Sell MP for UMBP?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by bbadalucco, Sep 22, 2009.

  1. bbadalucco macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    #1
    Everyone has been helpful thus far and so I figured I’d ask another question. I bought a refurbished 2008 3.2 Octo MacPro a few months ago (18gb Ram). I love the machine but I no longer use it for encoding video. Lets say 6 months from now I’m loving this photography thing and use Aperture 2 and Photoshop often with my photos. Am I going to have a much quicker/smoother experience using this software with my Mac Pro vs. a 2.8 17” with 8gb ram?

    I ask because I figure I could sell the MP and get a UMBP and save some cash while I’m at it? But, if there is a going to be a noticeable performance drop its not worth it.

    Just curious as to your thoughts.

    Not sure this is the right forum, but though it would be a good place to start since most of you have experience with this software.

    P.S. ordered a Nikon D90
     
  2. Edge100 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Where am I???
    #2
    The 8-core Mac Pro is much, much faster than the fastest MBP, as long as the software can utilize all available cores. I believe that Aperture will use all available cores (can anyone confirm or deny this...Lightroom definitely uses all available cores, as does other pro-level Apple software like Logic).

    http://www.barefeats.com/mbpp15.html
    http://www.barefeats.com/mbpp16.html
     
  3. jampat macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    #3
    Although the MP is much much faster, for typical photo editing, you won't feel very much difference. ie. of course a ferarri is faster than a ford focus, but on the street, there is very little that the ferarri is better at.

    I am using a 2yo MBP and don't find myself waiting around for Aperture or PS. When importing images, Aperture builds probably 200 previews a minute, the MP should be faster at this, but it is not a big deal for me. If you plan on encoding video again, the MP will likely be at least 4x faster than the MBP, but will cost you more money and not be portable. Personally I am happy I went portable as I am rarely sitting at a desktop anymore, I find it a lot easier to get time to work on pictures when they are always with me.
     
  4. Edge100 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Where am I???
    #4
    You will notice the difference, IF you know how to maximize the efficiency of your software.

    Case in point (using a multi-core aware app like Lightroom as an example, but should also apply to Aperture):

    - export a folder of 1000 RAW images to JPEG all at once
    - now try the same thing, but instead of doing it all at once, split those 1000 images based on the number of cores you have. If you have four cores, split the 1000 into 4 simultaneous exports x 250 images/export; if you have 8, split the 1000 images into 8 simultaneous exports x 125 images/export.

    You will find that the latter method, which uses all the cores, is MUCH faster. Granted, this takes a little user input, since these programs are not smart enough to split the task up amongst the available cores, but if you know how to get the most out of the software, the 8-core MP will be much faster than the 2-core MBP.

    The benefits of portabililty are real, of course, and may be a key determinant for a particular user. But if we're talking pure power, the MP wins every time.
     
  5. jampat macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    #5
    I agree. Personally, I don't mind waiting for that type of operation. It can run in the background, or while I am taking a break or whatever. What I can't stand is waiting for the computer while I am actively working on things. Everybodies expectations are different though. I just export a set when I am done with them and keep working on the next set.
     
  6. Edge100 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Where am I???
    #6
    True.

    And this is one of the reasons I chose LR over Aperture; I never find myself waiting for LR...the delay, if any, is always on my end, whereas with Aperture I found there were too many times where I was waiting around for Aperture to finish something.

    There are other reasons, of course, but this was the big one, especially in the early days of both programs.
     

Share This Page