PrP performance on Mac vs. PC

Im not sure if this is a hardware or software issue, but the more I use PrP and talk to other editors, the problem of poor playback on the Mac that arent apparent on the PC seems to be a hot topic.
I love much of what PrP and AE offer thru the dynamic link. I am concerned that performance on my Mac Pro 3.1 / 24 gigs rams / Areca controlled 8tb raid array / leaves a lot to be desired in terms of just simple playback of 1080 Prores clips (for example). In the source window I I can scan by dragging the little playhead control through through the clip and it plays very smoothly (all frames played). When I try the same process in the record window it jumps about 10 + or - frames as I drag. . Full resolution playback or variations make no difference. This occurs on both the AJA and Adobe sequence configurations. CS 5.5 seems to function better on a PC then a MAC and that could cause me to try Avid for better performance..

HI,
the issue is deeper than just the software.
Apple has issues using multi-core very well, this is an OSX issue and is passed on to Avid as well.
even with a Quadro 4000 things are still not good on Apple. and FYI Avid is not so great in many ways..
even in FC the older gen has less playback stuttering (less cores no HT) than the newer models even though vastly more powerful
at that point is when we stopped recommending Apple. (nearly 2 yrs ago)
Premiere Pro CS5 Version 5.5 Testing
Mac Pro 2011 Dual 2.93GHz
24GB 1600 CL 9
Quadro 4000
2 WD 1Tb Sata 64 Meg Cache 600 Drives in Raid 0
Video material - AVCHD 1080P 24 Frame Each Cut to 30 minutes of material
Export Codec - H264 HDTV 1080P 24 Preset Default
4 Effects per Layer - Fast Color Corrector, Brightness & Contrast, Video Limiter, Sharpen
Each Layer Scaled to 50% for 4 frame PinP view.
3 Layer - 42:24
4 Layer - 44:05
I7 990X 4.0 GHz
24GB Blackline 1600 CL 9
580GTX
4 WD 1Tb Sata 64 Meg Cache 600 Drives in 2 Raid 0 arrays
3 Layer - 32:06
4 Layer - 34:45
I7 2600K 4.7 GHz
16GB Blackline 1600 CL 9
570GTX
4 WD 1Tb Sata 64 Meg Cache 600 Drives in 2 Raid 0 arrays
3 Layer - 30:46
4 Layer - 33:36
the best option you have is to walk away from Apple particularly in light of the absurd new FCX.
no reason to stay Apple now.
Scott
ADK

Similar Messages

Sluggish Flash Builder 4.5.1 performance on Mac OS X Lion

I recently acquired an iMac with Core i7 3.4GHz CPU, 8GB of RAM. The system is brand new with nothing but Flash Builder installed. I have similar setup on Windows which is running on an 3-yo laptop sporting Win7 x64, 1.6GHz low voltage Core 2 Duo CPU and 8GB of RAM. Since the laptop is my primary computer, so it is constantly running other apps such as Outlook, Doc, etc.
My project consists of 3 library projects and two application projects on Mac. I have set the IDE to turn off automatic build as building the application takes more than a few seconds. To my surprise, I notice any changes made to the application or library, Mac OS X takes significantly longer time to compile the application.
I wonder if this is a known issue on Mac OS X Lion, or if there is anyway to improve Flex compiler performance on Mac.
Tangent

Yes, I have EXACTLY the same problem - except that my project is much larger and FB on Lion never gets to finish!
Going back to Snow Leopard would be a big bind - anyone in adobe care to shed some light on this?

