Mac Pro Intel and Adobe Photoshop CS5 in 64 Bit mode ...

[OBI6645]

Hello,

I am in search for use Mac-Pro Intel for reason to update my Mac G5 desktop publishing.

One thing which confuse me is, that new Photoshop CS5 is running in 64Bit mode and as far as I know NOT all Mac Pro’s are cable to hosted in 64Bit mode ...NATIVE.

Can anyone PLEASE HELP ME to identify, which Mac Pro I should be shopping for ?

This help will be very appreciated.

Thank you. :)

[jedijoe]

All Mac Pro desktops (Intel Based), even the 2006 model are 64-bit. The only 32-bit Intel products released by Apple were the 1st generation Macbook Pro (used Core Duo chip) and some early Mac Minis (not sure about early Macbook Airs)

[goMac]

One thing which confuse me is, that new Photoshop CS5 is running in 64Bit mode and as far as I know NOT all Mac Pro’s are cable to hosted in 64Bit mode ...NATIVE.

All Mac Pros can run 64 bit apps.

Some can't run the 64 bit kernel, which isn't something you should worry about. 64 bit kernel's biggest feature is that it can address more RAM than you could fit in an old Mac Pro anyway.

[OBI6645]

All Mac Pro desktops (Intel Based), even the 2006 model are 64-bit. The only 32-bit Intel products released by Apple were the 1st generation Macbook Pro (used Core Duo chip) and some early Mac Minis (not sure about early Macbook Airs)

This is what I learn from other posts ::: It is likely that the OP's 2006 Mac Pro is still running a 32-bit operating system at present. Therefore, it cannot run CS5 at all unless the OP upgrades (updates) the OS to a 64-bit one. And CS5 requires MacOS 10.5.7 or higher just to even run at all. So, even if the 2006 Mac Pro is running a 64-bit OS, the OS that it is currently running is likely to be of an older version than the 10.5.7 required to run CS5 at all.

All of the Intel processors used in the Macs are 64-bit capable. Unfortunately, that 2006 Mac Pro is almost certainly of version 1.1, the very first released version of the Intel-powered line. Therefore, it cannot be upgraded to a video card that can use the GPU acceleration feature of MPE.

[goMac]

This is what I learn from other posts ::: It is likely that the OP's 2006 Mac Pro is still running a 32-bit operating system at present. Therefore, it cannot run CS5 at all unless the OP upgrades (updates) the OS to a 64-bit one. And CS5 requires MacOS 10.5.7 or higher just to even run at all. So, even if the 2006 Mac Pro is running a 64-bit OS, the OS that it is currently running is likely to be of an older version than the 10.5.7 required to run CS5 at all.

All of the Intel processors used in the Macs are 64-bit capable. Unfortunately, that 2006 Mac Pro is almost certainly of version 1.1, the very first released version of the Intel-powered line. Therefore, it cannot be upgraded to a video card that can use the GPU acceleration feature of MPE.

Mac Pro 1,1's can run Photoshop CS5 just fine in 64 bit with GPU acceleration (Photoshop is actually worse with GPU acceleration on than off, btw.) We have several Mac Pro 1,1's running Photoshop CS5 at work in 64 bit mode just fine.

[OBI6645]

Mac pro in your office, Do they run in NATIVE mode or ROSETTA mode ...

Thx.

[goMac]

Mac pro in your office, Do they run in NATIVE mode or ROSETTA mode ...

Thx.

Native. They all run native 64 bit.

Photoshop hasn't run in Rosetta since CS2.

[Honumaui]

Can anyone PLEASE HELP ME to identify, which Mac Pro I should be shopping for ?

This help will be very appreciated.

Thank you.:)

Budget ?

what size files are you working on etc..
do you currently have enough storage ?

[OBI6645]

Budget ?

what size files are you working on etc..
do you currently have enough storage ?

In CS4 images up to 750 MB for murals / I have tuns of storage ...:)

[OBI6645]

Native. They all run native 64 bit.

Photoshop hasn't run in Rosetta since CS2.

U know what I sooooo appreciate your help. Situation is, that I have few offers to purchase and as U can imagine I do not want to make a mistake I will rather spend $$$ for brand new Mac pro but that is 6 000.00 compare to 2 000.00 ... U see my picture ...;)

[Honumaui]

CS5 is a must update so you can take advantage of the memory :)

I might say either the new 6 core or 4 core depending on funds ? I dont think you will see a huge difference after more and more things I see they are pretty close with the 6 core jumping ahead by it seems %10 or so ? more do to the cache on chip ?


getting a few SSD in raid 0 for scratch would be good for your larger files if and when you hit the scratch ? size wise ? not sure you can check that also in the lower left with scratch size in PS ? I would say 2 40s might be enough then set the next scratch to whatever else you might have for scratch ? that way its cheaper and quick for most things if you are hitting over that ?
scratch and SSD I have mentioned before as others ? its new who knows how long SSD last ?
otherwise get a few fast discs and short stroke them to 100 gigs and raid 0 them and use that as scratch ! use the remainder of the disc as BU


a SSD about 120 is a nice luxury and might help when the OS has to use virt memory ? its a luxury I feel but once you have one you wont want to go back to a regular for boot !

