unicorn shows up, then wait. Else right now the killer ‘pro’ Mac option would be the upcoming iMac pro ( might be just a few weeks if the launch plans stays - December )
It would be superior to any existing Mac Pro. That said we will have to see if cramming all that stuff into that chassis would be an impediment...with 18 core xeons and power hungry vega cards.
And oh ! you can never have enough ram.
I agree that it's not worth buying a 3,1 now but if you already own one then judicious upgrades can transform performance to keep it usable for reasonable cost e.g. SSD, 32GB RAM, upgraded graphics card, USB3 PCIe card.
I assume you're asking this question regarding 1066 MHz and 1333 MHz speeds. In synthetic benchmarks there is a noticeable difference. In practice there is not. What is more important is to have sufficient RAM.
The benchmark link (see post #24) JulianBoolean provided leads to a lot of great information regarding Photoshop use on the Mac Pro. IMO a very worthwhile read if you're a user of Photoshop. While you didn't specifically ask about improving the performance of your cMP you may find some ways to speed up your work. Some suggestions are to increase your RAM (another 32GB can be had on Ebay for $100 / OBO). It also appears moving to a single processor system will be of benefit (though probably not a move you want to make). Great information in the link. I recommend you look it over.
I'm going to chuck a wild guess here that the reason the original poster saw a performance increase with the trash can is a combination of the single cpu of the trash can and the added ram.
I agree. If you already own one then yeah upgrade away
I agree. If you already own one then yeah upgrade away
Hi Pl1984
Yes, agreed on RAM speed question. Yes, a lot of good info in the links I posted in #24.
But understand the context of that article which was last updated in 2012. Back then, the most RAM you could put into a 6 core was 24GB, and the max Ram on a 12 core was 64. In 2017 you can put 128GB ram into a 12 core, and 48GB into a 6 core.In 2010-2012 the no-brainer choice for photoshop was the six core 3.33. That's why I bought one! But today, the fact that you can stash 128mb into a 12 core makes that decision much more nuanced. If you are doing heavy lifting in really big files, a max ram 12 core might be faster. My horrible metaphor is that the 6 core cMP is like a little sports car, quick off the line, and most would agree a quick vehicle in most situations. Need to pull a boat up a canyon? A big SUV with a lot of HP is going to be a quicker vehicle in that situation.
Take a look thru the links I posted in #30. Yes, it does support the idea that when ram levels are even, you don't gain much after 6 cores (because that's the way adobe writes the software). But when you are doing heavy lifting on big files, you can avoid/delay writing to a scratch disk with a max ram 128 rig. When you run out of ram, and then write to a scratch disk as Photoshop's Plan B, thats when thing REALLY slow down. This is why you see a big performance gap (on big files) with a 48GB 6core, Vs a 128GB 12 core. the six core is tapped out on RAM in the tests, and is writing to a scratch disk.
See screen grabs from Post #30
DigiLloyd Huge File Test
12 Core 3.46, 128GB Ram
54 Seconds
DigiLloyd Huge File Test
6 Core 3.46, 128GB Ram
119 Seconds
Attachments
Last edited:
I do understand it is an older article however the OP is using older equipment with an unknown, to us, versions of software. It's possible he may be using an older version of Photoshop which suffers from the decreased performance of a multi-processor system. IOW it may still be relevant to the OPs situation.Hi Pl1984
Yes, agreed Ram on speed question. Yes, a lot of good info in the links I posted in #24.
His system appears to have been upgraded because he has 2 x quad core 3.46GHz processors...an option that wasn't available on any Mac Pro model.
All that being said the OP has tested their work on the nMP and found it to be faster. Since they were not asking about upgrading their current system (only replacing it with a nMP should the current system fail) we're kind of off on a tangent. But if we can help the OP to increase his productivity with a low cost upgrade to his current system I'm up for that
What is confusing is the memory consumption of 15GB when he said his average file size is 20GB. He also pointed to file operations as a performance issue. Given he's using an M.2 based SSD that is puzzling as that's a similar configuration used in the nMP. Perhaps he needs to enable TRIM?
OP, have you enabled TRIM on your SSD? If not give that a try and see if your disk performance improved. Also, what versions of the software are you using?