New Cylindrical Mac Pro

[Otto Seaman]

Only 9-inches tall and 6" in diameter but apparently it will be the maximum Mac this Fall. All flash SSD storage.

How large will SSD drives be by Fall 2013? I guess this is built knowing that you're connecting it to external drives, there is no way you're fitting a conventional hard drive inside....

I wonder how much a maxed out 12-core model with be, loaded with RAM and SSDs?

I suppose this pretty much is for video editing since most people seem pretty happy with iMacs and the like for even larger images these days....

[asnapper]

Lots of information and comments on Lloyd Chambers Mac blog about the new Mac Pro

http://macperformanceguide.com/

[Richard M. Coda]

I was debating waiting for this new MacPro or getting a 27-inch iMac NOW to replace my MacPro. But since they didn't announce a date or price, and I would have to buy a new monitor (I have a 30 inch Apple Cinema Display) I think I'll save a few bucks and get the iMac.

[DaveS]

It looks like a rubbish bin

[EOTS]

Aaah that's bad news for me ...
Having two 3TB SATA drives you can't migrate internally and a relatively expensive newly bought SSD PCIe Card with two SATA-SSDs disks on it ...
That means spending an extra 1k for the lot of external PCIe-2-thunderbolt chassis, external SATA-2-thunderbolt-chassis, cables, power supplys ...
And besides costs, you no longer have the benefit one solid self-contained unit, but a jungle of the abovementioned ...

IMHO, disfunctional designer crap no one in the "Pro" Segment really cares about ...
As for image and video editing, vast amounts of storage is essential, not so much the compactness factor ...

Best regards,
Martin

[vinny]

Built-in obselesence, nothing new to aplle products these days.

[Struan Gray]

I'm running on some trailing edge technology at present, but even there I have gravitated towards external storage - either a network disk or a local enclosure. I could happily live with this as a concept.

My main worry would be that it will need ground-level clearance all round to feed the air intakes - the current mac towers only need a unidirectional flow, and the intakes are up off the ground. Perhaps we're all supposed to have them on our desks rather than under them.

I hope the cooling fan is programmable. It could blow some awesome smoke rings.

[gth]

Aaah that's bad news for me ...
Having two 3TB SATA drives you can't migrate internally and a relatively expensive newly bought SSD PCIe Card with two SATA-SSDs disks on it ...
That means spending an extra 1k for the lot of external PCIe-2-thunderbolt chassis, external SATA-2-thunderbolt-chassis, cables, power supplys ...
And besides costs, you no longer have the benefit one solid self-contained unit, but a jungle of the abovementioned ...

IMHO, disfunctional designer crap no one in the "Pro" Segment really cares about ...
As for image and video editing, vast amounts of storage is essential, not so much the compactness factor ...

Best regards,
Martin

Have to agree a bit with that.... the "Wow, but not really factor"..... on the other hand most video work probably takes place off big external RAID arrays already.

Personally, I'v always used external drives, going back to original Macs with SCSI. There was a time before laptops I travelled to client sites with my trusty SCSI drive with everything on it.

And yet another external drive standard.... SCSI, FireWire, USB, Thunderbolt......

At least we get a new powerful Mac.... I was afraid they would abandon that market.

[Scott Davis]

With the covers off, it looks like a little Dalek, minus the eye stalk. If it were not for the need to buy another monitor, when it comes time for an upgrade, I'd be all over that. For now I'm quite content with my iMac.

[ROL]

I was debating waiting for this new MacPro or getting a 27-inch iMac NOW to replace my MacPro. But since they didn't announce a date or price, and I would have to buy a new monitor (I have a 30 inch Apple Cinema Display) I think I'll save a few bucks and get the iMac.

I did a major and long overdue PC upgrade in February to an iMac 27", maxed out to an aftermarket 16GB, figuring the cost of a separate cinema display was worth getting almost that in an upper end "prosumer" desktop. The Fusion Drive is very fast for everyday uses, possibly nearly as functionally equivalent as full ($$$) SSD's. I'm editing videos as I write this with FCPx, and except for a few crashes (automatic saves so no worries), I haven't scene the spinning wheel of death. BTW, I've grown to love the Magic Trackpad, even over the iPad touch screen interface.

