Mac Pro configuration ?

Hi
Need some comments here:
I plan to get a 2.66 Ghz Mac Pro, with 2 GB Ram and a ATI Radeon X1900 XT 512MB graphic card plus a 23˜ cinema display HD.
I will use this computer to work with FC Studio and Logic Pro (latest versions). No other software installed.
I will work in FCP with two Sony camcorders: Sopny HDR FX1 and an older and smaller PC1.
There is also a Sony Video deck: GV-D900 PAL and two LaCie external HDs...
Any issues that I must antecipate ? Is this configuration a good one ?
I was waiting for Leopard, but since it won't be released untill October, I must make the move now.
I would apreciate your feedback
Powerbook G4 667Mhz 512 Ram OS 10.3.9 Mac OS X (10.3.9) Power Mac G4 450Mhz 0S 9.2.2 1Gb Ram

The "multiple devices on one FW bus" issue. can arise when you do what you are suggesting... plugging the drive into the mac and the camera to the drive. Problem is the FW bus goes to the speed of the slowest device in the chain... the camera.
Again, this may not become an issue for you. Only way to know is to try. Because I've run into the problem before, I install a FW card into any new computer I buy for this purpose just to avoid the "potential" problem. I'm not sure what they go for now but the last FW card I bought was about $120 Canadian. (sorry, can't remember the brand right now) Seemed like cheap insurance to me, but I did have some budget to work with.
As for the RAM, if you are going to be using Motion, then I'd suggest going with no less than 4 Gb. If not, you can stay with 2 but it's nice to have more for overall performance. Don't forget, it's not just FCP that needs the RAM.
I don't know about you but when I edit, I usually have 3 or 4 apps open... FCP, Live Type, Photoshop, etc. not to mention Mail so that I can keep grabbing last minute files the client forgot to give me. Having more RAM really helps with all that and again, is essential if one of those apps is Motion.
rh

Similar Messages

Mac Pro Configuration : best performance config. using FCP with Doremi's Cine Export

What would be the best Mac Pro configuration option to bring up the most performance(speed) of FCP generating KDM(Key Delivery Message) and DCP(Digital Cinema Package) for cinema use?
Is new Mac Pro compatible with Doremi's Cine Export software? if not i would have to use the previous version of Mac Pro(tower) and would also need the best configuration for this one too!
here's the link for Doremi's Cine Export software - http://www.doremilabs.com/products/cinema-products/cineexport/
I'm not sure if the software above is compatible with FCP X version, because they used to support for FCP 7 only in the previous software...
Anyhow, I'm just starter and I don't have much knowledge about setting up post house, and so.. I'll be glad to take all the feed backs and recommandations from all of you(experts in post production)
Thank you

James,
CineExport has not yet been tested with the latest Mac Pro hardware but it has been tested with the latest Mac OSX Mavericks. There is no reason to believe it wouldn't work with the latest Mac Pro hardware. With that said, CineExport is mostly CPU dependent, so the fastest configuration with the most processing cores is recommended.
CineExport is a plug-in for Compressor, not Final Cut Pro. Therefore, it is compatible with FCP 7 and FCP X in the sense that you can use the FCP "Send to Compressor" option and export your DCP from Compressor (using the CineExport plug-in).
Doremi Labs

Mac Pro Configuration help

Hello! This is my first post and although I have searched and searched and searched ... I still have a few questions.
1) Through the searches, I found OWC (www.macsales.com) for RAM upgrades. I couldn't find anyone who had compatibility issues while combining this with Apple Ram. Do the RAM modules (OWC and Apple) have to be on separate risers? I did see an interesting graphic/picture that someone posted but I was wondering if someone could shed some more light on.
The plan was to go with the existing 2GB of RAM and then buy 12GB through OWC.
2) I would like to purchase and additional HD for storage and loading of HD video content and large RAW files. The HD I was looking at specifically was: http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Western%20Digital/WD1001FALS/
The only question I have is ... is this plug and play compatible (i.e. backplane-ready)? I wasn't able to find any solid info one way or another. For example, the Velociraptors come in both versions. Can someone shed some light on this for me?
Thanks for your help everyone!!
Christopher

