Fast and reliable Solid State Drives
SSDs That Start Fast and STAY Fast!
“Your site has really put every single detail I had questions about right at my fingertips. A real gem of information!… Now I have the perfect plan ready to go.… Without this information, I could not have decided how and why I NEED to upgrade certain parts of my system. Now I am confident that my machine will be secure, fast and able to serve my needs - all within a very reasonable budget. Thanks ⨉ 1000!!! I am recommending to all of my friends who are artists, designers and photographers. — Ryan R
“First thanks for your invaluable advice in configuring the Mac Pro for me. Second, I am now using the 64 bit kernel which has made Lightroom snappier and Aperture unbelievably super fast. Third, I don't know of a better resource on the internet than yourself. The things you talk about on your site is making my photographic life that much more enjoyable. —Saad G
“I have to tell you the amount of information you provide on your website is mind blowing and incredibly useful. You make building RAID arrays, choosing hard drives, and maximizing Photoshop something that seems very achievable to those that are not so tech savvy. I am a techie but never really got why you set up RAID's until I started reading your work” — James M
Your online articles are absolutely terrific—how you do all that is amazing. They are a big help for me.” — Peter M
I am just about to purchase a Mac Pro... being a designer and video editor I would ideally like to get the 8 core, so my first question...” — Nige D
Your insights into speeding up the mac and especially Photoshop have saved me untold hours of work and waiting. I put in 16gb of additional memory, upgraded to Snow Leopard and CS5 from CS3 and ran the warm up tools you provide. Actions that took 30 seconds now take FIVE. I'll be resigning up for your subsriptions soon.” — Don H


MPG Pro Laptop, world’s fastest MacBook Pro
MPG Pro Laptop


MPG Photo Workstation, world’s fastest Mac Pro
MPG Photo Workstation

Hone your skills!


Thursday September 2, 2010

2010 Mac Pro 12-core @ 3.33GHz —  Reviewed!

Photoshop 16-bit is 15-bit
12-core Mac Pro at 3.33Ghz

To my review of the 2010 Mac Pro, I’ve added a 12-core Mac Pro running at 3.33GHz, courtesy of the new OWC CPU Upgrade Program.

The fastest model that Apple will sell you is a 12-core 2.93GHz model; the 3.33GHz clock speed is 13.6% faster than 2.93GHz.

The 12-core 3.33GHz model makes an apples-to-apples comparison possible between these three machines:

  • 4-core @ 3.33GHz;
  • 6-core @ 3.33GHz;
  • 12-core @ 3.33GHz.

Can you believe that the 12-core model is the slowest machine with Photoshop?! That’s a fact, and it’s the fault of Adobe’s code, not the Mac Pro.

But you’ll like the 12-core model for other things, like encoding video with Handbrake, including my handy tip for gaining an extra 30% speed increase.

But bottom line is this: if you’re a Photoshop user, the hexacore is your best choice, so long as you don’t edit monster files, where max memory becomes the dominating factor.

Thursday September 2, 2010

Upgrade Your Mac Pro CPU to 3.33GHz and/or More CPU Cores!

That’s what I did— I bought a 2.4GHz 8-core from Apple, then had OWC upgrade it to a 12-core 3.33Ghz monster! Read my report. (I would have gone with a 2.8Gz 4-core for an upgrade, but at the time the upgrade paths were not clear).

But it doesn’t have to be a 2010 Mac Pro—have a slower 2009 model? No problem! While you can’t go beyond 8 cores in the 2009 models, you can go from 4 cores to 8 cores and/or a faster CPU. See the Mac Pro CPU upgrade page.

Here’s one use case where more fast cores kick some butt.

x
Why wait so long?

Wednesday September 2, 2010

“Godzilla” Mac Pro for Image Retouchers, Photo Labs and Lucky You

Your time is worth something? Make sure you Mac Pro runs at top speed.

A recent MPG Photo Workstation customer writes:

The Mac Photo Workstation you configured for our company is doing great. Aptly, we named her "Godzilla." Our clients are very impressed and pleased with this mega computer for photo shoots. Everything is running smoothly and lighting fast. The speed shows especially in Capture One Pro 5 for rendering incoming capture files, from the Canon 1ds Mark III to the Phase P45+ digital back. There are no lags in processing out files either. Even within CS5, batch processing of files is remarkably fast along with any rendering of high-rez PSD files (i.e. 100-200MB).

Godzilla has already caught the eye of some image retouchers we work with. It's a great system and I'm looking forward to building up a few more of these as we expand into more video, and maybe even tinkering with our Macbook Pros (MPG Pro Laptop) for raid stripe inside to enhance performance for our location photographers
— Jacob Drezdner, CSI Rentals, New York & Brooklyn

Thursday September 2, 2010

When More is Less — 12 Cores and 48GB are Slower Than 6 Cores and 24GB with Photoshop CS5!

Read the analysis.

Sometimes, software is the problem. As shown below, these are all 3.33GHz Mac Pros.

x
Why wait so long?

Thursday September 2, 2010

How to Cut Handbrake Video Encoding Time by 40%!

Using Handbrake to convert DVD video to other formats?

The new 12-core and 6-core Mac Pros make short work of it, but you can go even faster with a trick I’ve documented in Optimizing Handbrake.

x
Why wait so long?

Wednesday September 1, 2010

Whither 16-bit in Photoshop?

Photoshop 16-bit is 15-bit
Pure white is 32768 = 15-bits + 1

What does it mean to have a 16-bit image file when the maximum value in Photoshop CS5 is 32678, not 65535?

A 16-bit range is 0..65535. Furthermore, a 15-bit range is 0..32767, not 32768. So what’s up with Photoshop going one value beyond that which is possible with 15 bits? This situation has existed for as long as I know.

Readers sent me a couple of links, it’s apparently a deliberate design limitation of Photoshop (a bug). Bottom line is that it’s 15-bit mode, not 16-bit mode. Or more precisely, 15-bit + 1 value = 0..32768 mode, a quite irrelevant distinction in terms of precision. See this link and this link and this link.

In short, a 16-bit RGB image has one bit thrown away by Photoshop since Photoshop operates in quasi 15-bit mode. Which means that a camera like the Nikon D3x with its 14-bit images is only 1 bit short of what’s possible to edit in Photoshop (setting 32 bit mode aside, which hs poor support).

Medium format 16-bit images? Well, they might start out that way, but as soon as Photoshop whacks them down to 15-bits they’re not 16-bit any more. Important? No.

The reason that this 32768 trick is done (0..32768 = 32769 values) is so that there is an easy midpoint value of 16384 which does not require a divide operation; all the other boundaries are also thus neatly powers of two.

Tuesday August 31, 2010

My Mac Pro 2.93GHz 8-core is For Sale

I must have the latest for testing and for coverage on this site. If not for that, there would be no real reason to upgrade at all. See my report.

Remember, the 8-core model has 8 memory slots, a key advantage for large jobs.

  • 6 X 1GB memory (can also do 14GB optional as 2 X 4GB + 6 X 1GB at a bit more cost)
  • Radeon 4870 video card
  • GT120 video card
  • 2 X 1TB enterprise grade hard drives
  • Intel X25-M 80GB solid state drive.
  • Keyboard and mouse.
  • Ships in original box.

$4100 or best offer, you pay shipping via FedEx 3-day or ground. Contact me.

Monday August 30, 2010

2010 Mac Pro Remains Bus-limited With More than Two Fast Solid State Drives

I’m sorry to report that the 2010 Mac Pro motherboard still has a maximum bandwidth of around 690MB/sec for internal SATA ports. That means that just two of the OWC Mercury Extreme Pro RE SSDs almost max-out that Mac Pro SATA bus, and three of them fully saturate it.

Using DiskTester, I tested a RAID-0 stripe of 3 X 200GB OWC Mercury Pro RE solid state drives. That configuration ought to reach speeds of about 840MB/sec for reads, and 780MB/sec writes.

The actual speed figures are below the true potential, because the Mac Pro SATA ports share a maximum bandwidth limitation.

Since two SSDs are good for about 510MB/sec reads and 470MB/sec writes (as actually measured), the improvement with three of them is not as impressive as one might hope. Still, there’s no denying that even two SSDs offer a level of performance that outstrips the ability of most programs to use it.

x
Actual measured speed vs performance available from SSDs

 

Monday August 30, 2010

Optimizing Apple Aperture Import by 28% With One Click

It’s crazy, but someone at Apple decided you deserve to suffer a 28% performance hit because the face-detection feature is cool. Even if you have no faces in landscape or other photography. All sorts of unprintable words could apply here, but the good news is that it’s easily fixed.

Monday August 30, 2010

More Coming on 2010 Mac Pro

My report on the 2010 Mac Pro Westmere will be updated later this week with another model, and an exciting surprise, too!