ISCSI, AFP, SMB, and NFS performance with Mac OS X 10.5.5 clients

Been doing some performance testing with various protocols related to shared storage...
Client: iMac 24 (Intel), Mac OS X 10.5.5 w/globalSAN iSCSI Initiator version 3.3.0.43
NAS/Target: Thecus N5200 Pro w/firmware 2.00.14 (Linux-based, 5 x 500 GB SATA II, RAID 6, all volumes XFS except iSCSI which was Mac OS Extended (Journaled))
Because my NAS/target supports iSCSI, AFP, SMB, and NFS, I was able to run tests that show some interesting performance differences. Because the Thecus N5200 Pro is a closed appliance, no performance tuning could be done on the server side.
Here are the results of running the following command from the Terminal (where test is the name of the appropriately mounted volume on the NAS) on a gigabit LAN with one subnet (jumbo frames not turned on):
time dd if=/dev/zero of=/Volumes/test/testfile bs=1048576k count=4
In seconds:
iSCSI 134.267530
AFP 140.285572
SMB 159.061026
NFSv3 (w/o tuning) 477.432503
NFSv3 (w/tuning) 293.994605
Here's what I put in /etc/nfs.conf to tune the NFS performance:
nfs.client.allow_async = 1
nfs.client.mount.options = rsize=32768,wsize=32768,vers=3
Note: I tried forcing TCP as well as used an rsize and wsize that doubled what I had above. It didn't help.
I was surprised to see how close AFP performance came to iSCSI. NFS was a huge disappointment but it could have been limitations of the server settings that could not have been changed because it was an appliance. I'll be getting a Sun Ultra 64 Workstation in soon and retrying the tests (and adding NFSv4).
If you have any suggestions for performance tuning Mac OS X 10.5.5 clients with any of these protocols (beyond using jumbo frames), please share your results here. I'd be especially interested to know whether anyone has found a situation where Mac clients using NFS has an advantage.

With fully functional ZFS expected in Snow Leopard Server, I thought I'd do some performance testing using a few different zpool configurations and post the results.
Client:
- iMac 24 (Intel), 2 GB of RAM, 2.3 GHz dual core
- Mac OS X 10.5.6
- globalSAN iSCSI Initiator 3.3.0.43
NAS/Target:
- Sun Ultra 24 Workstation, 8 GB of RAM, 2.2 GHz quad core
- OpenSolaris 2008.11
- 4 x 1.5 TB Seagate Barracuda SATA II in ZFS zpools (see below)
- For iSCSI test, created a 200 GB zvol shared as iSCSI target (formatted as Mac OS Extended Journaled)
Network:
- Gigabit with MTU of 1500 (performance should be better with jumbo frames).
Average of 3 tests of:
# time dd if=/dev/zero of=/Volumes/test/testfile bs=1048576k count=4
# zpool create vault raidz2 c4t1d0 c4t2d0 c4t3d0 c4t4d0
# zfs create -o shareiscsi=on -V 200g vault/iscsi
iSCSI with RAIDZ2: 148.98 seconds
# zpool create vault raidz c4t1d0 c4t2d0 c4t3d0 c4t4d0
# zfs create -o shareiscsi=on -V 200g vault/iscsi
iSCSI with RAIDZ: 123.68 seconds
# zpool create vault mirror c4t1d0 c4t2d0 mirror c4t3d0 c4t4d0
# zfs create -o shareiscsi=on -V 200g vault/iscsi
iSCSI with two mirrors: 117.57 seconds
# zpool create vault mirror c4t1d0 c4t2d0 mirror c4t3d0 c4t4d0
# zfs create -o shareiscsi=on -V 200g vault/iscsi
# zfs set compression=lzjb vault
iSCSI with two mirrors and compression: 112.99 seconds
Compared with my earlier testing against the Thecus N5200 Pro as an iSCSI target, I got roughly 16% better performance using the Sun Ultra 24 (with one less SATA II drive in the array).

How is the performance of Mac Pro if i use it as host for windows and linux virtual machines.

How is the performance of Mac Pro if i use it as host for windows and linux virtual machines.
I am planning to buy a high performance PC to run my Windows and Linux servers as vitrual machines for my testing purposes.
Initially i planned to build my own computer with recommended configurations but considering space constaints and cooling factors i think Mac Pro can be a choice. But need some inputs if Mac pro (Intel Xeon E5, 12 GB RAM) is good for running virtual Machines.

You could even run Windows natively and still run your VM servers.
I have seen reports and such on MacRumors and elsewhere - run Windows natively as well as VMs (can also do testing and run Mavericks in a VM under Mavericks)
The fast internal PCIe-SSD, plus 6 or 8 cores, and 32-64GB RAM. Of course for $5,000 for 8-core, some Thunderbolt storage and 32GB/64GB RAM you can buy some serious hardware.

