Graphics cards and Photoshop.

[andyjamesnelson]

I have been reading all over the place about this and it seems that people differ in opinion!!!

Some people say that Photoshop will only see improvments in more ram, cpu, Hd etc.

Others say that the better the cards the better the overall performance of many aspects of the system including running PS.

Others say that gaming cards are no good for 2d graphics and that Ps cannot use many features of the cards and that more basic cards are better suited.

I really want my new system to be kcik ass for PS and Final cut. I know I will have to wait for Adobe to get there ass in gear.. but I am sure the Mac Pro will still crap all over my Powerbook g4 1.25 1gig ram for Ps so i dont mind waitting for the software to catch up.


I am pretty confused by all of this. Please let me know what you know on the subject.

[eva01]

well by final cut, do you mean the program or the studio?

Motion is the program that really takes a really good graphics card.

Photoshop uses HD, RAM, and CPU, along with final cut is the same i believe

[andyjamesnelson]

I dont use any 3d programs like motion as of now.. maybe I will in the future but who knows..

What I want a a great com for PS and rendering video.

I also noticed that the Ati card has a large fan on the back of it. Is it loud?

[Sun Baked]

Some people say that Photoshop will only see improvments in more ram, cpu, Hd etc.

Others say that the better the cards the better the overall performance of many aspects of the system including running PS.

Others say that gaming cards are no good for 2d graphics and that Ps cannot use many features of the cards and that more basic cards are better suited.Photoshop uses their own CPU routines for their filters, which are more CPU dependent.

However, 2d stuff that takes advantage of Quartz Extreme uses some of Apple methods for using the 3d engines to render faster.

Otherwise video work, 3d and Core Image are the more likely stuff for upgrading cards past integrated video.

[iGary]

Photoshop can only take advantage of 3GB of RAM max - do what you like there - more helps.

The rendering programs I use make no use of the GPU at all.

What kind of machine do you have?

[Fearless Leader]

...I really want my new system to be kcik ass for PS and Final cut. I know I will have to wait for Adobe to get there ass in gear.. but I am sure the Mac Pro will still crap all over my Powerbook g4 1.25 1gig ram for Ps so i dont mind waitting for the software to catch up...

the mac pro is faster than the quad g5 in photoshop.

[andyjamesnelson]

This is for use with a mac pro that I am going to order when I have worked out hwo I should spec the thing. andy

[zwida]

the mac pro is faster than the quad g5 in photoshop.

It's true. I get some weird little bugs running PS in Rosetta, but it's plenty fast once the application launches. (Launch itself IS a bit slower...).

[andyjamesnelson]

wow so this machine is going to blow my powerbook away. great. so borred of waitting for it.. andy

[technicolor]

It's true. I get some weird little bugs running PS in Rosetta, but it's plenty fast once the application launches. (Launch itself IS a bit slower...).
Really.

My Macpro opens Photoshop in one bounce, and the credits just scream by!

[zwida]

I also noticed that the Ati card has a large fan on the back of it. Is it loud?
Depends who you ask. I don't find my x1900 to be too loud, but some have complained about the noise and there are possible mods that will quiet it down.

It may be a card to card issue, or (more likely) an office noise to office noise issue...

I'd recommend the x1900 in any case. I think it's a reasonable choice for this machine.

[iGary]

the mac pro is faster than the quad g5 in photoshop.

Really?

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=58745&d=1159580625

[Sun Baked]

This is for use with a mac pro that I am going to order when I have worked out hwo I should spec the thing. andyDepends on how you plan on using screens...

The ATI Radeon X1900 XT card if you plan on 2 monitors.

The GeForce 7300 GT card if you plan of more than 3 or more monitors, since some people have experienced problems mixing these cards.

Of course this is worth looking into, since some said they did work -- but I don't know if that was swapping monitors and running a card at a time or running 4 screens.

[Fearless Leader]

it runs ok on my mbp. In most areas its the same as my dual 1.8 g5, but luanch takes a bit, and a guassian blur 95px, on 3000x3000 sized image take a long time.

[andyjamesnelson]

yeah but I really dont want a loud machine.. i would prefer a silent machine thats a bit slower then a fast machine thats loud. of course i still want a well fast machine.hahah.

[zwida]

Really.

My Macpro opens Photoshop in one bounce, and the credits just scream by!

***jealous***

[Fearless Leader]

Really?

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=58745&d=1159580625

ohh be quite...

their is real world experiance a couple post back. and those arent real world test.

[andyjamesnelson]

Ps on my g4 powerbook takes ages to load and then is fine untill one trys to do anything with filters...slow. and some times i have to wait for the spinning ball of death.. and building histograms for levels etc etc...borring.. andy.

[iGary]

ohh be quite...

their is real world experiance a couple post back. and those arent real world test.

So you are telling me Barefeats is bunk? :confused:

[Fearless Leader]

So you are telling me Barefeats is bunk? :confused:
no, but their is real world experiance which i would rank above barefeats.

sidenote: what is your current setup igary? all the links in the official thread are broken, except the one of your wires under the desk.

[andyjamesnelson]

still ti looks like the mac pro is well fast and when adobe change things it will be like having a new com for all those people who allready have mac pro.