In particular, I’ll have updated test graphs to include the 12-core Mac Pro, and also results for video encoding with Handbrake.

Friday August 27, 2010

2010 Mac Pro Hexacore 3.33GHz “Westmere” Updated — 2.4GHz 8-core model

Read all about the 2010 Mac Pro 6-core 3.33GHz “Westmere”. I’ve updated my review to include the 2.4GHz 8-core model. The 3.33GHz hexacore model is a much better choice in nearly every case, as the tests show.

Sunday August 22, 2010

2010 Mac Pro Hexacore 3.33GHz “Westmere” Reviewed and Compared

Read all about the 2010 Mac Pro 6-core 3.33GHz “Westmere”.

There is a tremendous amount of information there, but I’m planning more, including a discussion on which model to buy out of the six possibilities, so stay tuned in.

Friday August 20, 2010

MacPro 2010 3.33GHz 6-core “Westmere” vs Mac Pro 2009 3.33GHz 4-core “Nehalem” — Testing Underway

MacPro 2010 3.33GHz 6-core “Westmere” vs Mac Pro 2009 3.33GHz 4-core “Nehalem” — Testing Underway

Update: RAW-file processing graph with 6 RAW converters for {iMac 2010, Mac Pro hexacore, Mac Pro Nehalem 3.33} sent to MPG mailing list, writeup to follow later today or tomorrow.

...

Initial testing is now underway. Dual 200GB RAID-0 solid states drives and 24GB memory in both machines (3 X 8GB modules). In other words, the core of an MPG Photo Workstation.

I am focusing on these two machines for starters:

  • 2009 Mac Pro “Nehalem” 4-core @ 3.33GHz
  • 2010 Mac Pro “Westmere” 6-core @ 3.33GHz

Is the hexacore chip faster single-threaded? Are those two extra cores worth it? We shall soon know.

Thursday August 20, 2010

My MacPro 3.33GHz Hexacore Less than an Hour’s Drive Away

UPDATE! Driving over to FedEx to pick up, right now!

My Mac Pro Westmere hexacore 3.33GHz is now a 20 minute drive away. Does that mean it might show up today? Or sit in the FedEx warehouse until Monday? It’s not showing “on vehicle for delivery”, and last time I tried to pick up such a thing, I was told there had to be one failed delivery attempt first.

x
Shipping status — en route

What I ordered

x

Shown at right is the configuration that I ordered. It is the configuration I recommend for upgrading to the MPG Photo Workstation—no extras, just the basics (except for video card). The 2.8GHz and 3.2GHz models are also good choices, see this page for more on buying tips.

I am NOT necessarily recommending the Radeon 5870 over the Radeon 5770, but I ordered one for testing purposes.

I will probably revert to the 5770, or oven the old NVidia GT120, simply for power consumption reasons (and noise).

I have no desire to burn 100-300 more watts for no speed gain (I’ll test the actual power consumption).

Test medley

I’ll be testing the new 3.33GHz hexacore Mac Pro against:

My standard configs will be 24GB memory for the 4-slot Mac Pros, and 48GB for the 8/12 cores. All with dual 200GB RAID-0 stripe SSDs— let ’em do their best!

Thursday August 19, 2010

It’s Official —16/24/ 32GB in 2010 Mac Pro 4/6-Core

x
Memory configs

OWC has confirmed that the 8GB modules do work in the 4/6-core 2010 Mac Pro! According to OWC, using 3 modules shows a ~ 15% memory bandwidth gain over 4 modules, so the configurations with a * at right ar the optimal ones. Whether real-world tasks are affected by this small difference remains to be tested, but in past testing I never measured more then 3% hit from using 4 modules instead of 3.

You can get memory for the new 2010 Mac Pro here at OWC.

With this confirmation, my concerns about the 4/6-core 2010 Mac Pro are laid to rest. My top pick remains the 3.33GHz hexacore model, which is not to say that the 2.8GHz or 3.2GHz models are not also excellence choices, and bound to satisfy virtually every user.

See the Buying Tips page for the Mac Pro.

OWC sent me some screen shots with memroy installed in the 2010 Mac Pro quad-core:

x
Click to view larger

Thursday August 19, 2010

How to Preview and Sort 2000 Images Fast

Click the image to read How to Preview and Sort 2000 Images Fast.

x
Click to read

Tuesday August 17, 2010

My MacPro 3.33GHz Hexacore on Its Way (Shipped)

x

Updated now to say 4 days later
x

This morning I received notice that my 2010 Mac Pro 3.33 GHz hexacore “Westmere” has shipped, or will do so today.

FedEx tracking info suggested that it would arrive this Friday, August 20, but this information has now been updated to state August 24. Bummer.

It will take me 1-2 days to have solid test information, and somewhat longer for full coverage.

I will of course immediately test the compatibility of 8GB modules, as this will resolve a key question about maximum installed memory.

What I ordered

Shown below is the machine I ordered, and the configuration I recommend for upgrading to the MPG Photo Workstation—no extras, just the basics (except for video card).

I am NOT necessarily recommending the Radeon 5870 over the Radeon 5770, but I ordered one for testing purposes. I will probably revert to the 5770, or oven the old NVidia GT120, simply for power consumption reasons (and noise). I have no desire to burn 100-300 more watts for no speed gain (I’ll test the actual power consumption).

x

 

Thursday August 12, 2010

OpenGL Sometimes Slower than Just Disabling it

Update! I forget to mention that OpenGL causes Photoshop CS5 to crash a lot, see System or application crash when using Photoshop CS4 and later after updating to Mac OS X 10.6.4. Adobe says the problem is due to a bug in Mac OS X 10.6.4.

Update 2: On August 17, Apple issues an Open GL bug fix. Whether it addresses the Photoshop problem is not yet known.

That “fast” graphics card with OpenGL saves you time in Photoshop, right? Not necessarily.

Today I could repeat over and over this simple fact: my diglloydSpeed1 benchmark runs in 21.7 seconds with OpenGL disabled, and 22.4 seconds with OpenGL enabled (Mac Pro Nehalem 3.33GHz, 24GB memory, GT120 video card, OpenGL at Normal).

That’s only 3% slower, but with the other hassles of OpenGL, I’d rather just leave it disabled.

Maybe it’s one of those “pacifier” settings?

I’m not saying it doesn’t help with something. But I haven’t been able to find any benefits for anything I do. It might help for those using brushes to “paint” in Photoshop— but don’t assume, test it.

Thursday August 12, 2010

Memory for 2010 Mac Pro at OWC

OWC has memory for the 2010 Mac Pro available. The 24GB and 32GB configurations for the 4/6-core Mac Pro models are not listed, but as soon (and if) OWC verifies compatibility, those options will be added, so I’m told.

If you’re investing in a Mac Pro, don’t mess around with 8GB— it’s OK for some uses, but if you need more, you’ll have to remove it and then buy 4GB modules. So start with 12GB, and for big jobs, start with 24GB. I personally use 48GB (six 8GB modules), and Photoshop Cs5 regularly scarfs up 10-15GB for itself, so 24GB is my absolute minimum.

Remember, you could have a 50GHz processor, but if the system gets low on memory, you’ll be running at the speed of the drive with virtual memory, not the speed of the processor, and all those cores will be idled.

Memory for Mac Pro
Click to view OWC memory for Mac Pro

Thursday August 12, 2010

2010 Mac Pro in Stores Today?

Update! Looks like Apple claim of Mac Pro in stores today was BOGUS. So no info on memory limits will be coming today after all. Not very nice of Apple to send emails with false information. My Mac Pro still due for shipping on Aug 23rd.

Usually only base models show up the first day, so you’re likely to see only the 2.8GHz quad-core and/or 2.4GHz 8-core. But there is always the possibility of new precedent.

My local store says they "have nothing yet" when I called at 9am PST today.

Memory for Mac Pro

Wednesday August 11, 2010

Why I Adore My NEC 27" Wide-Gamut Display

I previously reviewed the NEC 27" PA271W wide-gamut color display, evaluating it mainly on its photographic merits. I use it as a second display, next to my 30" NEC 3090WQXi.

There’s one wonderful benefit I hadn’t expected:

You can size up web pages (in Safari, hit cmd-+ twice), and the web page fits the screen perfectly, with ultra-smooth and very comfortable-to-read text. It’s so pleasant to read that way— no pixels, just ultra-smooth text. Very, very nice.

If you’re 25 years old with 20/20 vision, you might not care. But if you are 40+ and/or you want to kick back a few feet away and read with no eyestrain, it’s better 'n sliced bread with potato chips and chocolate.

The NEC 27" can be adjusted in height, tilted, and can be rotated for horizontal or vertical use! Try that with an Apple display, unless Apple finally comes to its senses someday on ergonomics.