24 gigs of memory or 32 ? I would say try 24 and look at your efficiency in PS
lower right hand corner or up in the info area for those curious about this google it :) will answer it better than I can but if you are below %90 - %95 more ram up it to 32


now the one thing to know if you do the raid 0 scratch and a single SSD you are maxing out the bus speed ! meaning you are not getting full speed if you use those 3 cards at the same time and any other drives you have internally will suffer ! so a card like the newtek for $49 at www.macsales.com would do well
their was another thread on this and thanks nanofrog to remind me of these cards :)
this is the thing about SSD ! they are fast so some other small things have to change :)

[Macinposh]

Mac Pro 1,1's can run Photoshop CS5 just fine in 64 bit with GPU acceleration (Photoshop is actually worse with GPU acceleration on than off, btw.) We have several Mac Pro 1,1's running Photoshop CS5 at work in 64 bit mode just fine.


goMac, I know it is much to ask,but could you (or have you allready) run the Retouch artists test in your MP1.1s and list the specs you have?


Tried the test with CS2 & CS 3 ,under Tiger+Leo+SL and all the results are in the same ballpark, 27secs.
Wondering if updating to CS5 would do any difference or if I should just skip it and wait for CS6.

[OBI6645]

CS5 is a must update so you can take advantage of the memory :)

I might say either the new 6 core or 4 core depending on funds ? I dont think you will see a huge difference after more and more things I see they are pretty close with the 6 core jumping ahead by it seems %10 or so ? more do to the cache on chip ?


getting a few SSD in raid 0 for scratch would be good for your larger files if and when you hit the scratch ? size wise ? not sure you can check that also in the lower left with scratch size in PS ? I would say 2 40s might be enough then set the next scratch to whatever else you might have for scratch ? that way its cheaper and quick for most things if you are hitting over that ?
scratch and SSD I have mentioned before as others ? its new who knows how long SSD last ?
otherwise get a few fast discs and short stroke them to 100 gigs and raid 0 them and use that as scratch ! use the remainder of the disc as BU


a SSD about 120 is a nice luxury and might help when the OS has to use virt memory ? its a luxury I feel but once you have one you wont want to go back to a regular for boot !

24 gigs of memory or 32 ? I would say try 24 and look at your efficiency in PS
lower right hand corner or up in the info area for those curious about this google it :) will answer it better than I can but if you are below %90 - %95 more ram up it to 32


now the one thing to know if you do the raid 0 scratch and a single SSD you are maxing out the bus speed ! meaning you are not getting full speed if you use those 3 cards at the same time and any other drives you have internally will suffer ! so a card like the newtek for $49 at www.macsales.com would do well
their was another thread on this and thanks nanofrog to remind me of these cards :)
this is the thing about SSD ! they are fast so some other small things have to change :)

THANK YOU SO MUCH, VERY VERY HELPFUL !!! :)

[Honumaui]

just noticed I said lower right hand corner meant lower left hand :) sorry :)

[OBI6645]

Mac Pro 1,1's can run Photoshop CS5 just fine in 64 bit with GPU acceleration (Photoshop is actually worse with GPU acceleration on than off, btw.) We have several Mac Pro 1,1's running Photoshop CS5 at work in 64 bit mode just fine.

I did testing today and YES you are running CS5 in 64 Bit mode but in 32bit kernel.


RE : IT"S NOT OK to say "there is no need to boot into the 64bit kernel because of that." Running 64bit apps on 64bit kernel will perform much much better as compared to running it on 32bit kernel.

[J the Ninja]

I did testing today and YES you are running CS5 in 64 Bit mode but in 32bit kernel.


RE : IT"S NOT OK to say "there is no need to boot into the 64bit kernel because of that." Running 64bit apps on 64bit kernel will perform much much better as compared to running it on 32bit kernel.

No, they won't. The performance is pretty much the same.