But the new Pro is a marvel (and possible the pinnacle) of engineering and design, as always with Apple, and may be the only choice for 4K video editing, if you got it. I wouldn't curse the FedEx guy if one showed upon my doorstep.

[Preston]

Here's a slide show and some info on the new Mac-Pro

foxnews.com/sneak-peek-at-apple-new-mac-pro (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/slideshow/2013/06/11/sneak-peek-at-apple-new-mac-pro/?intcmp=HPBucket)

I bet this little beastie will cost a dime or three, though!

--p

[Otto Seaman]

I guess this is the end of having a consumer-affordable professional Mac workstation. I bet a lot of people ran Mac Pros that only had $3 to $6K invested in a professional-quality workstation. But setting up one of these new ones with all the recommended new technologies is going to be more expensive, prohibitive for many people. It also has a different footprint, so it screws up a lot of professional installations, forcing people to put the thing on the desk instead of the floor. That's a huge marketing advantage for Apple, some people will get these out of peer pressure and keeping up with the Joneses. Don't think there isn't a legion of interior designers waiting to redesign offices around this ;-p

What they should do is a Mini with better video and some extra ports and sell it to us who don't want to use an iMac monitor.

[brian mcweeney]

Looks like it was designed by Dyson vacuums ...
The fan will suck all the pet hair up from the floor and vent out the top.

[Jac@stafford.net]

It also has a different footprint, so it screws up a lot of professional installations, forcing people to put the thing on the desk instead of the floor.

I'm not so sure. It is much smaller than the existing Pro.

[Walter Calahan]

Can't wait till the coffee mug version comes out.

[Tin Can]

First thing my video editor friend said was, 'no firewire'...


Built-in obselesence, nothing new to aplle products these days.

[Lenny Eiger]

I have a Westmere 8 core Intel Mac Pro with 24 Gigs of RAM. Now, I don't know about video editing... I am sure they could use a mainframe-level computer to do what they want. I'm just a lowly one-frame-at-a-time photographer. I can tell you this this little computer is fast enough to do what I need. The bottleneck is PhotoShop.

Adobe is lazy. They have a serious problem with their strategy - they are focused on consumers, with a complex, high-end product, difficult to use (and learn) product. Focusing on consumers means they haven't done the work to handle a large file. Why, because they think that nobody makes them. Of course, most of us here, make all kinds of large files. I have had repeated requests for 4x5's and 6x17's done at 8,000 ppi. That's a 6 gig file.

As everyone wants the ability to make a decent print, file sizes will get into the 2 Gig range - even for digital files. Adobe will ultimately have to address this.

Apple's new computer will do fine... It would be nicer if it were even more powerful, but they have to sell millions of them, and they can't make even a single mis-step, so they can't really use the cutting edge stuff...

Lenny

[Tin Can]

Video editing and photo large file is done off line at low res, and then rendered.

Render is the time killer.



I have a Westmere 8 core Intel Mac Pro with 24 Gigs of RAM. Now, I don't know about video editing... I am sure they could use a mainframe-level computer to do what they want. I'm just a lowly one-frame-at-a-time photographer. I can tell you this this little computer is fast enough to do what I need. The bottleneck is PhotoShop.

Adobe is lazy. They have a serious problem with their strategy - they are focused on consumers, with a complex, high-end product, difficult to use (and learn) product. Focusing on consumers means they haven't done the work to handle a large file. Why, because they think that nobody makes them. Of course, most of us here, make all kinds of large files. I have had repeated requests for 4x5's and 6x17's done at 8,000 ppi. That's a 6 gig file.

As everyone wants the ability to make a decent print, file sizes will get into the 2 Gig range - even for digital files. Adobe will ultimately have to address this.

Apple's new computer will do fine... It would be nicer if it were even more powerful, but they have to sell millions of them, and they can't make even a single mis-step, so they can't really use the cutting edge stuff...

Lenny

[drew.saunders]

First thing my video editor friend said was, 'no firewire'...

