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

Similar Messages

  • 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

  • Best hardware configuration for photo editing in Aperture and/or Photoshop

    I am looking to replace my existing iMac, and want to know best setup to handle photo editing. My current system (6 years old, 8GM RAM) does get bogged down some in Aperture.

    photoshop and video edit rely mostly on memory and IO speed
    a bit on cpu and less so on video chip (as those are useful mainly for 3d and mainly gaming 3d but a also a bit for pro 3d)
    so SSD or hybrid would help
    and 16GB mem
    and you don't really need the max cpu model but midrage is useful

  • New Mac Pro (2010) Configuration for Photoshop

    Multiple questions for this august body of knowledge holders...
    Consider the following problem statement:
    ---->> "To purchase a new Mac Pro as a *Photoshop / Aperture* rocket sled."
    Now the questions:
    1 Is the 6 core 3.33 GHz option the best CPU option? Can Photoshop make use of more (slower) cores?
    2 What about the video card? Stock card (ATI Radeon HD 5770) Or are there gains to be had springing for the upgrade (ATI Radeon HD 5870)?
    3 What about RAM - go for 24GB (8GB modules) or 32GB? Apple says limit is 16GB, aftermarket seems to think 32GB is limit (4GB vs 8GB modules) ( I've heard some say use only the first three RAM slots - the 3rd and 4th slot use the same bus and are therefore slower...true? )
    4 Last question: Storage. Who makes the most reliable hard (2TB) drive? Seagate? WD? Other?
    Thanks, in advance, to all those who provide brilliant advice!

    I think it depends on your needs as to what will be optimal.
    No to PS being very well threaded at all.
    So GHz rule. So do SSDs! and RAM helps as long as you work with large files.
    3 x 8GB is fine. Apple never lists the max RAM or drive capacity.
    $200 BTO for 5870 now rather than later.
    Hitachi, OWC SSD, WD.
    http://macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html
    Even the 4-core 3.2GHz might do just fine and better $$ investment.
    Or this 3.33 2009 Special
    http://store.apple.com/us/product/G0G81LL/A?mco=MTcyMDg3MDQ
    http://twitter.com/diglloyd

  • Mac Mini or Server for photo editing

    Hi everyone.
    My early 2010 Mac Mini is starting to run slower, so I am going to get either a 2.7 i7 SSD 8Gb Mac mini with the AMD GPU or a 2.0 i7 SSD
    8Gb Mac Mini Server with the HD3000 GPU. I do photo editing (not video) and general Office/surfing stuff, but no gaming at all. I particularly
    need speed for running Nikon Capture NX2.
    Which is the better choice please?

    Either one will be an improvement.  The only question is whether
    the Nikon software can utilize multiple cores in its processing.
    If the software is highly multithreaded (able do do multiple things
    at once), then the more cores the better.  Apps that have this
    capability will actually run faster on a slower chip with more
    cores than on a faster chip with fewer.  If the software does
    any leveraging of GPU for processing, then the Mini with the AMD
    may be a better choice.
    The one thing that may be an issue at this point is new Macs
    will be shipping with Mountain Lion and the question is whether
    the Nikon software will be compatible (some inventory on store
    shelves may still have Lion).

  • Which Powermac configuration for photo editing

    I am looking for a mac system which is tuned for digital photography. Currently I am using CS2, ACR and iviewpro for raw digital workflow on iMac 1.8 2 gb ram. I am testdriving Adobe's Light Room.
    I am now in the market for an upgrade where the iMac will be used as a second computer for the standard household computer business.
    Which system would you advice? Please take into account display size, ammount of memory and processor configuration. I am looking for second opinions wrt the sales advice I got from a apple store.
    Thanks in advance for your precious time and advice
    Iemke

    Well, not knowing what the budget it is makes it a bit tough...? Generically, I would get the fastest PowerMac and as much RAM as I could afford. AND- get dual displays. Get a slower PowerMac if need be. Trust me, dual displays will be much more productive than a single display on a faster machine. It was one of the best things I ever did. I use a LaCie 22 CRT for my images and a 23" ACD for pallets and most everything else. You can have multiple windows of Bridge open. It's a dream. BTW, I do prefer the color of the CRT. It is calibrated and my lab prints match up favorably. The CRT is a bit softer than the ACD. However the ACD is too sharp. Prints fall in between. I much prefer the text one the ACD.
    Good Luck,
    Mike

