# Macbook too slow: Mac Mini good idea?



## Selwin

Hello forum!
This is my first post. I am looking for those who use a Mac Mini (current model: 2.4 GHz 2'1') with 8GB.

Question 1:
Does it run LR3.2 and PS CS4 smoothly, when used simultaneously? Will 8GB do? Processor fast enough?

Question 2:
Does it process 21 MP 5D-mkII files smoothly?

My hardware:
Macbook 2.' GHz/ 4GB RAM, 16'GB HD
Cinema HD display 3'"
Lots of drives

Additional Information:
My Macbook 2.' GHzwith 4 GB memory is full (Page-outs hits over 1 GB) when using LR3.2 and PS CS4 simultaneously. 4GB is all I can stash into it. Apparently I need more than 4 GB.
My 2.' GHz Macbook (mb466, late 2''8 model) is fast enough (well, acceptable) if I only use either LR or PS4 exclusively. LR3.2 will use up to 2.6 GB alone during full image processing. It will stay below 1 GB as long as I stay away from editing (local adjustment brush and such). If I render standard previews prior to image processing, LR3 performs OK when working on 12MP files (I use a Canon 5D).

Thanks for your input!

Selwin


----------



## Graeme Brown

Can't comment on the specific Mini, but it's less powerful than the current MacBook Pro model which i have - that machine runs ok but not mega-fast on 12mp files. By starting at 8gb you have already use up all of your expansion options, so a Mini maybe not a good long term proposition. There is a healthy Market in secondhand Mac Pro machines, which would be worth considering if the budget won't stretch to a new one - mine is over 4 years old and still going strong.

The reality is that you are paying the price for those 21mp files, and you're going to need a lot more horsepower.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Hi Selwin, welcome to the forum!

Can you be a bit more specific about where you're seeing the speed issues? That might give a few clues about your current bottlenecks. Also, where are the files stored?


----------



## edgley

The main problem with the MBP or the Mini will be disk speed access.
I would also suggest looking for a 2nd hand Pro.

A quick look on ebay suggests that you will need around £15'' for a machine.


----------



## Selwin

[quote author=Victoria Bampton link=topic=11735.msg78819#msg78819 date=129'97629']
Hi Selwin, welcome to the forum!

Can you be a bit more specific about where you're seeing the speed issues? That might give a few clues about your current bottlenecks. Also, where are the files stored?
[/quote]
Hi Victoria,
Thanks for your warm welcome!  I'll try to elaborate towards what you'd like to know:

In short:
- I get Page Outs up to 1-2GB when using LR3.2 and PS CS4 simultaneously. System will slow down considerably, sometimes almost to a halt. Waiting 1'-2' seconds to load next image.
- LR catalog is stored on the internal HD. RAW files are stored on external drive (LaCie d2 Quadra Hard Disk 2TB). It's a very fast drive, but my Macbook only supports USB.

In long:
When I start a typical photo editing session, I open LR3.2, import my 5D files and start flagging and adding keywords. OK so far on my 4GB Macbook & 3'" ACD. Source files (CR2 RAW files) are stored on a fast Firewire 8'' drive (LaCie d2 Quadra Hard Disk) connected however by USB cable, because the Macbook doesn't support any other. I got that drive for my older MBP 2.33GHz (Late 2''6) that in fact does support FW8''. Regretfully, the old MBP supports only 3 GB of RAM and gets outperformed by the Macbook, despite the faster interface.

If I render previews prior to working on the files (i.e. render at import or via the menu) then editing in LR works smooth enough. When I start advanced editing such as local adjustments, memory usage leaps to an unprecedented 2.5 GB. I usually stayed below 1 GB with LR 2.6 and under. Still no problem, because the RAM is there. When checking activity monitor, all RAM is used, no page outs/ins.

Then I fire up PS CS4 to make more advanced edits to some of my images. PS uses about 1-2 GB, depending on the size of the image. Sometimes I work on panorama's (5''MB PSD's) but usually it's just 5D CR2's that need to be edited. I usually work on one file at a time in PS and then close it before loading another. Except for manual HDR work of course.

After upgrading to LR3.2 I find myself closing LR when I go to PS and vice versa. If I don't, I get too many page outs (1-2 GB) and the system slows down considerably. 

Based on this, my feeling is that the Macbook processor capacity is enough for my current needs, but RAM falls short. If I get a Mac Mini loaded with 8GB, my guess is that this problem should be dealt with, at least for the next 2-3 years. I know I won't be doing serious video editing or the like. My business is photography.

I know that I will be better prepared for the future if I get a Mac Pro with 8 GB of RAM. However, I can get the Mini now for 1''' Euro, 55' of which will be paid by my employer. A Mac Pro would cost 25'' Euro, minus the same 55' Euro is still about 2''' Euro. And the mini can serve as a home cinema/sound center with the appropriate software. I feel I like the mini for price and versatility.

Still the main thing it should be capable of properly is editing my 5D images, using current LR and PS versions for the next 2-3 years. And that is what this question is about: will the 8GB put the swapping to a halt (no more page outs) with simultaneous use of LR3.2 and PS-CS4, and has anyone on this forum put this model to that test yet.

Hope this makes it clear.


----------



## Selwin

[quote author=Graeme Brown link=topic=11735.msg78818#msg78818 date=129'976'12]
There is a healthy Market in secondhand Mac Pro machines, which would be worth considering if the budget won't stretch to a new one - mine is over 4 years old and still going strong.

The reality is that you are paying the price for those 21mp files, and you're going to need a lot more horsepower.
[/quote]
Hi Graeme,
Thanks for tuning in! You are probably right about the Mac Pro being worth considering in my situation. But it may be more than I need. Even if money were not much of an issue (but it is), the main criteria for all the stuff I buy is "how much do I need to spend to get a task done?" I don't like to spend more than I need. 3 years ago I switched from PC to Mac and spent close to 5''' Euros on a MBP with 3'" ACD. I did that because I figured I'd be more productive using a Mac and it proved to be so.

My use is not professional (I don't make a living out of photography, altough I'd like to ) so I'd only spend a lot of money on a Mac Pro if I really need to. 

Now I'm not saying I already made up my mind about this, because then I'd be trolling this forum and I certainly am not. Here are my thoughts:
The new mini's are more powerful than their predecessors. A current mini has:
- the same processor power (2.4 GHz) and video display adapter (NVIDIA GeForce 32'M, 256 MB DDR3 SDRAM) as the newest macbook series. 
- a fast FW8'' port that I could really use, because my RAW files are on a fast Lacie FW8'' drive that now connects to my Macbook only by USB
- up to 8 GB of RAM, which I will order if I get one

This sounds like a significant improvement over my current setup. But is it enough for my needs? It would be if this setup keeps the swapping away for at least 2 years, maybe 3. My current setup falls 2GB short, which means I would need 6 GB. Instead I get 8 GB. That's 2 GB for Adobe to play with in developing more demanding software.

Now I'm getting to your remark about the megapixels. I'm a realist and I have no doubt that I will get a 21mp camera sooner or later. Are you saying that 21mp files are significantly harder to process (CPU-wise) that I need a Mac Pro? I'm very interested which tasks need that power in particular. Are they:
- labeling (LR)
- cropping (LR)
- local adjustments (LR)
- exporting (LR)
or is it just the photoshop CS tasks that you are talking about, like applying filters?

Hope to hear from you soon!


----------



## Selwin

[quote author=edgley link=topic=11735.msg78856#msg78856 date=1291'3''3']
The main problem with the MBP or the Mini will be disk speed access.
[/quote]
Hi Edgley,
What do you mean by disk speed access? Is it about the internal hard drive? or about the peripheral drives?

Thanks!


----------



## Graeme Brown

The average Xbench benchmark score for a Macbook is 1'', for the Mini it's 1'6 - that's not a great improvement for the amount of money you're considering investing. By comparison my 4 year old Mac Pro scored 15' against an average score of 169 for all Mac Pro models. But that's all just numbers .... 

Although I understand your logic I think you're placing too much emphasis on the amount of RAM in your system, my Macbook Pro has only 4GB and runs perfectly satisfactorily. Personally if I was looking to upgrade the first thing I would do would be to get a bigger & faster internal hard disk, and have your files stored there rather than on the external drive.

RAM is important, but so is CPU power and hard disk performance. Obviously generating previews, output files, or files for editing in Photoshop takes much more processing for a 21mp file compared to a 1'mp one; I feel sure that if you go down the Mac Mini route and subsequently get a 5dMkII or similar you will be back complaining that previews & exports take far too long now.

