New Mac purchase Quad or Eight Core for CS4/CS5 Photoshop

Its time to replace my vintage G5, but I am struggling with how to choose between a Quad-core or Eight-core Mac Pro. Most of my work is Photoshop for print, with files of various sizes (typically 300-300 layered PSD files, but occasionally upwards of 1.5 GB+ layered PSD files). I also use CS4 InDesign, Illustrator, DreamWeaver, and Acrobat.
For the short term, a 2.66 GHz Quad-Core Mac Pro would be fine, but the 4 RAM slots are restrictive. On the other hand, a 2.26 or 2.66 Eight-Core machine will theoretically give better PS performance, room for more RAM and more long term value. I can add RAM later, but I'll have to live with my processor choice. As best as I can tell, the Eight-core machines aren't a good value for Photoshop work until the software uses all cores. I assume that Leopard and CS5 will eventually well together. My gamble is wether a Quad-Core will serve me long term, or if the additional cores and RAM of the Eight-Core will be worth the extra investment now.
I've read about problems with CS4 and the Nehalem processors, but I hope most of these have been resolved by now. Unfortunately, I can't afford to wait a few months before CS5 is sorted out, so I hope to make a safe choice for CS4 now, that will work with CS5 down the road.
Adobe TechNote: Optimize performance in Photoshop CS4 on Mac OS
ID: kb404440
Last updated:2010-02-09
http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/404/kb404440.html#Operating%20system%20software
Excerpts from Apple TechNote kb404440:
Processor speed
The CPU (Central Processing Unit) of the Macintosh limits the speed of Photoshop. Since Photoshop manipulates large quantities of data and performs many calculations, its speed is greatly dependent on processor speed.
Photoshop requires a PowerPC G5 or an Intel-based processor. Photoshop can also take advantage of multiprocessor systems (that is, systems that have two or more PowerPC or Intel processors), which are much faster than a single-processor systems. All Photoshop features are faster on a multiprocessor system, and some features are much faster. Note that there is a law of diminishing returns with multiple processors: the more processors you use, the less you get from each addition processor. Therefore, you may not experience expected speed increases if you use more than four processors.
Excerpt from the TechNote above states that all PS features are faster on a muti-processor machine. Per Lloyd Charles' tests, (http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProNehalem-MoreIsLess.html) the dual CPU is actually slower for many functions in PS. Lloyd's tests were done in OS X 10.5.6 (updated in June 1, 2009). Have the newer Mac Pro machines or Leopard changed any of the performance issues since Lloyds' tests? Sorry if these tests no longer apply, but I am trying to confirm how things stand at this point.

Wow, I may not know all of them because after a certain point, I quit using it on the quad core.
Illustrator - I didn't use it that much on the q4, but the color picker doesn't work. When I click on the color box to change colors, the small color box with the slider is the only thing that opens. on the Duo core, the color picker opens.
Photoshop - On the i7 quad core - Constant crashes and other glitches that I can't remember because I haven't used it since April. But the main problem that I encountered is that the layers palette quits working. It may be ok when I first open PS, but then becomes greyed out - nothing in the palette (either from the dropdown menu or the layers palette box) works - including layer styles like drop shadow, merge, flatten, new layer or anything else in layers. If I opened another file, it would be the same way. Without being able to use layers, and with the constant crashes, I quit using that computer.
The only problem I have on the duo core is in Photoshop in using tools. Frequently, when trying to use a tool, I get a small menu open at my cursor. It keeps popping up and I have to leave tools and do something else then go back to the tool. The tools I've had this with specifically are the paint brush, select tools, burn and dodge tools.
I'm also quite annoyed that twain is no longer included so that I can use my scanner within PS. I just talked with a friend this afternoon who downloaded a trial version of CS5 this afternoon to be sure it works before she upgrades. She is upset because her scanner doesn't work in PS and she is having problems with other plug-ins so she is not going to upgrade.

Similar Messages

New Mac Pro - 6 or 12 cores for Logic?