RAM should be added minimally in matched pairs and optimally in matched quads. It makes no difference which risers have Apple RAM or RAM from other vendors as long as the RAM is installed in matched pairs or quads. See the following for installation guide:
Mac Pro memory arrangement photos
Mac Pro Memory Configuration.
Bare Feats benchmarked different configurations here.
Any SATA 3.5" hard drive with standard connectors will work. I believe only some Velociraptor drives will not work with in the standard Mac Pro bays.

Mac pro configuration for use in a sound studio

Hey,
for a college of mine I have to configure a MacPro, which will be used in a recording studio. I've thought of chosing a MacPro with two 2,26 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Nehalem", 16 GB RAM, 2 x 1TB drives and 3x NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB. This system will be the basis of all recording and mixing issues. He'll probably use Cubase 5, and a lot of plug-ins, etc. Additionally we think about using as many screens as possible. Due to a lack of a window between the recording and the mixing room, we have to enable communication via two webcams and some additional screens. Would it be possible to use 4 screens with 3 graphic cards and to spread the signals of the two webcams to two different preset screens.
Thanks for the information, so far

Hello Chirate,
I am currently using a MacPro in a Recording Studio. I think, the setup you have thought of choosing is great! Mac Pro 2x2.26 GHz, 16GB RAM, 2TB Hard Drive Space and 3x NVIDIA GeForce GT120. In terms of processing speed and memory I think you are good.
Although I do not know if it is possible to use 4 screens with 3 video cards and to spread the signals of the two webcams to two different preset screens.
Hope this helps you out a bit,
Kevin
Message was edited by: Gaunja

Mac Pro configuration for the best Logic Pro 8 performance

Hello,
I noticed that sometimes I have little delays playing midi keyboard in Logic Pro 8.
What is the hardware configuration of Mac Pro for the best Logic Pro 8 performance?
Do I need to install any sound card or any additional software?
My hardware overview is:
Model Name: Mac Pro
Model Identifier: MacPro1,1
Processor Name: Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 3 GHz
Number Of Processors: 2
Total Number Of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per processor): 4 MB
Memory: 1 GB
Bus Speed: 1.33 GHz
Boot ROM Version: MP11.005C.B08
SMC Version: 1.7f10
thank you,
Vlad

You should definiteley get some more RAM first. Buy another 3 Gigabytes to make it 4 Gigs. The Lateny you're experiencing is due to the Buffer settings within Logic. If you set that to 64 or 128 samples (in the Audio preferences->devices->Buffer) the Latency will improve but it will also reduce the number of Plug Ins you can use at the same time as lower Buffer settings require more CPU.
You didn't mention an Audio Interface which you should obtain if you want to record live Instruments. For the start you can do everything in the Box but the analog minijack Ins/Outs built in your Mac are not really state of the art and you'll improve the sound by getting a good Firewire Interface.
Also get a second/third HD as you should not be recording onto your system drive. It's good to have one drive dedicated for recording Audio and another one for samples/Jam Packs/Loops.

Best Mac Pro Configuration For Motion 3

So the cream of the crop has been the now no-longer-available 1900. Barefeats measures the 2600 above the 8800. So what are you all using and how is it impacting your real-world use of Motion? I've got a big HD project (2 1/2 minutes long at 720p) coming up that's going to require a new Mac Pro to get done and I want to make sure to get the configuration that's going to cause the fewest headaches. Real-time previewing is important to me as well. I know Patrick's got both the 1900 and the 8800. Who else out there has both or what are you using and how is it stacking up in the real world?
Also, how much of a difference is the 8-core 3.0 over the default config of the 8-core 2.8? Worth an $800 upgrade there? I'm assuming RAM is going to make the biggest difference.
Thanks, guys!
Message was edited by: Brent Meyer

