Mac Pro configuration for Photoshop

[giffut]

I ...

... definitely would keep it simple and avoid using RAID by any means at this moments. A single SSD is really fast enough for Photoshop scratch, data volume size you can solve by using 2 or 3TB single harddrives and clone them for system and/or data backups.

My priority list regarding the budget and workload a sense for you from what I heard:

1. RAM, get 16GB
2. Don´t go beyond the QuadCore 3,2Ghz, I would recommend the 2,8Ghz (for Photoshop the additional Mhz won´t cut it)
3. Use an SSD for system/applications and one for scratch - choose the appropriate size (like e.g. 120GB for system/apps and 60GB for scratch) and get the fastest offerings (like Vertex or the new Intel X25)

Think of it: Such a system will keep you smooth enough within Photoshop up to three years the least, definitely, and if your business is thriving, you will be prone for an update, anyway - and can afford the technique at that point of time, which will smoke your soon to be bought Mac Pro no matter what.

Buy what you need for sure, and it will fit your budget. Don´t buy the future, as you don´t know it.

 

[VirtualRain]

To be honest, that are my thoughts / feelings to!



Do you run 3x80 as scratch disk?
I think for startup I will buy a 250GB SSD for scratch not 3x80 GB, or is there an the advantage of doing it that way?

For boot I have to see how much space is needed. Maybe 120 GB is enough for OSX, Photoshop, LightRoom, email, internet and some other smaller programms. has anybody an idea? If 120 GB for instance is enough I can save 400,- Euro and then consider the upgrade to the 3,33 GHz 6 core, the processor I cannot upgrade later on..

I run OS, Apps, scratch, and keep my Aperture library on my SSDs. My philosophy is to put everything I'm working with on the SSDs. It means I have to prune my Aperture library regularly and create a new one yearly - archiving the old one to mechanical storage. It's a bit of effort but worth it as far as I'm concerned.

Decide how much of your workflow you want on SSD and buy accordingly. Everyone has different budgets and priorities.

As I said, there's little advantage to running SSDs in RAID0 so buying a single larger drive can be just as good as two or three smaller drives.

Just buy as much SSD as you can, you will thank yourself! 😀

 

[Honumaui]

a few thoughts in random brain spit out manner 😉

again these are all my opinions and everyone has them and not trying to say I am correct 🙂 so nobody get your twinkies steamed if I disagree 🙂 hehehehe

my side is I do PS and LR for a living and wife does layout for a living
I came from a commercial photography background and we started a post production company for PRO photographers we have about 300 clients now
we have had our company online now for over 10 years so a good long track record 🙂

just gives some a background 🙂


SSD for main storage is overpriced at this point as other threads have shown writing and reading to PS is bottlenecked by PS threads itself so not disc speed so much so modern fast HDD will do fine again yes SSD are quicker but for PS and LR writing reading I bet if you really crunched numbers you would be thinking WOW its not as fast as I thought in time savings ? if you have lots of money then go for it but get some SSD and some regular drives do some testing and you will see opening and closing files from PS SSD wont be that much of a time saver !
if you use large files use uncompressed Tiffs !!!! that alone saves huge amounts of time

for scratch the idea is not to hit scratch so more memory is better and with CS5 and SL 16 is the new minimum and I think 24 is worth getting if your PS files are over 300 gigs jump to the 24 if under 16 should do you but for the price jump and one time purchase of 8GB sticks ? you have to think 24 might be worth it in the long run ! so that is why I say 24 for photographers

SSD for PS-scratch and LR-cache
I prefer two in raid 0 and I found that the 40s are big enough the 60s are coming down in price so its a personal budget choice
the reason two 40s is if one dies I still have a fast scratch cache and am not totally slowed down so the few days till I get one to replace wont see my workflow changing much !
a single can work as two of them means you might want to get a basic good eSATA card like the OWC ones to run your SSD on and that means two external case setups ? so its a tradeoff and really a single or two in raid 0 ? again both work and both setups would be a personal choice
the upside to a single is that if you have it in the drive bay and a SSD for boot and a few HDDs working you wont hit the limits of the ICH where if you had two in raid 0 and your boot and your data drives you are going to hit the limits of the ICH and have to go external for them ! so thats the trade off
the speed jump of getting just the cache of LR on the SSD is worth it I saw about a %50 jump in speed using develop mode meaning the white sliders popped white and I could adjust %50 quicker with the SSD cache
I did tons of testing and the catalog along the original images or on its own or on SSD the speed was all the same meaning it really does not matter where your catalog sits !!!! so thats good cause SSD are not cheap and catalogs can get large !