Hi
I'm about to place an order for a new Mac Pro, to replace our previous Mac Pro.
Does anyone know if the 12 or the 6 core model is likely to deliver the best performance with Logic? The 6 core is clocked higher than the 12 core - 3.33GHz v 2.93GHz - and it's hard to get a handle on whether the additional cores are likely to compensate for the lower speed.
Does anyone who knows more than me about this stuff have a view? Is Logic even able to fully utilize all 12 cores?
On our current 8-core system I tend to see activity across 4 or 5 cores only, and the times we hit performance issues are when 1 particular core is being maxed out, even though others are idle or running at low load. That said, we're still using OS 10.5 so maybe load balancing is improved with 10.6.
Any help or advice very much appreciated.
Jules
http://www.trailermen.com

Trailerman wrote:
Although there are things you can do to try and balance the load, in my personal experience, once you have a CPU overload issue affecting one core, it's very hard if not impossible to resolve it.
What plugin can max out a core by itself? Of course it's possible but I have yet to see anything even come close.
I'm inclining towards the 12core Mac Pro in the hope that load balancing becomes more developed, and because Apple confirmed to me yesterday that Logic WILL use all cores of a 12 core machine, and also told me they at it will run more efficiently on a 12 core than a 6 core machine.
I would never believe anything coming from apple tech support or other customer reps, there are tons of documented examples of people getting info that was wrong.
And even if it's true, if they didn't give you a time frame it could mean that Logic will use all 12 cores with a software update...and that update could be two years from now. Did they give a timeframe? Or did they mean that the current version of Logic will use all 12 cores?
Also, the 12 core machines actually have 24 cores including the hyperthreading cores, did they address whether those are/will be supported? They work fine on the current quad i7 and quad xeon machines, but not on the octos since there seems to be a limit of eight cores.
And I would hope it will run more efficiently on a 12 core than a 6 although I'm not ruling out the possibility of poor performance on either with the current version of Logic. We'll see when they ship and people get to run Logic on them.
I'd be curious to read that part of the chat log if you're willing to post it.

Which Mac Pro to purchase - 4 or 6 core for Indesign, Illustrator, Photoshop CC

Hey There, I am new to this forum and wanted to ask a question on the current Mac Pro's.
I am thinking of purchasing a new Mac Pro but i honestly can't work out if it's worth going for the 4 or 6 core version. I don't think Illustrator CC takes advantage of multicore but i think possibly Indesign CC and definitely photoshop CC does. I could be completely wrong though things may have changed.
I am a graphic designer and mostly work in print. I create posters, brochures and occasionally large format event work. Recently I have been working with files around the 500mb - 1GB mark, in photoshop, indesign and Illustrator, thats about as big as they ever get size wise.
I am not rendering things or doing anything too crazy, mostly throwing around 100mb+ files with all of these 3 apps open with multiple layers all at once, possibly office apps too in the background word, powerpoint etc.
I have heard conflicting opinions on this and I hope to come to some kind of conclusion. This question has been asked before in the past but without much of a definitive resolution. Whenever I have seen an Adobe mod join the conversation its usually a copy and pasted minimum spec link or something like that. Not a clear jump off the fence, 'I would advise this configuration, it's best for your workflow' comment.
I realise more ram would be good.. larger SSD etc... but its more the actual base machine I am interested in some help picking, are the extra cores worth it? the bells and whistles can be added later and i have a good idea what to chose there.

Thanks so much for the advice I realise they would both be perfectly fine for what I need to do, but my main issue is working out how much I would gain by going with the 6 core. Would it be worth the extra cost to push it to the 6 core version and would I see the difference to such an extent that the cost is worth it. Not being 100% sure how these apps and the OS in general take advantage of 4 compared to 6 core and the levels of benefit involved. If the gain is relatively small then I should just go for the 4 core, but if there are actual real world speed differences and enough future proof reasons to go for the 6 I would do. Basically would I notice it if i went for the 6 core. I spoke to an authorised Apple reseller recently who advised the 6 core but was unable to explain why it was better than the 4 and by how much.
Thanks again for the help ,
Jamie

New Mac Pro, Quad-Core or 8-Core?