The Mac Mini is basically an older laptop without a screen or keyboard, I have one in my studio to run the projector display and it's good for what it is. I still think an older Mac Pro will be a better investment, there are plenty available from reputable secondhand dealers starting from around £1''', which will allow you to use much more RAM and put in full size hard disks - the performance difference will surprise you. Alternatively a similar amount of money will buy you a recent Macbook Pro model, which will take 8gb and has FW8''.

One thing I have learned over the years is that small, incremental upgrades are often a false economy and you end up spending more in the long run.


----------



## Selwin

Ok everybody seems to tell me to go Mac Pro and I value your opinions because you seem more experienced than me. So I won't ignore that. I will see what is available here in the Netherlands and at what price. I have a few questions though:

I figured out the following strategy when looking for a refurbished or second hand Mac Pro:
- Get a mainboard that will last at least 4 years
- The video adapter supplied need not be really fancy, just a dual link DVI and a standard DVI will do.
- RAM should be upgradeable to at least 16 GB
- external 3GB/s eSATA port would be great
- No hard drive needed, I have a couple in my drawer to start with
- I still have my 3'" ACD, fast external hard drives

That's all component types I need for photo editing, right?
Then after getting the Mac Pro, I can add:
- RAM 8GB to start with (2x 4GB modules)
- Faster internal hard drive if necessary

Questions:
1. which mainboard / processor should I be looking for minimum?
2. After 1-3 years: Is the processor upgradable? Do I need a specific mainboard type in order to upgrade to the latest processors?
3. After 3-5 years: Is the mainboard upgradable (I guess it should be)? Can I keep the RAM and plug it into the new mainboard?
4. I like my RAW files on a fast external drive, because I can take them to another place (another room or another house) to work on them. If I get a high speed FW8''/eSATA port, shouldn't that be the same performance as an internal drive?
5. (off topic) I regularly transfer my LR catalog (just the .lrcat file, not the previews file) to another machine. For example I spend a lot of time each day in a commuter train each day when going to work. I copy the .lrcat file to my Macbook, slip it into my backpack and work on tagging and flagging while on the train. I keep two copies of the previews, 1 on my Macbook and 1 on my other machine (my old MBP). This works fairly well, except that LR seems to want to rebuild previews that I am sure I previously had. Anyone have experience with this? If I get a Mini or Mac Pro I will need to swap my catalog regularly between computers.

Thanks for your input, I really appreciate that.


Selwin


PS I still find it strange that many have an opinion about a current 8GB Mini without actually having tested one. It's supposed to be faster than your minis serving as media centers or printer servers. And with 8GB now. Specwise it's better than my Macbook and I really like my Macbook for Lightroom work, as long as I stay away from Photoshop and run into RAM problems. I do notice Photoshop filters taking time, I do. But then again I don't use many other filters besides Smart Sharpen and Lens corrections. The latter not so much now after switching to LR3.2. 

But I will investigate the Mac Pro route. I will
- go to my Mac Store and test a new 8GB model with my applications
- download a bunch of 5dmkII RAW files and work on them on my Macbook to see how that works. 

I'm pretty serious about this.

Will be back to you guys and hey - I really like this forum so far, and it's just been a day!


----------



## Victoria Bampton

I have a Mac Mini last gen tucked away running as an FTP server and media server. Decent little machine, but I'd rank it pretty close to my laptops in terms of performance. Certainly if you're running out of RAM, then the higher maximum would help. If you're happy with the general processing power of your laptop, then you'd probably be happy for now. 

That said, with LR becoming more processor intensive over time (new noise reduction, lens corrections, etc), and the fact that 5D Mk2 files are big and will therefore be affected by disc speed, I'd certainly consider a second hand or refurb Mac Pro. Even my backup Mac Pro, which is 3 years old, outperforms my more recent Mini and MBP by a fair distance.

You've got 3 main factors - RAM of course, disc speed in moving from image to image in Develop, and processing power when working in Develop or exporting/rendering previews etc.


----------



## edgley

These days, the bottleneck on just about any system is disk access; look how people are snapping up expensive SSDs.
I cannt help with how fast a Mini will be, but I can tell you what I can do with my 3 year old Pro:

I have 2x2.8 Quads, with 1'GB of RAM; on average I have 1' proper applications and 5 light weight ones open at once (inc LR and PS) and I still have (just) a little RAM left. I do have to close one or two if I have a load of images in PS, but that is only to decrease swap time.
The only time my CPUs peg is when working on an image with Lens correction on, now I am running in 64b mode, the delay does seem slightly less.

So no problems for me regarding CPU and RAM. However, disk access is another thing.
I am running software RAID, giving me about 24'MB/s write and 17'MB/s read, which is a whole lot faster than my laptop can do, and its a year newer than my Pro. So I am considering a hardware RAID card, or RAIDing up some SSDs.

In answer to your questions:
1-3 In 3 to 5 years time you will want to get a new system, there will be a whole load of new tech out by then.
4- In theory, depending on how many devices are on the bus at the same time.
5 - Maybe DropBox can help with that. It might be possible to store the file on there, and thus on The Cloud


----------



## Selwin

Ok I dug into the Mac Pro route. As far as I've discovered:
- there is no way to upgrade the processor of a Mac Pro
- there is no way to upgrade the main board of a Mac Pro
- the only Mac Pro I could afford at all is the lowest spec, a 2.8 GHz quad core
- I would load it with either 12 or 16 GB of RAM
- CS5 can actually address all that memory where CS4 could only address 3GB

As I must stick to its mainboard and processor, I need to get it right first off or leave it and get a Mini and see what happens.
The ideal configuration would in fact be the 2.8 Nehalem quad core, standard with 3GB of RAM it will cost 2355 Euros. Upgrading RAM to 16GB will cost an extra 3'5 Euro (not Apple RAM) so total will be 266' Euro. Take off 55' that I get refunded and I pay 211' Euro instead of 45' for the Mac Mini. 

That's 166' Euro's extra for some extra speed. Now let's assume for a minute that if I'd go the Mini route and get a 8GB Mini now, I will need another higher-spec Mini in about three years at most, maybe sooner. That will be an extra 1''' Euro in 3 years time. And let's assume the Mac Pro I would buy now, would actually last for 5 years. Then I'd pay 66' Euro's extra and get 5 years long a faster machine. That's 132 Euro's a year. Sounds like a bargain.

Key question:
 ??? will the Mac Pro I suggested perform adequately for my needs for 5 years without major upgrades? To be more specific: will this machine, three years from now, outperform the then latest Mac Mini or similar Mac I could get for 1''' Euros in 2'13 ??? 

Because that is the reasoning I hear on this forum: A Mac Pro will be a better investment.

Such a 2'13 Mac Mini could probably be loaded with:
- at least a maxed out RAM size of 16GB, more likely 24 or 32 GB (it usually doubles each 1,5 years doesn't it?)
- a processor that equals the present 2.8 Nehalem Quad core (ok not too sure about that, but maybe coming close)
- a fast hard drive (not eSATA but eWARP or whatever interface is next) that is faster than the eSATA drive in the current Mac Pro

Now I know that some of you argue that their 4-year-old MacPro still outperforms their Mini. For me it feels a bit like a stretch into the unknown. 

Hope to hear your opinions on the machine I suggested and my key question!

Thank you so much guys,

Selwin

PS the down side of starting to think about a Mac Pro is that it may be hard to roll back to my original Mini plan, because I'm learning things about the MP that the Mini can't do..... :-[


----------



## Graeme Brown

[quote author=Selwin link=topic=11735.msg7894'#msg7894' date=129113'716]
Ok I dug into the Mac Pro route. As far as I've discovered:
- there is no way to upgrade the processor of a Mac Pro
- there is no way to upgrade the main board of a Mac Pro
- the only Mac Pro I could afford at all is the lowest spec, a 2.8 GHz quad core
- I would load it with either 12 or 16 GB of RAM
- CS5 can actually address all that memory where CS4 could only address 3GB

As I must stick to its mainboard and processor, I need to get it right first off or leave it and get a Mini and see what happens.
The ideal configuration would in fact be the 2.8 Nehalem quad core, standard with 3GB of RAM it will cost 2355 Euros. Upgrading RAM to 16GB will cost an extra 3'5 Euro (not Apple RAM) so total will be 266' Euro. Take off 55' that I get refunded and I pay 211' Euro instead of 45' for the Mac Mini. 