$30: http://store.apple.com/us/product/MD464ZM/A/apple-thunderbolt-to-firewire-adaptor

Or, for $999, get the Thunderbolt display, which has FW 800, 3 powered USB 2.0 ports, and Gigabit Ethernet on the back:

http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC914LL/B/apple-thunderbolt-display-27-inch?

[JW Dewdney]

Personally I don't care much for the new design - really seems to lack the 'design integrity' (read: minimalism, functionality?) of the jobs inspired machines (not that I think he was a god or anything, like some - but he was a good overseer). Thank god for the imacs though - a brilliant low end solution that had/has all the power where it really needs to be to get all but the most demanding tasks done. Having been an architect it was a godsend (huge display, no graphics or math coprocessor card subsystems necessary) for running both higher end CAD software AND photoshop etc... hopefully the imacs will be around for a LITTLE longer...

[paulr]

Ars Technica has posted the most thorough critical look (http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/06/a-critical-look-at-the-new-mac-pro/) so far.

I agree with them 100% on the most basic limitations: only 4 USB ports, and hard-wired video. The latter isn't important to me ... stock video cards on Mac Pros have always been plenty, and this is going to be miles more capable than anything in the past. But for those doing pro 3D and who use CUDA and OpenCL for professional workflows, this is a problem.

The lack of internal drive expandability is mostly an issue of convenience. It bums me out, because I like having my drives in a box. But people doing anything like pro video have been relying on external RAID storage forever. For those people, the 6 thunderbolt ports (each of which can handle 6 devices, with massive bandwidth) makes this the most extensible Mac ever.

Version 2.0 may well have more USB ports. The rest of the limitations seem more strategic.

My dream version would have been square, and a little bigger. The basic internal form factor could be the same, but there would be room for drive bays or PCI slots. And it would use space more efficiently.

My bet is that this machine will be very reasonably priced. Compared with the current Mac Pro, it's thrifty with materials, requires much less cooling, a smaller power supply, no optical drive, no PCI slots, and no internal drive bays.

The money saved can go toward the RAID enclosures, thunderbolt cables, and if you need them, an optical drive and even a PCI enclosure.

[Tin Can]

When one of my 2 computers fails, I will buy whatever Mac Mini is available. It will easily handle what I need, and my 2 existing displays. I try to always have 2 systems, currently a Mac and a PC. Not in love with either, but these damn things are essencial these days.

[benrains]

I'm very much a fan of Apple products, but I'm not totally sold on this one's design--either aesthetically or from an engineering standpoint. The funniest comment I've read so far about it's appearance is that it looks like a coffee grinder, and I think that's about how I feel about it too.

On the engineering side of things, I think the cooling concept they've come up with a central shared heat sink makes sense in many ways. Things I'm less sure about are the use of *one* large single fan. If the fan ever fails, you're basically dead in the water (I'm assuming they've done something intelligent like included temperature sensors and maybe also a fan sensor to bring down the system if it overheats, but a little more redundancy might've been nice.) Other things I'm wondering about are like... what happens to it when you invariably knock over your coffee or accidentally spill something and it falls into the top of the computer? I'm imagining all sorts of scenarios where the liquid cooks onto the heat sink, gums up the fan, and then also goes spraying all over your work area like some spectacular coffee fountain. And I guess you'll have to be sure to not leave the thing setting on its side on any sort of incline lest your Mac Pro go rolling away.

On the upside, those failings all present wonderful aftermarket accessory opportunities for products like... the Mac Pro cylinder umbrella and chock blocks.

[Struan Gray]

I'm going to sell little Mary Poppins figures to place on top. If she takes off, you're overdoing things. If not, she'll protect from coffee and other spills.

We may have to deck her out in Matrix-style black leather for the target demographic though.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Thank you, benrains, for beginning my day with a good-hearted chuckle. I might make an oversize cup handle that sticks to the side.

OT - for video, can two Macs be set up - one for editing, then the other to hand off for rendering?

[Lenny Eiger]

You know, Steve Jobs always said he wanted to have computers be a toaster... and I think this one should do the trick. Just put the bread over the hole and in just a minute or two... (bread adaptable marshmallow stick and holder sold separately.)

