Radeon 4870 better match for Aperture 3 than GF 9600GT?

Hello,
I got an GeForce 9600 GT in my mac pro. After installing Aperture 3 I got unpleasant surprise how slow the brushing is. Everything else works fine but brushing is really a pain, it freezes for moments as I start to brush plus gui effects are slow and on the way constantly. My brother is tossing out his Radeon 4870 for better gaming card from his pc. I was wondering if I would get better performance in aperture 3 with that radeon? Can you guys please confirm that you got no problems with aperture 3 and radeon 4870 with brushing and general? I am a semipro photographer and current slow performance of aperture is driving me insane.

The brushing itself is fast, but can pause afterwards while the CPU figures out the solution to the brush stroke. Some brushes are always very quick while other are more CPU taxing.
Then I noticed something I do out of habit. Having the awesome Logitech MX Revolution mouse, and having Exposé functions mapped to the thumb wheel, when Aperture pizza-wheels, I habitually hit my mouse button for Exposé's Dashboard, and Aperture resumes near immediately. A hack, but it often works. This is not limited to Aperture, but something I do anytime OS X pizza-wheels, and works the vast majority of the time.
Also looked at the atMonitor while just doing a quick test. My VRAM never went more than 40% used in Aperture, and was normally around 25% VRAM used. X1900XT video card has 512MB VRAM and driving 1920x1200 pixels (23" Cinema display).
HTH.

Similar Messages

Which MAC better suited for Aperture ?

I've a budget around 1900-2000 euro (more or less the same price in US dollars for the US market)
The choice would be either one of the new iMac or a MacBookPro ...
In both cases there is some level of choice whether to invest money on:
1) either go for the model with more performing video card
2) either the model with more performing CPU or more RAM or (even) a solid-state disk
Just to make it clear: I'm not a pro, I've been able to use Aperture, till now, on a 2007 MacBook
and I didn't feel so bad as regards managing previews, while I'd like some more horsepower
while editing single images (as soon as the list of adjustments applied gets long, the spinning
beach ball takes home on my screen and I have to wait more and more time !)
... The time needed to zoom in at 100% is annoying to ...
So the question is: are these operations (adjustments, zooming into the image) demanding more
on CPU, or on GPU or ... what else ?
To make an example: would a MacBookPro be performing more fast than an iMac
(I don't care of the smaller screen size, since I'm used to adjust images at 100% zoom) ?
Is it worth going to the MacBookPro with Radeon HD 6750M and 1GB memory, or would
a Radeon HD 6490M with 256MB perform as well, investing the saved money in more
RAM ?
Speaking of photo applications I'd naively suppose it's better to go with a more performing GPU,
but probably most of the GPU power is reserved for film encoding/decoding, not for photo adjustments ...
Thank you for your help

