MAC PRO 2.66, XT1900 & 3GB RAM for Aperture?

Hi,
I have read a lot of post about the performance of Aperture and CS2 and budget-wise I am thinking in buying a MAC PRO 2.66, XT1900 & 3GB RAM.
Will this configuration be OK to work with Aperture and CS2?
I shoot primary weedings using 8MP Canon RAW files.
Thanks

I have this exact same setup, powering a 24" Dell and a 23" apple monitor - but with 4 gigs of RAM as the previous post suggests. It's awesome (I'm opening 10 mp Nikon NEFs on mine, FWIW).
I initially started with 2 gigs of RAM, and that was miserable in more ways than one. After 4 gigs of RAM, Aperture ran much better...but still not snappy. Following the advice of others in this forum, I got the ATI card you are considering, and it has made a world of difference.
This speed is addicting, however. Now I'm pondering, incredibly, "What ELSE can I add to the mix to make it even FASTER." I've read that some have success with faster drives. Others recommend even more RAM. I might try more RAM down the road, but then again I push the machine in other ways (lots of Rosetta apps, a Parallels instance of XP, etc). Still, nothing really ever feels slow.

Similar Messages

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.

I have Adobe Photoshop Elements 10 and Adobe Premier 10 loaded on a Dell PC. Do I need to uninstall from the Dell before I install on a recently purchased Apple Mac Pro? There are separate disks for Mac and PC in the package.

I have Adobe Photoshop Elements 10 and Adobe Premier 10 loaded on a Dell PC. Do I need to uninstall from the Dell before I install on a recently purchased Apple Mac Pro? There are separate disks for Mac and PC in the package.

Generally, it's ok to install on two machines as long as they are both yours and you only use one version at a time.
BTW, this is the forum for Adobe Contribute.

I intend to buy new mac pro, is it better to wait for the new OS X mountain, or can buy it and we can update it without affecting its performance?

I intended to buy new mac pro, is it better to wait for new OS X moutain or can buy it now and update it later as it will not affect its performance???

khalid.mktaka76 wrote:
I intended to buy new mac pro, is it better to wait for new OS X moutain or can buy it now and update it later as it will not affect its performance???
If you can wait about a 3 months after 10.8 is released this summer and upon new hardware you should be in excellent shape to have not only a fastest latest machine, but a OS X version that all the bugs have been worked out. Plus the three free months of Apple hand holding while they figure out what they did wrong with the new OS version.
If you need a new machine now you'll have to get what you need obviously, but 10.8 should run on it just fine. However know that Apple tweaks things with more currently sellling hardware first, then later gets to the previous released models.
It's been my guestimation that your good for about two year old hardware with very recent OS X release, three years or older hardware you may want to reconsider sticking with the previous OS X version as your hardware is getting dated and likely has only a year left to go anyway (4 year average), so why bother mucking it up, slowing it down and having to buy all new/updated software and third party hardware because they won't make drivers for your new OS version?

My Mac Pro is not displaying any images for videos or games, it is showing sound and working but nothing else. DVD player is also coming up with an error.

My Mac Pro is not displaying any images for videos or games, it is showing sound and working but nothing else. DVD player is also coming up with an error. I'm not sure why neither is working, it just suddenly happened. I have done nothing different.

Lao Bo,
yes, you can locate and copy a file from your HD to a USB key using UNIX commands. If you know the exact name of the file which you’re trying to locate, try this:
find / -iname filename -print
This command will search your entire internal disk for the particular filename. If you know that it’s within a particular user account, then you can save search time with this variation:
find /Users/username -iname filename -print
Either variation of this command will print all files found which have the given filename. Presuming that you’re able to identify the correct file, you can copy it to a USB key using the command
cp -p filename_returned_by_find /Volumes/USB_volume
If you’re not sure which volume name your USB key has, this command will show you what the possibilities are:
ls /Volumes
Please let me know if you have any trouble with these commands.