Below is a reduced-size view of the standard-size view and zoomed view. Zoomed, you still get a ton of reading real estate, but you also get ultra easy-to-read web pages. I find this a huge productivity tool when I review my web pages, especially around midnight, when my eyes are tired.

I strongly recommend buying the NEC 27" with the bundled calibrator (BK-SV model). You can get one at OWC. Thanks for buying there, or using my other links.

Click for a large (huge) image to compare (scroll left/right to compare).

Memory for Mac Pro
Which would you rather view?
Screen shots from NEC 27" display in vertical mode

Tuesday August 10, 2010

2010 Mac Pro 4/6-core Processors — Why There is a 16GB Memory Limit (maybe, maybe not)

Update August 12: OWC Larry says “85/15 chance on 8GB working in 4/6-core— I share a cautious optimism now with comparison/expectation to the 2009 model design chipset and expectation from”.

Update August 11: several sources suggest (in various ways) that 8GB modules should work in the new 4/6-core Mac Pro because it should be using the Intel 5520 chipset, a minor update to the Intel 5500 chipset in the 2009 Mac Pro. I can’t verify this, but it does sound promising. Another source says certain vendors are already claiming compatibility (not a great plan to claim before actually testing in production machines, as Apple has a history of making slight changes to memory requirements).

Your smart move is to wait 10 days or so to see if 8GB modules will or will not work in the new 4/6-core Mac Pro. Or whether Intel’s stated maximum of 24GB is simply a specification, but that 32GB will work as with the 2009 Mac Pro, in spite of the specification.

Some readers seem to think that 8GB modules will work, and that some vendors are already claiming they will. I’d be cautious until the new Mac Pro ships, and those vendors actually test their modules in them.

There does seem to be some room for play here— while Intel specs for the hexacore W3680 state 24GB as the max memory size, the addressing is 36-bit, which should allow 64GB (32GB if one bit is reserved). There is also the vague “dependent on memory type” parenthetical.

Memory for Mac Pro
Intel Specs for 3.33Ghz W3680

The previous Mac Pro 2009 lineup allowed the use of 8GB modules for 32GB total (though Apple never offered more than 16GB using 4GB modules). I personally use 24GB as 3 X 8GB in my quad-core 3.33GHz 2009 Mac Pro, but I’ve also run it with 32GB (ditto for the 2.66GHz model I had for some time).

Apple has made the decision in the 2010 Mac Pro to (a) use a design with four memory slots, and (b) to use processors that are spec'd to max-out at 24GB with six slots. Let’s hope that specification is simply Intel being conservative, and that 32GB are possible.

Presumably this fattens profit margins in two ways: lower priced chips for the 4/6-core, and pushing anyone needing more memory into an 8-core or 12-core model. But it disrupts loyal users who just need more memory, not 8 slow cores or 12 moderate speed ones. Here’s another take: Apple Loved You Pro Users; Loves Your Money More, Now.

It remains to be seen if 8GB modules magically work in 3 slots to provide 24GB, but it’s clear that 32GB will never be possible in a 4/6-core 2010 Mac Pro, at least according to Intel chip specifications.

Rob-art over at barefeats.com pointed out this Intel specification table for the processors being used in the new 2010 Mac Pro. Intel shows 24GB as the limit for the 4-core and 6-core processors in the new Mac Pro. But that assumes 6 memory slots, and those models of the Mac Pro have only 4 slots, hence 4 X 4GB. The outside chance of 24GB would thus be possible only if 8GB modules were to function as 3 X 8GB, a possibility I’m told is deemed unlikely.

Memory for Mac Pro

Another interesting difference in the 2.8 and 3.2GHz processors is the lack of “Intel® Trusted Execution Technology”, a security feature. Whether Mac OS X uses it, I don’t know.

Tuesday August 10, 2010

Mac Pro Delivery Scheduled for ~ August 26

Memory for Mac Pro
Still a while yet...

When I ordered my 3.33GHz hexacore Mac Pro, the Apple Store stated 7-10 days.

It now shows “Ships Aug 23, Delivers Aug 26”, equivalent to 14-17 days (I ordered early on August 9).

Maybe Apple will underpromise and early deliver. I suppose it is business days after all.

But otherwise I won’t be able to test until late August.

Monday August 9, 2010

16GB LIMIT for 4-core and 6-core Mac Pro?
32GB limit for 8/12-core Mac Pro?

New 4-core and 6-core Mac Pros might (!) have hard 16GB max memory limit. Discussion below not yet updated for that issue.

Also (!!!) do NOT assume that the 8/12-core Mac Pro will take 8GB modules (they probably will, but there is a non-zero chance they might not).

Today, I discussed memory for the new Mac Pro today with OWC. From what I understand, it appears that 8GB modules might not work in the new 2010 4/6-core Mac Pro, and there is a (small) chance they might not work in the 8/12-core Mac Pro.

Since 4 X 4GB = 16GB, it appears that 16GB memory might be a hard limit for the new 2010 Mac Pro. This is not yet confirmed and won’t be until OWC gets the new Mac Pros in house (Apple site is stating “7-10 days” for delivery).

As this is a major limitation for big jobs (a non-starter for me), I advise anyone doing big jobs to hold off on the 4 and 6 core models until this becomes clear, at least if you do big jobs on your Mac Pro. Or to get the previous Nehalem, which can take 32GB (I have 24GB in my 3.33Ghz quad-core).

*** The discussion below has not been updated in light of this news ****

*** The discussion below has not been updated in light of this news ****

*** The discussion below has not been updated in light of this news ****

Let me put it this way: 80% of my consulting clients have been delighted with 2.66GHz quad-core Mac Pro Nehalem (2009). The new models do not change that in any appreciable way.

Very little in Apple’s new lineup looks exciting— no major speed bump anywhere. Sure, you can get a 6-core Mac Pro at 3.33GHz instead of 4-cores— worthwhile, but not worth upgrading for unless you spend a lot of time with software that actually uses 6 cores for more than brief blips.

There aren’t some minor improvements in value:

  • You can now get a 4-core Nehalem at 3.2GHz for a $400 upcharge (it was a $1300 upcharge for 3.33Ghz before). Slightly slower, a lot less money.
  • The 2.8GHz 4-core Nehalem is a smidgen faster at the same price as the former 2.66GHz model. Yawn.
  • The 3.33Ghz 6-core offers better top-end performance for users of certain software, such as PhaseOne CaptureOne, and (maybe) Lightroom 3.
  • The 8-core 2.4GHz model is a dud. Avoid it unless you really know why you want it. Even so, it seems totally pointless compared to the 3.33Ghz 6-core model.
  • The 12-core models are going to be slower than the 3.33Ghz 6-core model for most everything. Only if those cores get used will they matter: certain tasks only, the rest of the time they sit idle. Apple should have offered a 12-core at 3.33Ghz, but didn't.

If you are doing specialized stuff that can max-out 12-cores, you’re going to like the new 12-c0re machines. If not stick to the 4-core or 6-core models.

If you like this site, now is the time to support it: use one of my links to your Mac Pro, thank you!

Single-processor configurations

The 6-core 3.33GHz model is the “sweet spot” — for most tasks it should prove to be the fastest of all the models, including the 12-core ones.

  $$$ Cores Processor Level 3 cache per processor Memory speed Maximum Turbo Boost
Base config $2499 4 @ 2.8GHz Intel Xeon W3530 "Nehalem" 8MB 1066MHz 3.06GHz
Upgrade to $2899 4 @ 3.2GHz Intel Xeon W3565 "Nehalem" 8MB 1066MHz 3.46GHz
Upgrade to $3699 6 @ 3.33GHz Intel Xeon W3680 “Westmere” 12MB 1333MHz 3.6GHz

Dual-processor configurations

The 8-core is a dud. Spend your money on the 6-core 3.33Ghz model instead, unless you must have 8 memory slots.

Forget about 12 cores unless you actually have tasks(s) that benefit. Or you need 8 memory slots 24GB or 48GB or 64GB memory, for really big jobs.

It’s too bad that Apple chose to not offer a 12-core model at 3.33Ghz, which has a 13% faster clock speed than the 2.93GHz model. Intel has a 3.47GHz chip in the works also.

  $$$ Cores Processor Level 3 cache per processor Memory speed Maximum Turbo Boost
Base config $3499 8 @ 2.4GHz Two Intel Xeon E5620 “Westmere” 12MB 1066Mhz 2.66GHz
Upgrade to $4999 12 @ 2.66GHz Two Intel Xeon X5650 “Westmere” 12MB 1333MHz 3.06GHz
Upgrade to $6199 12 @ 2.93GHz Two Intel Xeon X5670 “Westmere” 12MB 1333MHz 3.46GHz
 
Not offered N/A 12 @ 3.33GHz Two Intel Xeon X5680 “Westmere” 12MB 1333MHz 3.6Ghz

Monday August 9, 2010

Apple MacPro 6-core 3.33 GHz “Westmere” Ordered for Testing

RAW-file Processing iMac quad-core vs Mac Pro
What I ordered

I just ordered a new Mac Pro Westmere 3.33GHz hexacore. Since I will be upgrading it to an MPG Photo Workstation, I kept it to a minimum configuration.

