Best Mac Pro 2013 Config for photography?

I am a pro photographer who is interested in getting maximum performance for the task of editing still images, mostly large files in the 100- 200 MB range . My go to apps are Lightroom5 and Photoshop6. My number one priority is speed/effeciency. Cost is important but secondary. In other words I want the best possible system for the task at hand but I don't want to max out on cost for options that will offer little or no performance benefit for what I will be doing. Thanks in advance for any insights.
John

I think you will find the answer from a like minded user blog
http://www.macperformanceguide.com
The 6-core nMP Late 2013 model with whatever you can afford in 3rd party RAM (32GB at least). And some good solid storage and SSDs. And start with at least 500GB SSD. The base model with BTO.
http://www.macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20131219_1-MacPro-whatIOrdered.html

Similar Messages

Best Mac Pro (2013) configuration for photo editing/processing?

Hi all,
I couldn't find a reliable answer to this in my searching here or on google, hence I'm posting it here.
I'm going to buy and upgrade to the new mac pro when it's announced this month (Dec 2013). My primary use will be photo processing in photoshop.
Configuring it with 64gb RAM is the no-brainer part. And probably a 512gb or 1TB flash drive too.
The bit I'm unsure about is whether to opt for the 6 core processor option over the quad core? For photo editing (adding layers, filters, brushing in, multiple files open at times, running batch edits etc), does anyone have an opinion on whether the performance increase (if there is in fact any increase for photo work?) of the 6 core 3.5ghz would justify paying the extra AU$1300 difference over the quad core 3.7ghz option?
And from my earlier research paying the huge prices for 8 or 12 cores would simply be a waste for photo processing.
Thanks for the advice...

Mozzzaaa
I have the exact same requirements, here are my findings based on some observations from Activity Monitor and research based on how the hardware works.
Photoshop does not utilize multiple cores well for many standard editing ativities - therefore one core will be busy while the rest remain idle, however I have noticed over time that upgrades to Photoshop seem to take more advantage of multiple cores as Adobe updates the code. For example, appling filters utilize all of the cores while the filters are computing changes (smart sharpen for example). Try running CPU monitoring in Activity Monitor (double click the CPU graph to display all cores).
Lightroom utilizes all of the cores for Import, export and other activities that process multiple files. Being more modern code, it beter utilizes muti cores.
Keep in mind that each core handles two code threads, therefore a four core system is capable of processing 8 "streams" of code, the 6 core can manage 12 threads, etc.
Here is a screen shot of Mac Book Pro running PS CC Smart Sharpen:
All the new Mac Pro run at 3.9Hz Turbo Boost - they are all the same in that respect. This means that when the processers are not hot, at least one core will run at 3.9Hz - therefore on a relativly idle machine (just editing in PS for example) you would likley be running at 3.9Hz on all the Mac Pro 2013.
There are also the GPUs to consider. Apple as usual has not made enough information available to easly determine the cost benefits of the more powerful GPUs and I don't know if PS would utiliize the AMD GPUs well now, or perhaps better utilize them for the future. Perhaps someone could comment on that. Here is an interesting article: http://architosh.com/2013/10/the-mac-pro-so-whats-a-d300-d500-and-d700-anyway-we -have-answers/
Clearly the D500 that is standard with the 6 core seems a major bump over the 4 core D300 (therefore the costs of the 6 core reflect that). I don't know how much the D700 would cost - it would be helpful if this were published so I could consider my order.
There are two GPU in the new Mac Pros - but the purpose of the second one is not toally clear (thanks again to Apples's communication). It likley will be utilized for all sorts of things that don't really exist now and FCP X is scheduled for a new release better utilize the GPU for video (as nwaphoto mentioned video processing will be a major use of this equipment).
I was interested in your comment regarding 64 Meg ram. Yes that would be a hudge boost to PS performance, but would it be better to purchase from Apple or wait for OWC who offer RAM at major discounts over Apple. Once again, no info yet that I am aware of.
I believe the flash drive is upgradable but rumor has it that it uses a proprietary connecter. Makes me want to go with the largest size but once again OWC might be the way to go for an upgrade in a year or two.
In the past, the 6 core 2012 Mac Pro's were somewhat of a sweat spot in terms of horsepower vs cost. I will be considering that in my decession to upgrade. So I am considering a 6 core, will check out the Ram and Flash diIsk based on price - which is the infor I don't have. If you have anything please post
Thanks