Whatever you get you want an SSD. That makes iMacs relatively very expensive.
Mobility is a HUGE benefit. iMacs lack mobility.
Top 2011 MBPs with SSD are true desktop replacement boxes. Very strong performance and Thunderbolt removes the achilles heel of past laptops, i/o. Previously I had a Mac Pro plus Macbook Pro workflow and it worked. Now I have a desktop-replacement 2011 MBP and it is way better. If you sell your current laptop and apply the money to a new MBP + external display the MBP comparison price gets very attractive as compared to MBP plus iMac.
Aperture runs well on 8 GB RAM, and in any event 2011 MBPs will take 16 GB RAM. Currently prices are unacceptably high for the required 8 GB DIMMs but the capability is there when prices fall, which they will. As you do your analyses include RAM to 8 GB (post-purchase via third party, much cheaper).
iMacs have glossy-only displays. Many image pros including me find those displays unacceptable. MBPs have matte displays available. New Macbook Airs (MBAs) are glossy too, but seem to present less glare than iMacs do. Each individual needs to visually compare displays before purchasing.
MBAs are the low end for heavy graphics apps like Aperture, not recommended.
I own a 17" 2011 MBP with SSD and 8 GB RAM and Aperture flies on it. Adding SSD to a top 2011 MBP costs only +$100, and the optical drive can inexpensively be replaced with a third-party hard drive of up to 1000 GB (1 TB) when necessary. IMO an SSD is a necessity, not an option.
During desktop use fast external hard drives like Promise Thunderbolt RAID arrays can be added, as can quality non-glossy displays like the $300 Viewsonic VP2365wb or the better NEC 2490. I have the Viewsonic aligned above a 17" MBP and it is a nice combination. Two displays IMO is much preferable for graphics work.
SSD is a huge boost. I put OS, apps, Library and Referenced Masters on the SSD, then relocate the Masters to external drives when editing is complete. Aperture performance is essentially instant.
BareFeats.com has relative graphics performance tests up at:
http://barefeats.com/mba11_02.html
Insights from Rob Art Morgan at Barefeats:
"Though more than adequate for mere mortal tasks (Safari, Mail, etc.), the 2011 MacBook Air remains at the bottom of the Mac "food chain" when running apps that stress the CPU, GPU, and memory. This will be further illustrated with soon-to-be posted tests using After Effects, Aperture, Final Cut Pro, etc."
From an earlier post of mine regarding Aperture hardware:
Aperture is a hardware hog: GPU, CPU, i/o, RAM. Although many Macs will run Aperture, those intending Aperture as an important app will do far better with the strongest available hardware in a given category.
All new Macs have Thunderbolt, so as of 2011 we can scratch i/o as a performance limiter (except see SSD comments below).
Aperture (3.1.2, OS 10.6.8) seems to like about 4 GB of RAM all to itself. On 2011 boxes 8 GB RAM generally works well with multiple concurrent apps. From the standpoint of cost-effective upgrading, adding third party RAM to achieve 8 GB or more is something every Aperture user should do. By the time we reach v4 Aperture I would bet that having more than 8 GB RAM on board will be useful; it may be already with Lion, but I have not been running Lion due to known issues with Adobe apps.
Graphics in 2011 Macs vary widely, so IMO the graphics processing unit (GPU) may be the most important variable for comparing new Aperture boxes in 2011 . The GPU itself is important, but even more importantly evaluating the GPU strength turns out to be a pretty good way to compare 2011 Mac Aperture performance.
Relatively real-world 2011 graphics hardware test results on pro applications have been performed by well-respected testers, see below. I have not yet seen meaningful Aperture-specific tests, however experience since v1 Aperture has been that Aperture performance has been keenly dependent upon the strength of the graphics processor. E.g. a Mac Pro with lame graphics card will underperform on Aperture.
In my experience (2011 17" MBP) the benefits of SSDs are huge. I consider the fastest Aperture workflow to have both Library and Referenced Masters on SSD, then when work on a Project is complete the Referenced Masters are relocated to hard drives. I am doing that now and everything on the box is essentially instant.
Comparative Final Cut Pro test results for the 2011 MBPs vs. others are up at barefeats.com:
http://barefeats.com/fcpx01.html
Comparative Motion test results for the 2011 MBPs vs. others also are up at barefeats.com:
http://barefeats.com/wst10g12.html
Comparative 2011 MBP Graphics test results at barefeats.com:
http://barefeats.com/mbps04.html
INSIGHTS from BareFeats.com:
"1. The 2011 2.2GHz and 2.3GHz MacBook Pro with Radeon 6750M graphics (1GB GDDR5) is a 'different animal' from the 2011 2.0GHz MacBook Pro with the Radeon 6490M graphics (256MB GDDR5). Is it worth $300 more (comparably equipped). Yes, when you consider you are getting a faster CPU and much faster GPU.
2. The 2011 2.7GHz MacBook Pro with Intel HD 3000 integrated graphics does little or nothing to improve the 3D graphics performance compared to the GeForce 320M integrated graphics in the 2010 MacBook Air and 13" MacBook Pro."
HTH
-Allen Wicks

Early08 Mac Pro ATI Radeon 4870 Upgrade w/ 24" LED Cinema Display

I have just received the ATI Radeon 4870 upgrade kit for my early 2008 Mac Pro (dual quad) which permits me to use the new LED Cinema Display (I now have a mini display port). Almost everything works well but find I am unable to manually put the display to sleep. It just seems to freeze and not go dark. Am using OS 10.5.6. I know the card is a new product. Is anyone else having the same problem?
Thanks,
Jack