Update! If it’s true that 16GB is the max memory on this machine, it just won’t work for me, because I regularly see 10-15GB used in Photoshop CS5 alone.

I did order the double-power-pig graphics card, for high-end testing. If it proves its worth (any worth), I’ll use it, otherwise it will spend its life in a cardboard box as with the ATI Radeon 4870 I already have for my current Mac Pro. I do not want to suck up an extra 300 watts for faster nothing at all. Not at $0.49 per kilowatt hour.

Testing

Testing will begin as soon as Apple can get it to me, which looks to be late August (bummer). I might change shipping to overnight, but it usually only takes 1-2 days anyway.

I have low expectations by comparison to my existing 3.33GHz quad-core Nehalem, but the tests will show whether 6 cores really matter over 4 cores on a variety of tasks.

The 12-core model is dubious: I just can’t see it offering much value except for very specialized tasks, since hardly any programs can even use 8 cores effectively. See my discussion of expected Mac Pro performance.

Shootout

In terms of testing, I’m planning on a five-way shootout:

  • Mac Pro 3.33GHz 4-core Nehalem
  • Mac Pro 3.33GHz 6-core Westmere (new)
  • Mac Pro 2.93GHz 8-core Nehalem
  • Mac Pro 2.93GHz 12-core Westmere (new, speed TBD)
  • iMac 27" 2.93GHz quad-core Intel Core i7

 

Monday August 9, 2010

How to Mitigate 2010 Mac Pro 4/6-core Memory Limits

There is still a sliver of hope that 3 X 8GB modules might work in the 4/6-core 2010 Mac Pro. If so, 24GB would pass a critical threshold, at least for my work.

To be clear, most users will find 16GB adequate, more than ample. But for users with big jobs (myself included), 16GB is not enough. It all depends on what you do. And a Mac Pro should be "Pro", not crippled to 16GB, because needs can change over time.

Solid state drives RAID-0 stripe to the rescue

The next best thing? Do what I already do: use dual solid state drives in a RAID-0 stripe for a boot drive, for scratch, for previews, etc, for all of that.

Not just any drive of course, RAID is very demanding of SSDs. You’ll want a Sandforce-based SSD, like the OWC Mercury Extreme Pro RE. Note that Apple’s SSD is NOT qualified for RAID-0 striping (“Solid-state drives are not compatible with the Mac Pro RAID Card in either RAID or Enhanced JBOD mode”). Although that statement implies that hardware RAID is involved, it’s really about software or hardware RAID imposing severe duty requirements: RAID-0 striping imposes much more demanding usage on writes (small writes fragment SSDs internally).

Fitting dual SSDs and four hard drives

In my Mac Pro, I’ve pulled the optical drive, and I use the two SATA connectors in the optical bay to host dual 200GB SSDs as a 400GB RAID-0 stripe, good for ~500MB/sec. For system/applications plus scratch space plus anything else that needs speed. It really hums along seamlessly! That way, I can still use the four standard drive bays for 4 X 2TGB drives. (note: on 2006-2008 Mac Pros, there are two extra SATA ports which can be routed into the optical bay so that no need to remove the optical).

But you don’t have to pull the optical drive. You can use the lower optical bay for one SSD, and a standard drive bay for the other. That leaves three bays for hard drives, which you can configure as you please.

Why is this good? Because if you run low on memory, the system uses virtual memory to read/write to and from the boot volume. Using an SSD offer 4-6X the performance for virtual memory of a single hard drive.

Store your Lightroom catalog and previews, Photoshop scratch or anything of that nature on the fast SSD-based volume, with your big image files on the hard drives.

Monday August 9, 2010

Mac Pro 4-core, 6-core, 8-core, 12-core Models Available for Order

The new Mac Pros can now be ordered.

Open issue: is there a 16GB limit for the 4-core and 6-core Mac Pro?

The pointless machine in the bunch is the sluggish 8-core 2.4GHz— the 6-core 3.33GHz in 2.4GHz clock speed terms is an 8.3-core machine at 2.4GHz— except that not all cores are always used, or used efficiently, so it will be faster 99% of the time anyway. Its only saving grace is 8 memory slots instead of 4 slots.

If you like this site, now is the time to support it: use one of my links to order, thank you!

 

Sunday August 8, 2010

My iMac 27" is Off to OWC for the MPG Pro One Upgrade — What I Ordered

I ordered the 2010 iMac 27" 2.93GHz quad-core, and it’s one fast CPU. But boy does it feel sluggish when the hard drive gets involved.

So to “eat my own dog food” (filet mignon), it went off to OWC for the MPG Pro One upgrade treatment. When it comes back, this puppy will run as fast as an MPG Photo Workstation on most everything. I’ll have it back mid next week, since OWC won’t get it until Monday, and the 8-hour burn-in process takes, well, 8 hours!

Note that I still recommend the Mac Pro for a number of reasons, but if you have the 2010 iMac or just like the compact size, you can get similar performance as an MPG Pro One.

Memory

I ordered 16GB— the max. That’s enough for most everything, and it it’s not all used, the system can use it for caching applications and files.

400 GB RAID-0 stripe internal boot volume

I ordered dual 200GB solid state drives as a RAID-0 stripe (dual 100GB or 400GB or also an option). The dual 200GB SSDs yield a 400GB double-speed system drive (quintuple speed compared to a hard drive), which also makes any kind of Photoshop scratch, Lightroom previews, etc ultra-fast.

eSATA port

The downside is removing the optical (DVD) drive. But that’s no big deal because I have an OWC quad-interfaces optical drive that I can connect with eSATA, Firewire 800 or USB, on the rare occasions that I need one.

The eSATA port means that I can connect a fast external eSATA device, like the OWX QX2 (eg a 6TB RAID-5 or 8TB RAID-0 stripe). At speeds around 3 times faster that of Firewire 800, it makes the iMac much more useful. (It’s just terrible that Apple refuses to provide eSATA ports built-in).

Of course, the iMac’s Firewire 800 port is still there, so the usual Firewire peripherals can be connected.

Sunday August 8, 2010

Mac Pro CPU Power Estimates for
Best Case/Reasonable Expectations/Murphy’s Law

Just posted is a new piece where I explain the performance that can be expected with the iMac 27" and the Mac Pro 4/6/8/12 core machines.

Read the article.

RAW-file Processing iMac quad-core vs Mac Pro
Click to read more

Sunday August 8, 2010

Apple 27-inch iMac Compared to 3.33GHz Mac Pro for RAW-file Processing

Just posted is the start of my review of the Apple 27-inch iMac, along with a comparison to the 3.33GHz Mac Pro using Adobe Lightroom and Canon Digital Photo Professional.

Looks like the new iMac 2.93GHz quad-core has true Mac Pro processing power!

RAW-file Processing iMac quad-core vs Mac Pro
Click to read more

Saturday August 7, 2010

Apple 2010 27" iMac — Upgrading, Performance, Cores and Clock Speed, and Avoid that SSD Option

I’ve been testing the 2010 iMac 27" with the 2.93GHz Intel Core i7 processor option. It delivers performance similar to that of a quad-core Mac Pro.

A full report and comparison of the 27" iMac is planned, but see my discussion of why a Mac Pro is still a better option in most cases.

See also my various tweets on the 2010 27" iMac quad-core.

Apple solid state drive (SSD) option

See my previous notes on the iMac SSD option— the Apple SSD is not a dog, but it’s not very fast as solid state drives go, and if you want to swap it as part of an upgrade, it’s labor intensive and will cost a lot more, due to the way Apple installs it. Don’t go there.

You do not need to order the Apple SSD option to have an SSD in your iMac. Any 2010 iMac 27" model can take a solid state drive.

You can upgrade to the MPG Pro One program, or upgrade a la carte.

Processor grunt — CPU cores and clock speed

For more on this topic, see my post over at B&H Photo: Apple 2010 iMac: Which Model for Photography?.

The dual-core 3.6GHz model can be a good choice: it will run some tasks faster than the quad-core models. But as soon as those two CPU cores are "pegged," that's it.

Think of the 3.6Ghz dual-core model as being roughly equivalent to a 3-core Intel Core i5 2.8GHz model, once clock speed is taken into account, but performing better on tasks that are not efficient, like saving or opening files in Photoshop. Thus, the choice is not cut and dried

 

 

Saturday August 7, 2010

New Sites for diglloydTools, MPG Photo Workstation, MPG Pro Laptop, MPG Pro One

Newly-designed dedicated web sites are now up for software and hardware upgrade offerings from MacPerformanceGuide.

