I have Mac Pro 2010 but I may need to get other Mac desktop one day if it dies. Besides, it's quite slow to work with Photoshop and Capture One Pro. So far, everything is fine. Still, my computer might gonna die since I replace a power supply once before. If that happens, will it be enough to get Mac pro 2013 or Mac Pro 2019?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Will it be enough to get Mac Pro 2013?
- Thread starter mavericks7913
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hi Mavericks,
Not counting the server editions, there are/were six versions of the 2010 Mac Pro. See below. Where you go from here really depends upon where you are now.
1. Quad 2.8
2. Quad 3.2
3. Hex 3.33
4. Eight Core 2.4
5. 12 core 2.66
6. 12 core 2.93
I'm a pro Retoucher & CGI Artist for the past 25 years, ( www.BattisteCreative.com ) and have experience with all of the above. You have not stated which model you have, but if photoshop is feeling slow, guessing you have adequate RAM, but you have a 2010 model with low clock speed?
The beauty of the MP 5.1 is that it's easy to upgrade. There's thousands of posts here arguing and counter pointing the merits of the cheese grater 5.1 vs the trash can 6.1. Valid points on each side.
My 12 core 3.46 is handling my CGI and retouching needs quite nicely. No way I would trade it in for for a 6.1. The imac pro seems killer awesome, but also something I might feel trapped with, within a few years of purchase. At this point I'm happy waiting to see what the 2018-2019 new mac pro will be.
Not counting the server editions, there are/were six versions of the 2010 Mac Pro. See below. Where you go from here really depends upon where you are now.
1. Quad 2.8
2. Quad 3.2
3. Hex 3.33
4. Eight Core 2.4
5. 12 core 2.66
6. 12 core 2.93
I'm a pro Retoucher & CGI Artist for the past 25 years, ( www.BattisteCreative.com ) and have experience with all of the above. You have not stated which model you have, but if photoshop is feeling slow, guessing you have adequate RAM, but you have a 2010 model with low clock speed?
The beauty of the MP 5.1 is that it's easy to upgrade. There's thousands of posts here arguing and counter pointing the merits of the cheese grater 5.1 vs the trash can 6.1. Valid points on each side.
My 12 core 3.46 is handling my CGI and retouching needs quite nicely. No way I would trade it in for for a 6.1. The imac pro seems killer awesome, but also something I might feel trapped with, within a few years of purchase. At this point I'm happy waiting to see what the 2018-2019 new mac pro will be.
Last edited:
Has anyone compared the 3.46 x5690 single cpu vs dual cpu in photoshop?
I have a single cpu system and am going to put in that cpu.
Now photoshop is mostly single threaded and Puget System says if building a custom PC for photoshop you are not gaining much beyond 6 cores.
Some of the tasks that are multi threaded are ones Adobe is now offering gpu acceleration for.
However some on here have commented on better performance with the 12 core setup. But I notice in those circumstances they weren't using a powerful GPU and didn't have much vram.
Could it be a situation where with a lower gpu photoshop actually using the second cpu cores in a 12 core setup?
I have a single cpu system and am going to put in that cpu.
Now photoshop is mostly single threaded and Puget System says if building a custom PC for photoshop you are not gaining much beyond 6 cores.
Some of the tasks that are multi threaded are ones Adobe is now offering gpu acceleration for.
However some on here have commented on better performance with the 12 core setup. But I notice in those circumstances they weren't using a powerful GPU and didn't have much vram.
Could it be a situation where with a lower gpu photoshop actually using the second cpu cores in a 12 core setup?
The 2013 is a decent machine, for 2013. But both it and the classic Mac Pro's are obsolete. (Yes, I know that the cMP is the Greatest Machine Of All Time.)
Look forward to the mMP (2018+) or the iMac Pro. The latter will likely destroy even the most maxed-out of former versions.
Also, don't overlook the standard iMac, especially for something like Photoshop that doesn't optimize the use of multiple cores. The 2017 model is surprisingly good, and that screen is awesome! I bought a base/ssd 27" 2017 to replace a 3,1 cMP until the mMP arrives, and I've been so impressed by it that I'm not sure I'd rush to replace it. (I do have a linux box for heavy lifting.)
