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

Similar Messages

Which MAC Pro graphics card and how much RAM for FCE HD usage?

I plan on purchasing a MAC Pro afer MacWorld Expo next month. Any recommendations for a specific graphics card that would complement my usage of Final Cut Express HD 3.5?
Also, should I increase my RAM? I currently use 2 gb of RAM on my G4. Will I see greater productivity if I bump it up to 4gb of RAM on the MAC Pro or will 2gb suffice which I had planned to increase it to from the standard 1gb supplied?
PowerMAC G4 dual 1.42ghz Mac OS X (10.4.7) 2gb RAM, 3-LaCie FW800 external drives
PowerMAC G4 dual 1.42ghz Mac OS X (10.4.7) 2gb RAM, 3-LaCie FW800 external drives

Any of the graphics cards that Apple sells for the Mac Pro will be fine. Personally, I'd suggest choosing one with at least 128MB video RAM, 256MB would be better.
2GB RAM in your Mac Pro will be more than enough for general purpose video editing. Going to 4GB will give you more oomph for RealTime effects and somewhat for rendering but you won't see a big difference in regard to capturing or general editing in the timeline.

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.

Which mac should i purchase...please help!!!!! Its my first mac!

Im in a dilema...I solely want to produce music with Ableton and I will be using Final Cut Pro extensively...im debating on which MAC system to purchase....Im highly interested in the new macbook but im not sure if the laptop will sustain the tasks I want to do...maybe a macbook pro or powerbook? or should i just skip the laptop idea and get an imac or desktop mac! Please help?

any mac would work fine using ableton live, but if you're going to be doing final cut work, you're going to need more graphics power. if you need a portable, the macbook pro should do you fine. a powerbook will work, but with final cut the macbook pro is literally at least 4 or 5 times as fast. if you don't need a portable, either the 20" or 24" imac will work fine, the smaller one doesn't have dedicated graphics, so it won't do. if you are working with serious, professional media or HD media in final cut, the mac pro is the only way to go.

Which Mac Pro Will Do It?

Hi,
I'll be looking to purchase a well maintained use or refurbished Mac Pro. My goal is to get one with 6gb of ram and add my 2 1gb stick to make 8gb of ram total.
My concern is running a stable Pro Tools LE system (with several other apps open)... so video and graphics bells and whistles are not priority here.
Any recommendations that would be a cost effective solution for me (which Mac Pro and reliable retailers)?
Thanks!

Just showed up first time today after a very long hiatus, the single cpu 4-core 2.8 from 2008, for $2K.
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/mac_pro
Not bad for someone that wants a full tower but doesn't need 8-core or want to spend more.

Which Mac Pro? More cores=slower speeds? And most of us know the speed matters or FPU for music and I don't understand the faster is for the least amount of procs. And while I get the whole rendering thing and why it makes sense.

Which Mac Pro? More cores=slower speeds? And most of us know the speed matters or FPU for music and I don't understand the faster is for the least amount of procs. And while I get the whole rendering thing and why it makes sense.
The above is what the bar says. It's been a while and wondered, maybe Apple changed the format for forums. Then got this nice big blank canvas to air my concerns. Went to school for Computer Science, BSEE, even worked at Analog Devices in Newton Massachusetts, where they make something for apple.
The bottom line is fast CPU = more FPU = more headroom and still can't figure out why the more cores= the slower it gets unless it's to get us in to a 6 core then come out with faster cores down the road or a newer Mac that uses the GPU. Also. Few. I'm the guy who said a few years ago Mac has an FCP that looks like iMovie on Steroids. Having said that I called the campus one day to ask them something and while I used to work for Apple, I think she thought I still did as she asked me, "HOW ARE THE 32 CORES/1DYE COMING ALONG? Not wanting to embarrass her I said fine, fine and then hung up. Makes the most sense as I never quite got the 2,6,12 cores when for years everything from memory to CPU's have been, in sets of 2 to the 2nd power. 2,4,8,16,32,64,120,256,512, 1024, 2048,4196,8192, 72,768. Wow. W-O-W and will be using whatever I get with Apollo Quad.
Peace to all and hope someone can point us in THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THANK YOU