That's 166' Euro's extra for some extra speed. [/quote]

Nope, it's 166' Euros for a lot of extra speed. And, crucially, the ability to use larger, faster discs, and more of them. If it's all about speed, then you want your discs internally not external. Even 1TB won't last you long with 21mp files.



> Now let's assume for a minute that if I'd go the Mini route and get a 8GB Mini now, I will need another higher-spec Mini in about three years at most, maybe sooner. That will be an extra 1''' Euro in 3 years time. And let's assume the Mac Pro I would buy now, would actually last for 5 years. Then I'd pay 66' Euro's extra and get 5 years long a faster machine. That's 132 Euro's a year. Sounds like a bargain.
> 
> Key question:
> ??? will the Mac Pro I suggested perform adequately for my needs for 5 years without major upgrades? To be more specific: will this machine, three years from now, outperform the then latest Mac Mini or similar Mac I could get for 1''' Euros in 2'13 ???



My 4yr old Mac Pro outperforms the current Mac Mini, so I'd guess it will 


> Because that is the reasoning I hear on this forum: A Mac Pro will be a better investment.


Here's another thing - a 5 year old MacPro has a substantial resale value, of 4'-5'% of the original price. A 3 year old Mac Mini has very little resale value
Buy a used MacPro, keep it for 2 years, you'll get almost all your money back when you come to sell it. 



> Such a 2'13 Mac Mini could probably be loaded with:
> - at least a maxed out RAM size of 16GB, more likely 24 or 32 GB (it usually doubles each 1,5 years doesn't it?)
> - a processor that equals the present 2.8 Nehalem Quad core (ok not too sure about that, but maybe coming close)
> - a fast hard drive (not eSATA but eWARP or whatever interface is next) that is faster than the eSATA drive in the current Mac Pro


The doubling ever 18 months rule doesn't really apply any more, the limitation is the operating system. Processors have improved a lot, but not by that amount.



> Now I know that some of you argue that their 4-year-old MacPro still outperforms their Mini. For me it feels a bit like a stretch into the unknown.


Benchmarks, you can't argue with benchmarks  Buying a machine that is already old technology, with the intention of replacing it in 2'13 with a machine which may or may not even exist is a pretty big stretch into the unknown.


----------



## edgley

Found a link that does provide some idea of difference in performance:
http://macspeedzone.com/html/hardware/machine/comparison/all/index.php

and more info here:
http://macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html


----------



## Selwin

Thanks for your reply! Guess I expected another pledge for a Mac Pro, and apparently with good reason. It's nice communicating with you people!
[quote author=Graeme Brown link=topic=11735.msg78945#msg78945 date=129113442']
Nope, it's 166' Euros for a lot of extra speed. And, crucially, the ability to use larger, faster discs, and more of them. If it's all about speed, then you want your discs internally not external. Even 1TB won't last you long with 21mp files.[/quote]
You know the beauty of keeping the source files on an external drive is that I can take the drive and my laptop to another location and work on my images. So that is in favor of keeping them external. If you say an internal drive is (significantly) faster than an external 3GB/s eSATA drive attached to a Mac Pro, then I may have to reconsider and keep the source files internal. I could then sync them to the external drive and take that drive with the laptop in case I need to work on the images in another location.



> My 4yr old Mac Pro outperforms the current Mac Mini, so I'd guess it will


Another key question then: Was your Mac Pro basic or top of the line when it was bought it 4 years ago? The Mac Pro configuration I suggested looks basic compared to the total Mac Pro lineup. No 8 or 12-core, no 3.2GHz, no RAID, just basic. It's already more than I could afford and justify for my needs, but it seems a lot less than other systems tested on the web sites that edgley suggested. Therefore I am hesitant at this point to believe that this configuration will serve me well enough for the cash I would spend on it. Hope you are willing to elaborate on this.



> Benchmarks, you can't argue with benchmarks


Ok I will take a look. Hope to hear your reply on my additional questions....

Thanks again.


----------



## Selwin

[quote author=edgley link=topic=11735.msg78965#msg78965 date=1291156663]
Found a link that does provide some idea of difference in performance:
http://macspeedzone.com/html/hardware/machine/comparison/all/index.php

and more info here:
http://macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html
[/quote]
Thank you Edgley! These links already helped to speed up PS on my current system. Will look into the mac pro comparisons.

Selwin


----------



## Bruce J

You know, if it's a cash problem that's holding you back, you might want to look at a Win machine . . . they are a bit less expensive for the same horsepower. (Ducking and running . . . .)


----------



## Selwin

Bruce J said:


> You know, if it's a cash problem that's holding you back, you might want to look at a Win machine . . . they are a bit less expensive for the same horsepower. (Ducking and running . . . .)


 
Hi Bruce,
No need running, I'm really not that fast anyway. Actually the thought of switching back never occurred to me, because I am happier with the operating system than I was with Microsoft. However this is not a pro Mac talk, because I think everyone should get what works best for them and I'm not going to say Apple is everything and the rest is nothing because it's just not the case. I work with Windows based machines at work (for email and Office apps) and they work pretty well too. This buy is for my private work. I think decisions like these really come down to personal preference. Mine is to stick with Apple OS. 

Thanks though for joining this discussion!

Best regards,

Selwin


----------



## Selwin

*Urgent! Decision time!*

It's decision time. I have to apply for my new computer on tuesday (tomorrow) morning (I'm on european time). That is monday night Eastern Time. Basically I have just a couple of hours left.

So here it is:
Based upon your advice I am ready to spend a lot of cash for the following machine:
- Mac Pro
- Intel Quad core Xeon Nehalem 2.8GHz
- 16GB RAM
- 1 TB eSATA 7200 rpm hard drive
- ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB GDDR5 SDRAM 
- 18x super drive
- magic mouse
- apple wireless keyboard
Peripherals include:
- Conceptronic NAS 1TB (CH3SNAS)
- FW800 LaCie 2TB external drive, containing all of my images
- Another identical drive for backups using SuperDuper!
- FW400 Maxtor 500GB drive for Time Machine backups
- USB hub for USB pen drives and manual system backups
- USB pen tablet

I went to the Mac Store today to compare the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro. They only had a 2.66 GHz Mac Pro (2.8 will be at least that fast) and a 2.4 GHz Mini. When comparing 5D files (12.8mp), the Mini wasn't so bad, really. The Pro won of course, but not convincingly with 12mp files. With 5DmkII files (21mp) the differences become significantly larger and the Mini is really sluggish compared to the Mac Pro. 

Conclusion: I will go the Mac Pro route. But which one?

The bottlenecks seem to be:
- loading the next picture in the development module
- applying local adjustments
Both actions seem to be processor dependent. Even if I create full size previews, going to next image in development module doesn't speed up.

SO: big question! Actually a couple:
1. Is a 2.8 GHz Quad core substantially faster than a 2.66 GHz? I figured it would not be, but maybe there's more components that have been upgraded than just the processor.
2. Now that I see that the bottleneck operations are processor related, shouldn't I go for a 8 core instead or stay with the Quad core? Please note: 8-core = beyond my budget. No refurb. here in the Netherlands at this time. If I go new, I get 550 Euro's from my employer. If I go 2nd hand, I don't get any.
3. How many of you work LR3 with a quad core? Any using 8-core? Is the Quad core sufficient when using large (21mp) files? I ask this because the processor is the one part in the Mac Pro that I cannot upgrade.

If I go and spend a lot of cash, I want to get it right. 

Thank you so much! Hope you find the time to reply soon. I have only a couple of hours left to decide.


----------



## Graeme Brown

Don't know about the 2.66/2.8 comparison, but logically it will be a bit faster. Is there still a 2.66 option? 2.8 seems to be the entry level, and that's the one I'd go for. 8 core will be faster, but as you've already proved from testing the quad core is fast enough. There's always something faster, if you had the 8 core you'd be wondering if the 12 core would be faster ..... 8 core is another EUR1100 or something, that's a lot of money for some speed, quad core is good value for money I reckon. 

If you're using external drives then your bottleneck will be drive speed; far better to have your files on internal drives (MacPro takes up to four) and use Chronosync or similar to backup the drive with the images to an external. I'd also buy the RAM from a 3rd party like Kingston, Apple's RAM is usually way overpriced.


