27" iMac upgrade priorities for Aperture use?

I am about to pull the trigger on a new iMac 27". Current Aperture librabry is about 700GB and this is my primary computer use. Libraries currently live on a 1T Rugged drive and are shared between an 2009 21 iMac and 2010 13MBP. Things are just too slow and I want more screen space. Trying to sort out best use of funds...so, base config looks like this so far:
3.2GHz Quad-core Intel Core i5
16GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM
1TB Fusion Drive
GTX 675MX 1GB GDDR5
In terms of more bang for the buck, does it make sense to upgrade to:
3.4 i7 ($200)
3T Fusion ($150)
680MX 2G ($150)
I currently have a 2T USB 3 external and a 3T Firewire external (Time Machine BU). I am thinking, given I need a mobile solution for traveling and working out of home, keeping the libraries on an external would negate the need to upgrade to a 3T fusion. My understadning of Thunderbolt and USB3 is I would not notice the difference working externally or on an internal Fusion-is this more or less correct? Better to spend the money on an external Thunderbolt when they come down a little more?
680MX is considered a fast gaming card...but might it also "future-proof" (if you can even do that these days!) the mac for graphics requirements to come? Or is it overkill for Aperture and PS? Again-better to spend the money elsewhere?
I am leaning towards the faster processor. Although I hear mixed things, the tests I have seen do say this will give an overall boost.
I would welcome any insights from others who walked this path...
many thanks
NJ

I might be missing something*, but if this is correct:
My understadning of Thunderbolt and USB3 is I would not notice the difference working externally or on an internal Fusion-is this more or less correct?
_and_ you need to access your Library from multiple machines in multiple locations, why not just stick with the base iMac configuration you posted and put your Library on your 2 TB USB-3 drive? As long as you are not putting the Library on the internal drive, I think your thinking here is correct:
I am thinking, given I need a mobile solution for traveling and working out of home, keeping the libraries on an external would negate the need to upgrade to a 3T fusion.
I run very large Libraries off external USB-3 drives (mounted to an rMBP w. 16 GB RAM and a 500 GB SSD) and find the performance is no different than when using a large Library that is stored on the SSD. (I have seen no reason to expect external Thunderbolt drives to be noticeably faster than USB-3.) I think the 3 TB Fusion makes sense in a laptop; for your stated needs, I wouldn't upgrade (you may have additional storage needs you didn't mention, though).
I agree with William about the faster GPU -- but just on a hunch. I think Apple's programmers have gotten expert at getting performance where they can, and one place they seem to look is the GPU. For Aperture users, I would say about the GPU the same thing one has always said about RAM: when you buy a new machine, put in as much as (or the fastest) you can afford. Once you have 16 GB of RAM I would spend some money on a GPU upgrade.
*and if I did miss something, apologies in advance .

Similar Messages

Nvidia 8800 GT not the best for Aperture use?

I've been reading from barefeats ( http://barefeats.com/harper10.html ) that the 8800 GT is not the best graphics card for Aperture. Actually I don't think they actually tested Aperture, but Motion 3. The Nvidia is a more expensive option than the ATIs, yet it would be worse for Aperture? Has someone specifically benchmarked Aperture 2 (not another pro app, and no synthetic tests of core image) with the 8800 GT against the other cards? Would Apple update Aperture to make it take better advantage of the 8800 GT's strengths (when available in a system)? I hope so. I already got the Nvidia, and am waiting to get a Mac Pro in the summer.

Here's my prelim findings (as posted in another thread). Will come back with more detailed comments after I have a chance to test some more:
Re: nvidia 8800GT in 1st generation MacPro
Posted: 25-Apr-2008 13:08 in response to: Dale Strumpell
Reply Email
I've just put one in my first gen mac pro, too. I can confirm a great deal of improvement over the stock 7300 gt. My prob was when an image had been straightened, cropped etc if I then attempted edge sharpening it was just awful - beachballs in abundance, crappy panning, slower than Capture NX. Now, though, it is fast and pleasant to use. That's the good news. The bad news is either:
1. Apple put such a puny graphics card in a Mac Pro (sic) in the first place (although it copes with everything except its own Pro photo software)
2. Apple wrote such idiosyncratic software (leaning on the on-graphics card memory so much) that meant Mac Pro (sic) machines hardly more than a year old couldn't cope without a new graphics card when running Apple's own pro photo software. That and the 7300 is still on the "recommended" list of cards for running Aperture 2.
Ho and, indeed, hum.
Cheers
D

Optimising iMac Intel educational for office use.