Mac Pro 1,1 needs 2nd card for 3rd display

I have dual core (2.66 GHz) Mac Pro 1,1 with 8 GB ram, 120 Gig SSD boot drive, 1-500 internal HD and and external FW 120 Mg
Am sticking with SL 10.8.6 for another year or two, as I have too many Rosetta-dependent apps and too little money.
Am running two 23" Cinema displays with the original Nvidia GeForce 7300 GT card, both @ a 1920 x 1200 res, 32 bit color.
However, I need more 'desktop', as I do a lot of multi-window tasking (6-8-10 windows up and active at a time).
I want to add another used 23" Cinema dislay at 1920 x 1200, 32 bit color for a total of three monitors.
Next year, I may swap out one of my 23" displays for a 27" or a 30"
What is the cheapest graphics card to add for the third display?
I assume that another Apple GeoForce 7300 GT MA567Z/A is my best bet?
Best price I have seen for a Apple GeoForce 7300 GT MA567Z/A is about $130-$140. Is that a good price?
I assume that the plain GeoForce 7300 GT, @ about $30, is not designated for, and will not work in a Mac. Correct?
95% of what I do:
Lots of spreadsheets with simple charts.
Thunderbird mail
Web browsing,
Lots of research and writing in Word
Lots of text and photo 'cut and paste'.
A small amount of low end photo editing
A small website
A few relatively small drawings with McDarft.
I don't do:
games
video, movie, sound editing
any other high graphic demand stuff.
I am only using about 60 GB of disk memory
Thanks for any advice which would add to my previous homework.
I love these forums!

Sorry, I forgot to add that small detail..
I can switch both connections and it'll work for the mac part of the deal but the windows end cant switch screens - making the apple display the primary display on windows..
now it sounds like a "windows" issue doesnt it!?heh

New Mac Pro 3.0GHz v 2.8GHz for Logic

Assuming you put the same amount of RAM etc in a Machine is there going to be much of an advantage if I get a 3.0GHz compared to a 2.8Ghz Mac Pro?
The computer would be the assembly point for Audio from a Farm of 2 Mac minis, Possibly my G5 PPC (mentioned below), & a Muse Receptor (uses ethernet for midi and audio).
I am running VSL Vienna Instruments - Full orchestral package plus other Libraries. The new Mac Pro would run Strings, Pianos + RMX, Chris Hein Guitar etc and would also mix down inputs from the Mac Minis via a MOTU 2804. Altiverb first reflections are on each orchestral group and there is one main bus for the Tail. Core Audio on my G5 dual 2GHz with 4gig of RAM suffers from overload unless I freeze anything I can. I will initially go for 10GIG of RAM (Apple 2 as supplied + 8 from 3rd party) That would leave 2 slots spare.
Message was edited by: dodecaphonic

You won't notice much difference between 3.0 and 2.8, you might be able to measure a bit less than 7% benefit in contrived benchmarks, but all other things being equal, shouldn't notice a difference running Logic.
Unless you're pushing to so hard that you need that extra 7%... but if you are, things aren't likely to be running very happily on either 2.8 or 3.0.

Opinions, Mac pro 12 core or 6 core for video editing?

Hello everyone,
I know that this a most likely a rhetorical question but i currently have a mac pro 12 core 2.4ghz 12 gigs of ram (plan on upgrading to 32 gigs) and a 6 core 3.33ghz 12 gigs of ram. I do a lot of video editing (starting to use Final cut pro X) and i do a lot of visual effects work in Adobe after effects and 3D animaton work in cinema 4d. I am only keeping one of the computers.. what are your guys thoughts? Should i keep the 12 core even tough it has a lower clock speed, or should i keep the 6 core since it has a higher clock speed? I dont mean to ask such a dumb question but i want to hear what your guys thoughts are.
Thanks in advance!

After Effects: http://www.barefeats.com/aecs6.html
If you rely on cpu alone, it may look like it is working, or lagging, or wating, but with the combined power of GPGPU can make all the difference.
Communicating over Quick-Path is okay but Intel knows that they need to up the GT and L3 cache to improve it more. ie, there are times when two 6-core Mac Pros are faster than one 12-core, given the same GHz.
the real reason people bought dual with lower clock was hoping it would do more work, but when you have 3.33GHz a lot of work that cann't be dispatched and is not multi-thread or multicore all benefit.
W3680s are relatively cheap @ $600, you will not find X5600 sets unless you can make your system pay for whatever you throw at it and do so in a year to write it off and pay for doing more projects and more income.
This guy goes kind of crazy with custom setup 12-core 3.33s, 960GB SSD PCIe and 96GB RAM.
More RAM helps some areas but not rendering. So find the bottlenecks or throw everything at the problem and hope.
$1660 a piece X5680 - $1470 on Amazon
http://ark.intel.com/products/47916/Intel-Xeon-Processor-X5680-(12M-Cache-3_33-G Hz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI)
http://www.amazon.com/Intel-X5680-Processor-Socket-LGA1366/dp/B003ELYSJQ/
Only if you shop ebay for used parts, and by then whatever Intel and Apple agree on next go round new is a better system solution most of the time than to throw $3000 into an older system. $3k would be another 6-core 3.33 if that helps.

