Buying 1*CPU/4 GB/Radeon Mac Pro - comments?
Looking to buy a new Mac Pro (2001 DA with a CPU upgrade is getting a bit long in the tooth):
Intended use:
Photoshop CS3 (large files for print), InDesign CS3 (as previous), some illustrator, mail / web always on the background, some file transfers, DVD archival burning and. Pure 100% work machine. No games, no 3D rendering, no video applications, no hc number crunching, no folding or other shared clients, no overclocking.
Need: best actually usable power (within above apps) for buck spent. As silent as possible. As little electricity use as possible. Need to be usable for another 5-7 years (like two previous machines that served well).
Considering:
- Mac Pro 1 * 2.8GHz CPU new 2008 model
Rationale: Photoshop can't in most cases use more than 4 cores effectively. Simultaneous load on CPUs from other apps will be low. Extra speed benefit from another 4 cores will be minimal and probably remain so for some time. 2nd CPU would also mean extra cash spent (460 euros in EU), extra heat, extra electricity draw and extra noise.
- Memory: stock 2*1GB memory from Apple Store. After market certified upgrade to 4 or 8 GB. Don't know which. Aiming to get modules installed in identical 4 module units for maximum performance. That is, either 4*1GB or 8*1GB/4*2GB
Question: How much extra benefit for above work will one get from going from 4GB to 8GB (considering Photoshop limitations)? Will 8GB be worth the extra 600 euros (EU, locally!) that it costs over the 4GB option?
Graphics card Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB
Rationale: less power draw, more than enough for non-3d, non-gpu-accelerated Photoshop/2D work. Less noise compared to nvidia 8800gt?
Question2: Any difference in reliability of current ATI or nVidia drivers? Any reason to buy nVidia with more VRAM considering the above usage scenario? Has Apple announced a more ambitious move towards gpu-rendering based apps or parts inside OS X?
In fact, after having read several photoshop benchmarks, I think I would have settled for iMac 24" w/ 4GB ram and 2.8GB cpu, due to price/lack of noise, but the glossy screen just kills it for me for any serious work (even as a secondary monitor).
Any recommendations, do's or dont's from other graphic pros?
Intended use:
Photoshop CS3 (large files for print), InDesign CS3 (as previous), some illustrator, mail / web always on the background, some file transfers, DVD archival burning and. Pure 100% work machine. No games, no 3D rendering, no video applications, no hc number crunching, no folding or other shared clients, no overclocking.
Need: best actually usable power (within above apps) for buck spent. As silent as possible. As little electricity use as possible. Need to be usable for another 5-7 years (like two previous machines that served well).
Considering:
- Mac Pro 1 * 2.8GHz CPU new 2008 model
Rationale: Photoshop can't in most cases use more than 4 cores effectively. Simultaneous load on CPUs from other apps will be low. Extra speed benefit from another 4 cores will be minimal and probably remain so for some time. 2nd CPU would also mean extra cash spent (460 euros in EU), extra heat, extra electricity draw and extra noise.
- Memory: stock 2*1GB memory from Apple Store. After market certified upgrade to 4 or 8 GB. Don't know which. Aiming to get modules installed in identical 4 module units for maximum performance. That is, either 4*1GB or 8*1GB/4*2GB
Question: How much extra benefit for above work will one get from going from 4GB to 8GB (considering Photoshop limitations)? Will 8GB be worth the extra 600 euros (EU, locally!) that it costs over the 4GB option?
Graphics card Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB
Rationale: less power draw, more than enough for non-3d, non-gpu-accelerated Photoshop/2D work. Less noise compared to nvidia 8800gt?
Question2: Any difference in reliability of current ATI or nVidia drivers? Any reason to buy nVidia with more VRAM considering the above usage scenario? Has Apple announced a more ambitious move towards gpu-rendering based apps or parts inside OS X?
In fact, after having read several photoshop benchmarks, I think I would have settled for iMac 24" w/ 4GB ram and 2.8GB cpu, due to price/lack of noise, but the glossy screen just kills it for me for any serious work (even as a secondary monitor).
Any recommendations, do's or dont's from other graphic pros?
Comments
unless I'm of by a few years 2001 isn't a Mac Pro. it's a PPC Powermac. you wont get a hd2600 xt in there or an 8800gt. It's graphics card will not be using a PCI-E slot. I think it's AGP. You better start looking up Mac compatible AGP cards, and not new graphics cards.
Think the 2001 reference is to the machine that is getting replaced!
Looking to buy a new Mac Pro (2001 DA with a CPU upgrade is getting a bit long in the tooth):
Intended use:
Photoshop CS3 (large files for print), InDesign CS3 (as previous), some illustrator, mail / web always on the background, some file transfers, DVD archival burning and. Pure 100% work machine. No games, no 3D rendering, no video applications, no hc number crunching, no folding or other shared clients, no overclocking.