Hello there,
We received new iMac Intel educational and they are fantastic looking, incredibly silent (I had to remove the clock from the wall because it's Tic-Tac was too loud) and many new features likes it's Mighty mouse and much more drove me crazy. It took me about half an hour to admirethem, open them and look at every little details before preparing them for office use.
Unfortunately, as we knew, the PPC applications (MS-Office, FileMakerPRO, Macromedia Studio 8 and Adobe CS-2) are too slow but thanks to Rosetta they are working.
Note that Studio 8 and CS2 are not used to create but only to "visualise" what the students have done as home work.
We plan to boost the RAM to 1 GB but is there any thing else I can do or configure to optimise them?
Thank you.
17" iMac Intel Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Welcome to the Apple Discussions. Congrats on the new Mac.
At this point, as long as they are PPC apps, more memory is the best thing that you can do. Also not open too many apps at the same time. Mac OS X + Rosetta + PPC apps eat a lot of RAM. As soon as they are Universal binaries you will notice an improved difference.
In fact I believe that Adobe CS 3 is available as a beta download to registered users of CS2, the beta is a Universal binary. Many of us have abandoned Office for Mac for NeoOfice a free, open source Ub replacement.

Upgrading Powermac for aperture/final cut

Hi there,
I have a 1.8ghz powermac g5 (single processor) with 1.5gb of RAM, 2* 200gb internal Hard drives and an ATI Radeon XT 128mb. I have recently bought Final Cut and Aperture however performance is pretty slow on these programs with lags on aperture and blocky/unresponsive video on final cut. Playing stand alone High -definition video is also a jerky affair. Although i know i have a slow processor, i cannot afford to replace my hard drive, but could afford a couple of hundred pounds to upgrade. Can anyone recommend which of these would be most beneficial:
1) Upgrading graphics to Radeon x800 XT 256mb
2) Upgrading RAM to 3gb
3) buying external SATA hard drive and RAID'ing it for faster hard drive speeds?
OR, will none of these particularly help me and am i stuck with saving for a whole new Mac?
Kind Regards,
MAtthew LLoyd

What does "software to use with my Final Cut Pro" actually mean? Is it FCP? or FCP X?
iPhoto and Aperture are both equally compatible with FCP, but if it's the older version you use then you'll be exporting from your Photo Manager and bring the images into FCP.
If you have FCP X either will make images available to it via the Media Browser in FCP X.
So, no difference there.
Lightroom has no interaction with either version of FCP, so you'll be exporting from that to the Finder and then adding to the FCP project.
As for which is better - that's really personal preference. It might help if you explain what it is you dislike about iPhoto, and what you're actually looking for in a Photo Manager.

Will this imac be suitable for Aperture?

I am looking to upgrade to a new mac but can't afford the Power Mac G5, will the following support Aperture and to what level of performance can I expect. No one at any apple stores have any answers and there are no machines to test with. Here is the computer: 2 Ghz intel core duo, ATI Radeon X1600/256 MB
www.whitesidephoto.com
imac G4 flat panel Mac OS X (10.4.3)

It seemed to run fairly well at PMA, they were running Aperture 1.1 on the intel iMac and also the Macbook Pro.
If there's any kind of video card upgrade (like a model with more video memory) get it. The video card is absolutley the thing that will most drive your experience with Aperture and so anything you can do to improve it will make you happier. Apple (and other developers) are going to leverage Core Image more heavily in other apps too so it's not just like this will help Aperture.

Does the QT MPEG2 upgrade allow for the use of m2t files in FCP?

I just noticed the product the Apple store - and since I'm on the way to return a Firestore FS4..... Will this upgrade allow FCP to edit m2t?

Thanks gents - I heard the same rumor today from Focus' technical support - they are waiting for the QT patch to test and issue a firmware upgrade for the Firestore units, but they didn't expect a solution until April. sigh I had hoped the upgrade was new, and this was the software they were waiting for.

