MacPro with 1900XT and Aperture?

PALitig8r

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 30, 2006
15
0
I'm still waiting on mine (no change to the Sept. 19 ship date), but has anyone run Aperture on a 1900XT Mac Pro? It looked pretty lackluster on the 7300 1GB machine, but I'm assuming it will fly with the 1900XT and 2GB of RAM. Would love to hear real confirmation, though....
 

PALitig8r

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 30, 2006
15
0
Thanks. I'm hoping mine arrives in that time period as well. Have seen some commenting on gaming FPS running Windows, but nobody seems to be commenting on Aperture or Final Cut testing ....
 

Fedge

macrumors regular
Aug 9, 2006
152
0
I would love to try this out, but i don't have the universal version of Aperture. :mad:
 

PALitig8r

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 30, 2006
15
0
If you have Aperture, can't you download the universal version? I think you just install the original one and the do a software update...
 

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
I have a better question...

Why would you code a software program to use the GPU when

YOU HAVE FOUR FRACKING PROCESSORS RUNNING AT 3.0GHZ???

Duh!

(FWIW I have Aperture and secretly hate it.)
 

MaxPower2k6

macrumors newbie
Aug 14, 2006
18
0
I have a stock Mac Pro and an aperture library of ~5000 RAW files from a D70. I have to admit, i've been a little disappointed with the performance. It's worlds better than my iMac G5, but I expected it to really fly and it doesn't. I think more RAM will definitely help, and that's my next upgrade. I might see how the PC graphics card thing plays out, too, since getting a PC 7800GT is cheaper than the Apple X1900XT upgrade. not quite as good a card, but still a nice upgrade.
 

PALitig8r

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 30, 2006
15
0
That's why I'm very curious to see it run on the 1900XT. The heavier GPU should make a big difference ... I have really come to like Aperture but find it way too slow on my iMac G5. I'm hoping for no more beachballs with a 2GB Mac Pro and 1900XT. If mine ever ships, I'll post reflections...
 

MovieCutter

macrumors 68040
May 3, 2005
3,342
2
Washington, DC
PALitig8r said:
Thanks. I'm hoping mine arrives in that time period as well. Have seen some commenting on gaming FPS running Windows, but nobody seems to be commenting on Aperture or Final Cut testing ....
If you have Motion, run the Fire Mortise 2 template and render a RAM preview...time it, and report back.
 

Fuzzy Orange

macrumors 6502
Jul 29, 2006
263
0
iGary said:
I have a better question...

Why would you code a software program to use the GPU when

YOU HAVE FOUR FRACKING PROCESSORS RUNNING AT 3.0GHZ???

Duh!

(FWIW I have Aperture and secretly hate it.)
Actually, isn't each proc running at 1.5 GHz? ;)
 

ipod4le

macrumors newbie
Sep 7, 2006
3
0
san diego
aperture run the same as 7300 nvidia.
i add 8gb of ram in my mac pro 2.66 with nvidia 7300 card and its alot faster than my buddy mac pro with the ati, running aperture
 

studiox

macrumors regular
Aug 3, 2004
132
0
Stockholm / Sweden
ipod4le said:
aperture run the same as 7300 nvidia.
i add 8gb of ram in my mac pro 2.66 with nvidia 7300 card and its alot faster than my buddy mac pro with the ati, running aperture
Might be a stupid point but Appeture are a 2D application and I don't expect it to be quicker if you buy a *insert-whatever-graphics-card-you-want-here.

Of course more VRAM on the card helps to use large resolutions, and CoreImage will load off the CPU a bit. But i think the real problem is the RAM in the box.

RAW images are ... well.. LARGE! and just letting osx swap a portion of those to VIRTUAL MEMORY is bad bad bad :). If you use Aperture i would spend my bucks on the ram..
 

MaxPower2k6

macrumors newbie
Aug 14, 2006
18
0
studiox said:
Might be a stupid point but Appeture are a 2D application and I don't expect it to be quicker if you buy a *insert-whatever-graphics-card-you-want-here.