There is a dedicated diglloyd Tools web site including new manual pages.

MPG series of high performance upgrades

Also new are three web sites describing the MPG series of high performance upgrades for the Apple Mac Pro, Apple MacBook Pro, and Apple 27" iMac.

Photography

If you’re a photographer, be sure to check out my check out photo blog and free photography articles, as well as my publications for professional photographers (and anyone serious about photography).

     

 

Saturday August 7, 2010

Join our Alerts List, Get the RSS feed too, Follow on Twitter

This entry is reposted about once a month, because experience shows that many readers are not aware of the convenient ways to follow site updates.

Join the mailing list for MPG. Check the box for MPG, and if you’re a photographer, try the other interests also.

It’s a low volume mailing list, totally opt-in. We won’t spam you, we don’t sell emails, and you can opt out at any time.

In fact, you might wonder if you’re on the list at all, because we send only particularly interesting or useful information.

Twitter

There is one Twitter feed for both Mac Performance Guide and diglloyd.com.

RSS feed



NewerTech StoraDrive™ for storing bare hard drives
RSS icons in browsers

An RSS “feed” lets you keep up to date on new postings and articles. There are many ways to view an RSS feed. The simplest one is to view it right in your web browser, by clicking the icons shown at right.

View the Mac Performance Guide feed

View the diglloyd.com feed

Subscribing to an RSS feed in Apple Mail

If you are using Mac Mail, you can subscribe to a feed by first viewing it (click the RSS feed icon shown above), then choosing Subscribe in Mail. as shown below.

The feed then shows up in Mac Mail just like an email message does

    
Subscribing in Apple Mail shows an RSS feed just like an email

Thursday August 5, 2010

Final Cut Studio — How to Test?

I made the the investment today in both Final Cut Studio and Logic Studio, so that I can start serving video and sound users here at MPG (getting 50% off helped seal the deal, but IMO for review Apple ought to provide free copies). I do hope the licensing scheme won’t preclude testing on the four different Mac Pros I have planned.

But while I know all about performance, I simply have no idea what tests are meaningful for Final Cut Studio users (one thing at a time— video first, then sound).

Ideally someone out there who uses this stuff can tell me at least one good test to run that will show off hardware capabilities, preferably with the content supplied with the software, so that I don’t have to go create content as well.

Contact me if you have suggestions on Final Cut Studio:

  • What are your “pain points” with Final Cut Studio?
  • What test(s) would show off a 4/6/8/12 core Mac Pro, including disk speed and memory as well.
  • Remember, I’m a newbie, so don’t start throwing around assumptions that will leave me feeling as helpless as some who is a photographer but doesn’t know what RAID is!

If you’re a Final Cut Pro user, I hope to help you here as I learn this stuff. Your support is much appreciated, in any form.

—Lloyd

WednesDay August 4, 2010

MPG Pro One™ NOW AVAILABLE (pro-grade 2010 iMac 27")

Please see the details on the MPG Pro One here, or order your own MPG Pro One.

You supply the iMac, OWC upgrades it to MPG standards for “killer” performance, especially for photographers or anyone demanding the best.

iMac
Click to order this config
for MPG Pro One upgrade

The new sibling to the MPG Photo Workstation and the MPG Pro Laptop: the MPG Pro One™, an all-in-one solution based on the Apple 2010 iMac 27".

  • Incredible system drive speed with dual FAST enterprise-grade solid state drives good for up to 500MB/sec (pending test confirmation) as a 200GB or 400GB or 800GB volume.
  • Up to 16GB memory.
  • Retain the internal optical (DVD) drive, or externalize it for:
    - eSATA port OR
    - internal 2TB hard drive OR
    -third SSD.

In addition to the upgrades, the MPG Pro One is pre-configured and rigorously pre-tested with an 8 hour heavy-duty burn in using diglloydTools.

Looking for simpler upgrades? OWC has them.

Sunday August 1, 2010

Mac Pro August 2010 Pricing Estimates — Ouch!

Mac Pro prices
Prices on other models?

Please note that although Apple has announced the new Mac Pro, it is not yet shipping, with August 9th the expected availability date. In fact, in a strange move, perhaps a first, the Apple Store doesn’t even show the new models at all.

Apple has announced pricing on the base models only. The tables below capture my monkey-butt numbers for estimated Mac Pro pricing.

Using the 1ku bulk price (Apple’s gets lower pricing), I estimated the system pricing, assuming roughly twice the CPU price difference for markup, which is exactly what Apple does for the 2.66/3.33Ghz chips in the 2009 Nehalem.

Single-processor configurations

I’m concerned that Intel’s specifications for the 3500 and 3600 series processors state a max of 24GB memory using six slots (Apple provides four slots). Is that true or can 32GB be used? Maybe 32GB is still possible, because the Nehalem processor states 24GB, but I have personally installed and used 32GB using 8GB modules.

Supports up to twenty-four GB dual-channel unregistered DDR3 Error Correcting Code (ECC) memory which checks and corrects system memory errors

Single processor configurations
  Cores Processor Speed
GHz
Power
Draw
Bulk CPU price Mac Pro
Base config 4 Intel Xeon W3530 "Nehalem" 2.8 130 watts $249 $2499
(per Apple)
Upgrade to 4 Intel Xeon W3565 "Nehalem" 3.2 130 watts 562 $3199 ???
(estimate)
Upgrade to 6 Intel Xeon W3680 “Westmere” 3.33 130 watts 999 $3999 ???
(estimate)

Dual-processor configurations

For most users, I do not advise spending $1000 more for 2.4GHz 8-core; the 2.8GHz 4-core will usually be faster for most users because of 16% faster clock speed. See the Nehalem Shootout.

The 5600 series processors support up to 18 DIMM slots with 288GB memory, according to Intel’s specifications. But Apple provides only 8 slots in the Mac Pro, so 64GB will be the limit.

These estimates suggest some serious wallet damage ahead for anyone looking for a 12-core system.

Dual processor configurations
  Cores Processor Speed
GHz
Power
Draw
Bulk CPU price Price
Base config 8 Two Intel Xeon E5620 “Westmere” 2.4GHz 80 watts X 2 $387 X 2 $3499
(per Apple)
Upgrade to 12 Two Intel Xeon X5650 “Westmere” 2.66 95 watts X 2 $996 X 2 $4999
(per Apple)
Upgrade to 12 Two Intel Xeon X5670 “Westmere” 2.93 95 watts X 2 $1440 X 2 $6800 ???
(estimate)

Sunday August 1, 2010

How to Follow My Coverage and Reviews of the New MAC PRO and iMac

Be sure to follow me on img Twitter and join the Mailing list for MPG (at least), because I’ll be dishing out my findings on the new iMac and new Mac Pros semi-live before writing things up in my report.

Of course, don’t miss this blog, but it will not be quite as current as Twitter and the mailing list.

My focus will be on photography applications, though sound and video might also be included once I figure out the right approach, since I plan on purchasing Logic Pro and Final Cut Pro for long-term ability to cover these products in my reviews.

Saturday July 31, 2010

Screen Garbling

Sometime within the last week or so (perhaps after Apple’s most recent update), I get garbaged screen elements— not the whole screen, but typically the application switch popup (via cmd-tab), and sometimes other windows. Logging out and logging back in fixes it. It is not specific to one monitor (I use two).

Go figure.

eSATA iMac
Garbled screen display

Saturday July 31, 2010

How Photoshop CS5 Saves Me Time (and how it wastes my time too)

In spite of its absurd warmup bug, once warmed up, Adobe Photoshop CS5 can scarf up a great deal of real memory, so that it runs far faster than CS4 does, yielding much more responsive operation. See Optimizing Photoshop CS5.

The example below isn’t a particularly big job for me; this is normal fare (many 16-bit layers from high resolution digital cameras). Fortunately, I use an MPG Photo Workstation with a dual-SSD RAID-0 stripe and 48GB memory.

Note here that Photoshop is using 10.7GB of real memory, but makes pathetic use of my 8-core Mac Pro during a Convert To Profile operation: full usage would be 800%, but it’s only using 130%. In other words, Photoshop CS5 is wasting 83% of the computing power.

eSATA iMac
Memory and CPU usage of Photoshop CS5 during a normal job for me

This is one reason that the faster clock speed of a hexacore Mac Pro is better for most everything than a slower 12-core model: the cores are idled by software that doesn’t use them. See Shootout: 8-core 2.93GHz or Quad-Core 3.33GHz.

To learn more about performance, see Monitoring system performance with Activity Monitor.