Slow performance on Mac OS X 10.5.8 - Upgrade Required

Hi there.
Sympton: Old Mac OS X 10.5.8 very slow opening files, browser, docs....
Cause: I think too much stuff there (movies / pictures / apps / docs...)
Fix: I would like to clean up and upgrade to the newest OS possible my hadrware allows.
Question: Since I am guessing the cause: Do you use remote desktop to log in my machine and see the real cause of the poor performance...?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
JJ

Upgrading the operating system will not cure your problems, which seem to be caused by your hard drive being too full. You need to move some files to an external hard drive - just as you do with backups. Try to keep at least 30GB (or 20% of your hard drive) free.
If you want to upgrade your OS then it depends entirely on exactly what imac you have. If it is a PPC (G4 or G5) model you cannot upgrade beyond Leopard 10.5.8.
If it is an Intel iMac:
Start by checking if you can run Snow Leopard:
Requirements for OS X 10.6 'Snow Leopard'
http://support.apple.com/kb/SP575
(NB: PowerPC applications can still be run in Snow Leopard using Rosetta, but they will not work in later versions of OS X.)
The OS 10.6 Snow Leopard install DVD is available for $19.99 from the Apple Store:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC573/mac-os-x-106-snow-leopard
and in the UK:
http://store.apple.com/uk/product/MC573/mac-os-x-106-snow-leopard
When you have installed it, run Software Update to download and install the latest updates for Snow Leopard to bring it up to 10.6.8, or download the combo update from here:
http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1399
Check via Software Update whether any further updates are required, particularly to iTunes.
You should now see the App Store icon in iTunes, and you now need to set up your account:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4479
You can now upgrade to Mavericks OS 10.9 for free IF you have one of the following Macs, with not less than 2GB of RAM, and at least 8GB of available space on your hard drive:
iMac (Mid-2007 or later)
MacBook (13-inch Aluminum, Late 2008), (13-inch, Early 2009 or later)
MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid-2009 or later), (15-inch, Mid/Late 2007 or later), (17-inch, Late 2007 or later)
MacBook Air (Late 2008 or later)
Mac Mini (Early 2009 or later)
Mac Pro (Early 2008 or later)
Xserve (Early 2009)
iCloud system requirements:
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht4759
If you cannot run Mavericks you can purchase the code to use to download Lion from the App Store (Lion requires an Intel-based Mac with a Core 2 Duo, i3, i5, i7 or Xeon processor and 2GB of RAM, running the latest version of Snow Leopard):
http://store.apple.com/us/product/D6106Z/A/os-x-lion
or Mountain Lion:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/D6377Z/A/os-x-mountain-lion

7300GT performance on Mac OSX

I know this is a topic that has been raised in other discussion forums but I thought I'd raise it here.
I've been using my iMac for gaming for a while now and have noticed that the difference in graphics performance varies massively between OS X and a Bootcamp installation of Windows XP. Were the difference only slight I would attribute it to OS differences. It is not.
The performance of my NVidia 7300 GT on Windows XP allowed me to plat many of Valve's Source Engine games and many other great games, many of which one would think were not terribly demanding on a machine with the capabilities of the iMac 6.1, for example Torchlight or Minecraft. Since removing partition and going for a full Mac OS X drive I've realised that the iMac, or at least my particular model, are not designed to handle 3D graphics of any real complexity despite the machine being marketed as such.
To illustrate this I'll use the game "Torchlight" as an example. Under windows my particular iMac can run the game at 1920 x 1200 resolution (if I remember correctly.) I can max out its graphical settings and still run the game at a very high frame rate with no slowdown. Under Mac OS X under the same hardware I get <10 fps with screen resolution and all graphics settings at the lowest possible setting.
I hold out hope that OS X 10.7 will make some changes to the drivers or other factors that choke my poor iMac's gaming potential. Does anyone know if this is the case? Does Apple have any plans to improve the 3D capabilities of its older machines (at least bring them to parity with their Windows equivalent?) Should I just give up on my current machine ever running games well in OS X and start saving for a newer model or consider reinstalling Windows?