My Mac Pro display setup for photography

I am a photographer and a recent refugee from Windows. I’m using my new Mac Pro to manage and process about 100K images and other digital assets. I’m especially pleased with my system’s display configuration. Here is what I’ve got:
I’m driving my displays with the NVIDIA GT 120. My main image viewing display is a 21” Eizo Color Edge LCD (CE210W). It has a wide color gamut and is more than adequate for my needs. I wanted a second display but was leery of the Apple Cinema units – a lot of comments on this forum and other places seemed to indicate a lack of quality control. Nevertheless, I got the 24” Apple Cinema Display and it is working perfectly.
I calibrated both units with the i1 Display 2 monitor calibration hardware. I ran the i1 Match software for calibrating the Apple display and the Eizo-supplied software for calibrating the Eizo (it stores calibration settings in the monitor’s hardware).
Opinions about monitor calibration settings are like belly buttons – everybody has one. Here are mine:
white point – 6500 K; gamma – 2.2; luminance – 120 CD sq. m.
With both monitors calibrated using these settings, my standard reference image looks practically identical on both units. That is reassuring.
I do not doubt that some people are having problems with the Apple Cinema display. But mine is working perfectly… so far. It is an essential component of a very nice system.
BTW, if you want to hook a 24” Cinema Display to a Mac Pro then you will probably need a display cable extension (Apple picked a curious way to cut costs). I got my cable extension at MonoPrice.com for $6.

Make a "Genius" appointment at an Apple Store to have the machine tested. Back up all data before you go.

What is best Mac Pro for photoshop for the money?

I need to purchase a mac pro to use for digital retouching and photography. Which machine will i get the best performance for my money, I am on a budget.

The best would be 6-core 3.33GHz 24GB RAM and would hold up best over time.
http://discussions.apple.com/messageview.jspa?messageID=12296219&stqc=true
MHz matter, and so too does RAM.
This article, and then browse how to choose Mac Pro, benchmarks etc on site:
http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2010/20100905_HallofFameShame--macpro.html
http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere-CoresExplained.html
There are always good buys from Apple Specials, from $2100 and up, just be careful or totally avoid any of the 8-core / dual processor models.
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/mac_pro

Best Mac Pro Setup for Photoshop CS5

I've read around that it's not needed to have the fastest (and costliest) Mac Pro to run Photoshop CS5 at it's best.
However, there doesn't seem to exist any discussions involving the latest models (Feb 2012).
Which would be the optimal Mac Pro available today for running large files (1GB and up) in Photoshop CS5?

LOTs of RAM, fast 6-core 3.33GHz for starters.
Mac Pro Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 3
Optimize Photoshop CS5
Optimize CS5 CS4 Mac OS X
http://www.macperformanceguide.com

Best Mac Pro Configuration for LR?

For various reasons I'm planning on migrating from my home desktop pc ( 4 year old core2 2.4 ghz xp pro sp 3 32bit accessing 2.93 out of 4 gb ram) to a new or (lightly used recent) Mac Pro desktop. The Mac Pro is available in a lot of different configurations and I would appreciate advice on how many cores and how much ram I actually need to comfortably run LR3x and its eventual upgrades (within reason) and PS3 for now and later probably whatever is current. I'm a reasonably advanced amateur photographer; I shoot what interests me and now use LR for 90-95% of my post processing of my raw Leica and Canon image files. I do use some add-ons (SilverEfex Pro2 and such).
I understand from reading some articles that too much muscle in the Mac Pro can actually slow down LR, so if this is true I'd like to stay svelte; also economic issues are somewhat a concern.
I have already considered a laptop or an iMac and decided the Mac Pro is what I want. The question is just 'what will work best for me'?
Thanks in advance, and if you need more information just let me know.
--Bob
p.s. Is the Search Function disabled in this Forum? I couldn't get it to work.