This information is GOLD! Solid GOLD!
I have an early-'08 Pro also, and got the HD 4870 this afternoon via FedEx. I tried running a game, and got a "Cannot load 3D acceleration" error message. I noticed that moving windows was choppy, as was switching between Spaces pages. I called AppleCare, and after a loooooooong discussion with some very friendly folks, the tech support guy sent me to the Apple Store support to initiate an exchange.
I then found this thread, downloaded the beta drivers, and BAM! it works like I hoped it would, blazing fast graphics.
I called AppleCare back so they'd be aware of it, and while I was on the phone, the guy even followed that link and said, "Wow, what the heck is that site?" He was very happy to have the information.
Spread the word!
Of course, then, today, I noticed on MacRumors that a new nvidia card is going to be offered as an upgrade next month. Sigh. I think I'm happy enough with this one to ignore the nVidia offering. I hope 10.5.7 comes out soon.
Stuart

How Do I use an Ati Radeon 4870 HD for 3 Monitors

I am new to the Apple world and community. I recently got a new job that requires me to use a Mac Pro. OS X version 10.6.8. 2.66 ghz dual xeon and 32 GB of ram. It has a ATI Radeon 4870 HD. I can run 2 monitors fine using the DVI and Mini DV port ( Using a convertor from apple. ). When I try to use the 2 other HDMI ports for my third monitor, Mac OS wont detect it. The wierd thing is some of the images from certain apps show on the 3rd Monitor.
Under graphics information it shows the Radeon 4870. Under PCIe information it shows the same card. On the back of my machine I have 2 HDMI slots and another lower down with Mini DV and DVI.
The Displays I am running are 3 HP LP2475w Monitors. Running in DVI mode with one converted to Mini DV. The 3rd non working is running in DVI to HDMI but it can be run Straight HDMI if need. Ive tried alot of configuration settings and I can't get the HDMI port to be detected by MAC OS. Ive plugged one in at a time and just the HDMI do not detect.
Please let me know what information is needed to help troubleshoot this better.

A 5770 is $249 or slightly less and in the same dept to me as replacing hard drives, adding some RAM in order to work and because my understanding is it was the first card to support 3 monitors.
The 5770 only requires 10.6.5+ - and the 4,1 had way too many issues with 10.5.7/10.5.8
The 4870 may or may not provide what you need for the software you run, even though 3 yr old machine but 4 yr old plus video card.
flashing:
http://boeglin.org/blog/index.php?entry=entry090918-031702
4870 vs GTX 285 that came out at that time also
http://www.geek.com/articles/games/macpro-whats-better-ati-radeon-4870-or-nvidia -gtx-285-20090720/
The default card was Nvidia GT120 and req'd no power cables and popular way to support more displays.
People were running DUAL 4870s to support 3rd monitor though back then:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=665034&page=10

2 questions: validity of my machine's status as a 3.1 Mac Pro, and what PCIE cables for Radeon 4870?

Hello, I bought a used mac pro from a guy that said it was a 3.1. It runs great and when I go to "About this Mac" and then to "More info" and look at the hardware info, it says that it is indeed a 3,1. However, the serial number sticker on the back says it's a 2.8! Any insights into that? I'm very new to Mac Pro desktops and I just want to make sure I didn't get ripped off.
My second question. The machine came with the standard X2 quad 2.88 GHz processor, 8gb of Ram, and a Radeon 2200 graphics card. I bought an ATI Radeon HD 4870 from a guy on craigslist but he didn't have the power cables for it. He said it wasn't a big deal and after I did some research it looks like I need some PCIE power connectors. The card takes two, 6 pin power cables. My question is where do I plug them in on the logic board? Should it be a 6 pin plug in also meaning I want a 6pin to 6pin cable like this (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16812200975&nm_mc=KNC-Google Adwords&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-_-pla-_-Internal+Power+Cables-_-N82E16812200975 &gclid=CMW8u4Po5LUCFcdDMgodx2AAyA).
So yeah, the simplest answer I'm looking for is what cables do i need to power my ATI Radeon 4870 in my Mac Pro? Another way to answer that I guess would be to explain to me the way my power supply works in my mac pro.
Thanks!
Mickey