PS checking efficiency is key to finding the best memory but SSD for scratch is worth it since the second you open PS it writes temp scratch as a place holder !
also if you run out of memory might as well have that fast scratch
always set PS though to have the SSD as first scratch then a second disc
also if doing a large PS job clear the LR cache before you start !!!


this brings up one other thing some use LR as a huge catalog to look at files and want a HUGE cache drive I tend to do my files get them in JPG and move out of LR ! this might effect how big of SSD you use
for me working with 800-1500 files at a time from photographers jobs 80 gigs total has never left me needing more !

also a side note when building previews in LR the standard are for develop mode and the 1:1 are whats used in Library mode so if you only work in Develop mode just build the standards or vice versa 🙂


SSD for boot 120 if you keep your boot to a minimum and store all files on a storage disc !


I ended up with the 3.2 ? the 3.3 is quicker but it depends sometimes %10 other times it wont matter so that extra money for the times when I was taxing PS I decided was not worth it this time around ! and I usually am one that preaches its worth it
but this time around ! I used the money for more SSD and memory and some of my buds with 3.3 machines mine is faster !
theirs are in a few instances but the time saved would not have been made back again this is me and I dont mind paying to go faster if the time is saved but again this time for my business it would not pay itself off !!!

so I think the 3.2 is fine for PS and LR work
video rendering and such ? dont know music ? dont know as I only play with this stuff its PS and LR I make my living with
I was shocked when running the numbers the 3.3 would not pay back !!! truly was

the one thing while its quicker its only when things are really taxing the machine to its fullest with certain filters and or actions etc.. and those still dont save in the end

setting up LR to batch out when I eat dinner or something saves me worrying about output times

in PS I open a image and have it run a action that puts my base layers up I need



some who like to move on and off files to a SSD for the extra speed ? it might work for them ? for me the extra time to take on and off is a step backward as that time I saved would be lost moving things around !
my main storage though is a 8 disc raid setup on a areca 1222x so that is not my limiting factor 🙂



so I might say good setup the 3.2 should do you fine
I might say how much more is the 24 gigs vs the 16 ? that might be worth updating now to 24 and be done ?
the scratch size 100 gig or so total is usually enough but again depends on total file size and if you use it for LR how much cache do you really need on hand ?

just make sure you have a good backup plan

 

[johnnymg]

To be honest, that are my thoughts / feelings to!



Do you run 3x80 as scratch disk?
I think for startup I will buy a 250GB SSD for scratch not 3x80 GB, or is there an the advantage of doing it that way?

For boot I have to see how much space is needed. Maybe 120 GB is enough for OSX, Photoshop, LightRoom, email, internet and some other smaller programms. has anybody an idea? If 120 GB for instance is enough I can save 400,- Euro and then consider the upgrade to the 3,33 GHz 6 core, the processor I cannot upgrade later on..

You really shouldn't need a 250 GB scratch. Probably a 120 would be more than enough. Spend the saved money on esta cards and external drives. 🙂

Check out Lloyds photoshop sequence of articles on tuning photoshop for best speed: http://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshopCS5-Intro.html

 

[Honumaui]

since monitors were brought up and his is fine 🙂
just for some who might not live in the world of color as much as I do 🙂


I will say I prefer NEC over Eizo but both are the tops and both are so good its a personal choice and one is not better than the other ?

also for the Euros they have to look at pricing as we get NEC here in the US very cheap compared with over their and the software is different over their so the prices start to come into play

but Eizo CG or NEC PA you cant go wrong 😉

just good info to know 🙂

 

[ddwit]

Dear people,

Thank you all for your advice. I will take everything into considering the next coming days.