I need to decide whether to purchase a Quad-core or 8-core new Mac Pro. Using the computer for commercial and fine art work, in Photoshop CS4, Lightroom 2.0, and InDesign CS4. (No video.) Is there any advantage in the 8-core?

Photoshop probably won't benefit much from twice the cores - but they will help when running multiple apps simultaneously. I have a first generation Mac Pro 2.66 and am (still) perfectly happy with the performance.
About the only app in your list that would probably benefit is Lightroom (or ACR), when processing RAW files. My four cores are fairly pegged when processing files from a 1Ds MK II.

Will my Cinema HD Display work with a new Mac Pro Quad Core?

Will my Cinema HD Display work with a new Mac Pro Quad Core?

Yes.
Thunderbolt ports and displays: Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
https://support.apple.com/kb/HT5219
https://www.apple.com/thunderbolt/
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5299

Trying to load illustrator 6cs onto new mac and the old activation code for my ill cs doesn't work with it

Trying to load a downloaded version of illustrator 6cs onto new mac and the old activation code for my illustrator cs doesn't work with it. Do I need a new code or am I missing something? Same goes for my Photoshop cs.

you need your serial number.
if you purchased from or registered with adobe check your account, https://www.adobe.com/account.html

I own Photoshops Elements 10, Installed on my new Mac, mavericks, and it now asks for a reinstall. How do I reinstall?

I own Photoshops Elements 10, Installed on my new Mac, mavericks, and it now asks for a reinstall. How do I reinstall?

First of all, what is asking for a reinstall? Did you move PSE from another computer?

I have CS4 on a PC. I have bought a new MAC. How do I install my CS4 on the MAC- it seems this is a windows license.

I have CS4 on a PC. I have bought a new MAC. How do I install my CS4 on the MAC- it seems this is a windows license.

The license is only good for Windows and is too old to qualify for a platform swap. The only option you might have is to install Windows emulation software on the Mac and install CS4 thru that.

Ive migrated my apps from an old mac to my new mac. When i try to open my CS5 programs it get a pop up that says i need to install the legacy java SE 6. Ive done that and it still does not open?

Ive migrated my apps from an old mac to my new mac. When i try to open my CS5 programs it get a pop up that says i need to install the legacy java SE 6. Ive done that and it still does not open?

I'm having a similar problem...but mine results from an OS upgrade from 10.6.4 to 10.8.5.
Where did you access a clean copy of Java SE 6? The link at adobe for archicval plug-ins is a dead download (and it doesn't appear to contain Java SE 6.).
Jerry

Please recommend best quad i7 & intel mb for PP cs5.5

Please recommend best quad i7 & intel mb for PP cs5.5
Looking for best bang for the buck. 6 sata drive connectors, usb3 also.
doing mostly avchd. Utilizing software 2 drive raid0. Win 7 64bit. I usually convert my avchd footage to more editable formats before i edit them.

Steve,
I assume that you already have a single non-RAID OS disk in addition to the 2-disk aid0. If that's the case, I'd strongly recommend two additional disks and create a second aid0 array.
If on the other hand the 2-disk aid0 are the only disks that you have (and used for absolutely everything including the OS and programs), then get at least three more disks: One single non-RAID disk for the OS and programs plus two identical disks and create a second aid0 array with that pair.
With either of those configurations, if you are going to transcode AVCHD to a format with an intermediate codec, then you can get away with the "Budget" quad-core i5 system (however, I would change the 192-core GTX 550 Ti to a 336-core non-Ti GTX 560 since the prices for those two right now are closer together than the differences in performance between them). But if you're going to edit AVCHD directly in Premiere Pro CS5.5, you will need at least the "Economical" (i7-2600(K)) system in order to edit smoothly.
Oh, I see that you are actually looking for an i7. In this case, then, unless you are willing to spend at least $1,000 just for the CPU and mobo, the only current choices would be in LGA 1155: the i7-2600, 2600K and 2700K. The non-K CPU is limited-overclockable (meaning that you'll get only 3.9GHz out of that CPU maximum) while the other two can be overclocked further (to 4.4GHz and up with most chips). The i7-3820 isn't on reseller shelves yet, but from what I read it should perform on a par with a slightly overclocked i7-2600K.
For the motherboard, I'd recommend a Z68 board from Asus, MSI or Gigabyte. (Or, if you choose the i7-3820 when it begins shipping to resellers, your only feasible choices would be an X79 / LGA 2011 mobo from Asus or Intel since the X79 boards from Gigabyte suffer from quality issues with the VRMs used on those boards.) Keep in mind, however, that the lower-priced Z68 boards from the three brands are more difficult than pricier Z68 mobos to achieve a high stable overclock because the budget boards often lack manual CPU core voltage adjustments per se (they have only voltage offsets instead). Pricier Z68 mobos have fixed manual CPU voltage settings in addition to offsets.