Saturday July 31, 2010

OWC a la Carte Upgrades for iMac, including eSATA, Memory, SSD option

Yesterday I described the MPG Pro One™, a maxed-out iMac 27" for those seeking the highest level of performance for photography, video, sound, etc. The MPG Pro one is built to MPG specificiations by OWC. The MPG Pro One is maxed-out with dual solid state drives, 16GB memory and your choice of a third drive. It also enjoys special attention, including a custom system install, certain best-practices configuration, and an 8-hour rigorous burn-in test of memory and hard drives, nothing but rock-solid comes to your door.

eSATA iMac

OWC has announced an a la carte option for upgrades to the 2010 iMac 27":

Turnkey professional installation service offers customized configuration of Mid 2010 27" iMac with high performance eSATA interface option, OWC Mercury Extreme Pro SSD up to 480GB, hard drives up to 2TB, and/or OWC Memory Upgrades up to 16GB complete with shipping and warranty starting at $169.

Read the press release here and see the upgrade page here.

This program is a real value: OWC does all the delicate work (while I am at ease upgrading a Mac Pro, I am not comfortable working inside an iMac). If they break it, they buy it!

Reader more about the 2010 iMac disassembled.

eSATA iMac
2010 iMac disassembled

Saturday July 31, 2010

New! MPG Pro One™ (pro-grade iMac)

In all my earlier comments, I’ve remarked on the limitations of the iMac as compared to a Mac Pro.

But one can’t get around the fact that the iMac appeals to many, and not just for cost reasons (eg the built-in 27" screen), but also the appealing form factor. With its new quad-core processor at 2.93GHz, it has plenty of CPU punch, so how to exploit that?

Well, the folks over at OWC have figured out some great ways to upgrade the new iMac, opening up new options for turning the iMac into a machine with serious grunt.

Not all limitations can be addressed, but the gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro can be closed considerably, hence the new MPG Pro One™, an all-in-one pro-grade solution for photographers and other imaging professionals. OWC builds and tests the MPG Pro One to MPG specifications.

You can order one of these systems starting August 3rd, or contact us if you’d like to me notified. If a full MPG Pro One is not for you, OWC still has other great upgrade available.

Introducing the MPG Pro One™ all-in-one workstation

iMac
Order this config
for MPG Pro One

The new sibling to the MPG Photo Workstation and the MPG Pro Laptop: the MPG Pro One™, an all-in-one solution based on the Apple iMac.

  • Incredible system drive speed with dual FAST enterprise-grade solid state drives good for 500MB/sec (!) as a 200GB or 400GB or 800GB volume.
  • 16GB or 12GB of memory.
  • Retain the internal optical (DVD) drive, or externalize it for:
    - eSATA port OR
    - internal 2TB hard drive OR
    -third SSD.

As with the MPG Photo Workstation and the MPG Pro Laptop, the MPG Pro One is pre-configured and rigorously pre-tested (an 8 hour heavy-duty burn in using diglloydTools).

How it works

You supply the 2010 iMac 27" of your choice from the vendor of your choice (see recommended configuration above). Initially, the Apple Store is your best choice (thanks for using that link).

  1. Set up your order with OWC
  2. Order your iMac, and ship directly to OWC.
  3. The MPG Pro One arrives at your door, ready to use.

MPG Pro One — killer drive speed

For ultrafast Photoshop scratch, instant Lightroom previews and caches, or anything else that dogs your day as too slow!

Installed are dual matched internal OWC Mercury Extreme Pro RE solid state drives, with your choice of 100/200/400GB drives for a 200/400/800GB main volume as a RAID-0 stripe: double capacity and double speed!

This prof configuration reads and writes in the 500MB/sec range (a standard hard drive is in the 115MB/sec range, and slows down as it fills up). The SSD volume does not slow down as it fills up— it starts fast and stays fast. Benefits:

  • Ultra-fast Photoshop scratch;
  • Ultra-fast Lightroom catalog and preview and caches;
  • Ultra-fast application launch;
  • Ultra-fast virtual memory;

Drive speed just “goes away” as an issue. You won’t believe it until you experience it.

MPG Pro One — memory

Choose 16GB (recommended), or downsize to 12GB.

MPG Pro One — 3rd drive

You can choose to leave the internal optical drive unchanged as shipped from Apple. Or it can be removed and an external optical drive used instead, which allows one (1) of these three options:

  • Internal 2TB Western Digital Caviar Black hard drive;
  • eSATA port for high-speed external storage;
  • Third solid state drive SSD with capacity of 120/240/480GB.

You can order one of these systems starting August 3rd.

Friday July 30, 2010

Getting the Right Mac Pro for Your Needs, Pre-configured, Pre-Tested and Ready to Use

drive icons for boot, scratch, backup and master
Instead of a rat’s nest of external hard drives, clean dedicated storage:
Boot, Master, Scratch, & Time Machine.

See my discussion on how many CPU cores, and what clock speed to choose.

Personalized discussion on the Mac Pro

Want the perfect Mac Pro system for you?

It’s easy— in one hour of consulting, we can go over your exact needs and figure out which system is perfect for you: memory, hard drives, backup procedures, reliability concerns, etc.

Don’t make the mistake of paying more for lower performance, a distinct possibility with the complex new CPU options.

Get a ready to use optimized Mac Pro, rigorously pre-tested

It’s easy: install memory, install hard drives, set up RAID, etc. Easy if you know all about that stuff.

But if you want the Mac Pro delivered to your door ready to use with all that done, and a rigorous 8-hour burn in test as well, then you want an MPG Photo Workstation.

Friday July 30, 2010

Mac Pro — Which Model for Photography, Video, Sound?

The August 2010 models offer 4/6/8/12 CPU cores at various clock speeds and widely varying list prices, ranging from $2499 to $5999 or more. There are far more choices than Apple has ever offered before, and this leads to some confusion about which model is best.

Since the CPU cannot be upgraded, understanding CPU clock speed and cores is critical for making an investment in a Mac Pro.

Mac Pro Nehalem performance at Mac Performance Guide
4 cores vs 8 cores (Nehalem)
Click for more

For example, the 12-core model at 2.4GHz will almost always be slower than the 6-core model at 3.33GHz (for most all uses).

Even the 2.93GHz 12-core model will often be slower than the 6-core 3.33GHz model. It all depends on your software and workflow. See the Shootout with the prior model— same idea. A new shootout is coming in August.

Paying more for lower performance won't feel good, so which model should you choose, now that Apple offers models with single or dual CPU, and 4/6/8/12 CPU cores?

For more discussion, see this page.

Thursday July 29, 2010

Mac Pro: 4/6/8/12 Cores for Sound Processing?

Reader Juan De Leon writes:

Hi Lloyd,

Great site!... I just wish I could have find it earlier. One request I know all your comments are photo user related but do you think could you add one post for music user related. I mean I'm PC user and have been waiting for a long time for this Mac Pro update.

MPG: I’d like to. That means buying Logic Pro (eg $500), and incorporating something into my battery of tests (I see no point in a one-time test, I’d want continuity). I’d also need some advice from users working with sound on what the best approach to testing is (not my area of expertise). Ditto for video.

As a free site, I have to consider what I do with my time— I have bills to pay — no one pays me for the long hours it takes or the massive expense of the hardware itself (consider the cost of buying a 12-core and a 6-core Mac Pro, and outfitting them, let alone the time and effort at $0/hour). I am actively considering requiring a subscription to access some areas because there has to be ROI (return on investment). That’s why supporting my sites is so important including buying your Mac Pro as an MPG Photo Workstation, or consulting. I tried “donate” buttons for two months, and received two (2) donations, not even enough for one meal for my family, and my aspirations lie beyond food.

I will use the machine in a combination of graphic and music production. The music part will require the use of software like Logic Studio with many plugins. I know some could benefit from the multicore and the 64 bit platform.

MPG: almost everything benefits from using the 64-bit kernel. I recommend 12GB of memory for most users, more if the usage warrants it.

Multiple cores represent potential— depending on the software design, a program might be “single threaded” or might use all cpu cores efficiently (or inefficiently), or might use a few cores.

But anyway my question will be, do we (music users) benefit from a higher speed processor or a higher multi-core system.

MPG: it all depends. Take the 3.33GHz hexacore Mac Pro— it has a 13.6% speed advantage over the 12-core 2.93GHz Mac Pro. So in essence it’s an equivalent to a 6.8 core Mac Pro at 2.93Ghz. Except that there is more and more overhead with more cores, so that it might be just as fast as an 8-core machine, even with all cores uses on either machine. It all depends, but only specialized and very well written applications can make 12 cores run (almost) twice as fast as 6 cores.