+I hold out hope that OS X 10.7 will make some changes to the drivers or other factors that choke my poor iMac's gaming potential. Does anyone know if this is the case? Does Apple have any plans to improve the 3D capabilities of its older machines (at least bring them to parity with their Windows equivalent?)+
Sorry, but according to the ToU (on the right of every page), we are not allowed to speculate and since these are all user-to-user forums, we have no idea what, if anything, Apple is planning.You will have to wait until there is an announcement by Apple.

Keynote Performance on Mac Mini (General Question)

I'm hoping the awesome community of Apple users can provide some much needed insight for a guy who's been out of the Apple scene since 2005. I am looking to purchase a Mac Mini 2.3GHz quad-core i7 for the sole purpose of running Keynote on Sunday's at my church. Currently, we have on loan a 15" MacBook Pro (not sure the specs, but I believe it was purchased last year) and it runs Keynote like a champ! That being said, my reasoning for choosing Mac Mini is cost. Any insight into the performance of Keynote running on a vanilla Mac Mini 2.3GHz quad-core i7 would be much appreciated! Also, it would be running on multiple displays.
Thanks
1upmshrm

Keynote will run perfectly well on any new model of Mac. For good performance, adding additional RAM to the basic spec is advisable, a minimum of 8GB RAM should be fine.
We run a basic Mac MIni i5 with 8GB at an international conference centre running 8 hours every day.

Performa 6400 & Mac IIcx

I have both a Performa 6400/200 and MacIntosh IIcx. Both I want to transfer the data from each to my G5.
The Performa has the following ports:
1. 25 pin scsi female connector.
2. 8 pin din female connector (printer icon)
3. 8 pin din female connector (modem icon)
4. 6 pin phone or ethernet jack (not sure which).
The Mac IIcx has the following ports:
1. 25 pin scsi female connector.
2. 8 pin din female connector (printer icon)
3. 8 pin din female connector (modem icon)
There is no modem in this IIcx.
Can data be transferred through the scsi cable with a scsi to usb adapter? I'm hoping I can just access the hard drive some how in each of these old units (not simultaneously) as if they were external HD that shows up on my G5 monitor.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Gene

Hi Gene,
Could you confirm that this cable would work for what I want to do?
That appears to be something that might work. However, the link to this product could possibly be even more interesting.
Also, can't I just leave the HD in the 6400 so I can use its power supply and unplug the IDE cable from the 6400 and plug in the IDE/usb adapter?
In principle, yes. Depending upon how the adapter is connected and powered, you may or may not encounter interference problems, though. It may be better remove the entire drive (or at least all cables connected to it) and use both the IDE interface and the power supply from the external device.
Then once I have it hooked up, I assume it will show up on my G5 as another drive, right?
Yes, that is the idea.
Also, I'm hoping I can do this without hooking up a monitor on the 6400 since the 6400 HD will be now acting as an external HD to the G5, right?
Yes.
With regards to the IIcx, can I not access it the same way using a scsi to usb adapter of some kind?
When the first iMac was introduced, there were USB-to-SCSI adapters. The question is whether these (if you can find one today) will work well at all (and with your G5). Someone else may be able to provide you with more information about this.
If this won't work and assuming I have to connect using an 8pin din cable between the 6400 and the IIcx in their respective printer ports, would I have to have monitors on both units so I can see the file sharing software work or could I operate the whole thing from the 6400?
You would, normally, need monitors on both units.
Is the file sharing software part of the mac operating system or is that something I would also have to install? Could you elaborate on how I would do this?
File sharing has been part of the Mac OS since System 7. It is not difficult. AppleTalk has to be on. Basically, you would enable file sharing on one of the computers. The other can then connect to the former computer (via the Chooser). The manuals and the built-in help system describe to do this.
Good luck! Do not hesitate to post again if there are additional questions.
Jan

Strange CPU Performance issue Mac Pro, Logic 7.2.3......

