Mac Pro or not?!

Which Mac?

  • Mac Pro (2.0 Ghz / 2 Gig Ram / Everything else stock)

    Votes: 15 68.2%
  • iMac (Best one you can get)

    Votes: 7 31.8%

  • Total voters
    22

iranintoavan

macrumors regular
Original poster
May 3, 2005
113
0
Hello everyone, I am a PC user. One problem...my PC just died on me yesterday. I am a Digital Photographer and so therefore I seriously use photoshop and some RAW conversion programs. I have been looking at the Mac Pro and I'm pretty sure I have decided upon the 2.0 Ghz / 2 Gig Ram / Everything else stock config. Would this be plenty for use of aperture, and photoshop (I realize photoshop is not universal yet)? Or would the Mac Pro 2.66 and 1 gig of ram be better? I could upgrade ram later...is 2 gig gonna make a huge difference?

One thing I have been worried about is, I won't be getting the "full mac experience" by not getting like an iMac or anything. With out the iSight, there's no video chat or photo booth, no front row with apple remote. Would the top of the line iMac deliver near Mac Pro performance?

Let me here your opinions. Thanks!!
 

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
You'll be fine with that machine.

Buy some additional RAM and an iSight. Aperture will eventually become frustrating with the stock card, mind.
 

iranintoavan

macrumors regular
Original poster
May 3, 2005
113
0
iGary said:
You'll be fine with that machine.

Buy some additional RAM and an iSight. Aperture will eventually become frustrating with the stock card, mind.
Stock video card?
 

MacsAttack

macrumors 6502a
Jul 2, 2006
825
0
Scotland
iranintoavan said:
Stock video card?
Apps like Aperture make heavy use of the video card. The "stock" 7300 card is find for Photoshop or Illustrator, but is going to have a big impact on the speed of anything that uses Apple's Core Image technology.

Good news is that mid-range ATI card Apple offers with the Mac Pro has been reduced in price apparently.

Deffinatly go for 2GB memory. More if you can get it.
 

iranintoavan

macrumors regular
Original poster
May 3, 2005
113
0
MacsAttack said:
Apps like Aperture make heavy use of the video card. The "stock" 7300 card is find for Photoshop or Illustrator, but is going to have a big impact on the speed of anything that uses Apple's Core Image technology.

Good news is that mid-range ATI card Apple offers with the Mac Pro has been reduced in price apparently.

Deffinatly go for 2GB memory. More if you can get it.
I'd like the better video card, but it's just not in my budget. I'm really pushing it doing what I am.
 

I'mAMac

macrumors 6502a
Aug 28, 2006
786
0
In a Mac box
a good machine would be the 2.66 ghz with 2 gigs and the 1900xt and i dont know how much hdd space you need so you can add that. If you can get by with 1 gig do that but you should try to get 2. and also get an iSight, when leopard comes out it comes with photobooth so you can just install leopard onto mac pro and u have it :)
 

iranintoavan

macrumors regular
Original poster
May 3, 2005
113
0
I'mAMac said:
a good machine would be the 2.66 ghz with 2 gigs and the 1900xt and i dont know how much hdd space you need so you can add that. If you can get by with 1 gig do that but you should try to get 2. and also get an iSight, when leopard comes out it comes with photobooth so you can just install leopard onto mac pro and u have it :)
So your saying since I'm on a budget, the 2.66 and 1 gig is better than the 2.0 and 2 gig? Getting the upgraded video card is not an option right now, it's too much money, and I don't want the delay.
 

crazycat

macrumors 65816
Dec 5, 2005
1,319
0
I bougt a mac pro and i am not really happy with it, its most likely because it has 1GB RAM only. When i can get my hands on mac pro RAM i would probebly have 4GB in it and it will be better. Remmber with OS X RAM is your friend.
 

iranintoavan

macrumors regular
Original poster
May 3, 2005
113
0
crazycat said:
I bougt a mac pro and i am not really happy with it, its most likely because it has 1GB RAM only. When i can get my hands on mac pro RAM i would probebly have 4GB in it and it will be better. Remmber with OS X RAM is your friend.
Well will 2GB be ok, I built my PC and it is a 2.8 Pentium 4 with 512 ram. I am gonna notice a big difference right? I just don't wanna be disappointed...
 

iranintoavan

macrumors regular
Original poster
May 3, 2005
113
0
zap2 said:
Get a Mac Pro...it will last longer..RAM can be upgraded, but Core Duo to Xeon, will its not happen
Alright, do you suggest the 2.66 and 1GB or 2.0 and 2GB?
 

I'mAMac

macrumors 6502a
Aug 28, 2006
786
0
In a Mac box
iranintoavan said:
So your saying since I'm on a budget, the 2.66 and 1 gig is better than the 2.0 and 2 gig? Getting the upgraded video card is not an option right now, it's too much money, and I don't want the delay.
yes 2.66 and 1 gig would be better because u can easily upgrade the RAM. why dont you just get the 2.66 and 2 gigs its not THAT much more?
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
iranintoavan said:
Well will 2GB be ok, I built my PC and it is a 2.8 Pentium 4 with 512 ram. I am gonna notice a big difference right? I just don't wanna be disappointed...
Probably will notice a bigger difference with less than 2GB of memory.

10-20GB/s is a lot faster than 50-75MB/s -- so add memory as you budget permits... up to 32GB on the Mac Pro.

While you don't have to add memory as 4 matched DIMMs at a time, it is another method for getting more speed out of the Mac Pro by making use of quad channel memory.
 

iranintoavan

macrumors regular
Original poster
May 3, 2005
113
0
Sun Baked said:
Probably will notice a bigger difference with less than 2GB of memory.

10-20GB/s is a lot faster than 50-75MB/s -- so add memory as you budget permits... up to 32GB on the Mac Pro.

