Intel Mac Pro DUAL CORE ? urban legend or real performance.

I have seen that question before but maybe it was a little too soon because

most people did not have any working experience on that recent system.

My question is only to those who have a Photoshop experience on that machine?.

Does it deliver?

I have seen all the more than promising charts but I want some real feedback.

Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon

I still have my ibook G4? too slow?when I work my multilayer PSD files (150MB)

If I buy that machine? will I see a real improvement in the speed of my work

(Photoshop) or they will tell me.. Oh sorry it?s more for video editing!

<p>Sorry I don't have actual experience on the Intel processor Macs yet. However, the

word is

that you will see little benefit <i>for Photoshop</i> at this point since it is not a native

application.

<p>From what I've read, Photoshop will run at about the same speed under emulation on

the

Intel Macs as it would on a similar Mac using the older processors.

<p>Supposedly, the real advantage will come when Adobe announces a native version of

Photoshop.

<p>So, if you were going to upgrade for Photoshop alone, there is less reason for haste.

<p>Dan

I don't know about the 4-core (two dual core) Xenon system, I can tell you though that on the MacBook Pro, with a dual core 2.1 GHz CPU, Aperture is fairly fast. I say fairly, because to me no computer has ever been fast enough.

The problem with Photoshop (and Nikon Capture NX) is that they still don't have a universal code version. That will hamper the performance of PS until there is a version that is compiled for the Intel chips. Until then PS is slower than it should be. I tested PS CS, both in Mac OS X, in Windows XP and in Parallels emulated Windows XP. In native Windows XP the code ran faster and smoother than anything I had seen before (which was a P4 2.4Ghz), so the hardware is fine. In Parallels you get fast performance for computationally intensive tasks, but slow performance for display tasks. In Mac OS X, with PS running in "rosetta", the program is a tad slow.

I am waiting for PS CS3, which should solve the issue. When that is out, your Mac Pro will be one of the fastest system you can buy. Until then, booting it into a Windows partition (unfortunately) will give you better performance for PS, but no Aperture.

Good luck, I wish I had to money for Mac Pro.

Maurik

The problem with this type of question is that everyone's use of Photoshop is different --

as is their perception of performance. Some folks find the slightest hint of waiting on the

machine as intolerable while others -- like me -- are more pragmatic about it.

I have one of the quad-core Xeon Mac Pros but I've not installed Photoshop on it -- I'm

using it as a server. Darn fine machine, though.

But I do have one of the new 24" iMacs with the 2.33 MHz Core 2 Duo and I have

Photoshop on it. I haven't done extensive benchmarks, but using Photoshop on this

machine with some 250GB multilayer film scans it performs just fine -- much faster than

my 1.5-GHz G4 PowerBook and my old 2-GHz G5 iMac. Rumor has it this iMac is just

slightly slower with Photoshop than the 2.66 GHz Mac Pro.

Also, rumor has it the 10.4.8 OS X update will feature extensive performance

improvements in Rosetta for legacy PowerPC applications like the current Photoshop.

Isn't the real question if the Intel based Power Mac is a better box for video editing than a fully loaded G5?

Like Louis said, Photoshop benchmarks are every where, but is the dual Xeon box the best option at the moment?

If you want real feedback, you might have to wait a few months for more users to get their hands on the new machines. If you can settle for some informed speculation, well, keep reading.

I think it's fairly safe to say that even one let alone two Dual Core Xeons would smoke an ibook g4 even if Photoshop isn't yet optimized for intel. Appart from the processor, the difference in RAM, Front Side Bus and hard drive speeds will make a big difference working with large files. Your comparing a current high end desktop with an older low end laptop; these machines are on opposite ends of the performance spectrum. Improvements in perfromance should be pretty much be guaranteed.

Recent MacWorld and Barefeats benchmarks suggest that a 2.66GHz Mac Pro is not really that far off Quad G5 speeds for Photoshop, even when having to run through the Rosetta emulation.

Compared to any G4 it will be blindingly fast in Photoshop.

I researched this topic pretty heavily a few weeks ago before I built my new machine. I refuse to say which might be the better machine, but I can say this:

My Dual 2 core with the Intel 6800 chip, an Asus P5W Delux MB, 800 MHz ram, and overclocked slightly to 3.5 MHz, is over twice as fast as a current G5 Quad - 91.5 seconds verses 195 seconds with a PS CS2 test. I convert Nikon D200 raw files in ACR in less than 1 second. That's pretty fast. Currently, running Windows on a Mac with PS CS2 slows it down even more. I would not recommend it. And yes, your G4 is very slow with files this large. Painfully slow. I am sure that PS CS3 in 2007 will be awfully fast on the new Intel chips. How fast? Who knows.

As another comparison, my Core 2 Duo at 91.5 seconds was 219 seconds on a P4 running at 3.2 GHz.

My guess is that using the latest and fastest Intel chip (barely out) on a Mac with 4 gigs of ram will at least triple your speed!

It will definately be faster than your ibook. I played with one of the new iMacs at the Apple

store, will have to take in a big file to see how it really works in CS2. CS3 will change the

performance hugely when optimized for the new macs.

Have a fully loaded Mac Pro 3Ghz with 4 gigs of memory. Even in Rosetta emulation

Photoshop is MUCH faster than my old G4 867Ghz Quicksilver Tower. It will be unbelievable

when Photoshop goes native. Scanning within photoshop with Nikon Scan (Coolscan V) is

roughly twice as fast as with my old machine.

The Mac Pro itself is a true work of industrial art. Best computer you will ever see.

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2057

And please ask such questions in a separate thread next time.