----------



## Selwin

Graeme Brown said:


> Don't know about the 2.66/2.8 comparison, but logically it will be a bit faster. Is there still a 2.66 option? 2.8 seems to be the entry level, and that's the one I'd go for. 8 core will be faster, but as you've already proved from testing the quad core is fast enough. There's always something faster, if you had the 8 core you'd be wondering if the 12 core would be faster ..... 8 core is another EUR1100 or something, that's a lot of money for some speed, quad core is good value for money I reckon.


OK that's what I needed to know.


> If you're using external drives then your bottleneck will be drive speed; far better to have your files on internal drives (MacPro takes up to four) and use Chronosync or similar to backup the drive with the images to an external. I'd also buy the RAM from a 3rd party like Kingston, Apple's RAM is usually way overpriced.


Good advice! The basic Mac Pro is 2399. That has 3GB of RAM. The upgrade to 16GB costs 350 Euros. Not from Apple obviously. Don't know which brand actually.....


----------



## edgley

1. Is a 2.8 GHz Quad core substantially faster than a 2.66 GHz? I figured it would not be, but maybe there's more components that have been upgraded than just the processor.

If the CPU options are the same as the UK, then there is more difference than just clock speed:
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT032510150223&p=8

2. Now that I see that the bottleneck operations are processor related, shouldn't I go for a 8 core instead or stay with the Quad core? Please note: 8-core = beyond my budget. No refurb. here in the Netherlands at this time. If I go new, I get 550 Euro's from my employer. If I go 2nd hand, I don't get any.

You can always add the second CPU at a later date. I got Apple to give a discount on mine as they didnt tell me they only had duel CPU in stock when I went to buy 

3. How many of you work LR3 with a quad core? Any using 8-core? Is the Quad core sufficient when using large (21mp) files? I ask this because the processor is the one part in the Mac Pro that I cannot upgrade.

I have 14MB RAWS, all my 8 cores hit max when cropping with lens correction turned on.


----------



## Selwin

*Decided: Mac Pro. Undecided: 5770 or 5870 Graphics*

I found a Mac professional reseller that says I should get a 5870 graphics card instead of the 5770. Apparently it helps speeding through the images in both Lightroom and Photoshop. On the other hand, it costs an additional 200 Euros, produces more heat and noise and it consumes more energy, I calculated about 50 Euro's a year, which means it costs another 200 Euro's in 4 years time.

I'd still do it if it really makes a difference though.

My question to you: what would you advise me to do? Get the basic configuration, or get the 5870 card?

Thanks!


----------



## Jim Wilde

For Lightroom purposes, the 5770 is already way more than you really need.....have a look at these benchmark stats: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

Yes the 5870 is 'better' than the 5770, but you would never be able to tell the difference! I have the 5750, not as good as the 5770, but perfectly adequate (even for gaming, which I don't do). These are all 'high-end' cards, not basic or middle-of-the-road....so save yourself the 200 euros would be my advice.


----------



## Selwin

*What about OpenGL?*



TNG said:


> For Lightroom purposes, the 5770 is already way more than you really need.....have a look at these benchmark stats: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
> 
> Yes the 5870 is 'better' than the 5770, but you would never be able to tell the difference! I have the 5750, not as good as the 5770, but perfectly adequate (even for gaming, which I don't do). These are all 'high-end' cards, not basic or middle-of-the-road....so save yourself the 200 euros would be my advice.


Hi Jim,
That's what I figured meanwhile. I read a lot about 3D graphics and rendering and the 5870 to be better at those. But for pure 2D work (which I do exclusively), it seems as though there is not much to gain with it. 

Just one thing: I read something about OpenGL. On my present system (the 2008 Macbook 2.0GHz) I get a message from Photoshop that it can only open 4 windows and apparently it has something to do with OpenGL. Would the 5770 graphics card do better on this already?
The entire PS message is:
"With the current settings, up to 4 OpenGL document windows can be shown at a time. Beyond this limit, OpenGL features will be disabled on any new windows. To enable [...] close one or more windows. This limit depends on the screen resolution, and the RAM available from the graphics card. See the Performance pane in Preferences for more information on OpenGL features."

In my case:
Screen resolution is 2560x1600
2006 MBP: ATY, RadeonX1600 - 256MB
2008 MB: NVidia GeForce 9400M, also 256MB

This seems VRAM dependent and both the 5770 and 5870 have 1GB.


----------



## Jim Wilde

To be honest I don't really know too much about OpenGL, however I've just checked my own PS settings and found that in the Advanced Settings I have 'Normal' selected, which apparently uses the most amount of GPU memory. My screen resolution is less than yours (1920 x 1200), but I just selected 20 jpegs in Bridge and opened them all in PS. All opened, no warnings. Opened an additional 60 files, again no warnings issued.

I think you'll be fine with the 5770!


----------



## Selwin

TNG said:


> To be honest I don't really know too much about OpenGL, however I've just checked my own PS settings and found that in the Advanced Settings I have 'Normal' selected, which apparently uses the most amount of GPU memory. My screen resolution is less than yours (1920 x 1200), but I just selected 20 jpegs in Bridge and opened them all in PS. All opened, no warnings. Opened an additional 60 files, again no warnings issued.
> 
> I think you'll be fine with the 5770!


 
Great! I will settle on the following machine:

- New (current) Mac Pro Quad Core 2.8GHz
- 12GB RAM (3x4GB Kingston)
- 2 hard drives: 1 for MacHD, 1TB extra hard drive Hitachi as media drive (for RAW files)

Thank you all for listening and helping me!

I will inform you about how I like it once I have it installed, if anyone cares to hear.

Selwin


----------



## sizzlingbadger

I'm impressed, you talked Selwin up from a Mini to a Pro - now that is a big jump.  I'd like a Pro one day but the new iMacs seem to be getting so powerful I have resisted so far.


----------



## Selwin

sizzlingbadger said:


> I'm impressed, you talked Selwin up from a Mini to a Pro - now that is a big jump.  I'd like a Pro one day but the new iMacs seem to be getting so powerful I have resisted so far.


 
So what is your point? Are you suggesting I am about to make the wrong decision by ordering the Mac Pro? Don't get me wrong, I value everyone's opinion on this, just seem to be missing what you want to say.


----------



## sizzlingbadger

It was just a humorous quote directed at the guys on here - don't worry, you will be happy with a Mac Pro


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Take a deep breath - you'll love it Selwin.  And as file sizes continue to get bigger, the internal hard drive options of the Pro will continue to be a big bonus.


----------



## edgley

I upped the video card in my machine, and the only difference it made was allowing me to open more than 4 images in PS and still keep OpenGL running; not sure what difference that made!

As for getting the Pro, cool. It will be incredible, and looks amazing too 

But just incase you are not happy, I am closing my account here


----------



## Selwin

sizzlingbadger said:


> It was just a humorous quote directed at the guys on here - don't worry, you will be happy with a Mac Pro


 
I don't think that's very funny.


----------



## sizzlingbadger

like I said it wasn't really directed at you...

I'm sure the advice you got in this thread will be very good and you will be happy with the mac pro compared to your current system. I would like a mac pro too one day


----------



## Selwin

edgley said:


> I upped the video card in my machine, and the only difference it made was allowing me to open more than 4 images in PS and still keep OpenGL running; not sure what difference that made!


You mean you don't see any difference apart from the message that has disappeared?



> As for getting the Pro, cool. It will be incredible, and looks amazing too
> But just incase you are not happy, I am closing my account here


Not sure I get what you mean. Are you saying you will leave this topic or this forum?


----------



## Selwin

Victoria Bampton said:


> Take a deep breath - you'll love it Selwin.  And as file sizes continue to get bigger, the internal hard drive options of the Pro will continue to be a big bonus.


 
Thank you Victoria, I probably will. And thanks to your help.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

edgley said:


> But just incase you are not happy, I am closing my account here


 
Nooooooooo... :surprised: You love us too much to do that!  :mrgreen:

Selwin, don't panic - sometimes different senses of humour don't travel well on the internet.  We have a friendly bunch and no one ever means any harm, honest.


----------



## edgley

Yes, the only difference was the message no longer appeared, performance appears to be exactly the same.

I am not going anywhere, and sorry you don't get the English attempt at humour; your English is so good, one presumes that the humour will work.