Of course more VRAM on the card helps to use large resolutions, and CoreImage will load off the CPU a bit. But i think the real problem is the RAM in the box.
Aperture uses CoreImage for all image rendering and effects, so the graphics card in the computer (theoretically) very much affects the performance of the program. That said, Aperture also seems to love RAM so that may make a bigger difference (or at least more noticeable) than upgrading the graphics card.
 

NATO

macrumors 68000
Feb 14, 2005
1,692
28
Northern Ireland
iGary said:
I have a better question...

Why would you code a software program to use the GPU when

YOU HAVE FOUR FRACKING PROCESSORS RUNNING AT 3.0GHZ???

Duh!

(FWIW I have Aperture and secretly hate it.)
I understand Core Image is used to drive Aperture mainly, but they really should have coded it to assess whether to use the GPU or CPU(s) depending on which would give best performance. Seems a bit silly to have a Mac Pro with 4x3.0GHz cores sitting largely idle just because the user maybe went for the 7300GT rather than the X1900XT :rolleyes:
 

Fuzzy Orange

macrumors 6502
Jul 29, 2006
263
0
iGary said:
There are 2 processors in the Mac Pro, each running at 2, 2.66, or 3 GHz, right? Each one contains 2 proc cores. The sum of the proc strength, in my case 2.66, is split up between the 2 cores. So each core is running at 1.33 GHz, I think. Is that right?
 

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
Fuzzy Orange said:
There are 2 processors in the Mac Pro, each running at 2, 2.66, or 3 GHz, right? Each one contains 2 proc cores. The sum of the proc strength, in my case 2.66, is split up between the 2 cores. So each core is running at 1.33 GHz, I think. Is that right?
Solid logic, but no.


I understand Core Image is used to drive Aperture mainly, but they really should have coded it to assess whether to use the GPU or CPU(s) depending on which would give best performance. Seems a bit silly to have a Mac Pro with 4x3.0GHz cores sitting largely idle just because the user maybe went for the 7300GT rather than the X1900XT
To me, it just doesn't make sense to have to have the biggest baddest GPU when you have 4 of the biggest baddest processors. Why in hell would you offload that work when the processors are full capable?
 

iBookG4user

macrumors 604
Jun 27, 2006
6,596
2
Seattle, WA
Fuzzy Orange said:
Ehhh... I give up. Can someone explain to me how it works?:eek:
You were thinking of HT which if you had a 2.66 GHz CPU with HT technology the OS would think it was two different processors each running at 1.33 GHz. Although dual core technology is different because they basically put two whole CPUs onto one CPU so you have basically two 2.66GHz CPUs.
 

Fedge

macrumors regular
Aug 9, 2006
152
0
Fuzzy Orange said:
Ehhh... I give up. Can someone explain to me how it works?:eek:
Each processor has two independant cores. Each core runs at 2.66 or 3.0. That means there are FOUR separate cores running at the advertised clock speed. There's no division involved. Simply 4 * 2.66.
 

Trekkie

macrumors 6502a
Nov 13, 2002
906
16
Wake Forest, NC
Fuzzy Orange said:
There are 2 processors in the Mac Pro, each running at 2, 2.66, or 3 GHz, right? Each one contains 2 proc cores. The sum of the proc strength, in my case 2.66, is split up between the 2 cores. So each core is running at 1.33 GHz, I think. Is that right?
Nope. Each core runs at 3.0GHz or 2.66GHz or whatever the clock rate of the processor is sold as.
 

Fuzzy Orange

macrumors 6502
Jul 29, 2006
263
0
Seriously? Wow. So I got a machine even more powerful than I thought. Also iGary, why do you hate Aperture? I was considering buying it with a X1900XT when I got my Nikon D80. Is it worth the $150 I would spend?
 

stapler

macrumors member
Sep 3, 2006
73
0
iGary said:
I have a better question...

Why would you code a software program to use the GPU when

YOU HAVE FOUR FRACKING PROCESSORS RUNNING AT 3.0GHZ???

Duh!

(FWIW I have Aperture and secretly hate it.)
Think the advantage in UB apps an iMac has on the top-of-the-line Power Mac and you've got the idea.