Here is a list of the software:
1. Apple Logic Studio - http://www.apple.com/logicstudio/
2. Ableton Live - http://www.ableton.com/suite-8
3. Native Instruments Komplete (Currently own version 6 but will upgrade to 7 as soon as the release it) - http://www.native-instruments.com/#/en/products/?category=1649
4. Native Instruments Maschine - http://www.native-instruments.com/#/en/products/producer/maschine/
5. Native Instruments Kore - http://www.native-instruments.com/#/en/products/producer/kore-2/
6. Waves Mercury - http://www.waves.com/content.aspx?id=175
7. Novation Midi Keyboard with Automap - http://www.novationmusic.com/us/products/midi_controllers/sl_mkii
8. M-Audio Project Mix I/O - http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/ProjectMixIO.html

All the software above might be running simultaneous at one certain point for music production and some of them are very hungry for CPU use. My question (which I think many out there will have)— if I go for a Mac Pro and use all the software mentioned, will I benefit from a higher processor speed or a higher core amount?

MPG: Even if a program is “stupid” and uses only one CPU core, if you are in fact running multiple programs at the same time, having multiple cores is of great value, since each program can run without degrading the others. The question is how many cores are needed to satisfy any given mix of programs.

Another issue goes like this: if the mix of programs utilized 6 cores, is running a 6-core Mac Pro faster or slower than a 12-core Mac Pro? The answer to that also depends: the 6-core model runs 13% faster in clock speed, so it will probably win. But the 12-core model has two CPUs, and thus twice the onboard cache memory, so that potentially offsets some of the difference.

Wednesday July 28, 2010

Pricing and Valuing the iMac Against the Mac Pro

Yesterday I wrote:

Add in the Core i7 processor option ($200) and 16GB memory, and check your premises— you can buy a Mac Pro with a 27" display for about the same money and have a better, more flexible system. So unless “cool and hip” is what matters to you, go straight to the Mac Pro.

I added it up (see further below), and with judicious buying, the iMac system is less money (assuming you need a new display— many buyers do not), but also not so much as a percentage, and you also get a lot less for your money, more on that below.

With four CPU cores (assuming you choose the right CPU), and up to 16GB memory, the iMac can suffice for a serious photographer — for a while at least.

But there is a lot more to a workstation than how fast it runs with a virgin hard drive. In the real world, you need more and faster storage over time, you need efficient backup, you need reliability, etc.

The iMac is a not a good value as a serious tool for the medium or long term. While it’s gorgeous and nicely done, for what it is, it’s a dead-end Mac for photographers and other professionals. Consider the following:

  • Impossible to add fast external drives*. At best, you have Firewire 800, which runs at 2/3 the speed of a single hard drive and 1/4 the speed of a fast solid state drive (and for volumes over 1TB, 1/3 the speed of a single fast hard drive). Speed varies by drive and by Mac, but it is never fast.
  • Impossible to add an internal Time Machine backup of adequate size. This forces you to use an external drive (cables, noise, clutter) or something like an Apple Time Capsule.
  • Impossible to add a mirrored internal backup for increased reliability. Again, you have to go external at extra expense, with the cables, noise and clutter it involves.
  • Impossible to create a 4TB striped volume, a 2TB mirror, etc, since you’re limited to one hard drive and one SSD internally. Yes, you can do so externally, but it’s nuts to use Firewire 800 on a 4TB volume—just reading the data would take an entire day.
  • Impossible to double/triple/quadruple drive speed, and hard drives slow down as they fill up. A year later, with the drive mostly full, you’ll be forced to expand with sluggish FW800. You can never make that as fast as even a single hard drive.
  • Slow backup of large amounts of data: Firewire 800 running (for writes) at 1/2 to 1/3 the speed of a single fast hard drive. Backing up 1.5TB of data is at least a 7 hour operation, if you’re lucky.
  • One (1) Firewire 800 port. A thicket of cables and wall warts makes a big mess. Reliability suffers, noise levels go up, performance goes down.
  • Display support: need more than two monitor: there are some USB solutions on the iMac (not so great), but no problem on the Mac Pro: the single video card has three ports.
  • Memory limited to 16GB. That’s usually plenty, but should you start doing big jobs, you’re stuck. A Mac Pro can do 32GB (64GB for the 8-core).
  • Mirror-like screen. It’s beautiful with a dark room and black shirt, but poor room lighting is a visual impediment. The hyper saturated mirror screen is not good for print matching.
  • Want to calibrate the screen for accurate color? Calibration is going to tweak the video card in 8 bits, not tweak the display itself in 10-bit or 12-bit internal to monitor itself. Apple doesn’t supply a hardware calibrator. The NEC 27" display (or 30") is the right choice for photographers.
  • Want to swap or add an internal drive? It’s an involved operation to do anything inside the iMac, and there’s little or no expansion to begin with (one HDD and one SSD or similar). In a Mac Pro, it can be done in a few minutes, by anyone, with near-zero risk (you get 4 bays + a lower optical bay for another hard drive or SSD = 5 drives, and six if you remove the optical drive).
  • Drive failure? On a Mac Pro, replace in under five minutes with a screwdriver, but on an iMac... well, you’re screwed until it’s fixed (don’t forget that external backup drive on the iMac!). Can you as a professional tolerate several days of downtime?
  • If the iMac display goes bad for any reason, you are down while the iMac is repaired. Can you as a professional tolerate several days of downtime? With a Mac Pro, swap in a working display.
  • Expansion— want eSATA, a card with extra USB or Firewire ports, a special video or sound card, etc? No problem with a Mac Pro, but far fewer options with an iMac.

* Hack: it is technically possible to remove the internal optical drive and make external its eSATA connection, products might soon arrive that allow that. But you would then need an external optical drive, and it’s still only a single eSATA port.

Those are my concerns, but they might not be yours, so if an iMac appeals, fantastic. And for some, the iMac might be all they ever need. No argument there.

But I cannot afford to be down two hours, let alone two days, losing data is not an option, and avoiding that by dangling multiple hard drives off a FW800 port is a noisy and unreliable mess. Finally, the ergonomics of a screen that won’t adjust for the right height is a painful past experience I won’t repeat. So the iMac is a non-starter for my intensive work.

Adding it up

For the people who need to be “right” (including derogatory reader Richard L)— I was mistaken yesterday— the iMac is less expensive on a parts basis. But that does not make it a good value for professionals.

Setting aside the limitations of the iMac detailed above, let’s look at pricing.

Matching the processor speed exactly is a red herring: the Intel Core i7 is not the same as a Xeon in the Mac Pro, so don’t write me and insist that both have to be 2.93GHz. Choose $2149 or $2449 as you like for this comparison for the Mac Pro.

These prices were obtained on July 28, 2010, and won’t be updated. See this OWC shopping cart for current prices on various parts, and the Apple Store for prices on Macs or the Apple refurbished store.

Parts costs below are at OWC prices, at large savings compared to Apple. The iMac is cheaper because it includes the display, but you do lose in functionality, and there’s no real expansion except with slow stuff. But if you already have a display, the picture changes radically— you can put that savings towards a hexacore 3.33GHz Mac Pro. Besides, a wide-gamut color display with reliable hardware calibration in 10 or 12 bits is a must-have for serious photography, and that’s my need.

Note that for the iMac, the upgrade to 2TB drive is an upcharge, and you don’t get the original drive. It’s difficult to swap out the hard drive, so get the 2TB drive, because hard drives slow down as they fill up. If you need more space than the 1TB drive offers, you’ll need to pay for an upgrade, unless you are very comfortable with a tricky install, so always get the 2TB drive.

Figure total the system cost, then figure in the limitations of the iMac, and its long-term viability. Think in percentage terms, future expansion, down the road value.

There is no way I’d sink $3000 - $4000 into an iMac system with all its limitations.

Shopping cart Mac Pro iMac
Base machine $2449 for 2.8GHz quad-core
$2149 for 2.66GHz quad-core (refurb)
2.93GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7 $2199
16GB OWC memory $610 $549
2TB hard drive $139.99
you KEEP the stock hard drive and can use both internally!
$150
Solid state dive $629 for best-in-class 240GB drive $750 for inferior 256GB drive
Display $999 built-in
eSATA card $59 not possible
2TB Backup drives (3) $750 eSATA fast $700, slow
Applecare $249 $169

Tuesday July 27, 2010

Memory Upgrades — How Does Your Vendor Test?

SSD
Memory modules of all sizes

I was talking with Larry O’Conner of OWC today about the need for 1333MHz memory for the new iMacs and the 3.33GHz Mac Pro and some dual processor models (up to now it has been 1066MHz). OWC will have the right 1333MHz memory as soon as new machines can be tested. Perhaps 1066MHz memory will also work in those models, but at a small speed hit, but if you’re buying one of the faster Mac Pro models, the right speed memory is the way to go.

Testing memory for all Mac models and variants

In an offhand way while we were discussing the new Mac Pro and iMac, Larry mentioned that they “have to buy one of every Mac model for testing anyway”.

