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

MBP 17" or MP? [Photoshop, Aperture]

I

icecavern

macrumors regular
Original poster
Apr 30, 2005
132
0
Reading, UK
OK so we're hearing a lot of chatter about the fact that PS only uses one Core etc so here's another slant.

I've currently got a 2.16GHz Core Duo 17" MBP, with the max 2GB ram. Most of the time I use it plugged into a 24" HP IPS monitor for editing photos in Aperture and Photoshop. But I do use it for client viewings so the big screen is very useful. I might have iTunes running in the background sometimes as well but not always.

I use the internal drive + 2 NAS backup discs.

Now when I'm importing loads of RAW images ( 1700+ from a wedding or motorsport event ) into Aperture then things really slow down so I've been looking to upgrade. I'm not so bothered about waiting for the import ( although that is quite slow ) but when viewing the images and skipping through to choose the keepers it can take a while for each image to render fully.

Currently I've got 3 choices in mind.

1. Buy a 2.8 Octo MP on offer in some places, add maybe another 8GB of RAM and a big drive for images. Keep the 17" for taking to clients. Total £1959 ( £1599 for MP, £160 RAM, £200 for a couple of big drives )

2. Buy a new 2.66 Quad MP. Can't afford to add ram or disk space with this option so the standard 3GB will have to do. Again keep the 17" for client slideshows etc. Total £1860

3. Replace the current MBP with a new 17" 2.93, 7200rpm drive, and the 4GB of RAM, oh and the matte screen. £2136 ( but I have the sale of my current MBP )

Now options 2 and 3 I can get 5% off of from the Apple store so have accounted for that, option 1 is already discounted at an electrical shop and adds the upgrades.

So I can't make up my mind. The new MP has less ram than both options, and less disk space than option 1. The MBP upgrade will be the cheapest when you take into account selling the one I have now, and gives me more screen real-estate using two screens.

So if PS really only uses one core, can a 2.93Ghz Core2Duo get close to the other options? And does Aperture take advantage of multiple cores?

Opinions gratefully accepted :)

Pete
 
I agree with the posts above. I have been looking for a New mac to do the same thing you are doing, however, as I am just starting out, my budget is lower than yours. I am however comparing iMacs, and did look at the base Mac Pro with 3 gigs of ram. I can for a fact tell you that Aperture loads and renders the images faster on the higher end iMac than the base MacPro. (I have literally spent hours in the Apple store comparing ever single little thing, making sure I am getting the best computer for my needs.) I plan on going with the 2.93GHz iMac for now. I cant justify the additional cost for the 3.06, or the jump to a MacPro. Now if the base MacPro was just slightly more expensive than the one I am getting and included more than 3 gigs of Ram, I would seriously consider it.

Good Luck!
 
Definitely go with the MBP (the 3.06 if possible). It can handle the intense work and the convenience of portability or in studio with a display should clearly be enough of an incentive.
 
Photoshop does not use only one core. Photoshop has been MP-aware since the old DayStar Mac Clones in the mid 1990s.
 
schaaf said:
I agree with the posts above. I have been looking for a New mac to do the same thing you are doing, however, as I am just starting out, my budget is lower than yours. I am however comparing iMacs, and did look at the base Mac Pro with 3 gigs of ram. I can for a fact tell you that Aperture loads and renders the images faster on the higher end iMac than the base MacPro. (I have literally spent hours in the Apple store comparing ever single little thing, making sure I am getting the best computer for my needs.) I plan on going with the 2.93GHz iMac for now. I cant justify the additional cost for the 3.06, or the jump to a MacPro. Now if the base MacPro was just slightly more expensive than the one I am getting and included more than 3 gigs of Ram, I would seriously consider it.

Good Luck!
Click to expand...

Interesting that in your comparisons the iMac was faster. Definitely tallies with people saying the processor speed is more important for these apps than the number of cores.

suburbia said:
Definitely go with the MBP (the 3.06 if possible). It can handle the intense work and the convenience of portability or in studio with a display should clearly be enough of an incentive.
Click to expand...

The MBP only goes to the 2.93 but I doubt the 3.06 is that much quicker anyway. I'm purely concerned with the speed using photoshop and Aperture really.

portent said:
Photoshop does not use only one core. Photoshop has been MP-aware since the old DayStar Mac Clones in the mid 1990s.
Click to expand...

This doesn't seem to be the majority feeling on this, with the current thoughts being the old MacPros are faster then the new ones for Photoshop as it doesn't take advantage of the extra cores.

Pete
 
As an update I picked up a 2.8 Octo yesterday. Ordered an extra 8GB of RAM from Crucial and a 1TB HDD from dabs all should arrive Tuesday.

Have to say, so far even with 2GB of RAM it's a lot faster than my MBP.

Very happy :)

Pete
 
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