Hi there,
I am experiencing a strange issue with Logic 7.2.3 and my Mac Pro.
I am running about 70 tracks in a tune I'm writing, with a lot of the EQ and dynamics processed on a Liquid Mix, but am experiencing a lot of CPU spikes, and drop outs in logic.
The System Performance meters are showing that one of the CPU cores is at full capacity, whilst the Activity Monitor is showing a total usage of about 40%.
http://www.ephexis.co.uk/images/cpu-grab.jpg
I have tried every combination of settings in the audio preferences, but cannot seems to get this track to play properly.
With 71 tracks, this machine is currently LESS powerful than the G5 that I have been working on until purchasing the Mac Pro.
I there anything else I can try? Are there any other means of controlling buffer size?
I have a suspicion that this may have something to do with the Plugin Delay Compensation set to 'All' - But without doing this, I cannot use the DSP effects of the liquid mix to work on a Bus! Very frustrating.
Many thanks for the help, any ideas at would be deeply appreciated,
Adam Ephexis
Mac Pro 2.66, 2GB, 1.5TB -=- MacBook Pro 2.16, 1GB, 100GB Mac OS X (10.4.8) Liquid Mix, Fireface 800, Apogee MiniDAC, Creamware A16 Ultra

Great!
Thanks for the tips guys.
I have tried to find an offending loop or part in the sequence, but cannot find anything at all thats causing the issue.
My suspiscion is that using the focusrite Liquid mix on a part, that is in turn going into a delay compensated bus, which has another Liquid mix plugin on it, is causing the issues. I use the total mix software in the fireface to perform the summing of the busses, which I think in turn may be causing the PDC to glitch a bit more.
Which is a bit annoying, as the mix in this tune is my best yet!
So I will attempt to remove the liquid mixes that are running in series in a chain, and see if thats the problem, but if that fails, time to re-format again!
I'll let you know how I get on in the next couple of days!
Thanks again,
Adam
Mac Pro 2.66, 2GB, 1.5TB -=- MacBook Pro 2.16, 1GB, 100GB Mac OS X (10.4.8) Logic 7.2.3 - Fireface 800, Focusrite Liquid Mix, Apogee MiniDAC, Creamware A16 Ultra

FC vs. iSCSI performance with Mac OS X Server

Hi All,
I've relied on direct-attached Fiber Channel storage for our network server volumes since the early days of the Xserve RAID units. We use our network volumes for graphic design needs (with large files) over a Gigabit network, with some Windows clients, too. We're currently running Mac OS X 10.5.8 Server on an Xserve quad core (2008 model) with a 16 TB Enhance Technology UltraStor RS16FS single controller RAID unit with 4Gbit FC. It's worked extremely well for us, but it's going on 3 years old now, and I'm looking to replace it with a dual controller RAID unit for added piece of mind, either from Enhance Technology, Promise, or another vendor. I'll also be increasing the capacity to 32 TB.
The big question is whether I should make the leap to iSCSI with a new RAID unit? I understand the advantages of iSCSI, but I'm concerned about its real-world performance and how taxing it would be on the server itself. Any decrease in performance from our existing 4Gbit FC would be unacceptable. I'm also concerned about the learning curve involved in setting up an iSCSI SAN, since my networking skills are fairly basic -- I really don't get into the advanced functions of our managed switches, and the one time I tried to set up link aggregation, things went horribly wrong! Direct-attached FC sounds a lot simpler.
I'd get a PCIe 4-port Gigabit Ethernet card from Small Tree and use our existing SMC TigerStack II managed Gigabit switch to aggregate the ports, unless anyone thinks a new dedicated switch would be better. I'd likely buy the ATTO iSCSI initiator to make everything happen. I suppose if I wanted to put the old FC RAID unit on the SAN, I could use the
Any opinions, suggestions, or links to benchmarks would be appreciated.
Thanks