Thanks very much gents for the replies. Ray, you are correct in that my original question is more a "less headaches" question than an actual true power question. I'd like to spend as little time as I can RAM previewing and restarting as I can. I know HD is still pretty touch and go in some instances so I'm looking for the path of least possible resistance.
Scott, thanks for reaffirming the thoughts I had that the 3.0 and 3.2 aren't necessarily worth the price difference there for the added horsepower - at least in the application I will be using. RAM is what I was going to spend that cash on (usually get mine from Crucial) as well as some additional hard drives for those beautiful empty bays.
Barefeats was also the site I was looking at with the comparison info saying the 2600 was faster in almost every regard but I didn't know the nitty gritty behind why 8800 is under-performing on these Mac Pro's. Perhaps that's a different discussion.
I guess I'll go with the 2.8Ghz machine with the 2600 in it and load her up with RAM. That was my gut reaction but a PC friend of mine who works in television said "ask for real world advice - not just specs" so that's what I did. Thank you both for responding!

Best Mac Pro Configuration for Editing

Hey guys. I'm looking to upgrade my editing capabilities from a iMac G5 to a Mac Pro computer system. I pretty much want to go all out on this thing, as I don't look to upgrade again anytime soon. I will be working with a fresh copy of Final Cut Studio 2.
I was wondering, however, about what would be a good configuration for the hardware itself, more specifically the video cards that are available now.
Which video card would be the best for HD video editing and manipulation? I was thinking about just getting the most expensive one, but I have heard some video cards are made for one thing more than another, and I want to make sure that I get the right configuration the first time.
Again, money is not too much of an issue as this will be an expense for my business.
Any help would be appreciated.
Message was edited by: Troy Minassian

