ow well does the BASE 4 core New MacPro perform with PS & LR?

hassiman

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 30, 2006
93
1
San Diego
I have seen lots of benchmarks of the 6, 8 and 12 cor nMP but not much on the 4 Core... which is all I can afford after bumping the SSD up to 512GB.:eek:

Can anyone point me to the PS/LR5 benchmarks for the 4 core with D300 video?:confused:

Thanks.
 

analog guy

macrumors 6502
Mar 6, 2009
358
0
I have seen lots of benchmarks of the 6, 8 and 12 cor nMP but not much on the 4 Core... which is all I can afford after bumping the SSD up to 512GB.:eek:

Can anyone point me to the PS/LR5 benchmarks for the 4 core with D300 video?:confused:

Thanks.
i haven't seen any quad-core results but the trend i've observed suggests that the quad-core might perform on-par with or a tad slow than the late 2013 iMac i7.

you can find data that i've posted for PS & LR from a 2013 iMac in various threads related to PS & LR.
 

koban4max

macrumors 68000
Aug 23, 2011
1,579
0
I have seen lots of benchmarks of the 6, 8 and 12 cor nMP but not much on the 4 Core... which is all I can afford after bumping the SSD up to 512GB.:eek:

Can anyone point me to the PS/LR5 benchmarks for the 4 core with D300 video?:confused:

Thanks.
it suppose to be good/good enough on quad.
 

hassiman

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 30, 2006
93
1
San Diego
4 core nMP performance

I would assume that this means a 4 core nMP would be more than adequate for use with PS CS6/CC and LR5:apple: I do use big RAW files but it's not on a production basis and it should be worlds faster than my 2007 V1.1 4 cor 2.66 MP tower running 9GB of RAM.
 

analog guy

macrumors 6502
Mar 6, 2009
358
0
I would assume that this means a 4 core nMP would be more than adequate for use with PS CS6/CC and LR5:apple: I do use big RAW files but it's not on a production basis and it should be worlds faster than my 2007 V1.1 4 cor 2.66 MP tower running 9GB of RAM.
yes, it will be much faster but:
a) most apps today are not optimized to take full advantage of the nMP's speed
b) your work probably will not max out the machine anyway.

a 2013 iMac will probably do as good or better, today at least, for you than an nMP.

you mention that the cost has you maxed out -- keep in mind that if applications do get optimized to speed up the nMP on your tasks it will most likely cost you more money to upgrade those apps.

if you want to see a performance boost right away, order the iMac. if you want to see a performance boost (at a bit higher cost) and take a bit of a bet on it being more future-proof, order the nMP (and wait).
 

wildmac

macrumors 65816
Jun 13, 2003
1,167
1
a 2013 iMac will probably do as good or better, today at least, for you than an nMP.
Yes and no. iMac is better for PS, nMP is better for LR. But Adobe is updating both.

Some other points...

If you are using an old version of PS, it's not going to see any improvement over the iMac, since Adobe would be optimizing old software versions.

Do you already own a good monitor? If not, the iMac is a good choice.

If the nMP is really pushing your budget, saving some cash on the iMac might be good.

The nMP is going to likely last longer, and be a much more stable workhorse.
 

analog guy

macrumors 6502
Mar 6, 2009
358
0
Yes and no. iMac is better for PS, nMP is better for LR. But Adobe is updating both.
unless you have seen something i haven't, we're not (yet) seeing huge gains on the nMP vs the 2013 iMac. have you seen any #s on the 4-core base version?

more powerful versions of the nMP are a bit faster, but not night-and-day (and also more expensive. the OP can also only afford the 4c.

thank you!
 

wildmac

macrumors 65816
Jun 13, 2003
1,167
1
unless you have seen something i haven't, we're not (yet) seeing huge gains on the nMP vs the 2013 iMac. have you seen any #s on the 4-core base version?

more powerful versions of the nMP are a bit faster, but not night-and-day (and also more expensive. the OP can also only afford the 4c.

thank you!
Not huge gains... but gains. But as I said, it's a mixed bag.

But again, it's really about the rest of the picture. Does the OP already have a good monitor? How long does he expect the system to last?