Keyboard Shortguide Guide for Aperture

Hi,
Looking for a useful Keyboard shortcut guide for Aperture. The one that comes with Aperture is complete, but I dont find the layout suitable for quick reference or for learning. I need something better for myself and for others who I'm recommending Aperture to.
I ordered a Logickeyboard set of keys for Aperture and am disappointed. It only has the most basic commands, and only a few of the commands which use modifier keys.
http://www.logickeyboard.com
NeoTron makes a line of laminated guides for many editing systems, which I've used before, but they dont have a version for Aperture (yet?).
http://lormiller.home.mindspring.com/
Has anyone come across a good solution?

I used KeyCue a bit and it helped -- but frankly I know 10-15 shortcuts and those are the ones I use constantly. I learned those by repetition... and when I was in Antarctica and shot about 6000 frames in 3 weeks I had plenty of time to develop the senses. Aperture has a LOT of shortcuts -- I'm not certain it's really mandatory to know/use them all -- just the ones you hit frequently enough where you can save real time.
The 8-core is up and running... I've had it for about a week now. I moved up from a Quad G5 with 7800 GT. When I was in Antarctica I noticed that Aperture was faster on my MacBook Pro (first generation Core Duo) than it was on my Quad G5 with the 7800 when I got home. So I looked at the market for buyers, and found it wasn't that expensive for me to upgrade.
I love it -- it's definitely faster with Aperture (I have the X1900XT), and more importantly it is SO MUCH QUIETER. The Quad G5 was pretty darned loud with the cooling apparatus... this Mac Pro is absolutely silent. I'm not going to promise it will revolutionize your life as a photographer, but I will say I'm happy I upgraded, for Aperture use and for everyday use. Having an ambient noise level ~15 dB quieter is a lot nicer than I thought it would be.

I am considering a base 21" iMac ($1099 @ Best Buy) for home use. It would be my first Mac. Is the base model powerful enough for everyday home use and some light video editing or should I upgrade the CPU, Ram and to a Fusion drive?

I am considering a base 21" iMac ($1099 @ Best Buy) for home use. It would be my first Mac. Is the base model powerful enough for everyday home use and some light video editing or should I upgrade the CPU, Ram and to a Fusion drive?
Purchasing with the upgrades through Apple would add about $800 over the Black Friday deal at Best Buy. Just looking for some advice if I will be satisfied with the based model.

All models will do what you want. Upgraded models will do it faster than the standard models.
Just why are you thinking of switching to a Mac?

IMac vs Macbook pro 13 inch + aperture use

Hello everyone,
First thanks in advance for replying!
My situation:
Have an old iMac 17inch core 2 duo 2GHz with 1GB of RAM.
I don't have a laptop but i would like to have the portability of one, but it itsn't a necessty for the work i wanna do. (i can find a way around it all if need be)
What i do on my mac:
Most of the time i use my mac for web browsing, watching youtube video's, movies, TV shows, and social media, and as a hobby i'm into photography.
Currently i'm using iphoto to edit my photo's and while i find it good and practical i want to do a little more than what iphoto can do. I want to start using aperture for editing. Now remember it's as a hobby it's nothing hardcore just basic editing (black and white, saturation, adjusting colour and stuff).
So i'm going to buy myself a new Mac because this one is getting real slow when editing, even in iphoto. (takes like 5minuts to save the edited photo is way to long) Now i know i can upgrade the RAM for not much money but i want a new machine.
I'm at a dillema. Should i get the macbook pro 13 inch i7 or the imac 21,5 inch same price point?
If i get the macbook pro I would be using it somewhat like this: 90% desktop with external monitor 24inch and 10% portable.
(Like when i'm going on vacantion to edit some photo's or use it as storage for them, sitting downstares not behind my desk, take it a friends house. But all this i can miss if need be)
Now for the questions
Is the macbook pro 13 inch going to cut it as a desktop computer + monitor while using aperture as the heaviest program ever and multi tasking?
Do i need the graphics card and quad core of the imac for aperture?
Thanks

I wouldn't even consider a laptop. I upgraded from an iMac 17 to a 24 over three years ago and now it seems small c/w the 27.
I use my old 17 when I go on the road as it goes into a padded bag along with the keyboard and mouse and only takes minutes to set up.
You'll get far more bang for your buck with a desktop and it will last you a lot longer. MacBooks are famous for hard drive failure and I wouldn't bother with one until they are fitted with flash drives as standard.
Me, I'm waiting for a 17 inch Airbook to appear.