96968

A lot of folks are deadpanning the lack of internal hard drives. However, I don't think everyone is aware of just how fast pci-mounted SSD drives can be...

Last year I took apart my daughter's iPhone to replace a broken screen. It was quite an experience. It was all battery with a little L around the edge of components. Last month I took apart a Mac Mini and it was just as hard. They've done all this work to combine things onto one board. This one was dead, the Ram slots had a broken contact. I used one of the hard drives in another one. Getting it out and installing it was hard. I don't miss the days of the 9600's when you had to take the whole computer apart just to get RAM in there (and if it didn't sound like it was breaking you were doing it wrong), but I do miss being able to change out components. I can't argue with the performance of minis but I do like to add hard drives now and then as they break... and I would like a little space...

However, I finally broke down and bought a Burley 8-bay case. I am slowly filling it up with 4 TB drives, two at a time, one for a drive, the other for backup (around $200 each). I should be able to get 16 TB of space total and another 16 of backup... The case, a "quiet" version cost around $900. It's thousands less than most external cases with the drives already in them... so I don't think the lack of drive bays is really a problem.

[Tin Can]

That's me, I need one ASAP.


I'm going to sell little Mary Poppins figures to place on top. If she takes off, you're overdoing things. If not, she'll protect from coffee and other spills.

We may have to deck her out in Matrix-style black leather for the target demographic though.

[paulr]

If the machine actually shipped with a matix-style black leather Mary Poppins, I'd buy it immediately and shut up with the complaints.

[Tin Can]

He lives in the past and makes too little money editing documentaries.



$30: http://store.apple.com/us/product/MD464ZM/A/apple-thunderbolt-to-firewire-adaptor

Or, for $999, get the Thunderbolt display, which has FW 800, 3 powered USB 2.0 ports, and Gigabit Ethernet on the back:

http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC914LL/B/apple-thunderbolt-display-27-inch?

[paulr]

A lot of folks are deadpanning the lack of internal hard drives. However, I don't think everyone is aware of just how fast pci-mounted SSD drives can be...

I don't doubt it will be insanely fast. The question is capacity. It will be a long time beore a several terrabyte ssd becomes affortable.

People who need less than that generally don't need a mac pro. People who need many times that are probably using external storage already. People in the middle, for whom 2 to 8 terrabytes is a sweet spot, will most likely miss internal storage. This includes me, and probably a lot of other still photographers.


The case, a "quiet" version cost around $900. It's thousands less than most external cases with the drives already in them... so I don't think the lack of drive bays is really a problem.

You put quiet in quotes ... does this mean it's loud? This is one of the worries people are voicing ... what good is a sleek, silent, efficient CPU if it forces me to litter my desk with bulky, power hungry, loud boxes?

In general are you happy with the burly?

I'm hoping we see a lot of new enclosures (maybe even from Apple) that address the various concerns.

[Lenny Eiger]

I don't doubt it will be insanely fast. The question is capacity. It will be a long time beore a several terrabyte ssd becomes affortable.... People in the middle, for whom 2 to 8 terrabytes is a sweet spot, will most likely miss internal storage. This includes me, and probably a lot of other still photographers.


I already have an SSD in my Intel Mac Pro. I copy things to there when I want to go fast. This is going to be a strategy until the SSD's get larger as you say....


You put quiet in quotes ... does this mean it's loud? This is one of the worries people are voicing ... what good is a sleek, silent, efficient CPU if it forces me to litter my desk with bulky, power hungry, loud boxes?

In general are you happy with the burly? I'm hoping we see a lot of new enclosures (maybe even from Apple) that address the various concerns.

The Burley is great. I have this one: http://www.burlystorage.com/ecom-prodshow/MGBurly8PM-Q.html and it is indeed quiet, I have had absolutely no issues with it at all. I would prefer a different color... but its under the desk anyway and it has blue lights which make up for it.... Today I might buy it with a different interface, maybe SAS, or Thunderbolt... I don't feel the need to RAID...