Look forward to the mMP (2018+) or the iMac Pro. The latter will likely destroy even the most maxed-out of former versions.
Also, don't overlook the standard iMac, especially for something like Photoshop that doesn't optimize the use of multiple cores. The 2017 model is surprisingly good, and that screen is awesome! I bought a base/ssd 27" 2017 to replace a 3,1 cMP until the mMP arrives, and I've been so impressed by it that I'm not sure I'd rush to replace it. (I do have a linux box for heavy lifting.)
I am going to offend someone here but as far as the cMP goes, yes it is old, yes it is outdated, but the 4,1 and 5,1 can still be very very usable. The fact that JesterJZZ uses one for 8k video says a lot.
However I no longer see the point in buying the mac pro 1,1/2,1/3,1 now. Even if someone was to get one for an insanely cheap price.
As for the trashcan, it really depends on the specs of the machine regarding its use in photoshop. I don't know if its really the right choice. Would maybe an iMac be better. As for waiting for the modular mac pro, we really dont know when that will be yet.
However I no longer see the point in buying the mac pro 1,1/2,1/3,1 now. Even if someone was to get one for an insanely cheap price.
As for the trashcan, it really depends on the specs of the machine regarding its use in photoshop. I don't know if its really the right choice. Would maybe an iMac be better. As for waiting for the modular mac pro, we really dont know when that will be yet.
From a performance point of view it depends on how well threaded your applications are. The more they can utilize multiple cores the more competitive the cMP becomes. If you own a standard quad, hex, or eight core cMP then the corresponding nMP should be faster. It offers equivalent core counts, faster clock speeds, and an improved micro architecture. The twelve core nMP might even be competitive with most, if not all, of the cMP standard twelve core offerings from Apple. Of course this is all theory because I haven't tested all possible configurations. Your best option is to benchmark your applications with your data to determine the appropriate system. Many times theory doesn't hold out in practice.
If you're looking for GPU performance the cMP can be of benefit because one can upgrade the GPUs. There is a lot of discussion about this I would highly recommend you search or ask for your specific needs.
Expansion is a huge benefit of the cMP. At least if you want internal expansion. nMP was designed to be expanded via TB. TB is nice but it is unable to compete with PCIe speeds.
If you're looking for GPU performance the cMP can be of benefit because one can upgrade the GPUs. There is a lot of discussion about this I would highly recommend you search or ask for your specific needs.
Expansion is a huge benefit of the cMP. At least if you want internal expansion. nMP was designed to be expanded via TB. TB is nice but it is unable to compete with PCIe speeds.
Mavericks7913, if I were you I would buy a second hand cMP 2009-2012 instead of that trashcan.
Personally I have two cMP 2009s flashed to 5,1 with a Hex 3,33 and I am very satisfied with these.
Personally I have two cMP 2009s flashed to 5,1 with a Hex 3,33 and I am very satisfied with these.
Hi William,
I own both a 6 core 3.33, and a 12 core 3.46. Correct in that you don't gain much in terms of photoshop beyond six cores. In fact, when running the Digilloyd Huge Test, with the same ram, and scratch disk set up, the 12 core is slower in photoshop. I can dig up my test results if anybody is interested. The 12 core, of course has more ram slots, all the way up to 128. But with both at 32 GB ram the 6 core is faster.
Predictably, my 12 core is more than twice as fast than my 6 core with my CPU based CGI render software.
Yeah what you just said is exactly what my research has suggested in that dual cpu's actually impede you. That is if that is the only bottleneck implying you have the right hard drive setup, the right amount of ram and gpu.
I already tried Mac Pro 2013 before and it is much faster. For photoshop, exporting file and saving file takes a lot of since each file is bigger than 20gb. For C1P, previewing is slow. I know that classic Mac Pro is enough but Mac Pro 2013 seemed to be much faster.
When you say much faster we need context. What cpu is your current machine running? what gpu?, what specs were the mac pro 2013 that you tried and found much faster.
Hardware choices actually matter when it comes to specific software.
ok cool, do you know what the specs were for the mac pro 2013 that you tested?
Also are you able to explain at all in a bit of detail what you find is slow about the programs?