  • 13" MacBook Pro Vs. 15" for photo editing

    I'm working with an older MacBook Pro (15" 2.4 intel core 2 with 4 GB DDR2)
    So, thinking that as the old one fills up it's getting slower and slower and also starting run slower during Lightroom 3 edits on RAW pix, it might be time for a new MBPro.
    A couple of considerations...
      I'd like to have LR3 move a little faster during post.
      I'd like to have something smaller to travel with.
      I have a larger Cinema screen for more real estate to edit with.
    So, is a 13" a good choice, or is the faster video card on the 15" a better option.
    Oh, and money is a consideration.  There's about a $500 difference. Tell me why $500 bucks would be a good bullet to bite.
    Thanks in advance for the help!
    Dave

    For $500 you get:
    i7 Quad core CPU
    AMD graphics
    More HD space
    & 2" of display
    Overall, LR3 will benefit the most from these...

  • Mac Pro Late 2013 or iMac Late 2013 for photo editing?

    Hi,
    I am currently running with a Late 2009 iMac (i7, 2.8 GHz, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD) and I am mainly doing RAW post-processing with Lightroom and some steps (auto-stitching panoramas, more complicated layered editing/sharpening/re-coloring) in Photoshop CS 5.5.
    With the RAW images of my Canon EOS 60D and my Fuji X-M1 being >20MB I am increasingly seeing stuttering in the workflow when loading 1:1 zooms, exporting images and rendering previews. I am not sure where it's coming from but after 4 years with the iMac I think it's time for something new.
    I am trying to decide between a fully-loaded Late 2013 iMac (i7, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD) or a Late 2013 (although more like Early 2014 ) Mac Pro (6-core 3.5 GHz, 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD). Performance-wise for my use it seems in single-threaded situations the iMac might even be faster (based on Geekbench Single-Core 64Bit Benchmarks) but the Mac Pro offers two extra cores - also the memory speed in the Mac Pro is higher.
    So for the first decision criteria I want to make sure I opt for the fastest machine in my use case described above - it's not really clear to me if the iMac would indeed be faster given the low multi-core utilization in Adobe's code.
    The second criteria is the ability to use arbitrary displays/monitors with the Mac Pro versus having the panel included already inside the iMac. To what extend can the iMacs 27" panel be utilized for photo-processing? I heard they can't be calibrated properly and I rarely find information how much sRGB/AdobeRGB coverage the panel has. I am looking increasingly more into color-management enabled workflow to get a decent soft-proof of my photos before I sent them over for printing - this is for home and amateur use only but I had some bad experiences already with images coming out from professional photo studies with completely dark shadows and different teints.
    On the other hand I would also like to use multiple but smaller monitors (24") to make use of multi-monitor support in Lightroom (Library view on second screen etc) and have third monitor to control/monitor the rest of my activities (iTunes, Spotify, Browser, Youtube etc )
    An iMac with two additional 24"/27" displays will always look a bit crappy due to the different heights and visually iritating due to different panels/resolutions. On the other hand it's a much cheaper solution than a Mac Pro with 3 distinct monitors and I heard only good things about the sharpness and clarity of the iMacs screen due to reduced filtering and thinner construction.
    The last criteria is how future-proof the solution is. 4K displays are clearly on the horizon and 2-3 years from now I expect them to be standard over ordinary HD displays. Even today you can use a Mac Pro with a 4K display in high-dpi mode and get a Retina display on your desktop - something I would really look forward to. With the iMac that would mean replacing the whole thing in 2-3 years if there will be a 4K/Retina-iMac at all.
    The Mac Pro seems to bet better in solution longevity given it is still a very capable machine in 4-5 years from now with up to 3 4K displays hooked up and still room for at least 3 Thunderbolt 2 devices. Double Gigabit-Ethernet is nice but also only nice-to-have as it won't speed up point-to-point single-stream data transfers to a LACP-bound NAS.
    So, given all these thoughts... what do you think? Would it be more wise to go with the iMac and replace it in 3 years or with the Mac Pro and keep it 4,5-6 years?