Thanks for the reply, MrHoffman -- I appreciate your insights. Just to be clear, I'm currently using a 4Gbit FC RAID system directly connected to an Xserve with an Apple FC card, so there's no SAN.
Just to be clear, there's a SAN here. You just don't have a SAN switch, based on your description.
I'm sharing out the volumes on that RAID unit via AFP and SMB over the GbE network, so that's really where the bottleneck exists
That's typical, and why I pointed to the GbE as the bottleneck. (If you listen very carefully to the server, you can hear the little skidding sounds as each of the SAN packets decelerates onto the GbE.)
Ultimately, I would like to create a small SAN, if only to allow my backup server direct access to the main network volumes for D2D backups, and potentially to allow certain client computers direct access to the volumes. It would be far easier to do with iSCSI than with FC, since as you said, I could use my existing network infrastructure.
That's a PCI-X or PCIe-class Mac, the Xsan software, a switch, and another connection into your existing (yes, you have one) SAN. As for the array, the prices on those range from Not Too Exorbitant to Oh My Aching Wallet. Used gear (where you can find it) can be a decent investment when you're on a budget.
Xsan has a fixed price, and the SAN switches tend to show up on the used market; they're common in the enterprise space, and a 4 Gb SAN switch is not even remotely new gear.
If you need Big Cheap Storage, then Direct Attached Storage (DAS) approach will be your cheapest option. (You almost have a DAS configuration now.) A PCI-X or PCIe controller or a RAID controller connected out to a Big Dumb Disk Array, err, a JBOD, or into a Big Not-So-Dumb RAID Array. If you have a controller or an open slot in your Xserve box.
I'm leaning towards maybe just adding another 16-drive JBOD unit to the existing FC system to meet our short-term storage needs. That doesn't address my desire to get a dual controller unit. But really, how often do RAID controllers fail?
Um, how often? Usually only when you have no current backups and a deadline, in my experience.

Slow performance on Mac mini

Just purchased the lower end Mac mini preloaded with Mavericks. I am very disappointed with the performance. While it is not anywhere near top of the line, I don't expect this much lag time from any Mac product! Even logging in or switching users causes the rainbow wheel, or opening and adding browsers on Safari... Overall the system seems sluggish... Is this an OS issue that I need to wait for an update on, or do I need to upgrade to the higher performing Mac mini? I have the 2.5 dual core with 4GB RAM.
Thanks for any advice!

The warranty entitles you to complimentary phone support for the first 90 days of ownership.
If you bought the product in the U.S. directly from Apple (not from a reseller), you have 14 days from the date of delivery in which to exchange or return it for a refund. In other countries, the return policy may be different. If you bought from a reseller, its return policy applies.

LE 9.0 performance on Mac Mini (dual core) Vs. iMac (quad core)

I am in the process of evaluating options to replace my 2007 MBP with a faster DAW. I am on a budget so while I am looking for performance improvements over what I have, I don't need overkill either. I am considering the 2011 Mac Mini (2.5 GHz, dual core) and the 2011 iMac (2.5 GHz quad - core). Whichever configuration I choose, I will bump up RAM to 8 GB.
I use LE 9.0 and a Presonus Firestudio Project and would like to know whether what kind of performance improvements I will see between the two options I am considering. I use a lot of plugins, and an external Firewire 800 drive for recording. Obviously with the Mini, I will have to buy an optical drive as well. I already have two monitors, keyboard and mouse.
The only thing that worries me about the Mac Mini is the slower 5400 rpm hard drive. While I plan on using an external drive for recording, I am concerned because of the number of plugins and sample files that need to load during recording / playback.

I am in the process of evaluating options to replace my 2007 MBP with a faster DAW. I am on a budget so while I am looking for performance improvements over what I have, I don't need overkill either. I am considering the 2011 Mac Mini (2.5 GHz, dual core) and the 2011 iMac (2.5 GHz quad - core). Whichever configuration I choose, I will bump up RAM to 8 GB.
I use LE 9.0 and a Presonus Firestudio Project and would like to know whether what kind of performance improvements I will see between the two options I am considering. I use a lot of plugins, and an external Firewire 800 drive for recording. Obviously with the Mini, I will have to buy an optical drive as well. I already have two monitors, keyboard and mouse.
The only thing that worries me about the Mac Mini is the slower 5400 rpm hard drive. While I plan on using an external drive for recording, I am concerned because of the number of plugins and sample files that need to load during recording / playback.