[andyjamesnelson]

still the topic is is a better graphics card worth it if your not gaming or doing 3d?????

[Fearless Leader]

my opion is that an upgraded graphics card wont speed up photoshop unless your current gpahics card is hindering performance on the system itself. More memory would be much better until the 3gb barrier, and most of the actions, if not all, are done on the cpu.

[andyjamesnelson]

I think I am leanign towards not getting the ati card.. its doesnt seem that people think its realy worth it unless you are doing 3d..

[andyjamesnelson]

Also I think I will spend the money on more ram ..get 1gig from apple and then 2x 1gig from crucial. that way I will have 3gigs ram and i think that will make up for any graphics cards.. andy.

[iGary]

no, but their is real world experiance which i would rank above barefeats.

sidenote: what is your current setup igary? all the links in the official thread are broken, except the one of your wires under the desk.

Well I'm not going to argue the point with you because you're using unsubstantiated claims. I gave you a benchmark done in a controlled manner and you're argument is "well it's not real world."

Nothing I can do about that.

[AppliedVisual]

OK,

I'm going to throw a bit more confiusion in here for andy... Get the ATI card! Don't look at it as if it's a gaming card, it's more than that. It's only a $250 upgrade and is the best performing card in all aspects, even for 2D functions, of all the current choices with the exception of the overpriced FX4500 -- which only has advantages for specialized 3D functions.

The X1900XT is the best bang for the buck right now on the Mac Pro and will accelerate lots of Quartz functions as people have stated. It will really show a huge advantage over the 7300GT offerings with Core Animation functions coming up in Leopard (OS X 10.5).

OK, enough on that... As for the Photoshop benchmarks and have to side with iGary. Those benchmarks are pretty close to correct from what I've seen in "real world" use. In fact, with many operations and especially if you have to resort to 3rd-party plug-ins, my G5 quads are definitely faster than a Mac Pro.

OTOH, the Mac Pro is still blisteringly fast considering Photoshop is running via Rosetta. I can hardly wait until we have proper universal binaries for Photoshop. Especially if CS3 is properly multithreaded to take advantage of all these CPU cores. It's going to scream....

[andyjamesnelson]

**** i have no idea if i should get the ati card or not:(:mad: :(

[Fearless Leader]

Well I'm not going to argue the point with you because you're using unsubstantiated claims. I gave you a benchmark done in a controlled manner and you're argument is "well it's not real world."

Nothing I can do about that.

ok im sorry, looks like i was dead wrong on this one.
The reason i threw out that benchmark, and have thrown out most other benchmarks before, and probly still will is that, some are garbage and its hard to tell whichones are good and which are bad.

and the Nothing I can do about that. was refering to you not want to argue with me, or all the links and .mac link are broken and will stay like that.

[iGary]

ok im sorry, looks like i was dead wrong on this one.
The reason i threw out that benchmark, and have thrown out most other benchmarks before, and probly still will is that, some are garbage and its hard to tell whichones are good and which are bad.

and the was refering to you not want to argue with me, or all the links and .mac link are broken and will stay like that.

I'll post a new setup pic when we get moved. The house looks like soomeone blew it up right now. :)

[Fearless Leader]

I'll post a new setup pic when we get moved. The house looks like soomeone blew it up right now. :)
:) send me pm when its posted please. I don't know why but i have always wanted to see your setup and have never gotten to..

anyways, get the ati. It will future proof your computer, and who knows cs3 might have everything done on the gpu and take advantage of 16gb memory, and 8 cores. Also jag. will be completly 3d enviroment and will love the extra horse power. Its what 200$ more and is a key component in the system.

[radiantm3]

In "Real world" situations, I'm betting the quad g5 is much faster in photoshop than the mac pro with equal amounts of ram. I'm running a quad mac pro at work (2.6ghz w/ 3 gigs ram) and I bring photoshop to a crawl working with web graphics (72dpi) and a ton of layers. It's about as fast as my old dual 1.8ghz g5 in that sense.

Some people seem to think their mac pros are sprinkled with magic fairy dust to run photoshop in emulation faster than a speedy native machine. Sure opening photoshop and applying filters to an image is going to be fast. But that's not really "real world" situations for most professionals. Working with files that are 300+ mb when opened with over 100 layers is more "real world" and Photoshop running under Rosetta seems to take a big hit then. It's still impressive nonetheless.

[AppliedVisual]

**** i have no idea if i should get the ati card or not:(:mad: :(

Just do it. If you regret spending $240 more, then you have no business buying a Mac Pro. If you don't buy it, then you'll always have that nagging voice in the back of your head saying "you should've upgraded the video card, you cheap bastard." LOL... Seriously, upgrading to the ATI card the only thing you have to lose is the $240 or whatever upgrade price and a whole lot to gain (faster overall video performance - 2D and especially 3D), 2 x dual-link DVI ports on the same card, better resale value for the system if the need comes up, etc...