Best Mac Pro Quad-Core Intel Xeon Machine for PhotoShop CS5/Lightroom

I want to buy a new Mac Pro. I use it almost exclusively to process large quantities of digital images, with large files sizes. Am I better off going with the lower power Dual Quad Processor, or the Higher Power single Quad Processor? I want speed for light room and CS5. DO LIghtroom and CS5 support these Dual Quad machines? Or am I better just getting the highest speed single Quad Machine
thanks
Chuck
[email protected]

Hi Photoman1125,
With regard to Photoshop CS5 the 8-Core has the advantage of 64GB maximum RAM compared to 32GB for the Quad Core, and CS5 can use all the RAM which is available.
The 3.33GHz Quad Core would have the edge in performance over the 2.26GHz 8-Core for most applications.
However, the 8-Core could prove more future-proof in the long term, particularly if advancement in software makes more use of the additional processor and extra RAM.
You might find the following links useful:
http://macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html
http://macperformanceguide.com/bto-macpro-configure.html
http://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshopCS5-Intro.html
http://macperformanceguide.com/index.html
Regards,
Bill

Mac Pro 4 core or 8 core for Logic?

I'm a long time Logic user, currently 7.2 on a 1.25 Mirror Door G4.
I need more power for more complex productions, am using a lot more plugins,
and plan to upgrade to a Mac Pro in a few months after all the third party issues
and L8 issues shake out.
Can anyone give me information on comparative performance of 4 or 8 core Mac Pros?
(Assuming equal processor speeds and RAM of course)
I would be willing to pay the higher price if the performance were proportionately higher for Logic,
but am not an expert on computer architecture and would appreciate some advice.
Thanks

I run on a more modest budget than SampleConstruct but, then again, I don't do projects as big as he.
I have a 4-way and I can safely say that I, too, haven't had a core overload or any other kind of performance problem since I got the box about 6 months ago. If you're asking us to justify the expenditure for the big iron, of course go for it! If you're asking what you can get away with, then it depends on the size of your projects.
People are now saying that 8.0.1 gives excellent spread of performance across the 4 or 8 processors so it looks like Apple have cracked that problem. Given the choice, I'd go for 8 but I can't justify it on the type of work that I do and the budget I have.
Couldn't agree more about the disks, though. Get that right and the machine should run sweet as a nut...
Pete

Mac Pro, Fans fire up full speed for no reason - randomly!

So, here is another fan issue with the Mac Pro, and I am at a loss. Perhaps someone can help me with this one. I have a Mac Pro I bought in mid '07, dual 2.66 GHz. I have 2 7300GT video cards, which don't have fans of their own to be making the noise...
The computer, when left doing nothing will ramp up full speed for God knows what reason. There is usually almost nothing open for applications, and no major processes running. Menu Meters shows the processor load to be minimal, not a heavy load that would cause heat-issues from processors working hard.
There is really no way to get the fans to slow back down either. The machine is still fully functional, I can open, close or work on software, so nothing is "frozen". I have quit all applications to no avail. The machine will not go to sleep when this occurs, and half the time will not power off using the shut down menu selection either; requiring a forced shut down. Upon reboot, it is fine... (until it decides once again to take off).
This is not the fans roaring when waking from sleep issue, I have had that one as well (bad ram).
Thoughts?

Last night, after I shut down, my fans slowly ramped up into high gear. They went to full rotation, and I let it whirr for four or five minutes, thinking it would shut itself off. It never did, so I just pulled the plug on the CPU. I plugged it back in five seconds later, and it stayed shut down after that.
It's been working more or less flawlessly other than this... most stable Mac I've ever had.

