Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Does anyone knows if for Photoshop work 12 core is a must or the benefits are not that great?
I would like to either use the 6 or 8 cores and save $ome dough and use it on RAM and storage.

Go for 6 cores with as much RAM as you can afford, I'm a photographer and that's what I'm getting based on many tests, personal experience and tech suggestions.

Have a look here: http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20131218_3-MacPro-CPU-choice.html

6 cores is the sweet spot for Photoshop and Lightroom.

Hope that helps!
 
Upgrading new Mac Pro

A few hours ago I asked an apple guy a few questions about the RAM, Hard Disk and GPU. It's getting very interesting all this misinformation around the tech specs of the machine. I was very confident after the chat, but I guess it's just more information to be confused by.
 

Attachments

  • all chat.jpg
    all chat.jpg
    646.9 KB · Views: 237
A few hours ago I asked an apple guy a few questions about the RAM, Hard Disk and GPU. It's getting very interesting all this misinformation around the tech specs of the machine. I was very confident after the chat, but I guess it's just more information to be confused by.

Now that is just weird. The drive isn't replaceable but the graphics card(s) are? Oh boy.. this is confusing now.
 
A few hours ago I asked an apple guy a few questions about the RAM, Hard Disk and GPU. It's getting very interesting all this misinformation around the tech specs of the machine. I was very confident after the chat, but I guess it's just more information to be confused by.

You're very attracted to the new Mac Pro? ;)

Please don't send photos of the unboxing!

However, I am pretty sure he is quite wrong about being able to upgrade the graphics. All the hands-on reports suggest it's unlikely.
 
There is no way to configure it with only one graphics card. What if you are a sound professional and not a video guru?
 
I, for one, do NOT want to get into thermal paste and mating the GPU to the cooling solution. If you screw it up, the GPU fries and that's that. I doubt very seriously that this will be an Apple-warrantied user upgrade. :apple:

That's why, in my comment, the very last line, I said it's more likely that Apple would rather you buy a whole new computer than offer you upgrades.
 
There is no way to configure it with only one graphics card. What if you are a sound professional and not a video guru?

Wouldn't a 3.5 GHz quad-core i7 iMac be plenty for that? Configured with 32 GB RAM and 256 GB SSD you're looking at only $2999.99. That's $500 cheaper than the 3.7 GHZ quad-core Xeon Mac Pro with the same RAM and SSD. Plus it comes with a great 27" monitor. It does lose out on number of Thunderbolt ports, though.
 
Best Mac Pro with a 4k Display- 13.5k

I think that's a bit out of my price range.
I paid that much for a Mac IIfx and a 19" 32bit Monitor and Video Card in the 90's, and that was back when a dollar was worth something.

This new thing is cheap by comparison.
 
I paid that much for a Mac IIfx and a 19" 32bit Monitor and Video Card in the 90's, and that was back when a dollar was worth something.

This new thing is cheap by comparison.

Might be, but it is still out of my price range. ;)
 
I agree with the original poster. ATI always have driver issues and performance is not as good as the Nvidia counterparts.

For over 10 years in the past I was an ATI fan but the past 4-5 years, I'd have to give it to Nvidia for its performances and better drivers. But I suppose this is what happens when a CPU manufacturing company takes over a GPU manufacturing company.

All right, well that's fair to say. But simply saying they're "better" is silly. In what way are they better? Top of the line Radeons are faster.

I agree though, ATI > AMD.

----------

Please explain further. It seems to me the stock quadcore MP has more proc & Esp GPU horsepower than the best configured iMac. The iMac's screen is not pro grade so at best it's useful to put pallets & controls on.

But mostly the iMac & MP are for very different markets. The iMac, regardless of config or price is still in the Mac's consumer desktop quadrant.

It has.... barely more CPU horsepower, but for the price it makes no sense. As for the GPU.... uh? It depends on what you're doing, doesn't it?

----------

Call me old-fashioned, but this is a *REAL* pro machine.
All that Apple had to do was reduce it from a full tower to a mini tower.
That black cylinder on the left looks like a prefect shape and size for a battery backup.

Image

Okay, you're old-fashioned.