That is an 8-pin. And I just posted Amazon link to 6-pin in another graphic card upgrade thread minutes ago.
And it had a ATI 2600XT. good thing you replaced it.
10.6.8 tends to run best but try - andkeep 10.8.x and see how it goes. Also more options later in graphic cards.
Call Apple and have them check the serial number and they can provide for small $20?fee the OEM DVDs it shipped with (10.5.x) and Apple Hardware Test. They can also sell 10.6.3 DVD
I would have looked for the ATI 5770, better support, the 4870 lacks some ML (Mountain Lion) support for OpenCL.
ATI Radeon 5770
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC742ZM/A
http://www.amazon.com/Apple-ATI-Radeon-5770-MC742ZM/dp/B003Z6QH6M
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/726537-REG/Apple_MC742ZM_A_ATI_Radeon_HD_5 770.html
How To Install and Remove Memory Mac Pro
https://support.apple.com/kb/HT4433
2008 Mac Pro Memory Arrangement
http://eshop.macsales.com/Customized_Pages/Framework.cfm?page=install_videos/mac pro/macpro_quicksheet.html
2x2GB FBDIMM DDR2 667MHz @ $31
http://www.amazon.com/BUFFERED-PC2-5300-FB-DIMM-APPLE-Memory/dp/B002ORUUAC/
Hardware Monitor
http://www.bresink.com/osx/HardwareMonitor.html
UPS
http://www.amazon.com/CyberPower-CP1500PFCLCD-Compatible-1500VA-Tower/dp/B00429N 19W/
PCI-e Power Aux Power cable
http://www.amazon.com/PCIe-Power-Cable-nVidia-Video/dp/B002UR1654/

Radeon 4870 for mac

My friend just purchased a ATI Radeon 4870 for his pc from tigerdirect.com only to realize that his computer needs an AGP card. He is trying to offload the card onto me for a discounted price. I am wondering if it will work with my mac pro? It has no "mac compatible" stickers on it or anything. Was wondering if anyone could be of help? thanks.

Apple has 5-6 weeks before they ship a Mac Pro compatible version. Best bet is to return it, and wait.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB999ZM/A
Right now only the ATI Radeon 3870 is sold outside in retail (OWC, Amazon, ATI).
http://ati.amd.com/products/mac.html

I have an early 2008 Mac Pro, 8 gb ram with a Dell 27" display and a 42" LG TV. I am thinking about upgrading the stock ATI Radeon 2600 graphics card for better resolution, preferring 2 dvi outputs. Does anyone have any suggestions on the best card?

I have an early 2008 Mac Pro, 8 gb ram with a Dell 27” display and a 42” LG TV. I am thinking about upgrading the stock ATI Radeon 2600 graphics card for better resolution, preferring 2 dvi outputs or 1 dvi and 1 vga vs 1 dvi and a mini. I don't do a lot of Final Cut Pro, gaming, etc. I am interested in best value for the graphics card.
Does anyone have any suggestions on the best graphics card for these larger displays for the best value?
Thanks,
Kevin

I recommend you install nothing older than the Apple-firware 5770, about US$250.
RE: Mac Pro Replacement Graphics cards
1) Apple brand cards,
2) "sold in the Apple store" cards, and
3) "Mac Edition" cards ...
... show all the screens, including Boot up screens, Safe Mode, Installer, Recovery, debug screens, and Alt/Option boot screens. At this writing, these choices include:
1) Apple brand cards:
• Apple-firmware 5770, about US$250** works near full speed in every model Mac Pro, Drivers in 10.6.5
• Apple-firmware 5870, about US$450
2) "sold in the Apple store" cards
• NVIDIA Quadro 4000, about US$1200
• NVIDIA Quadro 5000, about US$2500
3) "Mac Edition" cards -- REQUIRE 10.8.3 or later:
• SAPPHIRE HD 7950 3GB GDDR5 MAC Edition, about US$480** Vendor recommends Mac Pro 4,1
• EVGA GTX 680 Mac Edition, about US$600
The cards above require no more than the provided two 6-pin aux power connectors provided in the Mac Pro through 2012 model. Aux cables may not be provided for third-party cards, but are readily available.
If you are Meet ALL of these:
• running 10.8.3 or later AND
• don't care about "no boot screens" etc AND
• can re-wire or otherwise "work out" the power cabling, THEN:
You can use many more cards, even most "PC-only cards"