2009 24-inch iMac 3.06GHz (EMC no. 2267). I don't get any audio when connecting my Sony HD TV to my iMac via mini DisplayPort. Is there a fix or hardware upgrade? I'm using a Kanex Mini DisplayPort to HDMI cable w/ audio support.

2009 24-inch iMac 3.06GHz (EMC no. 2267). I don't get any audio when connecting my Sony HD TV to my iMac via mini DisplayPort. Is there a fix or hardware upgrade? I'm using a Kanex Mini DisplayPort to HDMI cable w/ audio support.

You can connect the audio from your iMac to your TV using a mini jack (like headphones plug) to rca (regular red and white audio connectors used on every TV,DVD, etc) cable.
On your TV, you need to be able to set the audio for the HDMI input you will use to "analog" and connect the rca end of the cable to the analog inputs on your TV.

HT4007 How to I find my serial number for Aperture 3. Just moved it to a new imac.

I purchased Aperture 3 from the Apple App Store in 2010 and downloaded it. I received an activation key but no serial number.
Now I have transferred Aperture 3 to a new imac but it asked for a serial number. I put the activation number in but is says it is invalid.
I have tried to find my answer via Apple Support but can't find personal support for aperture.
Can anyone here help me?

And how did you transfer? What installer did you use? Not a download from the App Store?
Reinstall using the Trial version installer, if your activation key comes with the Trial version.
Download here the Aperture 3.1 Trial.

Using 27" iMac as display for a gaming PC

Before anyone rips me to ribbons for wanting to use an iMac as a display for a windows PC, let me explain my situation: I need to upgrade my 2007 iMac and I was looking at the 27" iMac. I would like use it as a monitor for my gaming PC when I'm not using it as a Mac because I barely have enough room on my desk for my old iMac and gaming PC monitor as it is. A 27" iMac will take up my whole desk and won't fit with any other monitor. I'd just get a bigger desk, but my studio apartment is too small and cluttered for one.
I know there is the Atlona DVI to Mini DisplayPort Converter, but after hours of searching, I could only find articles saying "it should work with PC" not "I tested it and it does work with PC. Here are some pictures as proof". I'm not willing to spend that much on something that might work.
I was wondering if anyone knew of a site that gave proof that the Atlona DVI to Mini DisplayPort Converter worked the way I hope it does? or does someone know of something coming out in the near future that would allow what I need?

I have exactly the same problem and have been scouring the forums to find an answer. Hoping to use my shiny big iMac as a display for my gaming PC which only has a DVI output. From what I've read I get the impression the answer is currently no (some problem specific to the 27" iMacs from what I can make out), but out of interest have you had any luck with this??
The only answer I can find round this at the moment (if the converter you mention doesn't work) is to get a new graphics card with a DisplayPort output - still weighing up whether to splash out on a new one and what the chances are of me screwing up my PC if I try installing it myself!!

Using IMAC (Intel) monitor for external machine

I recently bought an Intel 24" IMAC , which is mahvelous, EXCEPT, (shockingly enough!) it won't run all my beloved system 9 aps. Even worse, it apparently won't run any PhotoShop, except for the latest & greate$t version. Is there any way that I can park my trusty blue/white G4 next to it & use the G4, running system 9, to drive the IMAC's lovely monitor? I realize that this is kind of doing things backwards, but, hey, I didn't start this.

If you are using PS 5.5, why not just buy a copy of Photoshop Elements 4. You can get a copy for $50-75 if you look around.
It has almost all of the features (and a few more, actually) of PS 5.5, EXCEPT you cannot do CMYK work. If you aren't doing prepress work, then Elements is a steal.
If you REALLY want to save the pennies, buy an older copy on ebay then you can buy an upgrade online for 20-30 bucks. That's a lot of trouble though, for not much savings.
For that matter, you might shop around for an OS X version of PS online. Many people are upgrading to CS2 and CS3, so there might be some deals to be had on ebay.