thewhitedog wrote:
@ Bob: I think you may be have acquired some misinformation somewhere. There is no such thing as "too much muscle" in a Mac Pro in relationship to Lightroom - or any other program. OS X allocates resources to applications as they need them. Unused resources remain idle or are utilized by other applications.
Adobe posts the minimum system requirements for their applications, but these should just be taken as a starting point. In my opinion you should buy the best Mac Pro your budget can handle - and maybe a little bit more. The computer is an investment, after all, not a luxury. That said, what you need to run Lightroom efficiently and what Jay needs to do video editing are not necessarily the same. For video rendering more cores are better. For Lightroom the question of the number of CPU cores is less critical. Whereas, CPU speed is more relevant. For both, the amount of RAM can make a big difference.
I recommend as a starting point, at least a quad-core Mac Pro with 4GB of RAM. That would do if you were looking at an iMac as well.
I can understand, though, how looking at the current line-up of Mac Pros can be confusing. The older Nehalem powered Mac Pros look faster for less money, but this is now old technology. The new Intel Westmere CPUs offer significant improvements in performance. Unfortunately, they are also much more expensive than any previous Mac CPU upgrade. But if you want to "future proof" your new Mac, one with a Westmere CPU is the better way to go. The 8 core model Jay went with seems to be the best value, with two quad-core 2.4GHz Westmere CPUs. However, for just $200 more you can get the 6 core 3.33GHz Westmere CPU. For the purposes of Lightroom, the faster CPUs in the 6 core model will make more of a difference than the two extra cores in the 8 core version. And the 6 core version will handle just about any multi-tasking job you throw at it; that it, using Lightroom in conjunction with Adobe Photoshop, for example.
To confuse the issue a bit more, however, if using Lightroom is your primary concern, a Mac Pro may be overkill. The new iMacs, which came out since you started this thread, are excellent machines. You could get a lot more for your money with a 27" iMac, BTO with a quad-core 3.3GHz Intel Sandy Bridge CPU, 8GB of RAM and a 2TB hard drive for roughly $1,000 less than the Mac Pros you're looking at. Along with a capable computer you get a beautiful 27" screen on the iMac. I'm not sure why you think you need the Mac Pro. The iMac can now take up to 16GB of RAM. If you were to get one with 8GB factory installed by Apple - as a BTO option - there would still be two empty RAM slots available for a future upgrade. You could add an SSD to the iMac and still pay less than you would for the Mac Pro.
And the new iMacs have a Thunderbolt port; in fact, the 27" models have two Thunderbolt ports. These offer much better throughput and greater flexibility than any previous I/O connection. With an appropriate adaptor you can use almost any external device, including eSATA, FireWire 400 and 800, USB 1, 2 and 3 and even Ethernet and an external monitor. Of course the iMac still has a Firewire 800 port and four USB 2 ports, and an SDXC memory card slot. For what it may be worth, I suggest you give the iMac another look. Your budget will thank you.
TheWhiteDog,
Kinda, Sorta, Maybe... :-) The cost differential between the 8 and 6 cores is $200 when comparing new to new. I picked up the 8 Core Westmere 2.4 for under $3000 because it comes up on the Refurbished side... So now we're talking $700 difference. the difference in price can be used for memory (I got 4GB for $50 at OtherWorldCmputing's "Garage Sale), a drive.. any number of things. Since Apple treat refurbs as new for warranty purposes (including AppleCare), I didn't see any reason not to go with the refurbished model..
I agree a higher clock speed is better, but as you said, I also do video so more cores helps (amazingly helps).. Yes, for LR 6 3.33 cores may outperform 8 2.4s, but the 8 core machine flies with LR.
As for iMacs vs. Mac Pro.. the biggest difference is that you find with any desk top vs. a "fixed" machine like the iMac. The upgrade as far a internal (and external) drives on a Mac Pro is so much better as well as to upgrade video if I want to in the future as well. As for Thunderbolt, clearly a lot of potential, but it is a daisy chain design and the slowest device in the chain can slow down everything if not done right. There's also not a lot out there for Thunderbolt yet.. and I'm not 100% sure that there won't be an PCI card for Mac Pros for Thunderbolt (although it could be a system board feature only).
At under $3000 with 6GB of memory and a 1TB 7200 drive, combined with growrh potential and the Mac Pro I think has a longer shelf life vs. the iMac. Without those Thunderbolt adapters in the market place, you're stuck with FW800, which is a lot slower than even eSATA for external drives. Since most all the LR recommendations are to split the catalog away from the cache and away from the images themselves, it's a trickier and more costly venture on the iMac.. The 27" screen in nice, but I'm not a big fan of glossy screens. I don't think any of those allow you a matte finish option like on the Macbook Pro.
Bottom line Bob is there are different choices for different budgets... Heck I went with a 17" Macbook Pro for a long time, using an inexpensive Expresscard 34 to hook up external eSATA drives and a second 24" Dell monitor.. Great combo and I always had the portability aspect of the 17" for client work, being tethered, etc..
Jay