Well I'll try not to be too vague here but I think it's going to be easier for me to give you a few hints but mostly talk about where to do more research.
First: Formats -
With good ol' DV, any off-the-shelf, completely stock, Mac Pro will handle it - absolutley NO sweat. Just add 1 (or more) iternal SATA drives for capturing media, and you're off to the races. HDV...this could go either way. In theory, again, a basic Mac Pro can handle this. The format's total throughput is no more than DV. However, my thought is that using straight HDV in it's "native" format can be a real pain in the butt. Cruise over the Final Cut forum and do a search for a phrase like "HDV" & "Yuck" and you'll end up with a big long list of issues. I'll not go too far into detail, but HDV is a highly compressed format with a GOP-structure. Dealing with GOP-structured media in an NLE is not pretty.
The good news is if you're even considering something like an Io HD then the HDV issues can be conquered with it. You would use the Io HD to transcode the HDV to Apple's ProRes codec on the fly. That's what the IoHD does. It's an external capture card whose form factor makes it nice and portable. So you'd come out of your camera or deck - into the Io HD - and out via firewire to your computer. The one "trick" is: you're married to ProRes. That's the one & only codec this box does. (To the best of my knowledge, that is.) Anyway, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just good to know going into it. Here's a review of the Io HD over at the creativecow.net. And by the way, if you've never hung out over there, note that it's a great resource for help. Tons of in-the-know pros hang out there.
As far as AVCHD, I'm personally not too familiar with it. I know that it too is not very intensive to deal with - per se. But the whole tapeless concept is still somewhat new and as such has it's share of "gotchas". For that I'd do a search over there on Apple's Final Cut forum. I know a search for AVCHD is going to turn up many many posts.
Regarding the RED. Again, it's so new it's got it share of workflow bumps to be aware of. (Personally, I love the concept of what this camera is all about. I checked it out and NAB and was really impressed with where they're going with it.) But for better info on that, I'd steer over to the Final Cut forum here and the Final Cut form over at the COW. Further, the camera has it's own forum over at the COW. And another great source of info is reduser.net. This camera is sweeping the industry. But it's changing the workflow quite a bit too.
Second: Processing -
As far as overall CPU power goes....Sure! A higher clock speed is basically going to be a faster machine. Here's some stats. But what's the cost? The 3.2 is faster than the 2.8. Is this worth $1600 to you? Only you can answer that question. For me: I just spent a month vacillating over a new machine purchase. I had originally "decided" months ago to get a new Mac Pro Eight 2.8. Then I thought I might save some loot and buy a G5. Then I thought, No! That's a dumb idea.... I could spend only about $600 more and get a refurb'ed 2.66 Quad core. Then I figured I could spend $800 more than that and end up - right back where I started - with a new 2.8 8-Core. So for me, the $1400 more, to go from a used G5 to a new 2.8 Octo, just made sense. But the point is: it's a completely personal decision. For me, that overall margin of money/performance made a lot of sense! On the other hand, did it make sense for me to spend $1600 more and get the 3.2 instead of the 2.8? Not at all! So only you are going to be able to decide if $1600 buys you enough of a performance hike.
Then, Extras -
Too, you're going to want to add as much RAM as you can afford. The other big question is storage. You've mentioned a spectrum of formats. On the one hand you've got your DV. Again a single SATA drive will be more than enough to capture to and playback from. But with ProRes HQ you're getting more demanding on the drives. For this, you'd want to now add, let's say, 3 more internal drives and stripe them together into a capture RAID. But you could even go up a few steps and get something like the CalDigit HD Pro and get multiple streams of HD playback with the security of a hardware-controlled RAID 5 scenario. So there's a couple of different ways to go here....However, if you start with very very fast, reliable drives, you're setting yourself to handle higher-end formats. Drive speed can be a killer. But if you start at the top you can basically head off any format woes for the future. (For a while....Nothing's completely future-proof in this game.)
Finally, Monitoring -
You've got to figure out how to look at/hear the media outside-of-the-computer. Meaning - you're going to need external monitoring equipment: Video and Audio. Again this will open more questions for you. But these items are key to your knowing what you're REALLY working with. So you really need a NTSC monitor, an audio mixer/control surface of some sort and some powered speakers. The Final Cut forums will be good places to research what others are using in these arenas.
Anyway, good luck with it all! You've already discovered a great resource: this forum. If I were you, I'd start to spend more time on the Final Cut forums. These types of queries will get solid answers over there. I'd recommend establishing the habit of performing a search when you've over there though. The chances of someone else, already asking the same thing that you're investigating, is quite high. Almost guaranteed. Enjoy!

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

Which Mac Pro configuration for Patrick Sheffield's posterization in Motion

I plan to get a Mac Pro, after Final Touch releases a universal version. Real-time color grading requires a G5 or a Mac Pro. I also want to do Motion, accomplishing the posterization that was produced by other means in Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly. Patrick Sheffield has shown enough of such to encourage me to go in that direction. How should my Mac Pro be configured?
I am but an ambitious newbie, so I will do none of this tomorrow.
As a one-man studio I need the highest level of productivity I can get. Real-time feedback seems a key to that productivity.
How should my Mac Pro be configured? I am not made of money, but will forgo my golf club membership for the arts.
LM

Well, not sure about withdrawing your post, but what I'm considering is:
$3678 Mac Pro
__200 2 gig ram (makes a total of 3)
__800 4 500 gig drives ($300 for 4 250 gigs)
_1600 AJA Kona LHe (for HD video)
_1500 2 Dell 24" Monitors
$7778
That's for the 3.0 Ghz with 1 gig of ram. The other 2 gig are from Newegg.com - and I want the X1900 gfx card. The 7300 is not ideal for Motion. I plan on throwing an IDE drive in the spare optical drive bay so I can RAID the 4 SATA drives. I also want a few spare drive sleds so I can have different setups for different needs.
Drop from that the things you don't need - probably can get by without the Kona card. You most likely already have monitors, etc...
That's my wish list anyway...
Patrick

Which Mac Pro configuration for DTP

I am looking for information on which configuration would be best for a DTP design studio. I'm looking for 3 machines for 3 people. 2 desktop publishers (ads/packaging) and a web-designer (flash, html)
I'm thinking of buying as soon as Adobe comes with Intel based CS3 next year. Until then, I can find out which configuration would suite us all.
Any people who can give me advice?
Or is there an application out there to test your average CPU / RAM usage through out the day to see what we are using at this moment ???
We now have 2 dual 2GHz G5's with 2GB of RAM, and I'm on a 2x 2.5GHz G5 with 3GB's of RAM.
Thanks for your advise in advance.