Which NVIDIA graphics card for CS4 & CS5.5 Premiere?

I just upgraded to CS5.5 Production Premium but I'm still using XP 32bit. That means I had to load the CS4 version of Premiere and After Effects. Sooner or later I'll upgrade to 64bit Win but in the mean time which graphics card will give me the best bang for the buck and still be useful for CS5.5 later? Money isn't an issue, I just don't want to pay for something and not benefit from it. What's worse is Adobe doesn't even list cards newer than the 8800 and Quadro FX for CS4! Weren't GTX cards available before CS5 came out? Do I need to update a file in CS4 apps to make them accept cards for GPU processing?
Adobe and NVIDIA keep pushing the Quadro cards but when you look at the benchmarks it looks like the GTX cards do just as well. I will use the system for gaming sometimes so DX11 is a must. I have a watercooled i7 920 OC @ 4.0GHz and very stable, temps never go above 60C under full load. I have 6GB RAM and use a memory handler to access the RAM over what XP can use, and use it for virtual mem and caches etc. But my current graphics card is a slightly OC'd 9800GT w/512MB. My system doesn't like to scrub video that isn't rendered unless it's at lower resolutions and obviously I'd like rendering to be as fast as possible.
Looking around I see:
GTX560-TI @ $240
GTX570 @ $300
GTX480 @ $300
GTX570 @ $300
GTX580 @ $460
Quadro 4000 @ $550
Quadro 5000 @ $1200
So what's the secret? Where's the sweet spot?
TIA

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
JEShort01 wrote:
The "secret" to MPE bliss is to get the video card AND Win7 64bit AND load your CS5.5. I really don't think that the video card would help much running CS4 on 32bit. Regarding which card, I'd say the sweet spot since you want to game and use CS5.5 would be to go with a GTX 480 with two or three fans (single fan reference design is too LOUD). Also, if you are not going to Win7 right away, delay your purchase and the next GEN of NVidia will be closer or out and you may either want one of the new smaller die-size cards or you could benefit form lower prices on what's available today.
Jim
So you're saying on Win32 and CS4 Pr, Ae, AME, the graphics card doesn't matter at all? That I won't see any improvement over my 512MB 9800GT?
If I was to narrow it down even farther, the most important aspect would be in the "preview" performance. I can always render when I'm not using the system but sometimes the preview windows hang while working on a project. The problem worsens as the resolution increases or as the project gets more complicated. I had the same problem with PP1.5 which is why I decided to bite the bullet and upgrade to see if a newer version would help.
Cooling isn't an issue as long as a water block is available for my next card. I've read the 570 & 580 may be the same reference layout and use the same coolers, I'm still looking into that. I know I can liquid cool the 480, 560TI, 580. I have no idea about the Quadro's, I've never seen a block for those.
I'd like to go to Win64 but other software etc is keeping me from getting there soon. I'm looking into dual booting but have read about lots of problems with folder/file sharing issues when going from XP to Win7. I keep all files/projects on a seperate drive and some are shared over a network. If MS hasn't solved the sharing issues I'm forced to stick with XP. I have too many files that need read/write access and Win7 is stated to set all shares to read only. I'm still researching if it's been resolved.
So it's important to know if anything will help CS4 because as stated above, it'll make more sence to wait for the next gen cards for use in CS5.5.
The bottom line is, I built this system from the ground up just a few years ago before Win64 was so popular. I used the very best components (the 9800GT is actually the lowest componet I bought because gaming wasn't that important at the time). I'm running steady overclocked @ 4.0 and boot from an SSD drive. The data drives are 7200RPM and I bought the fastest RAM I could at the time. Obviously people were editing happily a few years ago on equipment inferior to mine. What's the catch? What am I missing to run smoothly on Win32? I'm assuming it's the graphics card because it's the only place I skimped. Maybe I have a software conflict keeping any version of Pr from working smoothly.
Being 3 gens behind, and mediocre at that, I thought the card might be a good place to start.