Why mac pro 2013 not supporting illustrator GPU rendering

Here, all nvidia cards supporting this:
http://helpx.adobe.com/illustrator/kb/gpu-performance-preview-improvements.html
now I'm thinking, that buying the new mac pro 2013 maybe wasn't the best idea... Apple put in AMD GPu's, that is fine by me, but come on, give us some more support for them! Normal windows PC (for 800€) with nvidia GPU is faster at rendering in Illustrator, than my workstation mac (3500+€)! Really? O.o
And story doesn't end here. I was reading one article about GPU usage in this new mac pro and then I tested it myself. Only one GPU is used and the other is barely touched! And this goes for Maya, photoshop, illustrator and other adobe programs. I was shocked, that I discovered I have one GPU to warm up my room and only one actually doing all the work.
Ok I understand, that also software developers needs to support stuff and write their software to actually use GPU's, but adobe creative suite is one of examples, where software is actually capable of using GPU via openCL and in some cases even CUDA from nvidia.
And there is one more thing: new mac pro, has 2 identical AMD GPU's inside, which can work in crossfire configuration under windows in bootcamp, but not in OS X. Sometimes I even play some games on my mac and sometimes I'm testing them (I'm artist, but I also like to develop and test some games in my free time) and it's kinda a shame, that I can run games with better performance under windows in bootcamp.
When I bought this computer I thought this is going to rock and sweep up with all my previous machines. Well in practice it is much of unused potential and great room warmer. It's kinda sad, that on my girlfriend's PC I can play games with better frames and details on GF 660GTX than on my mac pro... I know I know, mac's aren't for gaming, but hey, sometimes it is good to get my mind on rest and blow up some enemies!
I'm not saying mac pro isn't great product, which is (very great). But support to use all computer capabilities is very limited and Apple should kick developers in their back side and push them to start developing things to use GPU's more.
I'm also not expecting Apple to jump on their feet and fix problems overnight. No, just start thinking of adding more support and things that would make our computers much more used and not only good decoration on desk. First would be a good steep adding crossfire support to OS X. That might even help at rendering some 3D scenes?
Next step would probably be better cooperation with software developers, like Adobe , Autodesk,... If adobe made good support for GPU rendering in Illustrator, aim that we get that support soon as well. I'm sometimes having a lot of paths and objects and rendering goes pretty slow then.
I'm also thinking about that AMD choice Apple made wasn't so good when you see that Nvidia puts much more effort into supporting more and more stuff, while AMD is sitting idle not even updating their drivers anymore.
Oh and one more thing: Can we please, please, please, please, preeeeeetty please get 10-bit output support on OS X? It's kinda sad, having good mac workstation with 10-bit capable monitor (dell UP2414Q) and no support for it, while other PC workstations all support it... Photoshop is working much better on OS X and here I have much better integration and everything and I really love working in Photoshop running on OS X, but some basic things are missing and I'm really asking myself sometimes: was that good decision? Photoshop was first written for macs and in 2014 there is much better support for adobe software on windows than on OS X. Where went wrong?
Don't take me wrong and think I'm just ranting here without any good reason, but think: buying very expensive computer that is supposed to make creative work easy and painless is actually just on paper. In reality computer potential is pretty much unused and that makes me thinking if I would be much better buying iMac instead of mac pro...
TL;DR: I wish for some more support from Apple for their new expensive mac pro's 2013. They are great piece of equipment, but equivalent PC's running windows are surpassing them in this department, specially when GPU's are involved. Now I would like to point this out to Apple, so I don't know where to write so they will read so I first wrote that here. I hope someone from Apple reads this and give us some feedback on those missing things or maybe I get direction where to write to Apple so I get maybe some response from them(?):
-not enough GPU support for creative software (adobe suite, autodesk,...) - nvidia + windows offering much more for less money?
-no crossfire support on OS X. Any particular reason for that?
-no 10-bit support for 10-bit displays. Why not? Hardware is capable, why software isn't?
-lack of openCL software out there. Apple isn't doing much to get more support or developers just too lazy to put more effort into this? GPGPU isn't the future as some companies are trying to convince us?