For now this is the setup / costs for a Mac Pro workstation for Photoshop 5 december 2010:

Mac Pro 3,2 4 core
ATI Radeon HD 5770 1 GB
1TB Harddisk
2163,- Euro (ex tax)

16GB Ram (this is the max I can put in)
280,- (ex tax)

120GB Vertex2-e SSD boot disk
160,- (ex tax)

120GB Vertex2-e SSD scratch disk
160,- (ex tax)

Total costs: 2763,- Euro (ex tax)

 

[VirtualRain]

Dear people,

Thank you all for your advice. I will take everything into considering the next coming days.

For now this is the setup / costs for a Mac Pro workstation for Photoshop 5 december 2010:

Mac Pro 3,2 4 core
ATI Radeon HD 5770 1 GB
1TB Harddisk
2163,- Euro (ex tax)

16GB Ram (this is the max I can put in)
280,- (ex tax)

120GB Vertex2-e SSD boot disk
160,- (ex tax)

120GB Vertex2-e SSD scratch disk
160,- (ex tax)

Total costs: 2763,- Euro (ex tax)

This is damn good solution.

The only suggested change I would make is to RAID0 the two SSD's in Disk Utility and run the boot/scratch on the same larger combined volume. There's no benefit to running them on separate volumes but you gain the added advantage of a larger combined storage volume for whatever ends up needing it most and you will gain some performance advantage for all things on that volume.

Enjoy! 🙂

 

[nanofrog]

There's no benefit to running them on separate volumes...

Keeping the OS/applications separate from the scratch disk will allow the system to boot and continue operation when the scratch disk dies (higher wear conditions than OS/applications usage).


The trade-off, is capacity is fixed and you can't double up on sustained throughputs.

So long as the user realizes and accepts that by striping the pair, they have a chance of data loss and faster wear, striping is fine. They will also need to make sure they've a backup if there's more than just OS, applications, and temp data (presume the primary working data will be on the 1TB OEM disk). If the SSD set will only be temp data + OS/applications, the data loss is easily solved with a spare disk used as a clone. 🙂

Shouldn't be a problem from what's described, but I just want the OP to realize that there's some risk involved. 😉

 

[Honumaui]

in my heavy testing having the scratch on dedicated vs on a combined with the OS the dedicated wins out
and I tested a ton and kept accurate notes and timings etc.. 🙂 was not a feel test but actual test 🙂

my tests came from wanting to get LR faster so I ended up with 5 SSD drives so I could test in various configurations along with my raid setup

this is especially true for LR cache use ! to have on a separate SSD

so I always strongly recommend keeping them separate again this is my setup but I tell everyone test yourself 😉 and make it accurate not a feel test 😉



you can run 8GB sticks in the new macs 🙂 even though the apple site I dont think lists them its not a issue just so you know they do not max at 16 but max at 32 🙂

 

[VirtualRain]

in my heavy testing having the scratch on dedicated vs on a combined with the OS the dedicated wins out
and I tested a ton and kept accurate notes and timings etc.. 🙂 was not a feel test but actual test 🙂

my tests came from wanting to get LR faster so I ended up with 5 SSD drives so I could test in various configurations along with my raid setup

this is especially true for LR cache use ! to have on a separate SSD

so I always strongly recommend keeping them separate again this is my setup but I tell everyone test yourself 😉 and make it accurate not a feel test 😉

I'd really like to understand your findings better. I don't doubt you but it makes no sense for SSDs... Mechanical maybe, but an SSD array slower than separate drives?! I'd like to understand how that's possible. Maybe we should start another thread though.

 

[chaosbunny]

Dear people,

Thank you all for your advice. I will take everything into considering the next coming days.

For now this is the setup / costs for a Mac Pro workstation for Photoshop 5 december 2010:

Mac Pro 3,2 4 core
ATI Radeon HD 5770 1 GB
1TB Harddisk
2163,- Euro (ex tax)

16GB Ram (this is the max I can put in)
280,- (ex tax)

120GB Vertex2-e SSD boot disk
160,- (ex tax)

120GB Vertex2-e SSD scratch disk
160,- (ex tax)

Total costs: 2763,- Euro (ex tax)

I can only recommend this again, don't get the processor upgrade from the 2,8 to the 3,2 ghz processor. Use the savings for a 30" Eizo instead of a 24" Eizo. That extra screen real estate will provide a far bigger productivity boost than the extra mhz.