Better replacement for ATI Radeon HD 5770

Hello. I have in my Mid 2010 Mac Pro the ATI Radeon HD 5770 1024 MB. What graphics card is out there that has better graphics and also supports 3 to 4 monitors easily? My budget is in the 300 to 400 range. I've seen the EVGA GeForce GTX 680 for Mac, which is amazing, but out of my budget. I need to get three monitors running soon.

Apple Mini DisplayPort adapters: Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3382
Guide to Apple graphic display adapters needed
https://support.apple.com/kb/HT3235
Atlona (Dual Link) DVI to Mini DisplayPort Converter for Apple 27-inch LED and 27-inch iMac
http://www.atlona.com/Atlona-Dual-Link-DVI-to-Mini-DisplayPort-Converter-USB-Pow ered.html
Mac Pro (Early 2009), Mac Pro (Mid 2010), Mac Pro (Mid 2012): Issues with three displays and multiple DVI, HDMI connections
It's not the USB data that is needed to run three displays. It's the extra POWER. If you read the Apple article, they say the only solution they endorse is their US$100 Dual-Link adapters. Check the table at the end of the article.
Mac Pro (Early 2009), Mac Pro (Mid 2010): Supported display configurations
Readers here have found that if you have two Brand-X Powered adapters, aka active adapters, it also works fine. These do not always require another USB. If designed recently, they can pick up a power pin in the Mini DisplayPort interface.
AMD (makers of the 5770 and 5870) lists the qualified POWERED adapters that meet their most stringent requirements. Look down the page and you will find several qualified Active Mini DisplyPort to various others, such as HDMI. These adapters are available from other outlets, such as Amazon, sometimes for far less than the Apple adapters.
http://support.amd.com/us/eyefinity/Pages/eyefinity-dongles.aspx
The other desktop monitor will plug directly into the DVI port on the card and the 40 inch tv will still connect via HDMI over the second Mini Display port.
That will work only if you use an active Mini DisplayPort to HDMI adapter.
The only (someone) have found to work (2009)
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/337561577/miniactive_display_port_tohdmi.html
but you should confirm that they are really active before buying 500 of them.
You can connect a DVI to HDMI adapter or cable to an active Mini DisplayPort to DVI adapter but that won't give you any audio over HDMI. You could connect the DVI displays to the Mini DisplayPorts with active adapters and use a DVI to HDMI cable or adapter from the DVI port to the TV.
If you want audio via HDMI, you can use audio from the Mac Pro's optical output with this DVI to HDMI converter:
http://www.apogeeinc.net/products/item.aspx?item=2745
Active MDP to HDMI audio and video converter:
http://ca.startech.com/AV/Displayport-Converters/Mini-DisplayPort-to-HDMI-Active -Video-and-Audio-Adapter-Converter-Mini-DP-to-HDMI-1920x1200~MDP2HDS

I am handling logistics department in a company, i am handling more than 100 calls in a day. But my iPhone 4 have only 100 number call history. How to increase my call log size or kindly suggest a better app for storing 1 month call history..

I am handling logistics department in a company, i am handling more than 100 calls in a day. But my iPhone 4 have only 100 number call history. How to increase my call log size or kindly suggest a better app for storing 1 month call history..

Here's one:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/callog/id327883585?mt=8

Is *.html a "better" file structure for SEO detection than *.htm?