Here's a big one.. does the OP have external storage already? If not, he's going to have to buy some of that too, thus bumping the price.
 

ronhiner

macrumors newbie
Jan 27, 2014
7
0
My antique 3,1 machine with 10gb of memory and a 256mb SSD drive holds its own with Photoshop CC and lightroom every day! Where it bogs down is with slow third party plugins, and also with huge image files -- like panos created with dozens of 25 mpx images stitched together.
 

analog guy

macrumors 6502
Mar 6, 2009
358
0
Not huge gains... but gains. But as I said, it's a mixed bag.

But again, it's really about the rest of the picture. Does the OP already have a good monitor? How long does he expect the system to last?

Here's a big one.. does the OP have external storage already? If not, he's going to have to buy some of that too, thus bumping the price.
agree on the cost-benefit with the monitor issue, but he asked about LR & PS. (and not sure if "PS/LR5 meant both PS CS5 and LR5.)

external storage is a wash. he'll pretty much need that either way. (well, i guess he could go with more internal storage on the iMac, but for *fast* storage they're about equal.)

----------

there are a few threads on the subject, why don't you use the search tool geez??
Just kidding, i hate it when people say that - here
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1690496

it's the base core and has some cs6 benchmarks
i only did a quick scan, but i searched 'cs6' on all 3 pages of that thread and didn't get any hits.

in any event, there won't be much difference between nMP & iMac on that photoshop speed test.

the nMP (6c & 8c) test faster than the iMac in the LR test mule, but my gut is that the 4c will be about the same as the iMac.
 

d-m-a-x

macrumors 6502
Aug 13, 2011
495
0
agree on the cost-benefit with the monitor issue, but he asked about LR & PS. (and not sure if "PS/LR5 meant both PS CS5 and LR5.)

external storage is a wash. he'll pretty much need that either way. (well, i guess he could go with more internal storage on the iMac, but for *fast* storage they're about equal.)

----------



i only did a quick scan, but i searched 'cs6' on all 3 pages of that thread and didn't get any hits.

in any event, there won't be much difference between nMP & iMac on that photoshop speed test.

the nMP (6c & 8c) test faster than the iMac in the LR test mule, but my gut is that the 4c will be about the same as the iMac.
ah whoops, this is the cs6 test forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1690895
 

AidenShaw

macrumors P6
Feb 8, 2003
18,087
4,147
The Peninsula
a) most apps today are not optimized to take full advantage of the nMP's speed
And they may never be....

The new Mini Pro has half the number of cores of competitive systems, and a pair of mid-range graphics cards running an immature parallel GPU API that many apps can't exploit.

This is simply another round of "when all the apps are optimized for AltiVec the Mac will be killer". It never happened then....
 

linuxcooldude

macrumors 68020
Mar 1, 2010
2,470
4,238
And they may never be....

The new Mini Pro has half the number of cores of competitive systems, and a pair of mid-range graphics cards running an immature parallel GPU API that many apps can't exploit.

This is simply another round of "when all the apps are optimized for AltiVec the Mac will be killer". It never happened then....
Software will always be catching up to hardware. That has not changed since the dawn of time. If Pixelmator can support the new Mac Pro so can other software. The power is there, its up to the developers to take advantage of it.
 

Derpage

Suspended
Mar 7, 2012
451
185
Software will always be catching up to hardware. That has not changed since the dawn of time. If Pixelmator can support the new Mac Pro so can other software. The power is there, its up to the developers to take advantage of it.
So you think these companies are going to go chasing after a tiny fraction of the market? I'm not sure why they would.
 

VirtualRain

macrumors 603
Aug 1, 2008
6,304
114
Vancouver, BC
And they may never be....

The new Mini Pro has half the number of cores of competitive systems, and a pair of mid-range graphics cards running an immature parallel GPU API that many apps can't exploit.

This is simply another round of "when all the apps are optimized for AltiVec the Mac will be killer". It never happened then....
Why do you even hang out here?