When you call over there, you talk to a person. Usually a very knowledgeable one. They are also photographers.... or at least were.

There are other cases, maybe even some with the fancy heat sinking aluminum but if it was from Apple it would be three times the price. With Burley you don't have to buy any drives, or you can have them supply it full, it doesn't matter. I used to get cases from Sonnet and they were good but now they won't sell them without drives in them. The markup on the drives is exorbitant.... all one has to do is go to pricegrabbber.com and look up 4TB internal drives and you get a lot of choice in the $200-$300 range, including the more expensive enterprise level (more thoroughly tested, I think).

Anyone can slide a drive into a case. Then you format it with the Mac's Disk Utility or Windows on the POC... there's nothing to it...

Lenny

[JW Dewdney]

... I don't think everyone is aware of just how fast pci-mounted SSD drives can be...

must be a new generation of computer users - we've been doing this since the early 90s at least! Remember RAM Disks? You could allot a portion of RAM and store your temp documents and scratch disk there and it would go (relatively) like a bat out of hell in situations where you would otherwise have a lot of read/write disk chores... effectively it was identical except that now we have dedicated ram for that. I think there were some early dedicated SSDs in the late 90s too though they were low capacity and quite expensive...

[Lenny Eiger]

must be a new generation of computer users - we've been doing this since the early 90s at least! Remember RAM Disks?

I do remember. I would argue, however, that even then there were very few people using it. There was a lot of fear about losing everything if the power went out, or the computer crashed. Later software addressed this but all in all I think there is a very small percentage of power users...

I remember when the Mac 2 was really fast. I had one of those Siclone chips in there, had to use a chip puller to get the original out and then seat the new one... makes me feel old...

Lenny

[Henry Ambrose]

must be a new generation of computer users - we've been doing this since the early 90s at least! Remember RAM Disks? You could allot a portion of RAM and store your temp documents and scratch disk there and it would go (relatively) like a bat out of hell in situations where you would otherwise have a lot of read/write disk chores... effectively it was identical except that now we have dedicated ram for that. I think there were some early dedicated SSDs in the late 90s too though they were low capacity and quite expensive...

Oh yeah.....

For the time period that was FAST!!
I still have a Mac IIci that I've been keeping (??) all these years. When they were the baddest Mac available they were outrageously expensive and much lusted after.

[DaveS]

I'm waiting for the next version

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/R2-D2_Droid.png/250px-R2-D2_Droid.png

[Otto Seaman]

I had a hopped up Mac Ci II running a server until 2004. Those old Macs were really well built with quality components.

[JW Dewdney]

i kept my 7500 (my first seriously tricked out machine) until fairly recently - no way I was going to toss out the 64mb RAM chip I paid $3900 for in '94 or whenever it was!! But yeah- the updgrade architecture was fantastic... that one was upgraded up until G4 if memory serves (no pun intended).

it's pretty ridiculous thinking about the money that got invested in those machines now that we have a whole different cost structure going on. I probably had close to $15-17K in that one... :(

[jonreid]

First thing my video editor friend said was, 'no firewire'...
There is no FireWire on my 2011 model MBA. It's been obsolete for a while. You don't wish for stasis in technology do you?

[Tin Can]

My computers are up to date. His are not. My MBA is higher spec than his old Mac's. He is buried in FW HD's. My PC is current and has FW. But I don't loan digital anything.

QUOTE=jonreid;1037161]There is no FireWire on my 2011 model MBA. It's been obsolete for a while. You don't wish for stasis in technology do you?[/QUOTE]

[Jac@stafford.net]

must be a new generation of computer users - we've been doing this since the early 90s at least! Remember RAM Disks?

When I learned the c language, I had an 8088 and a board of RAM with a disc controller so that to the system it looked like a 64 platter drive. Microsoft's entire c would fit on it. I thought I was in heaven. :)

Back to the topic - I am merely concerned with the new Pro's price. Guesses?

[Jac@stafford.net]

Oh yeah.....

For the time period that was FAST!!
I still have a Mac IIci that I've been keeping (??) all these years. When they were the baddest Mac available they were outrageously expensive and much lusted after.