Grant Bennet-Alder wrote:
All displays are supported by one GPU -- the display GPU. The second GPU is reserved for un-interrupted GPU computing and has no Display output Hardware.
Anandtech has a discussion of this in his review of the late 2013 Mac Pro.
Under OS X the situation is a bit more complicated. There is no system-wide CrossFire X equivalent that will automatically split up rendering tasks across both GPUs.
By default, one GPU is setup for display duties while the other is used exclusively for GPU compute workloads. GPUs are notoriously bad at context switching, which can severely limit compute performance if the GPU also has to deal with the rendering workloads associated with display in a modern OS. NVIDIA sought to address a similar problem with their Maximus technology, combining Quadro and Tesla cards into a single system for display and compute.
from section 9:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/9
Another problem here: on windows bootcamp crossfire IS working, but not in OS X. As I wrote, sometimes it would be better to get more rendering power than computing power (actually at current state of GPU computing software, computing GPU isn't working very much if at all). It would be nice to have an option to switch on and off crossfire so we could use more rendering power when needed.
Also not all people are doing video rendering on their computers. What about 3D modelling and 2D work in photosohp? And maybe people like me are occasionally wish to play some games on their mac?
You linked me GPU usage from one program (probably adobe after effects or premiere pro or apple final cut X?), that is probably one of the only pieces of software that actually uses both GPU's under OS X. I made same experiment with software I use and I even tested some software I don't use but it is advertised it is "optimized" for mac pro like pixelmator.
And guess what? Second GPU is 99% time idle. Even when some stuff is using openCL in Photoshop, stuff is still computed on rendering GPU and not on computing one, which makes computing GPU just a good room warmer as I wrote before. Wouldn't be better to at least use second GPU for something than heating air?

Mac Pro 2013 Using Too Much RAM

I have a 6-core Mac Pro (2013) with 64GB of RAM. I have this feeling that the computer, and some assortment of processes, is sucking up a lot more of the RAM than they need to. As a point of reference, I use the vast majority of the RAM for audio production.
My concern is that, when I turn my computer on, it is already using 10 GBs of RAM right off the bat. One particular process, kernel_task, likes to use anywhere from 2-10 GBs. I can't imagine there is any reason for the Mac and all of its other processes to ever exceed even 4 GBs of RAM, let alone the upwards 20-30 that it will eventually consume. I say this because I migrated all of the data and processes form my 2010 Macbook Pro, which only has 8GB. Upon start-up, it is never using more than 2-4 GBs of RAM. I would assume, then, that my Mac Pro can get by using little more 4GBs (preserving the other 60GB for my much more resource-intensive music work). Both the MBP and Mac Pro have Mavericks 10.9.
Is there a way to cap the amount of RAM the computer, and any other process, uses, so I can preserve the majority of it for the tasks I know need it most?

Have you seen www.macperformanceguide.com ? focus is more on graphics and photography and where 128GB is shown to help.
The old method, to conserve and not use memory, went away years ago so as not to let a valuable resource sit idle and not being used.
Even if you don't have pageouts the system dynamically will use more if and when there is more memory present.
The numbers you report are not unusual. 1-2GB in today's world is like 50MB might have been 20 years ago - people were moaning over the fact that OS 7 was a memory hog as it now needed 40-50MB just to launch the Finder.

Mac Pro (2013) with Mavericks and Mac Office Excel

Using MAC Excel VBA, and obviously with my personally written Excel VBA application, I have discovered that
in a multi-Workbook Excel app, I am unable to "Open" additional Workbooks (xlsm-type) successfully
from any Workbook OTHER THAN with the very first Workbook opened in the app. In other words, if my app needs
2 or more Workbooks opened at any one time, only the 1st Workbook opened can "open" any other workbooks
successfully.
If the 2nd or any other Workbook in my app tries to execute an "open workbook" procedure of its own, no Err is thrown
and no indication is given that its "open Workbook" statement did not work, but the program/routine just continues as if
nothing was wrong. Additionally, all statements pertaining to the "not-opened" Workbook don't do a thing also
(i.e., .Clear, .ClearContents, .Range, .Copy, etc. don't work and don't throw errors).
On the other hand, when I restructure my Excel application such that the very first opened Workbook also "opens"
all the other Workbooks needed in my entire application, then my Excel application works great, even when I call
other subroutines that don't include "open workbook" statements but do include opject references and database
statements for whichever already-opened Workbook it needs. In this case also, all the final "close workbook"
statements must be properly placed in the first workbook's code and eventually executed at the end, and the entire
app works appropriately and successfully.
My question is, is it an Excel rule that ONLY the first workbook opened is allowed to open additional Workbooks, or
is this a MAC Excel limitation only, or is there a MAC Excel or VBA setting that solves this situation? I have done VBA
debug tracing in my app code to "prove" my point over and over here, and have found nothing that solves my delimma.
Maybe there's an additional workbook "open" parameter that might help, but I haven't discovered it yet. Note that
I am openinfg all my Workbooks with ReadOnly:= false
Note: I am using a Mac Pro (2013) 6-core, Mavericks, and Excel 11 VBA. Everything else on my entire system works great.
Thank you for any suggestions. I have used Windows Excel for many years very successfully and don't recall ever
encountering this situation with Workbooks before.