----------



## Selwin

Took delivery of my new Mac Pro today. Currently configuring. I read somewhere that a hard drive starts fillling up from the outside in and that files should be as close to the edge as possible. Apart from the 1TB standard internal drive, I ordered a second (2TB) internal hard drive for my RAW files and Photoshop images. I partitioned it in 2 partitions, Media1 and Media2. Media1 is the first partition in disk utility, so I presume this is the partition closest to the edge. Is that correct?
I'm currently copying my photo libraries (about 700 GB) from a FW800 drive to Media1. Speed is 66MB per second. Does that sound about reasonable? It's by far the fastest transfer speed I've ever seen at home.

Selwin


----------



## edgley

Wow, that was quick.

You might want to consider using software RAID, here is an example:
http://www.techdc.com/mac-software-striping-raid-performance

I have my disks setup in a similar way and it increases performance tremendously.

Never checked how fast my FW drive is, but it sound around the right sort of numbers.


----------



## Graeme Brown

Raid striping can increase the data rate substantially BUT it comes at a price - both drives need to work, and if either of them fails then you lose ALL the data.

It's a good idea but you absolutely must have a 100% cast-iron rock-solid backup in place (I mean, you should anyway, but it's even more important in this scenario)

Partitioning discs is (in my opinion) a bad idea, as eventually one of your partitions will become full and you will be unable to use the freespace as it's allocated to the other partition.


----------



## Selwin

edgley said:


> Wow, that was quick.
> 
> You might want to consider using software RAID, here is an example:
> http://www.techdc.com/mac-software-striping-raid-performance
> 
> I have my disks setup in a similar way and it increases performance tremendously.
> 
> Never checked how fast my FW drive is, but it sound around the right sort of numbers.



Thanks, I'll check it out. First I'm going to test the speed of the current setup. Then, if I'm not satisfied, I will try this setup.


----------



## edgley

With OSX one can adjust partitions on the fly, and with a USB external disk connected OSX will automatically backup any changes (TimeMachine)

I do run a stripped set up, inside a RAID 5 setup, thus removing the problem of the stripping, at a cost of only a little performance.
I cannot find the webpage that showed me how to do it, I can always attach a screenshot of Disk Utility if anyone wants to see it.


----------



## Selwin

Victoria Bampton said:


> Nooooooooo... :surprised: You love us too much to do that!  :mrgreen:
> 
> Selwin, don't panic - sometimes different senses of humour don't travel well on the internet.  We have a friendly bunch and no one ever means any harm, honest.


 Hi Victoria,
Thanks for your kind remarks. You are right, we are all different. And indeed I get a lot of friendly advice from the members in my topic and I am really happy with that because I feel I made the right choice now. I just hate the way people sometimes go talking about (not to) the OP in his/her own topic. I never do that (except this one time as I write this) because I think it's insulting. But hey that may be just me and one of my personal issues.... 
So thanks again Victoria and the other folks here for all the information you gave me. I am now configuring my new Mac Pro following the guidelines on macperformanceguide.com. There is a lot more to it than I imagined when just using my macbook pro and macbook. I just plugged those in and went straight to work. More later when I completed the installation and start testing, if you like....


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Yes, definitely lots to do if you want to get the best out of it, but you've found a really good site there and it's well worth it.  I'd seriously consider the RAID0 option for your image files, as that does help with LR's speed.


----------



## Selwin

Victoria Bampton said:


> Yes, definitely lots to do if you want to get the best out of it, but you've found a really good site there and it's well worth it.  I'd seriously consider the RAID0 option for your image files, as that does help with LR's speed.


 You mean the setup he mentions using SoftRAID? I read the entire article and I was actually contemplating on doing that, except for the SSD's. Today I reinstalled OSX 10.6.4 from the DVD, let it update to 10.6.5, did all of Lloyd's tricks and set up LR3.3 and CS5. The machine still has 3GB RAM in it, because the 12GB I ordered is still in the mail (it was backordered at the time of delivery and I agreed to them deliver the Mac Pro first). I played a bit (only a couple of minutes) with LR on my own catalog that I migrated from my Macbook. I notice my catalog runs much faster on the Mac Pro, obviously, but I wasn't blown away like I expected. No need to panic, I have some serious testing to do tomorrow. Now about RAID0: The main bottleneck in LR seems to be loading the next photo when in Develop mode. For each 5D image (12.8mp) it takes about 3 seconds (a guess) to load the next image. It seems to be mainly processor duty, because I had already rendered full size previews in Library mode and browsing through the images in Library mode is instant, even while zoomed to 100% (it was instant on my macbook too). When using LR only, I get zero page ins/outs and I have still some available RAM left (green) so I figure this is what I'm gonna get from this machine, even when I fill up the RAM up to 12GB. I may be wrong about that though, time will tell, the extra RAM should be here in about a week.
In your opinion, will loading the next image in Develop mode be significantly faster when using RAID0? I could do the following:
My current configuration is:
Hard Drive 1 (1TB):
- 100GB Boot drive
- 300GB Scratch
- 600GB Archives
Hard Drive 2 (2TB)
- 800GB Images
- 1200GB Videos, movies, backups, other stuff

If I were to go the RAID0 path, then I would:
A. Get SoftRAID and order a second identical 2TB hard drive, and pair them up in SoftRAID to work as a striped RAID0 conf.
B. Do the same with 2 additional identical 2TB hard drives (thus totalling 3 identical ones). Is that faster than 2 drives? I recall Lloyd put in 3 2TB drives....
C. Other options: tell me

Thanks for sharing your experience.

Selwin


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Yes a 2 drive software RAID0 should help with the Develop loading as the first chunk of that is disc read time, followed by processing power.  Also make sure you enlarge the ACR cache in LR's preferences - you'll see the benefit of that more when you go back to a photo that you've recently built previews for, as the partially processed data will already be cache.  Also, in Develop I'd go to View > View Options and turn off the Loading overlay - you only really need to wait for the sliders to become available and I personally find that overlay distracting.

Also have a read of the following PDF's so you get a better idea of where the bottlenecks are for different tasks, and how you can help it.



  How can I speed up browsing in Library module?



  How can I speed up browsing in Develop module? And what are these Cache*.dat files?


----------



## sizzlingbadger

Do you need to purchase SoftRaid ?  I though that the Disk Utility in the Mac could create RAID volumes across 2 disks. I haven't used RAID on my Mac so I'm not sure what the standard capabilities are compared to the SoftRaid application.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Disk utility is how I've done it too.


----------



## Selwin

*First impressions*

Hi there,

My 3GB RAM new Mac Pro is not a whole lot faster (not significantly) than my 4GB RAM Macbook 2GHz for basic Lightroom work. It is however significantly faster for advanced LR work.

Explanation:
My reseller had no RAM in stock at the time of ordering and I decided to let them send the Mac Pro w/ 3GB RAM and wait for the extra RAM (total 12 GB). It has not arrived yet. So I am currently testing my apps with 3GB RAM.

---- Yes I am aware of the fact that I need the RAM and that things will speed up once it's installed, but for which tasks? ----

I am testing LR 3.3 with the following setup:
- Mac Pro Quad core 2.8 GHz
- 3 GB RAM (still awaiting delivery of 12GB RAM)
- Available RAM in Activity Monitor while testing: about 1GB (green zone)
- 1TB hard drive for Boot and Scratch disks
- 2 2TB hard drives paired in a RAID0 using DU RAID (2 partitions: 1.5TB and 2.5 TB)
- I followed the FAQ's on how to set things to get max speed in LR and PS, like setting scratch disks and ACR cache. I did the same on my Macbook.

Test LR3.3
I shot a wedding last week and processing the images seemed to be a good benchmark. I shot about 500 images and reduced them to 50 to make adjustments. 
Findings:
1. Going to next photo in Library is lightning fast if previews have been built already. It is almost evenly fast on the Macbook
2. Going to next photo in Develop is about 0.5 - 1.5 seconds, provided I disable the overlay. So this is the time it takes for the rulers to become available. A little slower, but not much in seconds, on my Macbook (1-3 seconds), as long as I don't want to fly through the images. If I go one image at the time, the Macbook is almost as fast as the MP, especially when going back to previously edited images.
3. Applying local adjustments is a big step forward with the MP. That is a point where it really distinguishes itself from the macbook.