Thanks for your reply via email/msg. He wrote:
If you are interested in the actual design data for the Xeon processor, go to the Intel site and the actual CPU part numbers are:
Xeon 4 core - E5.1620v2
Xeon 6 core - E5.1650v2
Xeon 8 core - E5.1680v2
Xeon 12 core - E5.2697v2
I read that the CPU is easy to swap out but am sure something goes wrong at a certain point - even if solderedon they make material to absorb the solder, making your work area VERY clean.
My Question now is this, get an 8 core, then replace with 2 3.7 QUAD CHIPS, what would happen?
I also noticed that the 8 core Mac Pro is 3.0 when in fact they do have a 3.4 8 core chip, so 2 =16? Or if correct, wouldn't you be able to replace a QUAD CHIP WITH THAT? I;M SURE THEY ARE UO TO SOMETHING AS 1) WE HAVE SEEN NO AUDIO FPU OR PERHAPS I SHOULD CHECK OUT PC MAKERS WINDOWS machines for Sisoft Sandra "B-E-N-C-H-M-A-R-K-S" -
SOMETHINGS UP AND AM SURE WE'LL ALL BE PLEASED, AS the mac pro was announced Last year, barely made the December mark, then pushed to January, then February and now April.
Would rather wait and have it done correct than released to early only to have it benchmarked in audio and found to be slower in a few areas- - - the logical part of my brain is wondering what else I would have to swap out as I am sure it would run, and fine for a while, then, poof....
PEACE===AM SURE APPLE WILL BLOW US AWAY - they have to figure out how to increase the power for 150 watts or make the GPU work which in regard to FPU, I thought was NVIDIA?

Which Mac Pro to buy for Studio 3

Guys, I'm in the process of upgrading my trusted Power Mac G5 Quad to a Mac Pro.
I will also upgrade to FCS 3.
My question is, which Mac Pro to buy? Quad 2.93 OR Octo 2.26?
Will FCS 3 along with Snow Leopard utilise ALL the Octo's processors? Or am I better off saving the money and sticking with a Quad?

If your income depends on this work, then buy the biggest, baddest, most RAM-filled Mac Pro you can.
At least get the octo 2.66. Put 12GB RAM in it, if you can, but put a minimum of 6GB in there. The concept is that as a professional editor, editing for clients, you must be as time efficient as you can afford to be.
Compressor will use that RAM to compress your stuff a lot faster. Also, Motion can make use of as much RAM as you throw in there. Final Cut Pro itself, not yet.

Wanted to know if the mac pro keyboards purchased in miami bring the letter "ñ"?

wanted to know if the mac pro keyboards purchased in miami bring the letter "ñ"?

ñ Ñ
Type option-n, n
Works on all US keyboards.
é É
option-e e
Option-shift-?

Newest version of itunes not compatible with my Mac Pro 15" and no new updates available for my Mac

I was able to dowload and install itunes on my windows but was unable to on my Mac due to an error mesage that states that it needs a newer version to install Itunes
i have Mac pro softwere version 10.5.8
asking for at least a 10.6
and on my current Itunes ipad mini wont connect

Snow Leopard comes on a disk that can only be purchased from the Apple website, NOT the App store;
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC573/mac-os-x-106-snow-leopard
Ciao.

Apple Mac Pro 2008 dual 2.8ghz quad core

Hey guys,
Ive got a real brain teaser. I have a apple mac pro 2008 dual 2.8ghz quad core that wont boot.
The leds on the memory test good its all tested in another mac and working well.
The 9 leds are reading as follows 2nd led lit yellow. Led 9,8,7 Green- which from my research is good.
Ive also reset the cmos battery and vram, nothing.
Pulled the memory and video card and re-seated them also nothing.
The last thing i tryed was shut the computer down sit for 30 seconds then held alt and got the install mac os screen not a hard drive option.
Which leads me to think its not seeing the hard drive?
Any suggestions?

Starts up with fans
Makes the apple chime
The chime is generated in software when the first portion of the power-on self test has passed.Your Mac is working and has enough working RAM memory to start up.
You still may have problems with drives, the software on those drives, or your graphics card.
apple logo comes up
The dark gray Apple is loaded by the ROM boot loader in the first blob of software (before the file system is initialized). Its presence indicates your Mac can get some stuff off a Hard Drive, and seeing it indicates your graphic card can display something in a primitive way.
with spinning gear and just sits there for hours
It is stuck booting up something. Verbose Mode (hold Command-V at startup) will show you the parade of messages. The last five will tell you what happened.

Mac Pro Late 2013 or iMac Late 2013 for photo editing?