18. Can I connect a Mini DisplayPort monitor or monitor using a Mini DisplayPort adapter to a Thunderbolt port on my Thunderbolt-equipped Mac?
Yes. A Mini DisplayPort display or a display connecting with a Mini DisplayPort to VGA, DVI, or HDMI adapter will work just like it was connecting to a Mini DisplayPort connector when plugging in directly to the Thunderbolt connector on your Apple computer. Click here for more information on Mini DisplayPort connections and adapters.
19. How do I connect my Mini DisplayPort monitor or monitor using a Mini DisplayPort adapter to my Thunderbolt-equipped Mac when I have other Thunderbolt devices connected?
When connecting a Mini DisplayPort display or a display using a Mini DisplayPort adapter to a Thunderbolt peripheral (except as described in question 14), make sure the display is connected at the end of the Thunderbolt chain. You can use only one Mini DisplayPort device in the Thunderbolt chain.
Note: Systems with more than one Thunderbolt port, like an iMac, can have more than one Mini DisplayPort monitor or monitor connected with a Mini DisplayPort adapter connected as each Thunderbolt port can support one Mini DisplayPort display.

Do Mac Pro 2013 support six TV using HDMI/DVI?

Hi everyone,
I found in Mac Pro support six displays using thunderbolt, but can I using HDMI or DVI?
I have six TVs, all of them have hdmi,dvi, and vga ports, I want to using one Mac Pro (2013) to display my screen in six TV as one screen, such as this:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmlsePKH6AY
Because Mac Pro using AMD display card, can I using Eyefinity technology?
Thanks a lot.

Yes. However, only two adopters can be passive. The rest have to be active.
All mini displayport to VGA adapters are active.
Mini displayport to DVI adopter can either be active or passive. The active ones say actie and cost more than passive ones.
If the display is greater than 1080X1200 you need dual-link mini displayport to DVI adapter. All the dual-link adopters are active and require USB connection for power.
I have no idea what " Eyefinity technology?" is

Mac Pro 2013 fan speeds up to maximum after restart.

My brand new Mac Pro 2013, hanged on shutdown..
so I had to restart by using the button on the cylinder, when it restarted it sounded like a vacuum cleaner, the fan started to spin fast and didn't stop anymore and my mac was suddenly very slow :S.
After restarting the mac pro works fine again! this happened 2 times now...
Already called with apple they said that i should try and work with it and see if the problem comes back again.
Maybe any of you knows what could be wrong.??????
I'm mainly using the machine for Logic Pro X and sometimes for some video editing.
OS : Yosemite - 10.10.2
Mac Pro 6core 2013

Reset the SMC and PRAM
Intel-based Macs: Resetting the System Management Controller (SMC)
About NVRAM and PRAM

Mac Pro 2013 and Premiere Pro - The performance issue that Adobe don't want us talking about!

In May 2014 I bought a 2013 Mac Pro to help my business with the ever increasing demands video editing was placing on our systems. I was so excited to see how the 12GB of power the AMD D700s would affect my workflow and ability to edit footage seamlessly without delays to the creative process.
However, to my dismay pretty much since starting to work with the system I found that there was an issue with the GPUs, Mac OS and Adobe’s applications. It was first reported by many other users in early 2014 and as yet know one from Adobe has really commented officially on the issue.
Sadly it appears to still be present today and speaking with an Adobe rep confirmed this. Trouble is no one is doing anything about it. My hope is that, if you have watched this video and are experiencing the same issues then please let’s get the comments going, share and like the video and let’s get Adobe, Apple and AMD to pick up this with immediate haste! Thank you.
Below is a video of the problem I have been experiencing. It's a little long but I wanted to give a good account of the problem we are seeing so that someone can help! PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE help!
Mac Pro 2013 and Premiere Pro GPU Issue - YouTube
Thank you for your time and I'd love someone to help!