Quad vs. eight core performance questions

1. Do applications need to be specifically written for the eight core mac to take advantage of its processor capabilities?
2. Will there be any noticeable difference in performance between a high end quad core and an eight core Mac Pro for running Windows?
Thanks.

Hah! optimizing code for 8-cores is not ready and even the core foundation - compiler libraries - are very new and recent. READ.
I sort of suspect that cpus like Nehalem and Snow Leopard will help.
CS5 will be 64-bit for OS X.
A new term someone came up with, "core thrashing"
People seem to think everything can be rewritten, coded, run through a magic machine and turn out something. Or don't realize there are new challenges and bottlenecks to 8 cores and sharing memory or getting the code you want. Or that all applications benefit today.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070605-intel-updates-compilers-for-multic ore-era.html
The good news is the even game developers can do more development in less time, if and when they can afford and get their hands on new chips, motherboards, and compilers and begin to head in that direction.
+Feeding the beast category:+
esoteric bandwidth "features" http://techreport.com/discussions.x/14950
Nehalem feature set http://techreport.com/discussions.x/12130
Scalability: In its "largest configuration," Nehalem will pack eight CPU cores onto a single die. Each of those cores will present the system with two logical processors and be able to execute two threads via simultaneous multithreading (SMT)—a la HyperThreading. So a single Nehalem chip will be able to execute 16 threads at once. http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13232
Note: IBM's Power7 can execute 4 threads per core, and, runs @ 4GHz.
Nehalem's integrated memory controller: triple-channel DDR3 memory support. http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13457
The 2008 Mac Pro is basically Intel Penryn Skulltrail platform
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13246
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3326
http://techreport.com/articles.x/14052
You need hardware to develop software, and compilers and components to support your platform. OS and applications play catch-up, and you may want to wait to let the dust settle at times. You know, like the first months of '08.
Updating an application can easily take a year getting from design to even beta, and (hopefully) months of testing after that with release candidates, as stability and performance and features are nailed down.

Obsolete new "Mac Pro" vs Windows 6 Core 3930K PC - What should I expect?