Performance of Mac mini vs iMac, Macbook Pro

The dual 1 G mirror door G4 in my office just blew up and I need to get my stuff off the drives and on to another Mac asap. For reasons of economy I'm tempted to go with a Mac mini (I have an unused monitor) but I'm not sure it's powerful enough. I will need it for some light (basically just adjustments and corrections) Photoshop image batch processing of CR2 files from a Canon 40D as well as email, database, web authoring and surfing. I'm also considering iMacs, Macbook Pros. Since I'm not familiar with the performance characteristics of the current crop of Macs I'd appreciate inputs from anyone who is. How would a (possibly beefed-up) Mac mini compare in speed and durability to an in-the- ball-park priced iMac or Macbook Pro. The Mac mini with 7200 rpm HD plus SSD with 8GB (max) RAM, with the SSD set as the boot drive ought to be quite fast, but would it be faster than the other choices, and would it be best bang for buck? Thanks for any insights.

See
For home use would you recommend the new mini server, the plain mini or the imac?
Not entirely the same discussion, but may help you

CS2 performance on Mac Pro vs G4 based computers

I'm currently using a Powerbook G4 1.5 with 512mb. I am having a hard time using Photoshop because I've been working with really high resolution scans lately. I'm looking for someone who has both a Powerbook and a Mac Pro 2.66ghz, I would like to know whether or not moving up to a Mac Pro would speed things up for me since i'm on a G4. I know that the Mac Pro runs Adobe CS2 slower than the G5, but the G4 is a much slower processor than the G5 and my Powerbook has a 4200rpm drive. Any input would be greatly appreciated, I'm off to an Apple store for more info from a Genius, but I'd like some input from someone who uses both on a regular basis or something like that.
Thanks

My somewhat educated guess is that photoshop on the MacPro will be faster. The much faster cpu speed will offset the performance penalty of Rosetta.
I'd recommend at least 2gig but more like 4 gig, as that seems to be the sweet spot for photshop running on intel macs.
Take a look at these Benchmarks Actually the whole article is very informative.
Mike

Performance of mac is slow what i have to do

performance of my mac is slow what i have to do

Try these in order testing your system after each to see if it's back to normal:
1. a. Resetting your Mac's PRAM and NVRAM
    b. Intel-based Macs: Resetting the System Management Controller (SMC)
2. Restart the computer in Safe Mode, then restart again, normally. If this doesn't help, then:
     Boot to the Recovery HD: Restart the computer and after the chime press and hold down the
     COMMAND and R keys until the Utilities menu screen appears. Alternatively, restart the
     computer and after the chime press and hold down the OPTION key until the boot manager
     screen appears. Select the Recovery HD and click on the downward pointing arrow button.
3. Repair the Hard Drive and Permissions: Upon startup select Disk Utility from the Utilities menu. Repair the Hard Drive and Permissions as follows.
When the recovery menu appears select Disk Utility. After DU loads select your hard drive entry (mfgr.'s ID and drive size) from the the left side list. In the DU status area you will see an entry for the S.M.A.R.T. status of the hard drive. If it does not say "Verified" then the hard drive is failing or failed. (SMART status is not reported on external Firewire or USB drives.) If the drive is "Verified" then select your OS X volume from the list on the left (sub-entry below the drive entry,) click on the First Aid tab, then click on the Repair Disk button. If DU reports any errors that have been fixed, then re-run Repair Disk until no errors are reported. If no errors are reported click on the Repair Permissions button. Wait until the operation completes, then quit DU and return to the main menu. Select Restart from the Apple menu.
4. Reinstall Yosemite: Reboot from the Recovery HD. Select Reinstall OS X from the Utilities menu, and click on the Continue button.
Note: You will need an active Internet connection. I suggest using Ethernet if possible
            because it is three times faster than wireless.
5. Reinstall Yosemite from Scratch:
Be sure you backup your files to an external drive or second internal drive because the following procedure will remove everything from the hard drive.
How to Clean Install OS X Yosemite
Note: You will need an active Internet connection. I suggest using Ethernet if possible
            because it is three times faster than wireless.

PrP performance on Mac vs. PC

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for