While you don't have to add memory as 4 matched DIMMs at a time, it is another method for getting more speed out of the Mac Pro by making use of quad channel memory.
So wait, if I have less than 2GB (which means 1GB) I will notice a bigger difference over my old machine than 2GB?
 

ModestPenguin

macrumors 6502
Mar 5, 2006
437
0
OKC
get 2.66 Ghz and 1 gb of ram

do everything you can to get the X190XT because it will add life to your mac pro

it just dropped in price about $100 I believe, today infact
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
iranintoavan said:
So wait, if I have less than 2GB (which means 1GB) I will notice a bigger difference over my old machine than 2GB?
You will notice a big enough dissapointment with 1GB ... especially if you use Rosetta.

The 2GB on the Mac should be similar to the 512k on the older PC, being the minimum you want to use.
 

AvSRoCkCO1067

macrumors 65816
Sep 6, 2005
1,401
0
CO
I picked the iMac, but just because you didn't have an option for a 2.66 GHz Mac Pro with 1 GB of ram (which would set you up for years to come, if you added some more ram down the road).
 

iranintoavan

macrumors regular
Original poster
May 3, 2005
113
0
Sun Baked said:
You will notice a big enough dissapointment with 1GB ... especially if you use Rosetta.

The 2GB on the Mac should be similar to the 512k on the older PC, being the minimum you want to use.
Alright thanks a bunch.
 

napolihos

macrumors newbie
Aug 23, 2006
6
0
iranintoavan,

Obviously, you've got some tradeoffs to make. Here's my input...

Proc - as mentioned, 2.66 is the best option perf/price. it's very close to 3.0 in performance according to benchmarks and much better than 2.0.

Ram - 2GB in a 4x512 config is frankly you're best starting option, since it's the lowest config that allows the mem system to run in quad-channel mode, i.e., you hit the full mem bandwidth potential. I think you'd shortly be unhappy with 1GB and want to upgrade sooner.

Vid card - from what I've read in other forums, the x1900xt is going to serve you much better in terms of bandwidth and future-proof-ness than the 7300. With the price drop by $100, it's worth the $250 upgrade to get a card that will perform better and last you longer.

BTW, I chose these options for my new rig. Cheers.
 

amin

macrumors 6502a
Aug 17, 2003
977
9
Boston, MA
Wait for the iMac to be upgraded with a Core 2 Duo processor and then get it. It won't be long. Either that, or spring for a 2.66GHz Mac Pro.
 

iranintoavan

macrumors regular
Original poster
May 3, 2005
113
0
napolihos said:
iranintoavan,

Obviously, you've got some tradeoffs to make. Here's my input...

Proc - as mentioned, 2.66 is the best option perf/price. it's very close to 3.0 in performance according to benchmarks and much better than 2.0.

Ram - 2GB in a 4x512 config is frankly you're best starting option, since it's the lowest config that allows the mem system to run in quad-channel mode, i.e., you hit the full mem bandwidth potential. I think you'd shortly be unhappy with 1GB and want to upgrade sooner.

Vid card - from what I've read in other forums, the x1900xt is going to serve you much better in terms of bandwidth and future-proof-ness than the 7300. With the price drop by $100, it's worth the $250 upgrade to get a card that will perform better and last you longer.

BTW, I chose these options for my new rig. Cheers.
Alright, I will probably get the 2.66 and 1 gig ram. I do not have enought money to get anything more than that, I would love the video card but I can get it later. But my one consern is that, with the 1 gig of ram, will it be faster than my 512 in my pc? I would assume yes cause its double the ram. I just dont want to buy this expensive new mac, and have it end up being slower than my pc.
 

amin

macrumors 6502a
Aug 17, 2003
977
9
Boston, MA
iranintoavan said:
Alright, I will probably get the 2.66 and 1 gig ram. I do not have enought money to get anything more than that, I would love the video card but I can get it later. But my one consern is that, with the 1 gig of ram, will it be faster than my 512 in my pc? I would assume yes cause its double the ram. I just dont want to buy this expensive new mac, and have it end up being slower than my pc.
In Photoshop it may bee slower than your PC since PS is not yet universal. Depends on the PC you had before. If your PC was not current and high end, the Mac Pro should still be faster. If your RAW conversion software is universal (eg Capture One), it will be way faster on your Mac Pro than on the PC. You'll be okay with the stock graphics card. Your next purchase, when you have more money to spend, should be getting two more 512MB FB-DIMMs, which will enhance the experience considerably.
 

iranintoavan

macrumors regular
Original poster
May 3, 2005
113
0
amin said:
In Photoshop it may bee slower than your PC since PS is not yet universal. Depends on the PC you had before. If your PC was not current and high end, the Mac Pro should still be faster. If your RAW conversion software is universal (eg Capture One), it will be way faster on your Mac Pro than on the PC. You'll be okay with the stock graphics card. Your next purchase, when you have more money to spend, should be getting two more 512MB FB-DIMMs, which will enhance the experience considerably.
Alright thank you, before I had a 3 year old 2.8ghz Pentium 4, 512 ram, 80gig hd, and an ati radeon 9600 pro. Do you suppose it will be faster than that? I realize that photoshop will be slow until it becomes universal, and I am willing to deal with that. I do not think the raw conversion program I use now is universal but I am willing to make a switch to get the speed :p
 

FFTT

macrumors 68030
Apr 17, 2004
2,952
0
A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
You'll have to ask the photo pros, but you might be able to run your P/C version
of Photoshop on a Windows partition.

Adobe will swap out your Windows license for a Mac OSX license for a nominal
fee.

The 2.66 Mac Pro will scream once Adobe releases CS3.

By that time you should be able to scrape together enough to buy more RAM too.