And check out Memorytogo.com for Mac Pro RAM. It's cheaper than Crucial (2x2GB 4GB kit is $760 last I checked). I don't personally have any experience with their Mac Pro memory, but I haven't heard any complaints yet from those who have bought it and posted about it online. Give it another month or so and FB-DIMMs with proper heat spreaders will be more common and available from vendors like newegg for great prices. If you want to hold out for better RAM prices and can live with 2GB for now, the 4x512 config is only a $300 upgrade through Apple and that's actually not a bad price to add that second gig of RAM with no brain-damage on your part. Prices on their 1GB modules are too high and their prices on 2GB modules are downright criminal compared to Crucial, memorytogo and others who have Apple approved RAM. ...But I think we're all used to that from Apple anyway.

[andyjamesnelson]

Ok I think some of the people here are right. I will go for the better Ati card.

Here are the reasons I think its a good idea:

I think that probably PS and Final Cut will benifit from more GPU power.

I may start using motion and I hear that this application benifits a real lot from a better card.

I do from time to time play new games which are all 3D and totally run better on faster cards and its so much more fun to play games when there running at full spec. Plus your freinds can come over and marvel at you machine :

I dont realy know what this Core animation thing is but from having a quick look on the Apple site it sounds like it will use a lot of GPU and I would love to be running the OS at full speed.

So it sounds like it makes sense. I guess there is also more life in a better card. And its cool that I could run two monitors from it.

I'm going with the better card. Jesus this mac gets more and more expensive. And to think i was maybe going to get a 24inch imac! HAH. I dont i ever really was going to. I think there was just this tinny voice in my head saying spend less or something and I would love a 24inch HD screen but its nothing agaisnt the power of the Mac pro. andy

[AppliedVisual]

Ok I think some of the people here are right. I will go for the better Ati card.

Here are the reasons I think its a good idea:

I think that probably PS and Final Cut will benifit from more GPU power.

PS and Final Cut don't benefit -- they don't currently offload any functions to a GPU. Actually, 3D transition effects in FC are powered by Quartz / OpenGL, so there is benefit to previews and speed bumps in the editing process. You won't see any speed-ups for actual rendering.


I may start using motion and I hear that this application benifits a real lot from a better card.

Motion will benefit some...

I do from time to time play new games which are all 3D and totally run better on faster cards and its so much more fun to play games when there running at full spec. Plus your freinds can come over and marvel at you machine :

I dont realy know what this Core animation thing is but from having a quick look on the Apple site it sounds like it will use a lot of GPU and I would love to be running the OS at full speed.

So it sounds like it makes sense. I guess there is also more life in a better card. And its cool that I could run two monitors from it.

I'm going with the better card. Jesus this mac gets more and more expensive. And to think i was maybe going to get a 24inch imac! HAH. I dont i ever really was going to. I think there was just this tinny voice in my head saying spend less or something and I would love a 24inch HD screen but its nothing agaisnt the power of the Mac pro. andy

Yep, I think you're headed on the right track... Although, that 24" iMac is a sexy beast if it still fits your needs. If you get one of those, be sure to get the 7600 GT video upgrade... It's not near as fast as the X1900XT card in the Mac Pro, but nearly twice as powerful as the stock 7300 GT.

[MacRumorUser]

The BTO X1900 option is a veritable bargain.

When I got my powermac G5 I had no need for the top GFX card at the time, but within a year applications like motion came out. I had to pay €599 ($700+) for my Radeon X800 XT from the Apple Store afterwards. A ridiculous price.

Even if you dont plant on doing heavy 3d accelerated applications straight away, things can change.

Photoshop WILL NOT improve because of the graphics card.

Final Cut WILL benefit for REAL TIME previews as it will be able to take advantage of RT Extreme to a much higher degree than with the stock card.

Go for it, you wont regret buying it and at the end of the day your spending $2500+ on a computer, whats $240 for the upgrade now ? ;) :D

[aneks]

Photoshop is faster on the g5 quad, wait for the universal and be amazed. Under xp2 on my mac pro it is faster than a quad with 5gb of ram. Nothing you can do in photoshop will in anyway tax any of the 3d cards available for a mac pro.

In the same way nothing in FCP will really require something like a quadro4500. The only time you are going to see any difference is when you use something highly openGL dependant like Shake, Cinema 4d or Lightwave. Maya isn't UB yet so forget about it. The x1900 does not support all the openGL enhancements of AE 7 but the quadro does.

The next wave of apple pro apps will most likely follow the 'Motion' path and offer GPU based acceleration for certain features. In this case then a better 3d card will make a difference. If you seriously need performance then again it's the quadro you should be looking at and not the x1900. The ati card is a lot faster in games and certain folks are suggesting it outperforms the Quadro on some apps ! But given the state of drivers I will beleive it when I see it.

That said I am buying an x1900 becasue they are so cheap and I want a speed boost using 3d apps in windows XP and games.

[ejewels52]

Really.

My Macpro opens Photoshop in one bounce, and the credits just scream by!

Not sure what you mean here...you are saying that from when you first hit the photoshop icon in the dock, in one bounce the program is up and running and ready to use? HIGHLY doubt that. Or do you mean it gets to the opening credit load screen really fast once you hit the icon? I have a 2.66 pro and it gets to that credit screen fast, but you then have to wait (not long) until the program is set up and ready to use...