OK, I ordered a pretty fast PC from Amazon, kind of a no-name gaming PC but it had great specs, i7 3930 Six Core at 3.2 ghz.
Installed a Nvidia GTX 670, did the supported cards text file hack, and Premiere Pro 5.5 on it, along with Quicktime Pro, and fonts I needed. I also installed a nifty program called X-Mouse which allowed me to customize my logitech scrolling mouse to use Premiere Pro as I also using USB Overdrive on my Mac - indispensable software.
Got a KVM so I could use my 2 large displays currently hooked up to my Mac on the PC without totally disabling my Mac Pro 2008 8 core - it is my workhorse and I use it all the time.
Finally got the PC somewhat functional on with Premiere Pro and even got it working with projects and media via a fast network connection. It seemed like butter vs my old Mac Pro. My lack of being a Windows power user I'm sure was responsible for my ultimate failure at getting my Windows system, but there could be hardware issues with this particular PC as well. Ultimately it was a total pain to share projects and media that resided on my Mac. Using Premiere Pro on the PC was identical in many ways to the Mac, just faster.
However the PC started going downhill pretty much as I got it working. It wouldn't properly reboot, always spinning in the 'Shutting Down' screen. I had to hard restart it all the time.
Then things started to go south, probably due to system corruption from having to hard reset it. I installed a fresh OS on the other internal drive in hopes it would fix the problems, a whole new set of software to get Premiere Pro working well. Again, shutdown hangs, without any diagnostics other than windows coming up at the hard restart saying there was a problem with the previous shutdown, and wiping out a lot of stuff each time. Then in hopes of curing the ills, a reformat of the drives, reinstallation of Windows 7 Pro, and then the ability to actually install the OS. 2 reformatted drives that cannot b installed with OS. Epic failure. The replacement is on the way.
But this being said, the amount of time in order to make this environment 'cross platform' as well as the indiocyncracies of Windows (to me, I'm not bashing Windows - it seems to be a fine OS!) makes me rethinking the PC for Premiere Pro switch.
I realize the current Mac Pros are basically obsolete, however, MY Mac Pro really is, it's from 2008 and not the fastest model from that era (2.8ghz 8 core, non threading Xeon.)
Investigating "new" Mac Pros, I can get a 6 Core 3.3 ghz threading Mac Pro plus 32GB of RAM for about $3,500. I can get a 12 Core 3.09 ghz for $6,700 and a refurb 2.93ghz with 32GB for about $5,700. The Windows PC with everything I need is in the $4K range. I don't need any new peripherals to make it a direct replacement for my current Mac Pro, all PCI, peripherals will just work. I'm familiar with the OS, and all my apps and plugins will work, no KVM necessary, no cross platform issues. Just not as cost effective as the PC and perhaps slower.
However...
Disregarding the cost, my time is valuable and I probably spend a good 3 solid days getting something non functional to work. There will be continual inefficiencies because I'm not a Windows shop, and I don't foresee this.
Will any 'new' Mac Pro, regardless of the cost, get me to the speed using Premiere Pro of this 6 core 3.2ghz i7 3930K? If I get the answer that the Mac 12 core will get me there, it may be a viable option. If the 6 core will get me 80% there, it might be the 'best buy' option.
Thanks for any advice, really!
-Keith

Thanks Eric and Harm for the helpful answers. I was hoping that Windows 7 had evolved to the point where knowning and using some of the troubleshooting techniques that Harm mentioned would not have to be necessary. I do have the ability / skill, etc, but not necessarily the desire to troubleshoot, but was kind of hoping that I wouldn't need to get to this level on such a simple installation, really it was just CS 5.5 and Video drivers. It is very possible the KVM was blocking on the USB request. This occasionally will happen with a hung device on Mac OS X and firewire, but usually it times out after a while. However there have been those odd times where I needed to unplug everything and even do a NVRAM reset on the Mac to get it back. This is pretty rare though. I even have my Mac set to 'verbose mode' which leaves the unix console up on boot and shutdown so I can track offending things like this. Maybe there is a Windows equivalent to this, which would have been helpful. Knowing that there might be some request that wasn't returning, I left Windows in this state for hours, it never got back. I had no choice but to hard restart it. I didn't examine logs and such, though I could have. I just want it to work or to fail gracefully, and not fail in such a way that makes it unusable and unrecoverable without in depth troubleshooting. I also have to use the KVM, without it I can't possibly use the system. So if the KVM makes the PC hang, then I can't use the PC. It doesn't make my Mac hang.
I am also quite positive that ADK's systems would have been a lot more robust and their emergency DVD's would have actually been able to help me as well as their expert tech support. I also appreciate that though Eric and ADK are a business, that the advice you have provided to me is just helpful and agnostic. This goes a long way to pushing my next PC purchase in the ADK direction!
Getting back to my original question, which was not one of troubleshooting Windows PC's though that advice is helpful...
Seems like a 12-Core Mac would allow me to edit well. I can edit right now with my 2008 Mac Pro 8 Core with 24GB RAM and 240GB SSD and Quadro 4000 and numerous internal and external RAIDs, but just scrubbing AVCHD I see all 8 processors go to nearly 100 % utilization and it's laggy. Not the best editing experience. If I have a few AVCHDs overlaid, which I do, it's almost unusable. As the Premiere Pro project gets bigger and more complex, it seems that everything gets slower. I have no scientific basis for this but I think it's true. It doesn't have to be just the sequence I'm working on, it seems to be even navigating simple sequences will be laggier if in a larger complex Premiere Pro project file.
On the Windows PC i7, for the few hours it was functioning, I was able to scrub AVCHD 1080P footage over a gigabit ethernet like butter. I was pleased with this. It was a very simple 1 track sequence, however. I didn't have a chance to try it with more complex projects before it was unusable.
Would I get smooth performance from a Mac Pro 6 Core, which is $2,500 less than the 12 core? From the basic Mac benchmarking I see, I see a 'rating' of 14000 for the Mac Pro 6 Core, and around 9000 for my current Mac Pro 8 core. This is about 50% more. I don't think 50% is going to get me to 'butter.'
Thanks again for all the helpful advice, Harm and Eric.
-Keith