Thanks for responding! It's such a pain and I have been chatting to one of Adobe's senior consultants about this and still none the wiser. I have sent my machine off to the retailer as it was still under warranty. Nothing wrong with GPU apparently which is a relief although I kinda wish it had been that as it would have been an easier fix. Adobe told me that working with H.264 is totally possible but if you have a complex sequence with multicam and nested video with effects applied then it will seriously hinder performance. Sadly transcoding to ProRes doesn't seem to help either and they suggested not adding any effects to the nested clips, flattening out the multi cams etc and this has improved things a bit. Sent a sequence to SpeedGrade the other day though and the machine had a fit. FCPX though seems to be working great and has a few advantages over Premiere so I may be making a switch for this type of work until Adobe can sort out this issue. I still feel that the application isn't fully making the most of the GPUs. In fact, I found out that multicam is actually all still on the CPU and that they are trying to implement GPU handling of multicam soon.

Mac Pro 2013 crash when attempting to drag object

IIllustrator CC (17.1) and Illustrator CC 2014 both crash if I try to drag any object on new Mac Pro (2013 model, running Mavericks). Anybody else run into this? Works fine on my MacBook Pro 13.

Hi Mark,
Have you submitted the crash log to Adobe via the crash reporter along with your email ID ? If not then can you please share the crash logs with me at [email protected]
To get the crash log please open the "Console" application and under the label "DIAGNOSTIC AND USAGE INFORMATION" expand the layer/label "User Diagnostic Reports" and open the latest AdobeIllustrator.............crash file.
If possible can you please join the connect room: Adobe Connect Login
With Best Regards,
Raghuveer Singh

Bootcamp is different on two identical Mac Pro 2013 towers, Windows 7 vs 8

OK, so we bought two identical Mac Pro 2013 towers, took them out of the box and updated the system, and checked to see if could use Bootcamp. Hopefully to install Windows 7, but, failing that, Windows 8. We got two different results:
One of the machines says only Windows 8 can be installed, but the other has a dialog about Windows 7.
The only difference here is that I messed around with the partitions on the second one. I may have jumped the gun and called one partition "BOOTCAMP" before being advised not to do so and attempting to get rid of that partition. My partition attempts have led to that system dialog...
What's the reason these two are different? IS it possible to install Windows 7?

According to Boot Camp: System requirements for Microsoft Windows operating systems - Apple Support
Mac model
Windows 8
64-bit
Windows 7
64-bit
Windows 7
32-bit
Windows Vista
64-bit
Windows Vista
32-bit
Windows XP
32-bit
iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2014)
BCA
BCA
iMac (21.5-inch, Mid 2014)
BCA
BCA
iMac (27-inch, Late 2013)
5
5
iMac (21.5-inch, Late 2013)
5
5
W7 64-bit is supported, but W7 32-bit is not. Are you certain your W7 media is correct and complete? If the media has both 32-bit and 64-bit on it, it will be rejected.

CUDA NVIDIA video card to Mac Pro 2013

Is there any way to get the Mac Pro 2013 to run a CUDA enabled NVIDIA video card?

This graphic from ifixit.com shows the two special cards, still with heatsink paste in place, just after removal. The silver diamond surrounds the big graphics chip, just inside the RAMs on the card. Those RAMs contact heatsink pads on the central cooler. The whole business is secured with four screws beyond the RAMs, roughly centered on the sides of the diamond. So the Big GPU chip and the RAMs are pressed with heatsink paste and heatsink pads, respectively, against the central cooler. This is in lieu of allowance for a separate fan (which in many "standard" cards is what takes up the space of the second slot.
Power appears to be supplied by lugs in the outer corners of each card, so the cards are deliberately not interchangeable. One has connections that feed to the graphics outputs, the other has connections for the PCIe SSD socket.
The text says those connectors resemble the CPU daughter card connectors used in the late G4 and G5s.
https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Mac+Pro+Late+2013+Teardown/20778

Best Mac Pro 2013 Config for photography?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for