Jump to content

Recommended Posts

<p>Okay, my current Powerbook G4 has seen it's last days and is destined to be my road warrior, taking the bumps and bruises and acting as storage unit and light editing whilst on the road as a Pro Shooter.<br>

It's time to get a new Desktop powerhouse.<br>

I'm a Photographer uploading about 600 or so images from each shoot and here are my particulars.<br>

<strong>I have a limited budget of about £1000-1500 to spend:</strong> I am quite happy to purchase secondhand, and have been scanning Gumtree and Ebay.co.uk for deals. An intelPowerMac seems to fit my bill. Quite happy to spend some extra money when it comes to upgrading the RAM e.t.c. I will also need a monitor, but I have decided to discuss this in another thread. Basically if the computer runs to £1500 so be it.<br>

<strong>Processing Speed:</strong> My days are currently spent waiting hours for images to sync in Lightroom, then exporting them takes a further few hours, then making web gallery's in J Album takes a further few hours, so I mainly leave these processes to run overnight. <em>I've had enough</em> . I want a screaming fast system that I dont have to twiddle my thumbs and wait while each little process leave me with a spinning ball or a ticking watch. Dont even get me started on my design work in Photoshop and ligtroom, like pulling teeth.<br>

I have decided that an intel MAC is the way to go to future proof the system somewhat with Intel only releases starting to surface.<br>

Now, big question, should I just get one of the first generation Mac Pros and bump up the RAM to 8 or so MB with third party RAM. I am seeing some systems like this at <em>buy it now</em> prices on ebay for around my expected price.<br>

What is all this about 2 core and 4 core even 8 core I see. Will this really affect my performance?<br>

Processor speed?<br>

I see the mid 2006 specs are Two 2.66 GHz (5150) Dual-core Intel Xeon "Woodcrest"<br /> 2.66 GHz or 3.0 GHz (5160) Dual-core or 3.0 GHz (X5365) Quad-core <br>

And the early 2008 speces feature Two 2.8 GHz (E5462) Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Harpertown"<br /> Optional two 3.0 GHz (E5472) or 3.2 GHz (X5482) Quad-core processors or one 2.8 GHz (E5462) Quad-core processor<br>

I think the early 2006 Model will be more suited to my price range, should I just get the most powerful processor I cann afford in this modle or just scrape into the early 2008 model? IS there much difference?<br>

Loads of scenarios I am sure, but I trust there is someone out there who recently had to endure the same decision?<br>

I look forward to some informative replies.<br>

D.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Might I suggest another solution? Have you looked at the new iMac with the 27inch screen? Or to save some money - the smaller version. If you can put up with the gloss screen you'll have a pretty powerful machine that will easily run Lightroom or Aperture.</p>

<p>I'm leaning this way personally. I already have an older PowerMac Dual G5 buts its not Intela and getting long in the tooth. The new MacPros are too expensive imho, and I've a nice 24 inch Eizo to plug in so I think my best value route is the new iMac which can run the additional monitor - so I'll set it up to use the Eizo as the main screen and the iMac screen as additional desktop space for palettes etc.</p>

<p>I do think that if you go the older s/h route, whilst you'll probably get a reasonably powerful machine, you're investing in older technology which given the amount of money you're proposing to drop, seems slightly backwards (with respect!).</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There are some other things to consider -- it's not just processor speed that affects how fast your images import, render, and export in Lightroom. The video processor is a big factor, as well as the RAM on your machine. Processor speed is critical, yes, but only if the software is written to take advantage of the chip architecture (which Lightroom does). Then the software itself matters. Adobe claims that LR 3 (in beta) performs faster than the current 2.x version.</p>

<p>Bottom line -- you would be perfectly happy with one of the new iMacs or MacBook Pros, especially if you get the video card upgrades. You certainly don't have to max out the specs (and your bank account) to get acceptable performance from Lightroom.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Davin,<br>

I'd recommend the Harpertown-based Mac Pro over the Woodcrest if your budget can handle it. I've had the Woodcrest for the past 2.5 years; it will serve you well as it is still a very powerful processor. The only issue is that the processor is not a true 64-bit one. Under Snow Leopard the apps can run in 64-bit mode, but the improvements are always going to be limited somewhat. Harpertown is newer.</p>

<p>Another, probably more functional issue, concerns the graphics card. Mine has the Radeon ATI XT-1900. Many users have had their's crap out past warranty--they are loud as well--and the design is considered flawed. I am now experiencing some visual artifacts across multiple applications and just placed an order for a newer replacement. This may be a hidden cost if you purchase a used Mac Pro. The stock Woodcrest model came with a Nvidia which would work fine for photography.</p>

<p>While the new iMac with the 27-inch screen is gorgeous and powerful, I like having the flexibility to choose both monitors. Glossy monitors are not everyone's cup of tea. The Mac Pro's capacity for four internal hard drives also makes frequent turnover of many large files easier. The iMac would eventually require you to use an external drive--something I only do for backup with my Mac Pro.</p>

<p>ME</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm not a fan of glossy screens for serious art editing. The glare is not good and I find the contrast a bit harsh. The screens are fun for passive uses such as watching DVDs. I'm glad the newer larger Macbook Pro laptops are now available with a matte display.</p>

<p>@Larry, old technology (whatever that is) can be better than the new stuff that succeeds it. Those spring-based Apple keyboards were clearly better than the cheesy membrane-backed ones that came after. The build quality of the original iBook G3 was markedly superior to the iBook G4, as was the performance of its trackpad and buttons. The latest Macbooks sans a Firewire port is a step backward.</p>

<p>Technology becomes old the hour after you open the box. Right technology (one that matches your requirements within budget) is a smarter approach to me.</p>

<p>ME</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>HI guys, thanks for all your replies. I was seriously considering the 27" iMac but decided against it for two reasons. I dont like the glossy screen and also expandability. I loved the way you can bolt in and out drives ram e.t.c in the Mac pro.<br>

After a few days reading through the posts and researching my options, I have managed to get and early 2008, 8 Core Mac Pro (Harpertown) with an extra 1TB HD and 4GB of Ram for 1350. Happy with the deal.<br>

I think with the current specs and expandability, I should get a few good years out of it.<br>

Thanks again.<br>

D.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...