Need: best actually usable power (within above apps) for buck spent. As silent as possible. As little electricity use as possible. Need to be usable for another 5-7 years (like two previous machines that served well).
Considering:
- Mac Pro 1 * 2.8GHz CPU new 2008 model
Rationale: Photoshop can't in most cases use more than 4 cores effectively. Simultaneous load on CPUs from other apps will be low. Extra speed benefit from another 4 cores will be minimal and probably remain so for some time. 2nd CPU would also mean extra cash spent (460 euros in EU), extra heat, extra electricity draw and extra noise.
- Memory: stock 2*1GB memory from Apple Store. After market certified upgrade to 4 or 8 GB. Don't know which. Aiming to get modules installed in identical 4 module units for maximum performance. That is, either 4*1GB or 8*1GB/4*2GB
Question: How much extra benefit for above work will one get from going from 4GB to 8GB (considering Photoshop limitations)? Will 8GB be worth the extra 600 euros (EU, locally!) that it costs over the 4GB option?
Graphics card Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB
Rationale: less power draw, more than enough for non-3d, non-gpu-accelerated Photoshop/2D work. Less noise compared to nvidia 8800gt?
Question2: Any difference in reliability of current ATI or nVidia drivers? Any reason to buy nVidia with more VRAM considering the above usage scenario? Has Apple announced a more ambitious move towards gpu-rendering based apps or parts inside OS X?
In fact, after having read several photoshop benchmarks, I think I would have settled for iMac 24" w/ 4GB ram and 2.8GB cpu, due to price/lack of noise, but the glossy screen just kills it for me for any serious work (even as a secondary monitor).
Any recommendations, do's or dont's from other graphic pros?
The memory is entirely dependent on what else you're doing, if you're running a lot of other things other than photoshop at the same time, particularly ram hungry apps, you'll see an advantage, otherwise prolly not. I run a lot of virtual machines, and my mac pro is getting replaced with an 8 core version with 8 or 10gb of ram. The guy who's taking my old machine is dropping 16 or 32gb of ram in the box since he does lots of database work. It all depends on your needs. As an aside, don't bother buying ram from apple, there is third party ram (like from owc) that'll work in the mac pro, at *much* less than apple prices.
As for the video card, I really prefer nvidia, I've found them over the years to be more stable with better drivers (and as I use linux a fair bit, the *much* better linux drivers help in that opinion. That said, Apple AFAIK rolls their own drivers, and they in general seem to be on par (in fact, when the MBPs went to nvidia, the graphics speed went down for a bit because of driver issues). The 8800 is, of course, going to blow the crap out of the 2600, but whether you need it or not is up to you. I imagine the noise difference won't be much, since they both have fans (it's not like the jump from the 7300 to the x1900 in the last gen machines). Power, of course, is a consideration though. Haven't seen anything from apple on on-gpu computation, though there was the post about nvidia readying some specific cards for that (which wouldn't effect your purchase). With apple though, who knows? :-p
Graphics card Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB
Rationale: less power draw, more than enough for non-3d, non-gpu-accelerated Photoshop/2D work. Less noise compared to nvidia 8800gt?
Question2: Any difference in reliability of current ATI or nVidia drivers? Any reason to buy nVidia with more VRAM considering the above usage scenario? Has Apple announced a more ambitious move towards gpu-rendering based apps or parts inside OS X?
This is my first time using these forums (just joined today because of your post).
I too am not a gamer nor do I have need of animation 3D work, but I do a lot of CS3 work with very large files etc. and run many different apps at the same time.
I have some of the same questions, especially about the graphics card.
I'm trying to decide between the Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB and NVIDA 8800 GT.
The cost isn't an issue but power consumption and fan noise are. I understand that the NVIDA requires an auxiliary power cable.
I'm wondering if you've found out anything further about this and what your decision has been.
Thanks, I'm hoping to learn a lot in these forums.
It answers a lot of your questions.
Check out this article at Macworld.
It answers a lot of your questions.
Thank you very much for the link, a lot to absorb.
The graphics card question was answered for me, I'm going with the less expensive ATI Radeon 2600 XT. Also 8GB ram (not from apple).
All the information about the RAID card was too much for me to understand. I did get that it would require more expensive SAS present and future hard drives.
Let me ask something else, would there be significant difference, in overall speed, or anything else, between the 2.8GHz (8-core) and the 3.0GHz?
Thanks again
Let me ask something else, would there be significant difference, in overall speed, or anything else, between the 2.8GHz (8-core) and the 3.0GHz?
Thanks again
That's something you'll need to decide.
The results suggest to me that the best bang for the buck is RAM and RAID drive. Raid is pretty costly though.
Check out this article at Macworld.
It answers a lot of your questions.
Are there any articles about the new four core model? I hadn't found any yet.