Hi,
I am currently running with a Late 2009 iMac (i7, 2.8 GHz, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD) and I am mainly doing RAW post-processing with Lightroom and some steps (auto-stitching panoramas, more complicated layered editing/sharpening/re-coloring) in Photoshop CS 5.5.
With the RAW images of my Canon EOS 60D and my Fuji X-M1 being >20MB I am increasingly seeing stuttering in the workflow when loading 1:1 zooms, exporting images and rendering previews. I am not sure where it's coming from but after 4 years with the iMac I think it's time for something new.
I am trying to decide between a fully-loaded Late 2013 iMac (i7, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD) or a Late 2013 (although more like Early 2014 ) Mac Pro (6-core 3.5 GHz, 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD). Performance-wise for my use it seems in single-threaded situations the iMac might even be faster (based on Geekbench Single-Core 64Bit Benchmarks) but the Mac Pro offers two extra cores - also the memory speed in the Mac Pro is higher.
So for the first decision criteria I want to make sure I opt for the fastest machine in my use case described above - it's not really clear to me if the iMac would indeed be faster given the low multi-core utilization in Adobe's code.
The second criteria is the ability to use arbitrary displays/monitors with the Mac Pro versus having the panel included already inside the iMac. To what extend can the iMacs 27" panel be utilized for photo-processing? I heard they can't be calibrated properly and I rarely find information how much sRGB/AdobeRGB coverage the panel has. I am looking increasingly more into color-management enabled workflow to get a decent soft-proof of my photos before I sent them over for printing - this is for home and amateur use only but I had some bad experiences already with images coming out from professional photo studies with completely dark shadows and different teints.
On the other hand I would also like to use multiple but smaller monitors (24") to make use of multi-monitor support in Lightroom (Library view on second screen etc) and have third monitor to control/monitor the rest of my activities (iTunes, Spotify, Browser, Youtube etc )
An iMac with two additional 24"/27" displays will always look a bit crappy due to the different heights and visually iritating due to different panels/resolutions. On the other hand it's a much cheaper solution than a Mac Pro with 3 distinct monitors and I heard only good things about the sharpness and clarity of the iMacs screen due to reduced filtering and thinner construction.
The last criteria is how future-proof the solution is. 4K displays are clearly on the horizon and 2-3 years from now I expect them to be standard over ordinary HD displays. Even today you can use a Mac Pro with a 4K display in high-dpi mode and get a Retina display on your desktop - something I would really look forward to. With the iMac that would mean replacing the whole thing in 2-3 years if there will be a 4K/Retina-iMac at all.
The Mac Pro seems to bet better in solution longevity given it is still a very capable machine in 4-5 years from now with up to 3 4K displays hooked up and still room for at least 3 Thunderbolt 2 devices. Double Gigabit-Ethernet is nice but also only nice-to-have as it won't speed up point-to-point single-stream data transfers to a LACP-bound NAS.
So, given all these thoughts... what do you think? Would it be more wise to go with the iMac and replace it in 3 years or with the Mac Pro and keep it 4,5-6 years?

RAM and some serious PCIe-SSD storage will help Aperture/LR. But I am use to spreading things out, learned long ago the benefits on concurrent and never reading+writing though didn't have todays 1.2Gb SSD to play with.
Was not to move the thread, but to ask there also for first hand on how they like the 2013 iMac now. I just don't feel comfortable spending that much when I know Mac Pro is designed for heavy use, better thermals, IS upgradeable, and will last longer.
Marco seems to have changed site or the article is off line.
Try this article if you want to understand new Turbo Boost specs:
http://www.marco.org/2013/11/26/new-mac-pro-cpus
http://www.marco.org
http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/23/apple-mac-pro-review-2013/
http://www.macworld.com/article/2082568/lab-tested-new-mac-pro-is-the-speedster- weve-been-waiting-for-finally.html
(2013) Mac Pro review (verge)
2013 Mac Pro review: small, fast and in a league of its own (engadget)
Tested: New Mac Pro is the speedster we've been waiting for (finally)

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.

How do i engage my 8 core mac pro to use all it's cores when using final cut pro and other applications that need processing power? at the moment they seem to be idle...

how do i engage my 8 core mac pro to use all it's cores when using final cut pro and other applications that need processing power? at the moment they seem to be idle...

First, did you use Setup or Migration Assistant? That can happen when coming from a PowerMac or sometimes even from another (Intel) Mac.
Second, wait for the next version of Final Cut due very soon to ship (may have to wait for the ".1" of course to clean up any early issues.
Final Cut Pro - Wikipedia
There are a few apps that are better. I think you can run multiple instances of Handbrake for one.
I've read about and wanted to try PowerDirector 9 (Windows)
PowerDirector 9 video software
video editing software Wiki

Kann man auf einem Mac Pro 1.1 mit 2 quard core 3ghz intel Xeon 5355 OS X Maverics Installieren ?

Kann man auf einem Mac Pro 1.1 mit 2 quard core 3ghz intel Xeon 5355 (64 Bit) Os X Mavericks instalisieren ?

No. The processors do not decide.
Only Mac Pro with firmware 2008-model or later.
Too-old firmware is the failure.

Does my new mac pro retina come with antivirus. And, for how long

does my new mac pro retina come with antivirus? And, for how long?

Yes it does.
It's called OS X Lion - fully updated.
There are no known viruses for MAC OS.
Your current OS is your best protection
If however, you want to feel more secured, download ClamX AV and do a scan once a week to give you peace of mind.
Good luck

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

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for