My boss got me a Macintosh IIfxd when it was introduced. I was not terribly impressed, but considering how expensive it was I kept quiet.

[Tin Can]

Early Mac's never impressed me, expensive toys, and only in the last 5 years have I come to like Apple OS and hardware.

I remember rejecting the punch card computer we had in High School, in 1967 as a room sized joke, I could do calculations in my head faster than that monstrosity. It was an after hours computer club then, at a very exclusive High School, location classified.



My boss got me a Macintosh IIfxd when it was introduced. I was not terribly impressed, but considering how expensive it was I kept quiet.

[Eric Rose]

Put a string on the end of it and go find a menstruating elephant.

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

i'm going to sell little mary poppins figures to place on top. If she takes off, you're overdoing things. If not, she'll protect from coffee and other spills.

We may have to deck her out in matrix-style black leather for the target demographic though.

You made my day

[Preston]

For those who have legacy 1394a Firewire, or even the newer 1394b devices, the lack of support for these would certainly be a cause for concern.

My 2011 PC has on-board support for 1394a, but not for 1394b.

Not that I can afford it, or have a desire to switch to such as a beastie as the new Mac pro, but has anyone seen a street price for it?

--P

[Jac@stafford.net]

I remember rejecting the punch card computer we had in High School, in 1967 as a room sized joke, I could do calculations in my head faster than that monstrosity.

In my previous job we had a couple of Asian Indian engineering students who did most arithmetic in their head. They carried a calculator only to show instructors that their figures were correct. They had learned Vedic mathematics in grade school. (No specific reference to the ancient Vedas is claimed..)

[Tin Can]

And audio guys are concerned

http://createdigitalmusic.com/2013/06/life-after-slots-what-the-mac-pro-external-hardware-mean-for-production/#more-29512

[JW Dewdney]

When I learned the c language, I had an 8088 and a board of RAM with a disc controller so that to the system it looked like a 64 platter drive. Microsoft's entire c would fit on it. I thought I was in heaven. :)



oh i was talking ONLY about SSD storage Jac - not to see who could pee the furthest... yes i'm sure many of us had access to computing in some form all the way back to the sixties even...

[Brian C. Miller]

- not to see who could pee the furthest...

I thought he was commenting about the ancient warm fuzzies we got way back when with so much less. I remember doing bitmaps by hand for my Commodore computer. (Started with a PET 2001, which was owned by a school.) I've been looking, and I think it'd be neat to upgrade my server computer with a dual-CPU Abu Dhabi set. 32 cores! Hoo-yah! The last time I saw a 32-core system was a HP Superdome, with 16 dual-core CPUs. (From 6502 to total mainframe under my desk. Yes!)

[ericpmoss]

If I can suspend a ping pong ball in the exhaust of the fan, it's a must-have. ;)

Really, the top-end iMac does all I need, so this thing would have to amaze me to justify itself.

[JW Dewdney]

I thought he was commenting about the ancient warm fuzzies we got way back when with so much less.

yes he was - in direct response to my comments about SSDs in the 90s... I just fear he misunderstood and assumed I was trying to brag about using a computer in the 90s... :P

[Nathan Potter]

If I can suspend a ping pong ball in the exhaust of the fan, it's a must-have. ;)

Really, the top-end iMac does all I need, so this thing would have to amaze me to justify itself.

It amazes me. I hope no one mistakes it for a new kind of toilet. You know something like one of those all organic types, like the Incinolet!

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[8x10 user]

Nothing too groundbreaking in terms of performance. Memory bandwidth is still significantly less than the best dual CPU windows systems of a couple years back. If the OS can start harnessing the power of those graphics cards than it might be something.

Intel nerfed the power of their Xeons compared to their equivalent i7's; probably so home brew windows units would quit stomping on macs in terms of benchmark results. A single CPU windows system will offer greater bang for your buck since it will support faster memory multipliers.

I'm also interested in the comparison between this and a Multi-CPU AMD based PC of a similar price range. I have seen some very nice cinebench results such systems which I believe cinebench is the closest benchmark to photoshop/autopano use.