I like Muse...a lot. For my skill-set of having to be both the "web designer" and "web developer", Muse works TONS better than DreamWeaver ever did for me. (Maybe when Muse adds in the feature of being able to design a site that is completely responsive to any type of device, you'll change the product name to "Magic")
That being said, when I took a 3-year-old site that I had set-up on the domain using *.htm file extensions, and transformed it into a Muse site, I saw that Muse only allows HTML files to be saved with the *.html extension.
I have taken the proper steps to redirect all of the previous pages on the web to be the new pages ending in *.html. (I suspect it will take about a month or so for Google and others to "wash-out" the old filename versions and replace it with the new versions in their search libraries.)
My question is to wonder why it is that Adobe has decided to fix the page extension to be *.html? Is it a better structure for HTML5 and CSS? Do search engines "like" it better for some reason?
Just asking for education knowledge. :-)

It is a problem I have thought over at length and still feel what I use could be better. You are doing it the right way around researching before you start, as moving files once things are underway can course real problems. One issue is the use of similar assets across site(s), and version control if you have multiple versions of the same asset.
Can not say I have built a site(s) of that size but would recommend putting together a flow chart to help visualise the structure and find out better ways organising (works for me). Good luck, post back with your solution.

Better use for Fireworks CS6, other than animated gifs and batch process?

I started using fireworks in the much earlier days of web design back in 2000. Now with Illustrator and Photoshop being the law of the land, fireworks has begun to fade and take a back seat. Primarily right now i use fireworks just for creating animated gifs and batch process if i have a bunch of images that i would like to re-export or format to my liking. Does anyone have any other better uses for this program? detPhx
I am just looking to utilize this more, since i install it.

For the web, exported PNG compression is better in FW than PS.
CS6 FW can now generate code for CSS3 borders, gradients, Sprites, etc...
FW can be used for jQuery Mobile Theme skinning
http://tv.adobe.com/show/learn-fireworks-cs6/
I still use AI for vector graphics & PS for photo & image manipulation, but FW has some nice features for web designers.
Nancy O.

Is there any way to force iPhoto to present faces by folder for identification rather than randomly? Would provide better context for identification especially if a huge number of images is involved.

Before I commit the time and energy required to load and tag faces in 25,000 images within iPhoto, I need some questions answered;
Is there any way to force iPhoto to present faces by folder for tagging rather than randomly? When so many images need tagging, over many years, the context of a folder helps with the identification. The work around is to load the images into iPhoto one folder at a time and do the tagging then.
How do I get iPhoto to present the tagged faces by last name rather than first name? When so many faces will be identified, it is much easier to find people by surname, particularly when I share the library within the family. The work around is to enter names as last name and first name. Being able to toggle the sort is much more desireable.
Is there a way to export a portion of the library including faces? I want to pass on portions of this huge 125 GB library to my family members.
Since my family members will need an Apple computer to view the images and faces, they will likely have their own photo library. So is there any way to combine two libraries and merge the faces?
About 2/3 of my images have been scanned, so the date of creation is the scanned date rather than the date the photo was taken. Will this mess up any sequencing or the retrieval of faces?

If I want to carve off part of a library, I presume the way to do this is to make a copy of the library using PLM then go into iPhoto and delete what I don't want. The result is the carved off portion.
You don't need Library Manager to delete the portion you don't want.
As a general rule: when deleting photos do them in batches of about 100 at a time. iPhoto can baulk at trashing large numbers at one go.
If I want to merge two libraries, PLM implies that it will do this but will the Faces be merged too?
I believe so.

12.4 Beta, Error: Could not find a match for std::_Tuple_impl 0, std::string && ::_Tuple_impl(std::tuple std::string &&

Hi,
would you guys say code that compiles fine without -std=c++11 should also compile *with* -std=c++11?
raider@sol112_x86:/tmp $ CC -V
CC: Sun C++ 5.13 SunOS_i386 Beta2 2014/06/17
raider@sol112_x86:/tmp $ CC buggy.cc
raider@sol112_x86:/tmp $ CC -std=c++11 buggy.cc
Error: Could not find a match for std::_Tuple_impl<0, std::string &&>::_Tuple_impl(std::tuple<std::string &&>, std::string ) needed in std::tuple<std::string &&>::tuple<std::string, void>(std::string &&).
"/opt/SolarisStudio12.4-beta_jul14-solaris-x86/lib/compilers/CC-gcc/include/c++/4.8.2/tuple", line 868:     Where: While instantiating "std::tuple<std::string &&>::tuple<std::string, void>(std::string &&)".
"/opt/SolarisStudio12.4-beta_jul14-solaris-x86/lib/compilers/CC-gcc/include/c++/4.8.2/tuple", line 868:     Where: Instantiated from std::forward_as_tuple<std::string>(std::string &&).
"/opt/SolarisStudio12.4-beta_jul14-solaris-x86/lib/compilers/CC-gcc/include/c++/4.8.2/bits/stl_map.h", line 485:     Where: Instantiated from non-template code.
1 Error(s) detected.
raider@sol112_x86:/tmp $ cat buggy.cc
#include <map>
#include <string>
typedef std::map<std::string, std::string> StrStrMap;
int main(void)
    StrStrMap dict;
    dict["bug"] = "feature";
    return 0;