[doublepost=1511681295][/doublepost]Sorry I just saw your post above where you mentioned some of your problems.
[doublepost=1511682629][/doublepost]Sorry the reason I am asking spec questions is that we or someone maybe able to tell you why you found the mac pro 2013 to be faster.
That's approaching the highest configuration one can get for a cMP and, for your applications, appears to be the highest end configuration you can benefit from.
[doublepost=1511700280][/doublepost]
I'd be interested in the benchmarks if you have them handy. I wonder if this test is memory latency sensitive which might explain a decrease in performance due to multiple CPU's.
[doublepost=1511700321][/doublepost]
Did I read that right...each file is 20GB (not MB)?
You could always get this config and then upgrade the CPU if you needed more cores. E5-2667 v2 turbos higher, 2x as many cores and more cache per core.
I'm not saying this as fact as honestly I don't know, but I wonder how much the 64gb of ram helped.
I always like to read Puget systems articles on this stuff regarding tests they have done for their custom PC's. Read the section regarding RAM
https://www.pugetsystems.com/recomm...-Adobe-Photoshop-139/Hardware-Recommendations
With a 20GB file size an extra 32GB of RAM could be very helpful. If the OP was inquiring about performance upgrades adding an additional 32GB seems like a reasonable starting place.
OP, have you ever checked your memory usage with Activity Monitor?
Hi pl1984,
Here is a link to the Photoshop testing script I’ve been using.
https://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshopCS6-Benchmarks.html
My results are as follows:
2012 12 Core 3.46 = 146.75 seconds
2010 6 core 3.33 = 134.0 seconds
Yup. My 12 core is a skosh slower in Photoshop than my 6 Core. However, the 12 core is more than twice a fast in my CGI app, so a very good trade off for me.
1. When I got my 12 core, I transferred the SSD boot, and my HDD internal RAID array over from the 6 core. Same 32 GB ram. Fairly even grounds for comparison. However, I’m left wondering how the comparison will change on this test, if I ever load the 12 core up to the max 128 Ram.
2. Test Procedure : I run the “DigiLLoyd Huge” file test 4 times in a row, the results are then averaged together. Running the test 2 times will probably create a quicker test score average, because (if you have PS set to recall a lot of history states) you will access scratch disk at some point, and that really slows things down. I have my history at 100, because that’s my real world set up. At 4 iterations and 32GB ram, I’m testing scratch disk performance quite a bit here.
3. Photoshop Prefs : will have a big effect on this test. Here’s my prefs:
- History states =100. Don't create first snapshot automatically.
- Cache levels = 8
- Cache Tile size 1024k
- Scratch Disk 1 = PCIE SSD Boot
- Scratch Disk 2 = Raid 5 Slice Of 8TB
- Scratch Disk 3 = Raid 5 Slice Of 4TB
- Let photoshop use 89% of RAM
- Use Graphics Processor (ATI 5770)
4. Having worked in Photoshop 30-40 hours a week since the days when a Photoshop was installed via 7 floppy disks, gonna say this issue boils down to 4 essentials: Clock speed, Ram, Scratch, and History States. If you are falling asleep saving or opening big files, you need to look at drive read/write speed as well.
Hope this is helpful
Attachments
Last edited:
Thanks for this information. Did you happen to notice this link from the reference you provided:Hi pl1984,
Here is a link to the Photoshop testing script I’ve been using.
https://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshopCS6-Benchmarks.html
My results are as follows:
2012 12 Core 3.46 = 146.75 seconds
2010 6 core 3.33 = 134.0 seconds
Yup. My 12 core is a skosh slower in Photoshop than my 6 Core. However, the 12 core is more than twice a fast in my CGI app, so a very good trade off for me.
Hope this is helpful
Are 12 CPU Cores Faster Than 6 with Photoshop CS6?
It appears as if Adobe needs to better optimize for multiple cores. Or perhaps multiple processors might be the issue as threads are moved from between processors thus causing memory latency issues. Maybe this, combined with the faster clock speed and architecture of the nMP, is the reason the OP found the nMP faster.
This just goes to show that one should always benchmark their application on the configuration of system they're considering to ensure they're getting the best bang for their buck.