2012 iMac 3.4 GHz Core i7 / 32GB RAM / GTX 680MX 2G/ 3TB Fusion HDD really STRUGGLES

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Mac2133, Apr 6, 2013.

  1. Mac2133, Apr 6, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2013

    Mac2133 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2012
    #1
    :( My 2012 iMac 3.4 GHz Core i7 / 32GB RAM / GTX 680MX 2GB / 3TB Fusion HDD really STRUGGLES when processing RAW files from my Nikon D800. Here is a screenshot of the processor cores working on a batch process to make Noise Reduction adjustments on 50-60 files each 40-60mb file size:
     

    Attached Files:

  2. WilliamG macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
  3. All Taken macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    Struggles in comparison to what exactly? A 12 core 3.33Ghz Mac Pro? or another quad core i7 Mac?
     
  4. Mac2133 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2012
    #4
    Struggles in comparison to an i7 (3 year-old) PC with just 16GB RAM and a weak GPU. I switched from PC to Mac in December 2012. Overall, it's been a great experience so far and I love my Mac and the OSX world. I'm better organized. Things work. Without a glitch. Except for this task of processing RAW files using Capture NX2. My old PC was faster. Didn't sweat as much. I got a top of end Mac with maxed out specs (3.4 i7 / 32 GB RAM / GTX680MX 2GB graphics / 3TB Fusion Drive) expecting things to get much much better. But. It did not.
     
  5. Nuke61 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Location:
    Columbia, SC
    #5
    Since you're using better hardware, it looks to me that the Mac version of NX2 is simply not as fast as the PC version, in much the same way that the PC version of iTunes is a poor substitute for the Mac version.

    My suggestion is to try the Trial version of Lightroom and see if it works any better than NX2. I use Aperture and only have a D90, so the RAW files are much smaller. Oh, the link to the Lightroom Trial is: https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=photoshop_lightroom
     
  6. bflowers macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    #6
    Not sure that I would call that struggling, more like working. You realize that with these machines (I have one like it, just half the RAM, and 1TB Fusion, I have a lot more external storage using USB3) most of the time they are sitting idle. Unless you are constantly waiting for it, I'd say it is working just fine. You are giving it a work out, that is all.
     
  7. iF34R, Apr 6, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2013

    iF34R macrumors 6502a

    iF34R

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Location:
    South Carolina
    #7
    What software on the old machine, compared to this one, are you using?
    edit::

    nevermind, I saw it now lol.
     
  8. bflowers macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    #8

    I also use Aperture and have a Canon T3i, as I've only been into photography a short while. My RAW files are in the 22-26MB range. I expect Nuke is right, the NX2 for Mac probably is a port, and poorly optimized.
     
  9. TennisandMusic

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    #9
    That's because PCs are faster, period. This is pretty well known, but not generally accepted in the Mac world. It's definitely kind of sad. It's why I ditched my hex core Mac Pro and went to a quad core self built PC. My PC absolutely trounces it, and for a third of the price. Oh well...
     
  10. iF34R macrumors 6502a

    iF34R

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Location:
    South Carolina
    #10
    I'm sorry.... that's just the wrong line of thinking. PC's with better specs, are faster than Mac with lower specs. That's the general idea.

    A PC with the same specs as a Mac, doesn't make it faster than the Mac.
     
  11. Nuke61 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Location:
    Columbia, SC
    #11
    Incorrect, PCs *can* be faster, but if the hardware is the same, the results are going to be essentially the same, with the caveat of better or poorer written software. iTunes performance on Windows is HORRIBLE when compared to its performance on Macs. The opposite can also be true, and I suspect it's the cause in this case.
     
  12. iSayuSay macrumors 68030

    iSayuSay

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    #12
    Not always true. Software optimization is important too.

    Many ported games runs horrible on OSX side and great on a Mac with BootCamp, look at the Witcher 2, my iMac handles the game just fine on Windows, not so much on the Mac side LOL. Same machine, same hardware, different OS, different result.
     
  13. iF34R macrumors 6502a

    iF34R

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Location:
    South Carolina
    #13
    Software optimization is just another piece of the puzzle.

    That goes under, pretty much just like you said it, x runs better on windows vs OSX. It doesn't make a PC faster than a Mac from a hardware standpoint.
     