Test PS CS5
I tested the RAID setup by loading a 750MB image. 
From internal RAID array: 11 seconds. 
From external FW800 (single drive, not RAID!): 13 seconds. 
From internal BOOT drive (not RAID): 13 seconds.
Only 2 seconds gain by creating RAID. That's only 18%. Disaster. Did I do something wrong setting up the RAID? 
I used:
- 2 2TB drives Hitachi Deskstar 7200 RPM
- Apple Disk Utility
- First create 2 partitions on each drive, equally sized at 750GB and 1250GB
- Then create the RAID0 using the two 750GB partitions for the first and the two 1250GB partitions for the second.
- I used 128kB blocks as I'm using large files and no database
- I now have a 1.5TB partition and a 2.5 TB partition


The big questions are:
1. The 3GB RAM is not used up according to Activity Monitor. My simple technical engineering logic (I have a degree in Civil Engineering and I'm currently a systems engineer at the department of Traffic and Water Management in the Netherlands) tells me that if the RAM is not used up while testing, that the RAM amount is not the bottleneck at that time and that adding extra RAM won't speed up that particular task.
2. The Mac Pro RAID performance doesn't seem significantly faster than an external FW800 drive. It should be, shouldn't it?

I value your thoughts.


----------



## edgley

I don't remember how much RAM LR uses on my machine, will have a look and let you know.
Download the disk speed utility from the macperfomance site.

When using it I get speed along the line of 160MBs write and 115MBs read on my 1TB setup.
On my smaller scratch disk setup I am getting 180MBs write and 150MBs read


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Question - why partition the drives before raiding them?  And what's on those partitions?  If you're using files off both partitions, you may be slowing things down by moving back and forth across the drives.  I have a 4TB RAID out of 2TB drives.

Also, were the previews already built before you set up the ACR cache?  If so, they may not be cached yet.


----------



## Selwin

Victoria Bampton said:


> Question - why partition the drives before raiding them?  And what's on those partitions?  If you're using files off both partitions, you may be slowing things down by moving back and forth across the drives.  I have a 4TB RAID out of 2TB drives.


It was my understanding that the outer parts of the hard drive are the fastest, so I decided to make a smaller partition on the outside for RAW files and PSD files, and create a secondary partition for my other data files that are not speed relevant. Lloyd did the same with his system, so I guessed that was the best thing to do. I haven't tried to set up the RAID using SoftRAID though.


> Also, were the previews already built before you set up the ACR cache?  If so, they may not be cached yet.


No they weren't, I looked into your FAQ (I'm a good reader and I'm curious) and made sure they were al built again, because I changed the location of the ACR cache to a separate partition and I checked that that drive was empty before building the previews.


----------



## Selwin

*Xbench test results*



edgley said:


> I don't remember how much RAM LR uses on my machine, will have a look and let you know.
> Download the disk speed utility from the macperfomance site.
> 
> When using it I get speed along the line of 160MBs write and 115MBs read on my 1TB setup.
> On my smaller scratch disk setup I am getting 180MBs write and 150MBs read


I downloaded Xbench, to be able to make a quick comparison. Here are the results:
A. RAID0, first partition (Master):
Results    120.18    
    System Info        
        Xbench Version        1.3
        System Version        10.6.5 (10H574)
        Physical RAM        3072 MB
        Model        MacPro5,1
        Drive Type        Master
    Disk Test    120.18    
        Sequential    209.87    
            Uncached Write    503.06    308.87 MB/sec [4K blocks]
            Uncached Write    490.96    277.78 MB/sec [256K blocks]
            Uncached Read    76.81    22.48 MB/sec [4K blocks]
            Uncached Read    496.15    249.36 MB/sec [256K blocks]
        Random    84.20    
            Uncached Write    31.07    3.29 MB/sec [4K blocks]
            Uncached Write    304.12    97.36 MB/sec [256K blocks]
            Uncached Read    136.08    0.96 MB/sec [4K blocks]
            Uncached Read    213.26    39.57 MB/sec [256K blocks]

B. Scratch (a partition on a single drive)
Results    104.38    
    System Info        
        Xbench Version        1.3
        System Version        10.6.5 (10H574)
        Physical RAM        3072 MB
        Model        MacPro5,1
        Drive Type        WDC WD1001FALS-41Y6A0
    Disk Test    104.38    
        Sequential    204.31    
            Uncached Write    219.20    134.59 MB/sec [4K blocks]
            Uncached Write    211.33    119.57 MB/sec [256K blocks]
            Uncached Read    158.48    46.38 MB/sec [4K blocks]
            Uncached Read    251.64    126.47 MB/sec [256K blocks]
        Random    70.10    
            Uncached Write    22.42    2.37 MB/sec [4K blocks]
            Uncached Write    506.15    162.04 MB/sec [256K blocks]
            Uncached Read    157.02    1.11 MB/sec [4K blocks]
            Uncached Read    242.65    45.03 MB/sec [256K blocks]

C. External drive (LaCie2TB fast USB FW800 eSATA drive), connected b/ FW800:
Results    37.95    
    System Info        
        Xbench Version        1.3
        System Version        10.6.5 (10H574)
        Physical RAM        3072 MB
        Model        MacPro5,1
        Drive Type        LaCie d2 quadra
    Disk Test    37.95    
        Sequential    49.47    
            Uncached Write    53.31    32.73 MB/sec [4K blocks]
            Uncached Write    53.10    30.04 MB/sec [256K blocks]
            Uncached Read    34.29    10.03 MB/sec [4K blocks]
            Uncached Read    70.94    35.65 MB/sec [256K blocks]
        Random    30.78    
            Uncached Write    10.32    1.09 MB/sec [4K blocks]
            Uncached Write    74.35    23.80 MB/sec [256K blocks]
            Uncached Read    97.42    0.69 MB/sec [4K blocks]
            Uncached Read    106.56    19.77 MB/sec [256K blocks]

I don't know what to look for exactly in these numbers, though. I notice a few things:
- The uncached Read [4k blocks] of the Scratch drive is higher than the corresponding Read on the RAID, but the RAID scores higher on [256k blocks]. I selected 128k blocks when creating the RAID in DU, because I thought I'd need to do so based on large files, like PS files are between 100MB and 1GB. So this result makes sense. If the [4k blocks] reading is 22.48 MB/s and the [256k blocks] reading is 249.36, block size apparently is a major speed parameter. I will first try to reset the RAID0 using the full 256k block size and see what happens then.
- Another thing: I only tested the speed on my largest .psd file (750MB). After seeing these results, I retested it and it was the same 12 seconds, both on the internal RAID0 and on the external FW800. However: this time I also tried two 550 MB .psd files and guess what? With these files, the RAID was 50% faster than the external FW800 drive: 8 seconds vs. 12 seconds.  Anyway, I will post again after I change the RAID0 to 256k blocks and let you know what happened.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Selwin said:


> It was my understanding that the outer parts of the hard drive are the fastest, so I decided to make a smaller partition on the outside for RAW files and PSD files, and create a secondary partition for my other data files that are not speed relevant. Lloyd did the same with his system, so I guessed that was the best thing to do.


 
So is LR only using files on the outer partition, or are you referencing both partitions while using it?


----------



## Selwin

*My HD setup in the Mac Pro*



Victoria Bampton said:


> So is LR only using files on the outer  partition, or are you referencing both partitions while using  it?


No I'm just using the outer partition. If you look at the Xbench drive  speed test I posted you can see there isn't much difference between the  outer and inner partitions anyway. Maybe this outer-inner thing is just  for tiny partitions like 64GB or so.

Here is my full drive layout:

Bay1: 1TB drive that came with the MP. 
3 partitions:
- Boot (100GB): contains only the OS and my home folder
- Scratch (200GB): contains LR ACR cache and is 1st scratch drive in PS CS5
- Archives (700GB): contains archived files that I don't use with LR or PS

Bay2: 2TB drive
Bay3: 2TB drive
These 2 drives are paired in a RAID0 setup using DU, 128k block size. The RAID has 2 partitions:
- Master (2x750GB = 1.5TB): RAW files + PSD files, for use with LR and PS
- Spare (2x1.25TB = 2.5TB): Other data, such as Install CD's and DVD's, iTunes, Word Excel documents, etc.

Bay4: empty

That's it. As I wrote in the Xbench post, I will first create a 256k  block size RAID0 to see if that is faster than my current 128k block  size RAID0.

I'm curious: you say you created a 4TB single partition RAID0 from 2 2TB  drives, using Apple DU. What is your block size? What are your Xbench  ratings?

Thank you so much for staying with me in this topic! I really appreciate  that. Hope I can return the favor soon by helping out someone else with  his or her questions. I know my way around LR2 quite well and I'm  looking into LR3's new features.


