MacPro with 1900XT and Aperture?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by PALitig8r, Sep 8, 2006.

  1. PALitig8r macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    #1
    I'm still waiting on mine (no change to the Sept. 19 ship date), but has anyone run Aperture on a 1900XT mac pro? It looked pretty lackluster on the 7300 1GB machine, but I'm assuming it will fly with the 1900XT and 2GB of RAM. Would love to hear real confirmation, though....
     
  2. NATO macrumors 68000

    NATO

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    #2
    If you don't get a reply before my Mac Pro arrives in a week or so, I'll post back with results for you.
     
  3. PALitig8r thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    #3
    Thanks. I'm hoping mine arrives in that time period as well. Have seen some commenting on gaming FPS running Windows, but nobody seems to be commenting on Aperture or Final Cut testing ....
     
  4. Fedge macrumors regular

    Fedge

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    #4
    I would love to try this out, but i don't have the universal version of Aperture. :mad:
     
  5. ammon macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado
    #5
    I have the universal version of Aperture, but I don't have my x1900xt yet!
     
  6. PALitig8r thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    #6
    If you have Aperture, can't you download the universal version? I think you just install the original one and the do a software update...
     
  7. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #7
    I have a better question...

    Why would you code a software program to use the GPU when

    YOU HAVE FOUR FRACKING PROCESSORS RUNNING AT 3.0GHZ???

    Duh!

    (FWIW I have Aperture and secretly hate it.)
     
  8. MaxPower2k6 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    #8
    I have a stock Mac Pro and an aperture library of ~5000 RAW files from a D70. I have to admit, i've been a little disappointed with the performance. It's worlds better than my iMac G5, but I expected it to really fly and it doesn't. I think more RAM will definitely help, and that's my next upgrade. I might see how the PC graphics card thing plays out, too, since getting a PC 7800GT is cheaper than the Apple X1900XT upgrade. not quite as good a card, but still a nice upgrade.
     
  9. PALitig8r thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    #9
    That's why I'm very curious to see it run on the 1900XT. The heavier GPU should make a big difference ... I have really come to like Aperture but find it way too slow on my iMac G5. I'm hoping for no more beachballs with a 2GB Mac Pro and 1900XT. If mine ever ships, I'll post reflections...
     
  10. MovieCutter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #10
    If you have Motion, run the Fire Mortise 2 template and render a RAM preview...time it, and report back.
     
  11. Fredou51 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Location:
    Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    #11
    Is that usually long on the powermac or the macpro with the 7300GT?
     
  12. Fuzzy Orange macrumors 6502

    Fuzzy Orange

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    #12
    Actually, isn't each proc running at 1.5 GHz? ;)
     
  13. ipod4le macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    san diego
    #13
    aperture run the same as 7300 nvidia.
    i add 8gb of ram in my mac pro 2.66 with nvidia 7300 card and its alot faster than my buddy mac pro with the ati, running aperture
     
  14. studiox macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Location:
    Stockholm / Sweden
    #14
    Might be a stupid point but Appeture are a 2D application and I don't expect it to be quicker if you buy a *insert-whatever-graphics-card-you-want-here.

    Of course more VRAM on the card helps to use large resolutions, and CoreImage will load off the CPU a bit. But i think the real problem is the RAM in the box.

    RAW images are ... well.. LARGE! and just letting osx swap a portion of those to VIRTUAL MEMORY is bad bad bad :). If you use Aperture i would spend my bucks on the ram..
     
  15. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #15
    No.
     
  16. MaxPower2k6 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    #16
    Aperture uses CoreImage for all image rendering and effects, so the graphics card in the computer (theoretically) very much affects the performance of the program. That said, Aperture also seems to love RAM so that may make a bigger difference (or at least more noticeable) than upgrading the graphics card.
     
  17. NATO macrumors 68000

    NATO

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    #17
    I understand Core Image is used to drive Aperture mainly, but they really should have coded it to assess whether to use the GPU or CPU(s) depending on which would give best performance. Seems a bit silly to have a Mac Pro with 4x3.0GHz cores sitting largely idle just because the user maybe went for the 7300GT rather than the X1900XT :rolleyes:
     
  18. Fuzzy Orange macrumors 6502

    Fuzzy Orange

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    #18
    There are 2 processors in the Mac Pro, each running at 2, 2.66, or 3 GHz, right? Each one contains 2 proc cores. The sum of the proc strength, in my case 2.66, is split up between the 2 cores. So each core is running at 1.33 GHz, I think. Is that right?
     
  19. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #19
    Solid logic, but no.


    To me, it just doesn't make sense to have to have the biggest baddest GPU when you have 4 of the biggest baddest processors. Why in hell would you offload that work when the processors are full capable?
     
  20. Fuzzy Orange macrumors 6502

    Fuzzy Orange

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    #20
    Ehhh... I give up. Can someone explain to me how it works?:eek:
     
  21. iBookG4user macrumors 604

    iBookG4user

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #21
    You were thinking of HT which if you had a 2.66 GHz CPU with HT technology the OS would think it was two different processors each running at 1.33 GHz. Although dual core technology is different because they basically put two whole CPUs onto one CPU so you have basically two 2.66GHz CPUs.
     
  22. Fedge macrumors regular

    Fedge

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    #22
    Each processor has two independant cores. Each core runs at 2.66 or 3.0. That means there are FOUR separate cores running at the advertised clock speed. There's no division involved. Simply 4 * 2.66.
     
  23. Trekkie macrumors 6502a

    Trekkie

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Location:
    Wake Forest, NC
    #23
    Nope. Each core runs at 3.0GHz or 2.66GHz or whatever the clock rate of the processor is sold as.
     
  24. Fuzzy Orange macrumors 6502

    Fuzzy Orange

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    #24
    Seriously? Wow. So I got a machine even more powerful than I thought. Also iGary, why do you hate Aperture? I was considering buying it with a X1900XT when I got my Nikon D80. Is it worth the $150 I would spend?
     
  25. stapler macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    #25
    Think the advantage in UB apps an iMac has on the top-of-the-line Power Mac and you've got the idea.
     

Share This Page