Of course, you're also right :)
 
Might be, but it is still out of my price range. ;)
Don't get me wrong, I think it's overpriced, but Apple stalwarts are used to that kind of thing.

You can already get RAM cheaper at OWC, and I don't need two video cards, so I consider one of them an expensive redundancy, but I suppose if I was a video editor I'd be excited.

It wouldn't be out of my price range if it was what I needed, but it's not really available now and it offers no practical advantage over the oMP for me, so I'm happily configuring one of those now.

They'll upgrade the processor and appropriate architecture in a year or so, and I'll give it another look then.
 
I, for one, do NOT want to get into thermal paste and mating the GPU to the cooling solution. If you screw it up, the GPU fries and that's that. I doubt very seriously that this will be an Apple-warrantied user upgrade. :apple:
The guys applying thermal paste in factories aren't rocket scientists, and if you pulled the heatsink off,
you'd probably be shocked at the quality of the work (which will normally do the job just fine)

----------

A few hours ago I asked an apple guy a few questions about the RAM, Hard Disk and GPU. It's getting very interesting all this misinformation around the tech specs of the machine. I was very confident after the chat, but I guess it's just more information to be confused by.
So was this a real person with poor English Skills, or an AI responding to these questions?
 
Remember it is a server machine. The highest end cpu, if you bought it cheap like at NewEgg, would still cost you almost $3k. And that is JUST for the bare CPU. So the machine is not overpriced, it is just made up of very expensive components.

Highest end CPU - $2,750: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116925

Highest end GPU (and there are two of these in the Mac Pro) - 2 x $2,200 == $4,400: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814105004

Memory highest end - 4 x $210 == $840: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820239756

PCI-e based Flash drive highest end - $1000: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226455

Add that up $2,750 + $4,400 + $840 + $1000 == $8990 without tax or extended warranty

Mac Pro cost highest end without tax or extended warrant $9,599.

So the Apple markup is only 7%, and that isn't even counting the cost of the motherboard or external case. So it isn't that expensive if you sum up the cost of its parts. In fact it looks like Apple barely does better than breaking even, not counting their discount for ordering the same parts in bulk.

Oh and FYI it isn't about the pre-turbo Mhz, that doesn't matter at all. If you buy a 12 core machine and are only using 2 or 4 cores then it will turbo up in real-time up to 3.5 GHz. The 3.7 GHz quad-core cpu is already maxed out, the frequency doesn't go higher when it goes into turbo mode. So there is no excuse not to max out the cpu core count other than cost - not only does the 12-core use less energy and generate less heat in idle versus the 4-core but when the 12-core cpu is using only 4 cores and each core is under full stress it is running at nearly the same speed as the 4-core processor under full stress.
 
Last edited:
Not sure as yet! But I'm sure they'll be options in short order.

I'm just asking because when I spoke to Apple they said although it is user accessible there are no SSD's for it and if I ever needed it replaced (due to a fault) I'd need to take it to an Apple Store to be replaced within warranty or at my expense (out of warranty). And that I should buy any storage I needed at the start because theres no upgrades.

It uses a new PCIe based interface not mSATA so there is currently no compatible SSD out there, period. This may change in the future but it really depends because Apple isn't using a "standard" sized stick. They are doing what Apple does best so there is no telling if 3rd party sticks will fit (they likely will not).
 
I configured the machine that would meet most of my needs at 3,499. Then I had to add another 1,500 for the external storage box so I could us my high end video card making it a total of 5,027

Then I configured a Hackintosh with the same processor and same memory. I threw in 2 128gb ssd drives and for giggles the GeForce GTX TITAN (6GB) graphics card. (didn't need 1 but its stock with the mac pro so...)

Total cost 2986. And as a bonus I have Pci and sata slots left over

Sorry but this is not a pro machine. Sure its fast. But is a Video production house going to buy 10 of these and 10 External Thunderbolt 2 Storage devices?

Is a musician going to buy this and give up their special audio card?

Hey Apple pro users need to configure their machines with 3rd party hardware. If a person wants to drop over 5,000 for this machine thats cool. But they are getting ripped off.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.