----------



## edgley

Those speeds are really impressive!
Think I will have to do my RAID again over the holiday.
You would, in theory, increase the speed again by adding another 1TB drive to the RAID.


----------



## Selwin

Yes they are impressive. But real life application opening and saving in PS is another story. I think it's because I don't have enough RAM (still on 3GB) for large files in PS, even for just one. So I decided to stop experimenting with Photoshop disk speed testing until I get my 12GB RAM. 

Let me explain:
This morning I played around with a RAM drive to make sure that hard drive read/write speeds measured were the actual speeds. Here are the results:

1. Copy speed in Finder
- I created a 800MB RAM drive. It's superfast. Xbench shows speeds that are 10 times faster than my RAID drive (2500MB/s for read and write. Yes 2.5GB/s). This is what I used to create the RAM drive:
http://osxdaily.com/2007/03/23/create-a-ram-disk-in-mac-os-x/
- I copied a 738MB psd file to and from the RAM drive and measured performance of various drives:
from Internal eSATA RAID0 -> RAM drive: 2 sec = 369 MB/s READ
from RAM drive -> Internal eSATA RAID0: 3 sec = 246 MB/s WRITE
---------
from Internal eSATA (not RAID) -> RAM drive: 4 sec = 185 MB/s READ
from RAM drive -> Internal eSATA: 6 sec = 123 MB/s WRITE
---------
from Ext FW800 -> RAM drive: 6 sec = 123 MB/s READ [edited]
from RAM drive -> Ext FW800: 11.5 sec = 64 MB/s WRITE [edited]
---------
So the internal eSATA drive and the RAID0 drive are both very fast, the RAID being twice as fast as the single eSATA drive.
So reading the psd file off the RAID drive in a *copy* operation in Finder takes 2 seconds.

2. Opening that file in Photoshop however, off the RAID drive, takes 9 seconds. Saving that file back to the RAID drive takes 35 seconds (!), more than 10 times the copy speed in Finder. I hear a lot of disk seek noise, so this probably points to PS not having enough RAM for its operations and reverting to scratch. If I do the same test with a 450MB psd file, PS saves that file to the RAM drive within 1 second (can't even measure it) and to the RAID drive in 2 or 3 seconds. So I reckon the larger file will open and save a lot faster as soon as I have my 12GB installed.

Overall conclusions are:
1. The Mac Pro is noticably faster, but the gain is absolutely unimpressive, for *basic* LR work compared to my previous machine, a Macbook 2GHz w/ 4 GB RAM
2. The Mac Pro, even with 3 GB RAM, is a lot faster with advanced LR processing like adjusment brush work. I'm happy with that. 
3. The internal drives, especially the RAID drive, is super fast compared to the FW800 drive I used to use. Still basic LR work (loading images and keywording or even jumping to next image in Develop) doesn't benefit much from these speeds, most of the work is processor dependent.
4. Working with large files in PS depends on RAM. Even a 570 MB psd file is too large for 3GB RAM. A 450 MB psd file opens and saves very fast, so that is what I'm going to get with the 12GB RAM installed.

Will be back as soon as the extra RAM arrives. Thanks so far.

Selwin


----------



## edgley

Do remember, if you are not happy with it, you have two weeks to return it to Apple.


----------



## Selwin

edgley said:


> Do remember, if you are not happy with it, you have two weeks to return it to Apple.


 
Actually it's too late for that now, because I didn't order from Apple directly. I ordered at the "dutch OWC", where they sell 1333MHz 4GB Kingston RAM modules for 75 Euros each. Their return period (7 days) has passed already.

Did I give you the impression that I don't like the Mac Pro? I actually do like it and I don't want to return it. It gives me a lot more power for advanced LR editing than I have with my Macbook, and I'm sure it's a lot more than a Mac Mini too for that matter. Besides, I don't want to bang out the bucks for a 8-core. So this is probably perfect for my needs.
The only problem at this point is, that I cannot use it the way it's intended because I'm still on 3GB RAM. So yes there are limitations that I clearly experience while testing, but for now I just tell myself that they will vanish as soon as I add more RAM.

The day the backordered 12GB RAM arrives will be the moment of truth. Then I will see how the machine copes with my typical work flow.

Patience can be quite demanding sometimes...


----------



## Selwin

edgley said:


> Yes, the only difference was the message no longer appeared, performance appears to be exactly the same.
> 
> I am not going anywhere, and sorry you don't get the English attempt at humour; your English is so good, one presumes that the humour will work.


 
Sorry I missed this remark until now, probably too busy with my new toy :blush:. I'll take it both as a compliment and, well, ummm… 
Yes I'm dutch so I'm not a british native speaker. Trying to learn though. Please keep the british humour coming! I am glad you've decided to hang on to your forum account after all (dutch humour).

Last week I talked a friend into trying Lightroom on his new Vaio. He has a D700 and is a convinced NX->TIFF->PS-workflow person. Told him he's missing out on RAW editing, showed him my library and work flow and he was impressed by the power of keywording and speed of processing. Maybe you can meet him some day on this forum…

In a couple of weeks I'll be off to Florida with wife and kids for a family trip and I will take my 5D with me. Hopefully I get a few decent shots of alligators and sunny beaches...


----------



## edgley

I have had the pleasure of knowing a few Dutch people, and they have always had a wicked sense of humour too.
I was in FL last Christmas, there are plenty of photos ops over there (as well as Ribs / Donuts / Pie


----------



## Selwin

12GB RAM arrived in the mail yesterday. I installed it and I notice a considerable performance boost. I processed the second half of a wedding shoot I did two weeks ago. Impressive! I was working on a 13MP CR2 file in LR3.3 that I wanted to edit in PS CS5. If PS is already open, it's transferred in 2-3 seconds. PS is very responsive. Closing the file saves as TIFF and import and render in LR is very fast. The file is about 250-400 MB in size, it's saved in 3 seconds and imported in 3 seconds. That is more than impressive. It's also due to the fast RAID0 I installed. See another thread that I contributed to about psd vs tiff. 
I notice that LR used 6.5GB of RAM today, when exporting a bunch of images. I set PS to use 8 GB, so this caused the system to slow down and I saw my Page-Outs rise. Then I tried to set PS to use only 6 GB instead of 8GB. For large images like panorama's, it's not what I would like for PS. 

So here it is: the question asked so many times: upgrade to 16GB or stay with 12GB? I read Lloyd's web site almost entirely and he states that there's not much difference in speed between 3 or 4 RAM modules and that shortage of memory causing scratch disk activity slows things down way more. Based on that: my hands itch to order a 4th 4GB RAM module. What are your experiences and what would you advise me?

All in all I'm *very very* pleased with my new Mac Pro and I thank you for advising me.


----------



## edgley

Man, not only have you got me to try changing my RAID setup, but now I am going to have to get more RAM 

Not sure what the max amount is for these machines, but I am going to get modules that will allow me to go more, if I want to; I am going to go up to 16GB.


----------



## ukbrown

If that 12GB of ram is from an ODD number of memory modules then on a PC you would will get much better performance by always having an even number of modules.  Normally on PC's you dont have the option for an odd umber of modules.


----------



## ukbrown

live and learn, not all apples are dual channel, it's a whole new world out there.  Bought an Ipad, maybe a Mac in the future.


----------



## edgley

Think the Pro is quad channel.
All EA games are on massive sale for the ipad!


----------



## Victoria Bampton

New pros are triple channel.  

I'd keep an eye on Activity Monitor and see whether you're maxing it out at any point with the 12gb - I ran with 12gb for a long time with no major issues.  If you find you're getting close to maxing out, or you want to open more programs, then hit that button.  (Or do you want us just to tell you to do it, so you can blame us...? )


----------



## Selwin

edgley said:


> Man, not only have you got me to try changing my RAID setup, but now I am going to have to get more RAM
> 
> Not sure what the max amount is for these machines, but I am going to get modules that will allow me to go more, if I want to; I am going to go up to 16GB.


I am sooooo sorry! Didn't mean any harm... How much RAM do you have now? I reread your older posts in this thread but there appears to be something wrong with the forum web site because I see (quote) "I have 2x2.8 Quads, with 1'GB of RAM; on average I have 1' proper applications and... ". So either your have 10GB or 12GB I figure. 
I read on the internet about "triple channel". Apparently, *for the mid 2010 MP* (other types may differ) the RAM is fastest when three identical RAM modules are installed, as I have now (3x4GB). Sources say communication between RAM and processor slows down when installing any number of modules other than three. That's why I'm not sure whether to order a fourth module and wanted to see if someone here tried it and notice their MP to become slower after installing the fourth module.
Don't get me wrong: my new Mac Pro is running very well with *only* 12GB RAM. Still this entire operation of getting a new computer was because I was tired of having to close programs in order to work efficiently.