I went from a 24" iMac at home to a 30" display at work and it's a breathtaking difference. You can have 2 rows of palettes next to each other in CS5, and still have enough space to compare 4 pictures at reasonable size next too each other. You'll see much more at the same time when zooming in to edit pictures, making it way faster and easier, etc. etc.

 

[Honumaui]

I'd really like to understand your findings better. I don't doubt you but it makes no sense for SSDs... Mechanical maybe, but an SSD array slower than separate drives?! I'd like to understand how that's possible. Maybe we should start another thread though.

my only thought is maybe something to do with virt or paging memory ?? I would like to understand why 🙂 another thought is the drive is going back to get more off the boot for something and that throws it off enough to be slower ? but I am not sure ? I do know I tested it 3 x though and with a bunch of tests that used real world stuff and more set tests


but when testing LR it was always quicker on a single disc than OS Boot on raid 0 ?

but the cache on a dedicated even if single or raid 0 or 3 disc raid 0 went up very little so I think it has more to do with the seek and latency than anything
forgot the exact number but think it was every HDD I added in raid 0 I got a .02 second increase in LR ?

PS tests it was never quicker but was slower a couple times

 

[Honumaui]

I can only recommend this again, don't get the processor upgrade from the 2,8 to the 3,2 ghz processor. Use the savings for a 30" Eizo instead of a 24" Eizo. That extra screen real estate will provide a far bigger productivity boost than the extra mhz.

I went from a 24" iMac at home to a 30" display at work and it's a breathtaking difference. You can have 2 rows of palettes next to each other in CS5, and still have enough space to compare 4 pictures at reasonable size next too each other. You'll see much more at the same time when zooming in to edit pictures, making it way faster and easier, etc. etc.

on the monitor ? I would say it depends really
I make a good living in PS and LR and my main color go to monitor is a 24 NEC ? I also have two 30s and a old 21 inch apple I use for watching netflix and stuff 🙂 hehehe

but yes 30 is way better for some things but in reality CPU and speed and knowing PS can get you through a job quicker depending on ones workflow and such ?

learning PS and creating setups where you dont need to use a mouse to access much is the key thing to getting it quicker so having something like a Xkeys and programing it with apple script to call certain actions is a good example then you dont have to scroll through them etc..
wacom and Xkeys is a great setup !!! 😉

again yes perfect world a 30 with fast CPU ? but I would rather have a 24 and fast CPU over a 30 and slower machine
and one of our workstations is dual 30s the other is not I am waiting for the new 30 nec to decided to do that or the 27 ?

also the smaller monitors the 24 are usually a bit more color accurate ? so again their is no right or wrong way but one has to really know their workflow

 

[giffut]

The ...

... maximum memory the 3,2Ghz QuadCore can take is NOT 16GB, as you can put 8GB modules in there, stretching it to 32GB (http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-OWC-8GB-MacPro.html). Apple always defines maximum RAM capacity from available and tested modules. 8GB modules were already tried, but the cost for those modules is insane and not really worth it at the moment - especially not for you. If in two years you need 32GB or - heaven forbid - even more RAM, you are ripe to get a Mac Pro with more memory banks anyway. I am very sure you are fine with 16GB for the next two years - and at that point of time you either might be able to swap for 8GB modules for cheap or reconsider purchasing a new, faster model anyway, as with SandyBridge a new socket and I/O interface will be introduced late next year.

Forget any RAID option for SSD - this does not make any sense at all for your workload and really is for different secenarios (database/server). Enthusiast like to put 4x SSDs in RAID0 to speed up boot times, but that is just wicked. For Photoshop usage, which stays below 250MB for each image size (and you don´t have those monster images, right?), you even won´t need any HD based RAID - keep it simple, keep dedicated drives with dedicated backups for each. A single SSD is fast enough for 99% of users, and the 1% of users who probably need much more performance, they would definitely buy PCI express based SSD systems in sizes you could buy a Porsche for.