[Honumaui]

http://macperformanceguide.com/SnowLeopard-Performance.html

decide whats worth it :) for me booting into 64 was worth it :)

I saw this then did my own testing and found the above to be true :)

[OBI6645]

http://macperformanceguide.com/SnowLeopard-Performance.html

decide whats worth it :) for me booting into 64 was worth it :)

I saw this then did my own testing and found the above to be true :)

& that is what I have found today.with my tests !!! :)

[goMac]

B]RE : IT"S NOT OK to say "there is no need to boot into the 64bit kernel because of that." Running 64bit apps on 64bit kernel will perform much much better as compared to running it on 32bit kernel. [/B]

As the link posted above shows, the performance is pretty much the same...

Photoshop doesn't really use much in the way of kernel functions. That's why the Photoshop performance tests were pretty much identical, honestly, it was within the margin of error even.

[Honumaui]

and some were up to %18 quicker ?

new LR3 I noticed about %10 ?

the thing is why not do it if you can ? you loose nothing but gain speed in some cases ? its silly not to boot into 64 these days IMHO :)

[goMac]

and some were up to %18 quicker ?

new LR3 I noticed about %10 ?

the thing is why not do it if you can ? you loose nothing but gain speed in some cases ? its silly not to boot into 64 these days IMHO :)

Photoshop was what... less than 1%? Again, Photoshop doesn't heavily use kernel functions. You have to drop into kernel functions to make use of 64 bit kernel. Lightroom shows a speed increase likely because of the heavy I/O usage, which is kernel based.

You do loose compatibility with existing drivers if you go with the 64 bit kernel.

The %18 gain was again, on a very very file I/O heavy operation, totally slanted towards the 64 bit kernel. This is not an average use situation. In addition, the test is even further slanted towards 64 bit kernel because he's using a 4 disk RAID. You would in no way see that performance gain unless you were running a large RAID like that. A normal disk setup would have enough latency that you wouldn't see that speed gain because the kernel would be waiting.

Really, there are a lot of issues with Diglloyd's conclusions.

[Honumaui]

Really, there are a lot of issues with Diglloyd's conclusions.

and even more with yours !!!

if you are saying dont boot into 64 ?

I have been for a while no issues what so ever

[OBI6645]

and even more with yours !!!

if you are saying dont boot into 64 ?

I have been for a while no issues what so ever

@ According to my testing 32Bit is perfectly fine but it doesn’t utilize complete power of PH CS5 as 64Bit does ...

By the way thanks to all of you guys since you have save me a thousands of $$$.

If you will be a local folks I will take you for beer. :):):):cool::cool::cool:

[goMac]

and even more with yours !!!

...such as?

The benchmark is totally stacked by removing any normal use scenarios. He even admits it in the first paragraph of the benchmark where he admits he used a 4 drive RAID to remove drive latency out of the equation.

[Honumaui]

...such as?

The benchmark is totally stacked by removing any normal use scenarios. He even admits it in the first paragraph of the benchmark where he admits he used a 4 drive RAID to remove drive latency out of the equation.

he has show how it helps so you show us your results how it HURTS

[goMac]

he has show how it helps so you show us your results how it HURTS

I don't have to... He admits he slanted the test in the first paragraph.

He's basically trying to benchmark the kernel as directly as possible, taking any normal slowdowns out of the equation. Again, he admits this. I don't have to prove anything.

[Honumaui]

I don't have to... He admits he slanted the test in the first paragraph.

He's basically trying to benchmark the kernel as directly as possible, taking any normal slowdowns out of the equation. Again, he admits this. I don't have to prove anything.


he did not slant it those are your words

this is what he said
Most tests on this page are insensitive to disk speed. A few are somewhat sensitive to disk speed; all were run using a 4-drive RAID stripe so as to eliminate disk speed as a factor.


wow imagine talking about a kernel in 64 or 32 and trying to keep it to the kernel !!!


and also many photographers do use raids :)

[Honumaui]

I don't have to...

spoken like a child !!!!

[goMac]

B]wow imagine talking about a kernel in 64 or 32 and trying to keep it to the kernel !!! [/B]


and also many photographers do use raids :)

It simply isn't average use. He's eliminating disk latency as a consideration, and if you had average disk latency, the scores would be much much much closer. Disk latency is much more important of a factor than kernel speeds. It's just simply not realistic for most users.

With regards to most photographers using RAID, it would have to be an internal RAID or an ESATA RAID to see this sort of improvement. It's just simply not realistic for 99% of users.

[Honumaui]

It simply isn't average use. He's eliminating disk latency as a consideration, and if you had average disk latency, the scores would be much much much closer. Disk latency is much more important of a factor than kernel speeds. It's just simply not realistic for most users.

With regards to most photographers using RAID, it would have to be an internal RAID or an ESATA RAID to see this sort of improvement. It's just simply not realistic for 99% of users.

since it is about the OS in 64 though vs 32 it makes sense to try to keep it about that ?

this was not a test of how drive choice figures into things ? thats a whole other thing :)