Yes, I'd upgrade the RAM before the video card. I'd also take the photoshop benchmarks with a grain of salt, namely because they are comparing Photoshop running under Rosette on the Mac Pro, to Photoshop running natively under the G5's. While the slightly lower performance could be an issue to some I doubt is has real world impact. In addition, since your waiting on CS3 which will be native, any performance problems should be removed, as CS3 should be a native application.
Finally I want to say desktop RAID arrays have their place, but I haven't seen how it fits in here. The folks are accessing and saving files to a server in their work environment. It is not clear if you are opening the files over the network, or checking them out to the workstations first. If you are opening over the network, then the talk about RAID is pretty much makes little sense. If you are copying to the workstation first, then a RAID for data could be slightly helpful, but since the image sizes seems as if they can be manipulated in memory, it is not clear how much of a benefit a data RAID would produce. Yes opening and saving a file may be faster, but there will be no increase in actual image manipulation.
It seems to me the place to spend money here is on RAM, then graphics card, if you are using an application that can take advantage of the processing power on a graphics card, such as Aperture, and many 3D rendering programs. If there is no gain to be made in graphics card performance, then I would spend money on 16 MB cache hard drives, one for the OS and applications and one for data, size can be determined by your needs. It is only after everything else is looked at would I consider any type of RAID here meant for performance reasons. However, as for your file server... I would think a good RAID 0+1 or 1+0 RAID would be beneficial to your file serving performance, along with a good gigabit network system.
Anyway... My Mac Pro just showed up at the door... Off to have some fun!
Tom N.

Which mac pro configuration - how many can be effectively used

Hi all
Well, this question has been asked many times before - and I've read the macperformanceguide.com articles - but I can't find any info relating to 2010 Mac Pros or my typical usage. So any advice/links greatly appreciated.
I'll be investing in a Mac Pro soon and really need some solid advice on whether the Quad Core 2.8 Ghz (12Gb ram), Quad Core 3.2Ghz (12 Gb ram) or 8 core 2.4 Ghz (6Gb ram, upgrading later) will be best for my needs.
Typical usage for web design on my Macbook Pro is currently the following running/open at the same time: Wacom tablet driver, time machine, billings, mamp, 2/3 browsers for testing, vmware fusion running windows xp, emails, dreamweaver, smultron/textwrangler, fireworks, photoshop, fontexplorer pro, terminal and gitx, Skype - they all end up open while I'm messing about with files, talking to sub contractors, etc. Any I may well end up with Numbers, Pages, etc open as well. My Macbook Pro (4Gb ram) is ageing and just can't handle everything quickly.
I'm looking for the best system for now and 3 years down the line. I know a lot of software still doesn't make use of multiple cores so the quad cores would seem to be initially a better bet with their faster clock speeds. But I don't know if OS X will automatically allocate threads from different software to different cores - in which case 8 cores would help with the amount of software I'm using at the same time.
Thinking about 3 years from now the 8 core allows me to add more memory but - will the extra investment in the 8 core now provide a real benefit in 2-3 years or will the extra ram potential advantage be negated by heavier, hungrier software requiring faster speeds from other parts of the system.
Which ever system I get, I'll be adding extra hard drives over time, maybe upgrading the graphics card if that becomes necessary. It really comes down to the number of cpus, those extra cores and the extra ram possibilities.
Thanks in advance for any help!