 

[chaosbunny]

on the monitor ? I would say it depends really
I make a good living in PS and LR and my main color go to monitor is a 24 NEC ? I also have two 30s and a old 21 inch apple I use for watching netflix and stuff 🙂 hehehe

but yes 30 is way better for some things but in reality CPU and speed and knowing PS can get you through a job quicker depending on ones workflow and such ?

learning PS and creating setups where you dont need to use a mouse to access much is the key thing to getting it quicker so having something like a Xkeys and programing it with apple script to call certain actions is a good example then you dont have to scroll through them etc..
wacom and Xkeys is a great setup !!! 😉

again yes perfect world a 30 with fast CPU ? but I would rather have a 24 and fast CPU over a 30 and slower machine
and one of our workstations is dual 30s the other is not I am waiting for the new 30 nec to decided to do that or the 27 ?

also the smaller monitors the 24 are usually a bit more color accurate ? so again their is no right or wrong way but one has to really know their workflow

But it's not like the 2,8 ghz Mac Pro is slow and the 3,2 ghz one is fast. Most certainly one would not notice a difference in regular work situations. The difference between a 24" and a 30" monitor can mean a huge productivity boost though.

Knowing Photoshop has nothing to do with the topic. Of course knowing the programs is more important than the size of the screen, but it's not like a bigger screen takes your PS knowledge away...

You are generally right that it depends on the circumstances though.

 

[ddwit]

you can run 8GB sticks in the new macs 🙂 even though the apple site I dont think lists them its not a issue just so you know they do not max at 16 but max at 32 🙂

That's nice to know!

I can only recommend this again, don't get the processor upgrade from the 2,8 to the 3,2 ghz processor. Use the savings for a 30" Eizo instead of a 24" Eizo.

Screen
Regarding the screen I will take your advice. I don't think there will be a discussion about the screen size and we will get a 30'' if available and affordable (= 3000,- Euro). For now the investment will be only on the Mac Pro. We already have a 24'' Eizo. Maybe later we will buy a 30'' and maybe at that time I will start a new thread 😉

Processor
The 3.2 is not that much more expensive over the 2.8. You might be right that it won't deliver that much more, but in this case I will go for the 3.2. You also have to see it over 3 years. We shall see..

Forget any RAID option for SSD - this does not make any sense at all for your workload and really is for different secenarios (database/server). Enthusiast like to put 4x SSDs in RAID0 to speed up boot times, but that is just wicked. For Photoshop usage, which stays below 250MB for each image size (and you don´t have those monster images, right?), you even won´t need any HD based RAID - keep it simple, keep dedicated drives with dedicated backups for each. A single SSD is fast enough for 99% of users, and the 1% of users who probably need much more performance, they would definitely buy PCI express based SSD systems in sizes you could buy a Porsche for.

I agree. We realy don't have monster images (just portrets of them, just kidding 😉) 25-70MB 98 % of the time.

An intresting article about Raid: http://www.pugetsystems.com/articles.php?id=29

 

[johnnymg]

That's nice to know!

snip.................
Processor
The 3.2 is not that much more expensive over the 2.8. You might be right that it won't deliver that much more, but in this case I will go for the 3.2. You also have to see it over 3 years. We shall see..

JMO, but the only good reason to go the 2.8 route (vs 3.2) is IF you plan on swapping out the processor (for a hex) in the future. That's a customer-upgrade that only the brave should attempt.

cheers
JohnG

 

[Transporteur]

That's a customer-upgrade that only the brave should attempt.

Just for the record, the CPU is not intended to be customer upgradable. Every attempt to upgrade your CPU will void the warranty. Everyone who intends to do this should be aware of this.

Anyhow, since the CPU's in all 2010 models are lidded, the upgrade itself is as easy as in a normal PC. There is nothing special about it. Take the heat sink off, swap the processors, apply new thermal paste and screw the heat sink back on.

 

[ddwit]

How to add hardware to Mac Pro...

Talking about how to...

1) Can anyone tell what I have to do to add the third party SSD's and the RAM?

I once added RAM on a PC. I just had to put the modules in place, 1 click.. Is this the same on a Mac Pro?

2) How to add the SSD's? Do I need cables??