----------



## Selwin

Victoria Bampton said:


> ...then hit that button. (Or do you want us just to tell you to do it, so you can blame us...? )


Now I've been a good doggie and ordered the MP like I was told here, right? Now I'm stuck with a useless machine because it *only* has 12GB of RAM! Shame on you people. 

No seriously, I decided to give it a few weeks and see what happens in longer real usage. It's not really a money issue, compared to the cost of the MP, 61 Euro for an extra 4GB RAM module is not all that much.

Happy new year everyone!

Selwin


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Yes, there was a glitch in the upgrade that has changed 0 to ' instead.  It's on my to do list to fix, but I'm a little occupied with builders wreaking havoc on my house at the minute.

I'd read it's only a 2-3% hit if you go for 4 sticks, so it's probably negligible if you're slowing down anyway because you're running out of RAM.  That said, you'll be running a few programs to run out of RAM!


----------



## edgley

I have 10GB at the mo.
Let me get the new RAID setup and get some numbers for it, then I will think about more RAM.

I am also wondering if I can find faster core CPUs for my box.


----------



## Selwin

edgley said:


> I have 10GB at the mo.
> Let me get the new RAID setup and get some numbers for it, then I will think about more RAM.


About RAID: I'd like to help you with my setup and results if you like. Will you let us in on what you have now and what you are planning to do? I am currently running a SoftRAID setup of 2 2TB drives, divided in two partitions. The fastest partition is a RAID0 for speed containing RAW files and Photoshop files. The other partition is a RAID1 (mirror) for saving things that don't require speed, but do benefit from having a backup copy. I found the SoftRAID setup not to be any faster than the DU setup. The only advantage of SoftRAID seems to be the monitoring capabilities. I think I will switch back to DU RAID when my SoftRAID trial period (30 days, 22 left) is over. I do make hourly incremental copies of the RAID0 partition, using Carbon Copy Cloner. 
I do recommend to partition your drives. There is a 2x speed difference between the "fastest" and "slowest" parts of the drives.
About multiple drive RAID0 (3 or 4 drives instead of 2): I see no point in that for my files. A 500MB file now saves in 4 seconds. I'd have to add 2 drives to cut that down to 2 seconds. What is 2 seconds? I'll stick with a dual drive setup.
Good luck with your setup!

Selwin


----------



## edgley

Well, I am just about to start; just making sure that I have everything backed up first.

I have 4x320GB disks, and will be stripping them all.
I will have an out partition of 500GB for photos, a 100GB partition for OS/Apps and then leave the rest.

Once set up, I will run the performance tests to see what I am getting; I am hoping to get in the 400's for the photos partition, effectively doubling its speed!


----------



## Selwin

Sounds very good, a 4 disk RAID0. I'd be curious to know the speed.

Please stop me if you think I'm intrusive with what I'm about to say, I do mean well. 

Do I understand correctly that you intend to dedicate the same set of drives to both OS and Photos, be it on separate partitions? I think your scratch disk should be physically separated from the photo files. There is a risk of intensive disk seek when (for instance) building previews in LR. But I may have misinterpreted you on this.

I would either go for one of the following A or B:
A. One drive for OS/scratch (partitioned) and a 3 drive RAID0 for photo's
B. A two-drive RAID0 for OS/scratch and a 2-drive RAID0 for photo's
Leaning towards B if RAM is low, leaning towards A if plenty of RAM.


----------



## edgley

Well its all done, the last of the data is restoring back.

What I ended up doing was setting up four partitions, and striping them across all four disks.
So, from the outside in:

80GB Scratch
500GB Data
120GB Boot
558GB Spare

As for the speeds, wow! It took 3 hours to copy data onto my FW800 drive, and under 1hr to copy it back!

Numbers are as follows:

Scratch 357MB/sec W - 211MB/sec R
Data 353MB/sec W - 201MB/sec R
Spare 285MB/sec W - 143MB/sec R

I hadn't given thought to LR trying to read/write and file, and use the scratch at the same time. Guess I will have to play with LR and see if I notice if that happens.

Now back to installing things on my nice "new" mac


----------



## Selwin

edgley said:


> Well its all done, the last of the data is restoring back.


Wow! That was quick.



> What I ended up doing was setting up four partitions, and striping them across all four disks.


What software did you use to create four partitions? If you used DU, how did you manage to get more than two partitions (because that's where I got stuck in DU)? Or did you use a raid utility such as SoftRAID? Furthermore, I must assume you have thought about your backup regime now that you have a 4 drive RAID0.



> As for the speeds, [...] Numbers are as follows:
> Scratch 357MB/sec W - 211MB/sec R
> Data 353MB/sec W - 201MB/sec R
> Spare 285MB/sec W - 143MB/sec R


Impressive indeed! You show me the proof that a tweaked 3-year old Mac Pro can still be very competitive, you are outperforming my RAID0 setup. That is reassuring!
Did you use XBench for testing? If not, how does your system perform using Xbench?



> I hadn't given thought to LR trying to read/write and file, and use the scratch at the same time. Guess I will have to play with LR and see if I notice if that happens.


I found playing with Lightroom to be quite a satisfactory occupation I'd be interested in learning about your findings.


----------



## ukbrown

@vitoria, not too sure about triple channel, the mac pro has 8 slots for RAM (higher spec ones), this is not a multiple of 3.  Can you calrify what you mean by triple channel, the triple channel wikipedia article is not complete but says the following.  Pretty much the same for dual channel exccpet memory must always go in matched pairs.

The architecture can only be used when all three, or a multiple of  three, memory modules are identical in capacity and speed, and are  placed in three-channel slots. When two memory modules are installed,  the architecture will operate in dual-channel mode.[2]
 Triple-channel can only be achieved on supporting motherboards and  processors supporting it, since it is the motherboards and processors  that implement the feature, not the RAM.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

As far as I understand it, the motherboard has 4 slots but the chipset has a 3-channel integrated memory controller, and adding a 4th stick forces it to share the bandwidth.  In reality though, it makes a minor difference as the Mac Pro will switch to dual-channel with even numbers of sticks.

Do these help?

http://blog.macsales.com/6644-make-your-memory-a-triple-for-best-performance


http://macperformanceguide.com/Mac-Upgrade-MacPro-Memory.html


> Triple-channel memory Top memory performance (by a few percent speed on real tasks) is realized with triple channel memory by sticking with 3 modules (4-slot machines) or 6 modules (8 slot machines).
> However, if you run low on memory, the benefits of additional modules _greatly_ outweigh the 2-3% performance hit, so don’t worry overly much about module.



http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProNehalem-Tests-Memory.html


> Optimal configuration  Installing 8 modules instead of 6 modules drops the memory bandwidth  from triple-channel to dual-channel speed, and this shows up in memory  testing quite clearly, as graphed above.


----------



## ukbrown

Nice articles, they really do look like the best PC's you can buy.  Got an Ipod, just got an Ipad  maybe, just maybe a Mac Pro (if I win some money!)


----------



## edgley

I only used DU to set it all up. It crashes after doing a few of the partitions and RAIDs, but always restarts showing where I got to.
As I have been running software RAID for the last three years, with it only crapping out once, and it managed to rebuild itself fine, I am happy to take the risk, for the moment  I do have a TimeMachine copy, and I am currently uploading all my data to Crashplan (and do have another copy of photos on another USB drive, just to be sure)

I am amazed at how much faster it is too. As its been the holidays I am have not been using it much, and as it also has a fresh install of OSX that must be helping too. I still cannt believe that its been three years since I last installed the OS; I used to have to do it every 9m on Windows.

I'll go grab xbench and see what it shows. Considering the Pro is the top of the Apple range, there are surprisingly few sites giving information about it, and how to get the best from it. Especial concerning RAID. I really want to find figure about the Apple hardware RAID card to see if its worth getting, but there is hardly anything about it out there.

As there is so little out there, I too think we should keep posting our findings, it might be able to help someone else out too.


----------



## Selwin

So we're almost three years down the road. How are your systems performing? Any news you would like to share?


----------