Mac Pro 3.1 eight core FCP 6 shows all 8 cores rendering??

I just got a Mac Pro early 2008 3.1 with eight cores...running Leopard 10.5.8 I've read on this forum at times that FCP does not use more than 4 cores when rendering. But when I render 1080p pro res 442 in FCP 6 all eight cores run up over 90%, and it does indeed render almost three times as fast as my Power Mac g5 Quad. So I'm just curious why FCP is actually using all 8 cores. Any help is appreciated, as always.

Fay Krause wrote:
... I've read on this forum at times that FCP does not use more than 4 cores when rendering....
You are confusing cores with RAM.
FCP is a 32bit app. This means it can not make use of more than 4 GB of Ram (2.5 GB for the program and 1.5 for the frameworks).
FCP will use all the cores in a machine, how MUCH they are used, depends on a lot of factors - including the version of OSX you are runnning.
10.6.8 (snow leop) has a full 64 bit mode that will do a better job of allocating system resources to 32 bit tasks than 10.5. I ran 10.6.8 set to boot into 64 bit mode along with FCP 7 for a long time with great performance. If I hadn't needed 10.8 for other software, I'd still be running 10.6.8.
Best,
x

New Mac Mini or iMac (late 2012) for Logic Pro?

Between these two specifically, which would be better for Logic Pro, and why?
The new Mac Mini (mid-tier) has a 2.3gHz i7, and the low-end iMac which has a 2.7GHz i5. Both are quad-core. The i5 is faster in clock-speed, but the Mini sports the i7, which has hyperthreading.
Can anybody offer any insight on which of these two computers would be better for Logic?

While this is not quite the answer you be looking for...
The 2011 Mac Mini Server, is in many ways the better bet for use with Logic because...
It has a 2.0Ghz i7... so slightly slower than the 2012 models..but it is the i7 version with 8 Cores.. so it still flies..
It comes with 2 x 500GB 7200rpm Hard Drives built in (Compared to 5400rpm Drives in the 2012 model)
Memory easily upgraded to 16GB for about $90 via Amazon..
..and yoi get a free copy of OS X Server, if should wish to use it at some point in the future... (The MMS comes with the Standard OS X installed and you have to run the add on server program to install OS X server so if you don't need the server stuff, don't run the Server installation software and you'll be running standard OS X as normal)
USB2 instead of USB3 is about the only other important difference that matters for AudioExt Drive use but using the FW800 and Thunderbolt ports, via Tbolt to FW adaptors on the 2011 MMS removes the need for USB3 I find..
Othert than that the 2011 and 2012 models are pretty much the same...
But.. the real kicker is that Apple are currently selling refurbished ones (with full warranty) at $759..... down from $999 originally...so they are quite the bargain..
http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC936LL/A/refurbished-mac-mini-with-lion-serve r-20ghz-quad-core-intel-core-i7
I bought two of these originally and have never regretted it.. So much so that i just picked up another as a spare...
Got to be worth consideration... and at that price.. You could buy two... and use Vienna Ensemble Pro 5 to sync them together..
A Basic Guide to VEP5 and Logic info that i wrote, can be found here...
http://www.logicprohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=78956http://www.logicprohe lp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=78956
...add a screen and still save money conpared to buying a mid level iMac.... and you would be getting one **** of a punchy system for your buck.
Other than that suggestion..
In regards to the original question... Always go for the i7 models as hyperthreading adds 4 more (virtual) cores and that can really make a difference in performance compared to the 4 cores of an i5...

New Mac purchase Quad or Eight Core for CS4/CS5 Photoshop

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for