3) How do I transfer OSX Snow Leopard from the HD (pre installed I presume) to the SSD?

 

[Transporteur]

Talking about how to...

1. Yes.

2. Depends on the (physical) size of your SSD and the place you want to mount it. If it's a 2.5" SSD you need either a 2.5" to 5.25" adapter to mount it in the optical bay, or a 2.5" to 3.5" adapter to mount it in one of the standard drive bays.
In case of a 3.5" SSD you need a 3.5" to 5.25" adapter for the optical bay.
In any case, no cables are required.

3. Carbon Copy Cloner.

 

[Inconsequential]

Talking about how to...

1) Can anyone tell what I have to do to add the third party SSD's and the RAM?

I once added RAM on a PC. I just had to put the modules in place, 1 click.. Is this the same on a Mac Pro?

2) How to add the SSD's? Do I need cables??

3) How do I transfer OSX Snow Leopard from the HD (pre installed I presume) to the SSD?

1. Open the case, slide the HD tray out, screw HD in. You will need a 3.5 to 2.5 adapter for the SSDs tho. Memory, slide the CPU tray out, pull out old sticks, fit new, slide tray back in. Easy 😀

2. As above, need adapters.

3. Just reinstall OS X on the SSD, the typical installation is bloated with rubbish you will never need (2.5gb of drivers, for example).

 

[ddwit]

2. Depends on the (physical) size of your SSD and the place you want to mount it. If it's a 2.5" SSD you need either a 2.5" to 5.25" adapter to mount it in the optical bay, or a 2.5" to 3.5" adapter to mount it in one of the standard drive bays.
In case of a 3.5" SSD you need a 3.5" to 5.25" adapter for the optical bay.
In any case, no cables are required.2. Depends on the (physical) size of your SSD and the place you want to mount it. If it's a 2.5" SSD you need either a 2.5" to 5.25" adapter to mount it in the optical bay, or a 2.5" to 3.5" adapter to mount it in one of the standard drive bays.
In case of a 3.5" SSD you need a 3.5" to 5.25" adapter for the optical bay.
In any case, no cables are required.

You will need a 3.5 to 2.5 adapter for the SSDs tho.

So what is the easiest to do: Which size SSD do I have to buy? I believe I have 2 options:
OCZ Vertex 2 SATA II 2.5" SSD 120GB or
OCZ Vertex 2 SATA II 3.5" SSD 120GB

In case of space this multi mount might be handy: http://www.macupgrade.be/product_info.php/cPath/139/products_id/543

 

[ddwit]

3. Carbon Copy Cloner.

That looks as a nice programm. Does it work nice also?
Does a Mac Pro come with a installation cd/dvd?

 

[barmann]

So what is the easiest to do: Which size SSD do I have to buy? I believe I have 2 options:
OCZ Vertex 2 SATA II 2.5" SSD 120GB or
OCZ Vertex 2 SATA II 3.5" SSD 120GB

In case of space this multi mount might be handy: http://www.macupgrade.be/product_info.php/cPath/139/products_id/543

Are you sure you need 120GB SSDs ?
For scratch 60GB is plenty, and I have 30GB worth of system, apps and user folder (all data on a seperate mechanical HDD, empty desktop, no iTunes lib or such).
Keep 50% empty for the system/app etc. drive , and you are golden.

The current MPs only have one SATA port available in the optical bay, so the adapter above would be a waste.

There are IcyBox adapters for the regular drive bays (2.5 SSD to 3.5 backplane), and cheap 5.25 to 2.5 adapters for the one optical bay slot you have .
Or use some sticky tape, SSDs have no moving parts .

I did a quick speed comparison with SSDs re. scratch, btw ..

 

[Inconsequential]

So what is the easiest to do: Which size SSD do I have to buy? I believe I have 2 options:
OCZ Vertex 2 SATA II 2.5" SSD 120GB or
OCZ Vertex 2 SATA II 3.5" SSD 120GB

In case of space this multi mount might be handy: http://www.macupgrade.be/product_info.php/cPath/139/products_id/543

The 3.5" one.

"OCZ Vertex 2 SATA II 3.5" SSD 120GB"