Will the new 3GHz iMac (24") with GeForce 8800 be good for Aperture v2?

hi all.
I've just seen the specs on the new iMac and I'm interested. I was resigned to buying a Mac Pro but found it difficult to justify the cost because I'm not a professional photographer. the new iMac might be good enough at a much more justifiable cost.
I wonder if anyone has information or opinions regarding the following.
Will the glossy screen be a nuisance? There is stray light in our living room where I use my computer although we do have venetian blinds on both windows. (don't bother suggesting using the computer in another room. this is Hong Kong where space is scarce and expensive.)
Will 3GHz/4GB be significantly faster than my 2GHz/2GB iMac for Aperture operations? (Aperture was not included in Apple's test comparisons)
Will the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS card be beneficial to Aperture use?
Will the FireWire 800 be significantly faster than the FireWire 400? on my iMac, transfers to/from my external SATA disks run at only a dismal 13MB/s rather than the ideal 40MB/s. is it my iMac's limited processor power, or a limiting factor with having only 2GB of RAM and a scad of applications open, or a problem (concerning caching) with Leopard's copying routines?
for future reference, would the Aperture library saved on the internal SATA drive be faster than if it was saved on the external SATA drive connected via FireWire 800?
your input and information would be appreciated (and it's probably going to be a common question).
sincerely,
Gregory

Gregory Rivers wrote:
Will the glossy screen be a nuisance?
My expectation (every workspace is different as are individual perceptions) is that the reflective issues of the iMac's glossy screen would be very tolerable. What many (not all) graphics pros including me find intolerable is the fact that glossy displays add contrast and saturation to images. However many, perhaps most, non-graphics-pros prefer the added contrast and saturation, which is why Apple uses those displays. Each individual must do his/her own side-by-side comparisons and determine personal preference.
Will 3GHz/4GB be significantly faster than my 2GHz/2GB iMac for Aperture operations?
Yes.
Will the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS card be beneficial to Aperture use?
I believe yes, but that is just a guess since I do not know the card well. Certainly picking an iMac for Aperture usage I would choose the top 24" with the 8800 GS card
Will the FireWire 800 be significantly faster than the FireWire 400?
Yes.
...for future reference, would the Aperture library saved on the internal SATA drive be faster than if it was saved on the external SATA drive connected via FireWire 800?
Yes. Best IMO will be to have the AP Library on the internal drive but with Referenced Masters on external FW800 drives. The top iMac allows up to 1 TB internal drive size. Since drives slow as they fill, order a large drive and keep it less than half full to optimize operation.
...is it my iMac's limited processor power, or a limiting factor with having only 2GB of RAM and a scad of applications open, or a problem (concerning caching) with Leopard's copying routines?
Pretty much everything impacts AP performance, so the more things you optimize the better. The maximum 4 GB RAM of iMacs, although quite workable, will always be limiting. Good policy is to restart or at least close as many irrelevant applications as necessary prior to an extended Aperture work session.
Steve Weller, builder of the excellent <http://www.bagelturf.com/index.html> Aperture website, discusses speed improvements here:
<http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1273934&tstart=75>
If you ever do run into performance issues, work to dial in on each of the performance tweaks he discusses.
As an aside, I too like the MBP (ideally 17" matte screen) as preferable to the iMac because of the portability. Unfortunately cost may make that an unacceptable choice, but I cannot overstate the huge benefits of portability.
Good luck!
-Allen Wicks

New iMac for Pro Use

When we replaced our last Pro Machine back in 2005 it was replaced with an iMac 20". Well we use it for Graphic Design and it served us well until the logic board failed. So we ordered a new i5 27" iMac. Anyone else use iMacs for pro Macs? We run Adobe creative suite 4, Freehand, Quark and office. Any issues with these apps running Snow leopard? Do you feel the performance of the iMac will do well with these apps?
By the way I found a place that repairs the logic boards in G5 imac so I removed and sent it out for repair. If all goes well this will be a nice hand me down for the kids. So far they love the G4 12" powerbook we handed down to them. 9 year old twins using macs which the prefer over the PC.

Sounds like you're on the track, I found a link from Apple that offers a competitive upgrade from Freehand to CS4 for $199. If your business is relying on it then that might be the road to take.
I've heard of some work arounds for your Laserwriter but not being a LW owner I don't have any experience. The good news is high quality Laser printers have come way down in price, I have 2 connected to my system (both HP's) that work great. The youngest one (Color LJ 2600N) is about 4 years old and works great as does my little black and white LJ 1012 which is my everyday work horse.
Another solution is HP has a new line of printers out that are inkjets but cost up to 50% less to operate than a laser and provides very high quality. If you at all interested the link is:
http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/printer/Officejet/1/storefronts/CB023A%2523B1 H
Talk to you later,
Roger

27" iMac upgrade priorities for Aperture use?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for