Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Graphics cards and Photoshop.

A

andyjamesnelson

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Aug 24, 2003
286
0
Jacob's house
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
andyjamesnelson said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 
andyjamesnelson said:
...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...
Click to expand...

the mac pro is faster than the quad g5 in photoshop.
 
Rokem said:
the mac pro is faster than the quad g5 in photoshop.
Click to expand...

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...).
 
zwida said:
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...).
Click to expand...
Really.

My Macpro opens Photoshop in one bounce, and the credits just scream by!
 
andyjamesnelson said:
I also noticed that the Ati card has a large fan on the back of it. Is it loud?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Rokem said:
the mac pro is faster than the quad g5 in photoshop.
Click to expand...

Really?

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 1.gif
    1.gif
    9.6 KB · Views: 372
andyjamesnelson said:
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
Click to expand...
Depends 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 said:
So you are telling me Barefeats is bunk? :confused:
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back