  14. Mike in Kansas macrumors 6502a

    Mike in Kansas

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Location:
    Metro Kansas City
    #14
    I was running NX2 on a PC some years ago and moved to a more powerful iMac; I found out then that the Mac version of NX2 seemed to perform worse on better hardware. I quickly trialed Aperture and eventually moved to that.

    I recognize that you like NX2 as it is arguably the "best" RAW processor for NEFs (i.e. most accurate to the Nikon in-camera jpeg) as well as allowing you to use camera profiles. The u-point technology is cool as well. However, in the end I decided I could live with the "limitations" of Aperture and then gain speed, a great DAM, and a much more seamless integration with OSX. And now that you can get the NIK plugins for Aperture you can get that u-point technology back.
     
  15. flavr macrumors 6502

    flavr

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    #15
    This is a very creative way to start a Mac sucks PC is great thread...gotta hand it to you on that one...

    Anyway it sounds like your software is not optimized for Mac, try a different one. If you absolutely have to keep same software run it under native windows using bootcamp...problem solved...next
     
  16. thehustleman macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2013
    #16
    Either PC format (apple or windows) can be faster than the other depending on software, specs, file sizes or anything else.

    Your new pc is fine, no need to go back to Windows
     
  17. bmcgrath macrumors 65816

    bmcgrath

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    London, United Kingdom
    #17
    When I first got my Nex7 (24mp) Aperture did struggle in the beginning when processing files. I think I recall a few software updates that focused on the RAW plugin and Aperture. I must say my mid 2011 iMac can now power through RAW files fine. Especially now that I have added 16gb of RAM.
     
  18. err404 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    #18
    I don’t see a problem here. Frankly you want the CPU to be at full throttle for an extended time when doing batch processing. That’s precisely why you are doing it as a batch. If your CPU was low during this process it would indicate a bottleneck elsewhere in your system. The only important metric for comparing your Mac vs PC would be in total execution time, but you didn’t provided that.
    There could be a problem with the implementation of this filter on the Mac, but from what I see it looks fine.
     
  19. Bear macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Sol III - Terra
    #19
    The one thing you didn't say is the overall time to run the batch? How does that time compare to the older Windows system you mentioned?

    The iMac can't be declared to be struggling just by looking at a processor usage graph.

    You can't say that without knowing the time comparisons between the Windows box and the Mac.
     
  20. Mac2133 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2012
    #20
    Nuke61 - yes I agree with this. It seems that Capture NX2 is just engineered to work faster on Windows.

    You, my friend, have a devious and crooked mind. You need healing. I would suggest this for you:

    http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Meditati...ie=UTF8&qid=1365640108&sr=8-3&keywords=yogani

    It costs under $4 and will heal your mind. Learn to take statements at face value. That is exactly what I was doing. Stating that I'm enjoying and love my Mac. No intention of bashing Mac - just saying that 1 out of the 12 things I do on my Mac is done better on Windows. Grow up, man.

    You raise a very valid point. Somehow, I forgot to mention in my original note. Yes, it did take much, much longer to run this on a Mac. The same task would have been done on Windows in 2/3s of the time. BUT, Windows PC is very noisy - there's usually a 'roar' when it executes tough batch jobs like these... the Mac just purrs.
     
  21. All Taken macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    I see a very obvious solution via bootcamp in here somewhere but it's a shame that native Mac software like this isn't comparable to the Windows platform offering.
     
  22. err404 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    #22
    If it's just poor optimization on the Mac version, then you may just want to execute the windows code base.
    Depending on how adventurous you are, you could try virtualbox or maybe even Wine.
    However it occurs to me that the issue may simply be due to the Mac version lacking support for non-standard CPU extensions. A VM or Wine may not have these available either.
    In the end it's mostly an issue of market share. A good developer should prioritize more time to optimizing tasks for the largest audience. Unfortunatly at this time that is Windows.
     
  23. bflowers macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    #23
    I still find it odd that he claims the machine is struggling. If that graph showed solid green across the top and it took a really long time to process the batch, then you can say struggle. There were barely any points where a single given core hit max usage.
     
  24. Red Fuji macrumors member

    Red Fuji

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Location:
    USA-Pacifc Standard Time
    #24
    There are at least a hundred variations of the i7 Ivy Bridge processor; maybe your 3 yr old PC is using a more advanced i7 than the Imac. anyone know which specific i7 is in the2012 Imac-bsides the 3.4Ghz spec?
     
  25. iF34R macrumors 6502a

    iF34R

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Location:
    South Carolina
    #25
    From mine:

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page