Mac pro 2006 won't recognize ram

Hey Everyone.....I'm not a giant techie, but now my way around a computer more than most I guess...here's my question...
I have a Mac Pro 2006 running 2ghz dual core xeon processors and with 2gbs Ram (2GB x 4).....I just finally upgraded my ram and purchased 8gb's (4GB x 2)!
I installed the new ram in Riser A in slots 1 & 2, and moved the old ram all to Riser B in slots 1-4 but I think I screwed something up. I booted up my machine and it recognizes the 8gb modules (whew!) but doesn't recognize the old 2gb's. I don't know what configuration I should use.
Should I have Riser A full with slots 1-4 occupied by my new 8gb's and a pair of the 512's, putting 9gb's on Riser A?? Then I would put the second 512's on Riser B?? 9 on Riser A and 1 on B??
8GB Ram is making such a great performance upgrade, but 10GB's of Ram would be pretty sweet too!! :)
Thanks for any and all help.

Assuming that the new RAM is for Mac Pro and "look the same"
Sometimes two brands or different sets from the same make don't get along.
Where you installed is fine.
I didn't understand what it was, and what it is now.
You have:
4 x 512MB for 2GB
4 x 2GB
2 x 4GB
Ideal would be
Riser A: 2 x 4GB
Riser B: 2 x 2GB
See if that works first.
Run Apple Hardware Test
The math and figures you posted don't add up for me.

Mac Pro has problems rendering and RAM previewing in Adobe AE

I've been using Adobe After Effects 7 and I have a 3g new Mac Pro. It's a great computer, really fast with Final Cut Studio Universal, etc. and when rendering sequences in FCP the program doesn't quit. BUT, when I'm trying to RAM preview or render a composition in Adobe After Effects the application will quit unexpectedly everytime. I found that it would only quit when the composition was over approx. 30seconds, but I've used an eMac that never had problems rendering much longer clips. The fact that the program quits after a certain amount of time makes me think it is an issue with RAM availability to the program, as in a conflict with the program, and the new intel-based Mac Pro. I've asked around on the Adobe website but there is no specific solution. Has anyone heard talk that the intel-based Macs or new OSX, are conflicting with Adobe applications, etc?

Mostly correct, Jim. Photoshop CS3 (UB) Beta is available for download and a time-limited license to CS2 license-holders. The time-limit is unspecified, but Adobe says it will end when CS3 is released.
All good reports the last time I checked on various fora.
(CS3 install does not overwrite CS2, so in case Adobe releases CS3 and pulls the plug on those time-limited CS3 Beta licenses, you'll still have CS2 to limp along with until you receive 3.)
CS2 seems to work fine on an Intel Mac, though slower because it's running in Rosetta. Heck, I'm using CS without difficulty, other than the slowness.
However, all that doesn't help the OP with AE, which isn't scheduled for a UB release until mid-2007, IIRC.

Mac Pro use a lot of RAM?

Does the new Mac Pros Universal Binary Programs use more RAM than the G5 PowerMac?

Overly simplificatiion.
And for many applications, they would still be compiled with 32-bit switch on, they don't need to address 4GB of memory. The GUI is still really not fully 64-bit even.
But code tricks and methods that worked well for the G4 and limited address space, those don't work as well and code is loaded and compiled differently (or should have been). The lack of L3 hurt some too and took a hit in performance and latency making for lack-luster memory performance sub-par from what was expected, and that could be be curied without moving to a new platform or design.
But the MacPro and G5 do probably need about 1.5GB of RAM to run smoothly, which means you have to install 2GB in the MacPro - just for basic use and needs. While waiting for a 2nd GB to ship from Apple my system was constantly using over 900MB from just casual use (web browsing, word processing, email).
I've never been able to figure out how much Rosetta needs, but it seems that it has its own address space and VM all its own.
With CS3 beta running well already, that was something I'm sure Apple wanted as well as all the users holding off - wouldn't surpise me if a lot of help and pressure was put to bear.

Mac Pro, FCP and HDV, I look for info about RT.

Hi, dor HD editing I now use Canopus Edius 4 and Edius NX card with satisfaction but now I'd like to try with Mac and Final Cut Pro. With Edius I work in real time, can you tell me if I will use Mac Pro, Ram 4Giga, FCP if have I do rendering often? I'm sorry my inexperience but I like to understand. I like to know if for normal editing (I make documentaries only) I will works fine.
Thanks a lot
Intel Windows XP

It won't have as much RT playback of unrendered effects as DV would, but for documentary work, I'd think you'll be happy with it.
Jerry

MAC PRO 2.66, XT1900 & 3GB RAM for Aperture?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for