Taking Applications that are inherently single-threaded and running them on multiple processors is a Classic unsolved problem in Computer Science. This means that Applications will only speed up when they are Hand-coded to run speedily on multiple processors. Although the latest version of Photoshop is Finally seeing this treatment, many more mundane Applications will never be done this way.
As long as it remains so (which is likely to be permanently) MegaHertz (processor speed) matters, and once you have a handful of processors MegaHertz matters a lot more than number of processors.
Your list of prospective Mac Pros does not include the Mac you should be considering first, the 6-core 3.33 GHz Westmere, available as a build-to-order option of the four-core mac Pros. It gives you the fastest clock speed of any, and its Hyper-Threading give you 12 effective processing units.
The premium price of an eight-core or 12-core is so large that you could buy another complete Mac Pro for the same price, and use them separately or as a compute-farm.
If you are handy, larger DIMMs (8GB each) are available from reputable third party memory suppliers, and they stand by their correct operation in your Mac with one caveat: They do not play nice with other sizes mixed in. So if you are contemplating large memory size, choose 8GB DIMMs from the start.
Three DIMMs is optimum, but studies are showing that the penalty for running with two DIMMs or four DIMMs is under 5 percent in real-world Applications. So starting with two 8GB DIMMS seems like a good way to go.
With this kind of large compute power, the remaining bottleneck quickly becomes Disk I/O. You should set aside a Boot Drive: a small, very fast Drive that holds only System. Library. Applications, and hidden Unix files including Paging. Users files should be moved to another drive to reduce competition for the Boot Drive. A small VelociRaptor works well for this. A small SSD is even faster.

Mac Pro Configuration for Photography Advice...

About to hit the buy button. Wondering if anyone running a similar machine and happy with Lightroom, Aperture, and CS4 performance.
Mac Pro Quad 2.93
16 gig Ram
ATI Radeon HD 4870
4 x 1T Hitachi "Saturn" 7200 internal Drives
Machine strictly for RAW editing, mostly Canon 5DMKII files. Several hundred images per week. Looking for peppy slider response and minimal beach ball. Replacing PM G5.
Really struggling with justifying the jump to 8 core 2.6. I know I am taking risk of unknown advantage Snow may offer with multicore processing.
Thanks,
Kurt

Hi,
See this link, a fresh one, it applies to your situation as well:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2096886&tstart=0
I think you've done your research well. 8 cores is definitely the way to go if you can afford it. The Radeon is an excellent choice. 16 gbs of RAM should do you well. The drives sound good, though I'm not familiar with them. Maybe consider an SSD for your boot drive, makes quite a difference.
2.66 vs 2.93? Well, I have the latter but from tests I've seen there's not all that much of a difference.
Wait for more replies of course, but I think you're good to go. Well done, have fun.
Edit: Sorry, really having a problem with brain fog tonight... You're going for the Quad. Well, it should do fine, but I'd still go 8 core.
Message was edited by: Samsara

New Mac Pro Configuration

I am a photographer primarily and I do some personal video work. Dominate software include Aperture, Photoshop and FCPX plus other tidbits
I currently have an iMac with an SSD (where I store my applications and operating sytem) and a 2 TB internal (where my Home is stored). All of my digital assets are stored on externals of various types.
I am curious about a couple of things:
1. Without a large internal drive (I consider a 1 TB SSD to be small), how are people configuring there system? I have to store all those Home files on the internal drive?
2. With a split system (SSD plus internal HD) what is the best approach to migration from the old computer to the new computer? I am currently running 10.8.5 and a bit afraid to upgrade to Maverick given all the problems with software (Mail) and external hard drives.
Thanks,
Steven

e2photo wrote:
1. Without a large internal drive (I consider a 1 TB SSD to be small), how are people configuring there system? I have to store all those Home files on the internal drive?
The big thing to remember with the new architecture is that your I/O is so fast that basically external = internal.
If you were lucky, your old internal HDD was moving data at maybe 100MB/sec which isn't bad, but you can move data on Thunderbolt at 10X that (actually, about 1.2GB/sec) if you can afford it. An SSD RAID will make your old HDD seem like a floppy IF you can afford one.
In then end it's like racing: it's all a matter of how fast you can afford to go.
hope this helps