    RAM and some serious PCIe-SSD storage will help Aperture/LR. But I am use to spreading things out, learned long ago the benefits on concurrent and never reading+writing though didn't have todays 1.2Gb SSD to play with.
    Was not to move the thread,  but to ask there also for first hand on how they like the 2013 iMac now. I just don't feel comfortable spending that much when I know Mac Pro is designed for heavy use, better thermals, IS upgradeable, and will last longer.
    Marco seems to have changed site or the article is off line.
    Try this article if you want to understand new Turbo Boost specs:
    http://www.marco.org/2013/11/26/new-mac-pro-cpus
    http://www.marco.org
    http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/23/apple-mac-pro-review-2013/
    http://www.macworld.com/article/2082568/lab-tested-new-mac-pro-is-the-speedster- weve-been-waiting-for-finally.html
    (2013) Mac Pro review (verge)
    2013 Mac Pro review: small, fast and in a league of its own (engadget)
    Tested: New Mac Pro is the speedster we've been waiting for (finally)

  • I need help to decide which macbook pro is best for photo editing, editing movies and doing all the rest too like excel, word etc. 13"

    I need help to decide which macbook pro is best for photo editing, editing movies and doing all the rest too like  microsoft office products ...excel, word etc.  I am new to the apple world and have liked the idea of the MAC Book Pro 13" but really dont know if this is good enough or if the computer will soon crash?
    13-inch: 2.6GHz
    with Retina display
    Specifications
    2.6GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
    Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz
    8GB 1600MHz memory
    512GB PCIe-based flash storage1
    Intel Iris Graphics
    Built-in battery (9 hours)2

    That's a fine machine and, with 8GB of RAM and 512GB flash storage should serve you well for light video/photo editing as well as for 'normal' usage. And it should last you for years to come.
    Good luck in making your decision!!
    Clinton

  • I am looking to upgrade my white iBook to a mac book pro, it will be used for photo editing up of som 50k photos or more for the family. iPhoto stoked on external HD

    What type of mac book pro should I look at with 8 or 16gb ram?.

    8 GB RAM will be sufficient for photo editing.  The 15" display would be superior in both size and resolution when compared to the 13".  The best approach is to test both in an Apple store.
    Ciao.

  • 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

  • HELp! Best laptop for photo editing.. or would a PC be better?

    I'm looking to buy a new computer. Would love for it to be a laptop but a PC would be ok too.. Any information on which is best for photo editing.. hopefully a large volume of photo editing.. which ones already have photo programs installed on them? help!

    Well.... the biggest limiter will be how much you can spend...
    But, you need to look for a higher end processor and a fairly decent graphics card.
    No new computers come with any decent graphics program.
    If you like my post, or solution to your issue/question, go ahead and click on the little star by my name and/or accept the post as the Solution. It makes me happy.
    I'm NOT an employee of Best Buy, or Geek Squad, though I did work as an Agent for a year 5 years ago. None of my posts are to be taken as the official stance that Best Buy will take on your situation. My advice is just that, advice.
    Unfortunately, that's the bad luck of any electronic, there's going to be bad Apples... wait that's a horrible pun.

  • Whats the best software for photo editing and creating product catalogues that can be saved as PDF's

    Whats the best software for photo editing and creating product catalogues that can be saved as PDF's

    You are asking two different questiions:
    1. What's a good photo editor? Answer to that here is probably obvious.
    2. What's a good desktop publishing/page layout program for creating PDF files for production? Answer, not PSE. It's a photo editor, not a page layout program.

  • 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

Maybe you are looking for

  • XLR old reports not working with UDF from Marketing docs

    Hi, We are using SAP Business One 2005 A (6.80.318)  SP: 01  PL: 16 and the following version of XLR. XLR Version 6.80.367 (under about XLR) or 6.80.01.26 (under Add-ons manager). We have just gone from 6.80.01.25 to 6.80.01.26 version of XLR and hav

  • Problem on ADF binding with BPEL process composed as web service

    I have an ADF page which has its own EO, AM and VO (view1), after I created a web service data control for an existing BPEL process and a command button for it, I found in the binding section, the view1 doesn't contain all its table column attributes

  • Adding attributes in the selection screen

    Hi Experts, I had enhaced Account assign group field in the data source 0material_attr.Replicated and data is loaded . It is reflecting in the query also. Now i need to bring this attribute in the selection screen. Can anyone tell me how to bring thi

  • Usb not working on macbook pro retina

    hi my usb flash drive not showing up in my macbook but when i bought the laptop it used work . but now its not working. its working in my windows laptop.

  • CFImage bug?

    I'm having a problem with CFImage where it seems to be locking the image file it is using, making it unable to be deleted (even in windows file explorer). Here is the scenario: I upload an image file using cffile action=upload I read the file in usin