[JW Dewdney]

i'd be curious to see these benchmarks you're referring to though...

[8x10 user]

I built a computer for a special project at least a couple years ago. It had 12 dimm slots each running at 1900 MHz at a cas latency of 8,9,8 24 (very good). That is the equivalent to 182 GB/PS. At the same time the "equivalent" mac had around 85 GB/PS. Running 24 threads at 4GHZ I got about 20 points in cinebench while the "equivalent" 12-core mac was getting 13. Google cinebench to see what people are getting now. Cinebench is available for mac and windows.

I stomped on the autopano record too but I never published it.... I will admit I cheated and put all of the files on a RAM disc before running the autopano. Cinebench was done straight off the magnetic raid.

[8x10 user]

My experience in using photoshop on a powerful rig is that it can use all of the systems power except for the video cards which it will only use maybe (10% of) I have seen photoshop run 24 threads at their top speed for at least for second or two. Also PS can use giant amounts of RAM if you let it. Much more than the size of your original file as the ram can hold your correction layers and the whole before/after image. Photoshop and Auto Pano (also premier pro) seem to be a couple of the best programs for high core, multi threaded systems. Some of the filters are not multithreaded but in general PS likes the powerful computers very much.

When you have enough ram, I think the benefit of SSD's goes down a little bit. With PS I like to run 4 magnetic drives in a raid 0 (with a NAS backup device). Using a PCIe raid card or SSD is much better than just running it through a SATA II. Newer systems of course are SATA III.

No offense but I think if you tried the same operations on my rig you will find that photoshop is plenty fast.





I have a Westmere 8 core Intel Mac Pro with 24 Gigs of RAM. Now, I don't know about video editing... I am sure they could use a mainframe-level computer to do what they want. I'm just a lowly one-frame-at-a-time photographer. I can tell you this this little computer is fast enough to do what I need. The bottleneck is PhotoShop.

Adobe is lazy. They have a serious problem with their strategy - they are focused on consumers, with a complex, high-end product, difficult to use (and learn) product. Focusing on consumers means they haven't done the work to handle a large file. Why, because they think that nobody makes them. Of course, most of us here, make all kinds of large files. I have had repeated requests for 4x5's and 6x17's done at 8,000 ppi. That's a 6 gig file.

As everyone wants the ability to make a decent print, file sizes will get into the 2 Gig range - even for digital files. Adobe will ultimately have to address this.

Apple's new computer will do fine... It would be nicer if it were even more powerful, but they have to sell millions of them, and they can't make even a single mis-step, so they can't really use the cutting edge stuff...

Lenny

[8x10 user]

Seriously....

New 2013 Mac Pro

1866 MHZ x 8 = 14928 MBps

x 4 channels = 60 GB/ps

2011 custom water cooled SR-2

1900 MHZ x 8 = 15200 MBps

x 12 channels = 182 GB/ps

I would have liked to see Apple work with the AMD chips. Last I checked AMD's server chips were capable of 100 GBps per chip. Memory bandwidth and size are huge to PS performance. Compare these numbers to SSD's. Even with the best SSD's your way better off not running out of RAM.

Also it takes longer to fill an 8-gig ram stick and 4 gig sticks are faster.... Thats probably why the mac pro's memory is so low. They must have built it around slower 8 GB sticks...

[paulr]

I have seen photoshop run 24 threads at their top speed for at least for second or two.

Unfortunately, using Activity Monitor or similar utilities doesn't tell you how efficiently an application is using multiple threads. There are operations in photoshop that will use 12 cores, but if you do benchmarks against a 6 core machine from the same generation running at the same clock speed, you actually see a slight advantage with the 6 core machine. This could change. Currently PS doesn't distribute threads efficiently beyond 6 cores, and when it tries, it loses a bit to thread management overhead.

There are also many tasks in PS that are not threadable. The encryption of layers in a PSD file is a prominent example. It's why saving a PSD or a compressed TIF makes the processor and not the disk the bottleneck on most systems. This problem isn't going away.

As far as memory bandwidth, wait til actual application benchmarks are a available. There are a lot of factors. You rarely see anything like the theoretical maximum..