C++11 is approximately a superset of C++03. If you write in the common subset, the code will compile in any mode. For example, a basic hello-world program
#include <iostream>
int main() { std::cout << "Hello, world!\n"; }
will compile and run as C++98/03, as C++11, as C++14, and I'm sure will also work with the next standard, planned for 2017.
But if you use syntax or library types and functions that are new in C++11, the code will not compile as C++03.
In my previous post, I might have sounded too negative about compiling C++03 code in C++11 mode. If you have a C++03 program that is intended to be portable, and that works with different compilers on different platforms, chances are good that it will continue to work in C++11. The chances are very good that only minor modifications will be needed.

Macpro config for Aperture

Hi guys
I have the very first macpro ever released, the old 2 x dual core 2.66ghz xeon 5150's and 16gb ram. I have the nvidia 8800gt which i bought a while back when my old ati 1900xt card died.
I'm running 2 x 30" screens.
I'm thinking now is the time where a new one would give a bit of speed boost.
Can anyone suggest a ideal config for Aperture? My cameras are 1Ds mk3's and my aperture library is around 1.4tb at the moment.
I'm thinking the (obscenely priced) 2.93 8 core with 16gb ram from transintl.com and the radeon 4870.
I have lots of hard drives already I can put in it.
thanks

Your existing box (the same as mine) is still very good. Personally I would wait to replace it; at least until we see real-world Aperture performance on the new boxes for a month or two to help determine optimum configuration.
The CPU clock upgrades above the 2.26 8-core are ridiculously expensive, probably not cost effective. Wait until the end of the year and I bet we will see price drop and/or speed bump.
The Radeon 4870 is alleged to perhaps work on our 2006 Macs. Wait and see if it does. Barefeats.com will have tests.
My guess is that careful RAID array of fast hard drives & Library configuration (Referenced Masters Library perhaps?) might help performance on the existing box a great deal.
Wait too for memory tests before you add RAM to a 2009 MP. Early reports suggest groups of 6 rather than 8 DIMMs. Again, barefeats.com will have tests.
-Allen Wicks

IMac - what graphic card best suited for Aperture???

Hi, I'm considering buying the 24" iMac to use with Aperture 2.1.2, however it comes with the option
of two graphics cards:
ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO w/256MB GDDR3
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS w/512MB GDDR3
I don't play any games, so what I want is the best card for use with Aperture (and I guess core image?).
From what I can see at barefeats.com its not necessarily the biggest card which is the best, since they are often optimized for games and not so much 2d graphics.
Right now I use Aperture on my 2.2Ghz MacBook Pro with 128Mb Nvidia card, and its not the fastest combo at all.
What is your opinion?
Best,
Peter

AFAIK the Barefeats commentary <http://barefeats.com/imp01.html> seems accurate and suggests that the 2600 card is best value.
If one is buying a new desktop box, iMacs are much more limiting to Aperture performance than Mac Pros, even a 2006 MP. So the only reason to consider an iMac is price. Once we acknowledge that the setup build is about accepting lesser Aperture performance to achieve lower price, the significance of the $150 extra for the 8800 card becomes more apparent. IMO if one is price-constrained to buying an iMac then the $150 that might have gone to an 8800 card is better spent on adding the necessary maximum RAM and FW800 external hard drive(s).
-Allen Wicks

Radeon 4870 better match for Aperture 3 than GF 9600GT?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for