Lightroom and the new Mac Pro

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by slater-k, Jan 13, 2008.

  1. slater-k macrumors regular

    Jan 13, 2008

    I'm trying to decide between the octo 2.8 and 3.0. By and large the only apps that i run are photoshop and lightroom. I'm a photographer, and for me there isn't much else that would take up the computer's time / resources.

    While i've been reading avidly how there might not be much difference in speed running photoshop on the 2.8 octo or the 3.0 (as the limiters wouldn't be with processor speed), i've not seen anything about Lightroom. Funnily enough, it's lightroom which seems to be the bottle neck in my workflow, primarily when processing the RAW files, and secondarily when generating the previews / thumbs. I've only got a dual G5, and at these times the processors are running at full speed.

    Does anyone know if Lightroom can take advantage of all the cores in the new Mac? The price difference between the two models is the same as the price of the raid card. So i was thinking of the 2.8 + RAID, instead of the 3.0 without ... good idea i think for PS, but a good idea for Lightroom?

    Thanks for any of your thoughts.
  2. akm3 macrumors 68020

    Nov 15, 2007
    I may be incorrect, but a big bad videocard (Actually video card RAM) should help Lightroom? So that shiny 8800gt would help.

    If I'm wrong people will immediately correct me.
  3. Karpfish macrumors 6502a


    Sep 24, 2006
    I'm a photog and I run Lightroom on my MP(specs in sig). You certainly do not need the 3.0 octo for lightroom, you don't even need the 2.8 octo. It runs really well on my machine. Get the 2.8 and some RAM, the RAM will be the biggest help. I'm pretty sure Lightroom is pretty CPU reliant rather than video card. Aperture is major on the video card. The 8800 certainly won't hurt, but I'm not sure ho much it helps. Adding RAM to go from 2GB to 4GB did give me a nice speed boost.
  4. slater-k thread starter macrumors regular

    Jan 13, 2008
    Yeah, i was probably going to go to 8Gb of RAM on either system.

    It's just that if the machine was processing, say, 500 RAW files, would it be quicker on a 2.8 with a striped RAID and scratch disc, or a 3.0 with only a scratch disc - the cost would be almost the same.


    The 8800's definitely on my list!
  5. RichP macrumors 68000


    Jun 30, 2003
    Motor City
    Your issues are going to be related more to data transfer speeds, and the hard drive is usually the cuprit. Look into a WD Raptor drive as a scratch disk and/or RAID.
  6. Artofilm macrumors 6502a


    Oct 12, 2005
    Get the 2x2.8Ghz MacPro and spend the extra money you would have spent on the 3.0, on upgrading with more RAM, and a better GPU. the 2.8 will run faster upgraded than a stock 3.0
  7. slater-k thread starter macrumors regular

    Jan 13, 2008
    So, would i be right in saying that the perfect setup would be to have the system on a 150Gb Raptor, another raptor (doesn't have to be big at all?) for the scratch disc, and then two drives as RAID 0 to get the RAW files' data in and out of the system?

    ... hmm, could do with anohter bay for a back up disc incase the RAID goes pear shaped!
  8. bigbossbmb macrumors 68000


    Jul 1, 2004
    mount a 5th hard drive in the lower optical bay.
  9. slater-k thread starter macrumors regular

    Jan 13, 2008
    Wow - didn't know you could do that! Is it kinda straight forward - can't find anything on the apple site about how to ...?

    Would you mind me picking your brains about whether it would be worth (if i was to get the RAID card) using 15k SAS drives instead of 10k raptors as system and scratch? Would mixing 2 SAS drives with 2 SATA drives bring down the performance of the SAS ... something about voltage?

    EDIT - from apple store - "Please note: Mac Pro systems must be configured with either all Serial ATA or all SAS drives." So that blows that one, as i'd need at least one 1 Tb drive.

    Sorry for the questions

Share This Page