Upgrading from Mac Pro (2007) to Mac Pro (2009)

I'm attempting to get a few simple questions answered before upgrading my current Mac Pro (2 x 2.66 Dual Core Intel) to a Mac Pro (8-Core 2.26Ghz). I visited the local Apple store to see if I could get my questions answered and left having concerns since the Apple reps could not provide me with solid answers.
The gist of my question is can I pull my existing drives from my old Mac Pro and put them into the new Mac Pro without having to re-build the complete system. The answers that got were:
- Sure no issues, everything will be fine
- No you have to rebuild
- and it will work but you will lose performance because of missing drivers
So I'm hoping that someone under this forum would be able to provide me with a definitive answer...
Here is my current Mac Pro configuration:
- Snow Leopard 10.6.1
- 4 x 1.5TB Internal Disks
- Drive 1 OS
- Drive 2 Data
- Drive 3 & 4 Raid 0
- 2 x Nvidia GeForce 7300 GT graphics cards
So with the configuration above. If I purchase a new Mac Pro 8-Core system will I be able to just pull the 4 x 1.5TB drives from the old and put them into the new and have the system come up and work fine? Or do I have to rebuild?
Last question, will the Nvidia GeForce 7300 GT card work in the new Mac Pro?
Thanks in advance!!!

As I said, just boot away. Obviously graphic cards have to stay behind (wouldn't really want those).
you don't even have to worry about what slot the drives go in (but never, ever be w/o backups, doubly so for RAID).
I will say this, personally I initialize and rebuild drives and arrays rather frequently, with a new OS, and sometimes knowing or discovering that there are changes to Disk Utility and arrays. And never be w/o Disk Warrior.
So in one sense, it might be a good opportunity if you have gone six months or didn't recreate your array with the arrival of 10.6 (though 10.5.0 was so iffy with disks it was best to sit it out for another six months, gotta watch those "dot zero" early releases).
One wish, that Apple would offer the GTX 285 as BTO for $250 at most, show they stand behind it in some way or 'endorse' it? They seem to EOL their graphic cards regularly, like every year.
Choosing RAM and cpu configuration is often hardest part.

Mountain Lion 1.8.2 update made my dual monitor stop working on Mac Pro mid 2012

Just done Apple's update for Mac OS X Mountain Lion to 1.8.2 and after rebooting my dual monitor stopped working.
If I go on preferences -> Displays it shows me only one of my two monitors, even if I invert the connections the 2nd monitor doesn't shows up and there seems no way to enable it again.
Any suggestion?
P.S. I already tried to set from "Best for display" to "Scaled", but after rebooting Mountain Lion 1.8.2 reset it to "Best for display"

Ok,
did some extra test here, but first of all my configuration:
Mac Pro (Mid 2012) with ATI Radeon HD 5870 1GB.
2 LCD 24" Wide-screen (1st monitor Hyundai W240D and 2nd Monitor HP w2448hc), both LCD worked perfectly until reboot after installing OS X 1.8.2
After reboot only the 1st monitor wored fine, the 2nd not even listed, so tried to invert cable connections on the 2 miniports on the ATI video card, but nothing changed, still only the 1st monitor working.
Did a second test, disconnected the 1st monitor and connected ONLY the 2nd and now the second works fine.
Tried to connect 2nd monitor on a different miniport, and i still works fine.
Updated my MacBook Pro to 1.8.2 (it as an nVidia card) and connected my 2nd monitor to it and everything works fine, both the laptop LCD and my HP LCD are working fine.
So it looks like Apple screwed up the ATI driver on the latest 1.8.2, now only ONE miniport is active.
To all users with the same Mac Pro configuration: hold to update to Mountain Lion 1.8.2 until Apple fix this driver issue.
More info are on the Console output, so will have to contact Apple on-line support to signal this bug.

Mac Pro configuration ?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for