I asked for clarification— he didn’t just mean one iMac and one Mac Pro, he meant one of every variant and speed: “We buy every model and with every processor option too”.

Think about the cost involved for that level of testing!

Here is a memory vendor with a robust financial committment to making sure their product peforms properly on every Mac that’s sold. Actions speak louder than words, and money talks. The OWC test lab houses a lot of these Macs, but some are distributed around to employees.

If you’re buying from another vendor, ask them if they test their memory in the particular Mac model and speed that you are buying it for.

As I currently have about 100GB of OWC memory (8GB and 4GB and 2GB modules in Mac Pros, MacMinis and MacBook Pros), I can state with confidence that OWC memory is rock solid, even when I beat up the machine with MemoryTester.

Tuesday July 27, 2010

Analysis of the new August 2010 Mac Pro

Apple Mac Pro pricing

My preliminary report is now published on the August 2010 Mac Pro, announced by Apple today. Details will be steadily added. Read my report.

As soon as the new model actually is available for sale (August), and can be obtained, I’ll be adding an in-depth performance analysis and comparison.

My initial focus will be comparing the existing 3.33Ghz quad-core Mac Pro Nehalem to the new 3.33GHz hexacore Mac Pro.

Note the “starting at” prices. I expect that the most useful machine, the 3.33Ghz hexacore, will be priced at about $3700, perhaps more. The 12-core 2.93GHz model is likely to come in at $6000 or so. Those are best guesses of course.

Tuesday July 27, 2010

Apple’s SSD for Mac Pro (or iMac) — Not a Smart Move

Why would you pay a premium for an inferior product?

According to Apple’s own figures compared to my real-world test results, here’s what you get with an Apple SSD compared to the Mercury Extreme Pro.

SSD
Relative SSD speed

Performance over time

Apple’s SSD offerings have much slower performance to start with, and are unlikely to maintain that performance over time (most SSDs degrade badly with use).

Value

My advice: don’t waste your money on the wrong product.

You get a short 1 year warranty with Apple’s SSD (three years if you pay extra for AppleCare, but that won’t cover degradation of SSD performance).

How about a 30-day money back guarantee and a three/five year warranty instead?! It’s a no-brainer. (Warranty duration depends on which product line is chosen).

See also

Much more can be found here on this site— see the index page.

Special Report— Real World SSD Performance
OWC Mercury Extreme Pro Solid State Drives
Optimizing Photoshop CS4 on the Apple MacBook Pro using Solid State Drives
Using solid state drives (SSD) for Photoshop scratch.

Tuesday July 27, 2010

New Apple Mac Pro! The “Westmere” hexacore chip arrives!

I’m not yet sure what to call the the new Mac Pro, since it uses either the existing Nehalem processor or the new Westmere processor.

As key perspective for my coming report, please see Shootout: 8-core 2.93GHz or Quad-Core 3.33GHz.

You can’t yet order the new models yet, but when you can, here are some buying tips.

A few quick comments—

  • The new hexacore 3.33GHz model with 12MB of cache will be the hands-down winner for 99% of users out there. The slower clock speed 12-core is going to be pointless for most everyone.
  • Storage (drive bays and optical) appear to be unchanged.
  • For thoughts on the SSD option, read What About Apple’s 512GB Solid State Drive (SSD)?.
  • The faster graphics card will benefit some, but my tests for photographers show zippo/zero/nada influence for key tasks. Certain tasks will benefit, but not any I do.
  • The dual MiniDisplayPorts and single dual-link DVI port mean that a single video card is now an option for some configurations (avoid adapters of any kind).

I’ll post much more in my coming report later today.

MPG Photo Workstation

I can’t say for sure until I get my hand on one, but I see no material changes to the new models that would affect the MPG Photo Workstation configurations.

You can get a quote now, since most parts wont’t change, though pricing on 1333MHz memory for the new 3.33GHz hexacore model might be slightly higher. Get an MPG Photo Workstation ...

Without a doubt, the new 3.33Ghz hexacore Mac Pro is the way to go for anyone looking for maximum performance. The 12-core model could be a choice for a rare few that really do use programs that can use that many cores, but the vast majority of programs will run slower on a 2.93GHz 12-core versus a 3.33GHz hexacore.

Get the best Mac Pro for your needs

A personalized consultation now will have you in great shape for a purchase of the Mac Pro— the consultation offers long term knowledge value , much more than just immediate configuration issues.

Here’s what consulting client Conrad Erb had to say about his recent experience:

I know a good deal about computers and can handle a lot of technical information, but after many hours researching a new workstation, I was overloaded with information and confused with so many options. You explained the options and prevented me from spending a big pile of money on a system that wasn't going to offer good performance. I recently picked up a workstation according to your recommendations, and performance is exactly what I needed. I ended up spending significantly less than had I not consulted with you. Investing in your advice was absolutely worth it - it saved me time and frustration. I'm actually enjoying my work again spending more time DOING my work instead of waiting for my computer to catch up with me!

Tuesday July 27, 2010

Apple’s SSD for iMac (dual internal drives)

See my discussion of solid state drives with the Mac Pro — the same ideas apply.

The good news is that you can now have dual drives in an iMac: a hard drive and an SSD. But don’t be surprised if you see much better upgrade deals come along by September.

The bad news is that Apple’s offering is for thick wallets: $150 to upgrade to a 2TB drive instead of a 1TB drive (when a fast 2TB drive can be purchased outright for $139!) The price to move to a 256GB SSD (only) is a $600 upcharge, and to move to the SSD plus a 2TB drive is $900.

Add in the Core i7 processor option ($200) and 16GB memory, and check your premises— you can buy a Mac Pro with a 27" display for about the same money and have a better, more flexible system. So unless “cool and hip” is what matters to you, go straight to the Mac Pro.

SSDSSD
Stick to the Mac Pro if you want this kind of system!

Saturday July 24, 2010

Apple Mac Pro update — Coming soon?

In my Apple Mac Pro update — When?, I discussed the non-arrival of a new Apple Mac Pro, and when it might appear. See my comments there about what might be expected.

At this point, I expect a Mac Pro in August and perhaps as early as next week. But I don’t expect any compelling new features as compared with the existing model, with the following exceptions:

  • A 6-core (hexacore) model at the highest clock speeds, possibly retaining the 4-core model as the entry level model. Six cores is a performance sweet spot, see the Quad-core vs 8-core Shootout.
  • The latest graphics cards. Which I don’t care about.
  • Some kind of enhanced connectivity, such as USB 3.0, or faster Firewire. This is not exciting as eSATA serves the needs of Mac Pro users quite well.
  • Support for SATA 6 Gb/sec. Which will matter eventually, but not yet.

If all of the above happens, it’s nice, but not that compelling. But Apple could have a surprise of some kind, maybe even an unpleasant one in keeping with its “keep it hip” approach, such as downsizing the form factor, and removing drive bays. Let’s hope not.

The 30" Cinema Display is long overdue for an overhaul, so the odds of something new there are very good. But I’d much rather have the NEC displays anyway.

Unlikely but possible:

  • A 12-core (dodecacore) model. It would provide ample marketing hype, so Apple might offer it, but hardly anyone should care.
  • We might see more memory slots eg 6 slots on the 4/6-core models or 12 slots on an 8/12 core model. Unlikely.
  • BluRay support. The movie industry has seen to it that this format won’t gain traction anytime soon. It won’t be as useful as it could be if it were to appear, due to copy protection restrictions.

With a current or new model, consider an MPG Photo Workstation, taking into account the quad-core vs 8-core shootout. My top recommendation remains the 2.66Ghz quad-core “Burly” MPG Photo Workstation, with the 3.33GHz model a smart move for increased interactive responsiveness. A new 6-core model would seal the deal.

How many cores?

Remember, faster clock speed with 4 cores is very competitive with slower clock speed 8 cores.

img
Click to read more about 4-core vs 8-core Mac Pro

Get the best Mac Pro for your needs

A personalized consultation now will have you in great shape for a purchase of an existing or future Mac Pro— it offers long term value in choosing a system, much more than just immediate configuration issues.

Here’s what consulting client Conrad Erb had to say about his recent experience:

I know a good deal about computers and can handle a lot of technical information, but after many hours researching a new workstation, I was overloaded with information and confused with so many options. You explained the options and prevented me from spending a big pile of money on a system that wasn't going to offer good performance. I recently picked up a workstation according to your recommendations, and performance is exactly what I needed. I ended up spending significantly less than had I not consulted with you. Investing in your advice was absolutely worth it - it saved me time and frustration. I'm actually enjoying my work again spending more time DOING my work instead of waiting for my computer to catch up with me!

See older blog entries


Copyright © 2008-2010 diglloyd Inc, all rights reserved | Terms of Use | Newsletter + Alerts