----------

unless you have seen something i haven't, we're not (yet) seeing huge gains on the nMP vs the 2013 iMac. have you seen any #s on the 4-core base version?

more powerful versions of the nMP are a bit faster, but not night-and-day (and also more expensive. the OP can also only afford the 4c.

thank you!
+1... I think the iMac and nMP 4-core are going to be very similar at any task except perhaps FCPX or where you need more RAM than you can equip an iMac with.
 

linuxcooldude

macrumors 68020
Mar 1, 2010
2,470
4,238
So you think these companies are going to go chasing after a tiny fraction of the market? I'm not sure why they would.
Because your thinking average consumer, not professional. Macs still have a large chunk of the creative community. Multimedia, photography and so on. Macs still have a larger following at the 1K and up market, where budget computers & laptops don't go and can't run a lot of the performance hungry applications.
 

michaeljk

macrumors member
Dec 14, 2013
51
2
Because your thinking average consumer, not professional. Macs still have a large chunk of the creative community. Multimedia, photography and so on. Macs still have a larger following at the 1K and up market, where budget computers & laptops don't go and can't run a lot of the performance hungry applications.
And people who buy budget PCs do not buy performance hungry applications anyway.

There is also an assumption that Apple is the only company that will be building multiple GPU configurations on their higher end systems. Just like Thunderbolt, there will be folks on the Windows side doing this fairly soon.
 

linuxcooldude

macrumors 68020
Mar 1, 2010
2,470
4,238
And people who buy budget PCs do not buy performance hungry applications anyway.

There is also an assumption that Apple is the only company that will be building multiple GPU configurations on their higher end systems. Just like Thunderbolt, there will be folks on the Windows side doing this fairly soon.
Not sure how its an assumption as Its probably already being done on the PC side long before now. But Apple decided to concentrate more of the workload on the GPU and less on the CPU. Thunderbolt will get more wide spread on the PC already seeing numerous motherboards popping up.
 

Derpage

Suspended
Mar 7, 2012
451
185
Because your thinking average consumer, not professional. Macs still have a large chunk of the creative community. Multimedia, photography and so on. Macs still have a larger following at the 1K and up market, where budget computers & laptops don't go and can't run a lot of the performance hungry applications.
No I'm not. Do you always tell people what they are actually saying? The new mac pro is a very small segment of the user population and hasn't been proven to be a new paradigm in any professional market. Typically it's the market which drives decisions, not hypothetical situations in which the computer may be more effective.

----------

And people who buy budget PCs do not buy performance hungry applications anyway.

There is also an assumption that Apple is the only company that will be building multiple GPU configurations on their higher end systems. Just like Thunderbolt, there will be folks on the Windows side doing this fairly soon.
You really don't know what people run on their "budget" computers. SMH. Such conjecture.
Edit: I don't know how I missed the "fairly soon" comment. This is enough to have anybody from the PC master race rolling on the ground.
 
Last edited:

linuxcooldude

macrumors 68020
Mar 1, 2010
2,470
4,238
Typically it's the market which drives decisions, not hypothetical situations in which the computer may be more effective.
Typically perhaps, but not always. Increasing performance eventually hits roadblocks. Increasing frequency in gigahertz's have heating problems, so they increased core count. Doubling core counts only works for so long and starts decreasing in efficiency. The use of the GPU is one of the next steps.

If Apple listened to everything consumers wanted, they would probably not be as well off as they are today.
 

wildmac

macrumors 65816
Jun 13, 2003
1,167
1
agree on the cost-benefit with the monitor issue, but he asked about LR & PS. (and not sure if "PS/LR5 meant both PS CS5 and LR5.)

external storage is a wash. he'll pretty much need that either way. (well, i guess he could go with more internal storage on the iMac, but for *fast* storage they're about equal.)


the nMP (6c & 8c) test faster than the iMac in the LR test mule, but my gut is that the 4c will be about the same as the iMac.
H could put the 3TB Fusion drive in the iMac, but would need external storage for the nMP.

That said, yeah, the performance will be in the same ballpark. nMP will show some gains on some things, the iMac on others.

The display is probably the biggest issue. If is monitor(s) is decent, then a nMP might be better for the long run, but if he needs a display too, then the iMac.