Imac for Photoshop

[charlesp]

<p>My 5 year old iMac (Intel Core Duo, 2 Ghz, 2 GB Ram) is past its best-before date and I need to update asap.<br>

I often work with large film scan image files (300-400 MB) and I'm getting too old to wait for PS actions to complete.<br>

I'm currently using CS3 and looking to find out what will optimize speed in image processing. <br>

I'm looking at the 21" iMac (no room for the 27"), but don't know if there would be a significant difference in speed between the 3.06<br>

and 3.2 Ghz models. I plan on getting 8 GB Ram for sure, but I'm also unsure if I should upgrade to CS5.<br>

Any suggestions?</p>

<p>Thanks everyone!</p>

[richsimmons]

<p>Difference between 3.06 and 3.2 is only 140 Mhz. Not much really in the scheme of things and will add a few seconds you probably won't even notice. If you can upgrade to CS5, go for it. But why not download the free trial to see if it's worth it first.</p>

[brad_smith8]

<p>I don't think CS3 on a Mac will take advantage of more than 3.5-4GB of RAM. CS5 will, and it's the RAM which will give you the greatest speed boost (less disk caching).</p>

[mariosforsos]

<p>I would invest, first and foremost, on MORE RAM! 8GB is good, but 16GB is better. After all, don't forget that PS works by pre-emptively "taking over" enough RAM to equal 4 times the file size, increasing that file exponentially with each added layer within the image. Therefore, a 400MB image needs a minimum of 1.7GB just to open (without PS resorting to caching it through the drive). Add a couple of layers and that 1.7 becomes around 3GB and so on and so forth. Add to that the amount of RAM PS uses AND that the OS uses, and all of a sudden, 8GB is not as much as you thought...</p>

[left_ayyones]

<p>More ram is a definitely important. The problem with going to 16gb of ram is that the 21.5" iMacs can only fit a maximum of 8gb of ram, so 16gb is not an option unless you go to 27".</p>

<p>You won't notice much of a difference between 3.06Ghz and 3.2Ghz, but you might notice it when you step up in processor architecture. A core i3 is Intel's slowest system, core i5 is somewhat faster, and core i7 is top-of-the-line. The actual speed you notice daily is a function of not only your actual clock speed (Ghz) but also the architechture (i3/i5/i7), the number of cores (dual core / quad core etc), the amount of ram, the quality of your video card (very important for photoshop, spend the extra hundred bucks to get the better option), and the speed of the rest of the machine (hard drives, etc.).</p>

<p>However, if you're main complaint is that you're spending a lot of time waiting for actions, then adding processor cores (and/or increasing the clock speed of said cores to the maximum available and stepping up in architecture) is going to be more important of a decision than RAM.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the current generation of iMacs mostly only have two cores - the same number as your old iMac. They do have faster clock speeds and architecture however. The only way to get a quad-core iMac is to get the top-of-the-line 27" (and definitely shell out the extra $200 to get the 2.93Ghz i7 - otherwise, don't bother with quadcore, and get the fastest dual core you can (21.5" with 3.60Ghz core i5 and 8gb of ram would be a great option)). </p>

<p>So do you buy four cores, with a slower clock speed (2.93Ghz) per core, or two cores, with a faster clock speed per core (3.60 Ghz)? Points to consider are:</p>

<ol>

<li><strong>Budget</strong> - The only major drawback to going to the quad-core i7, is that the price doubles from a 21.5" iMac with 8gb of ram to a 27" iMac quad-core i7 with 16gb of ram. So if you have the money, get the better one, otherwise, wait and save up or live with the 21.5" iMac, knowing that it may not be as fast as you'd like.</li>

<li><strong>Are you running other programs at the same time</strong> as photoshop (lightroom, bridge, whatever). The more separate programs you run at once, the more you'll see the advantages of quad-core.</li>

<li><strong>What version of photoshop?</strong> While CS3 can handle multi-core processors, CS5 is much better at it, so you'll probably get more out of going to four cores if you also go to CS5 at the same time. CS5 also requires a faster computer than CS3, so if you're planning on going to CS5 eventually anyway, then get the faster machine.</li>

<li><strong>What kind of tasks are you running in photoshop</strong> - the program splits some tasks into multi-cores, and others it leaves as single core tasks - see here for details: http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/whats_the_story_with_photoshop_multi_core.html A good rule of thumb is that if your actions involve a lot of small steps, then you will benefit more from having more cores than if your actions have one long step, such as applying a complex filter.</li>

</ol>

<p>I wish apple would put better processors in their iMacs - or more options anyway. But then you'd probably burn yourself on the aluminum case with how hot they would get. Or you could flip it screen down and cook some pancakes on the back side! Even my dad's 27" dual-core iMac gets way too hot as it is.</p>

[charlesp]

<p>Thanks for all the input, folks. Change of plan, I THINK. I can reconfigure the room where I work and CAN make room for the 27" iMac.<br>

I was about ready to order the 2.93 core i7, 8 GB Ram today when an acquaintance told me she finds her 27" too big! She says its more work to keep moving her head rather than just her eyes, going from image on screen to Toolbar etc. So NOW Im back to thinking 21.5".<br>

Has anyone decided after trying, that they prefer a smaller screen size, or do people who find this, eventually adapt? I have no problem with learning to adapt; I just really don't want to be wishing I had a faster machine!<br>

Thanks</p>

[tmcleland]

Charles, I can't say that I've heard anyone complain about their display being too big. Yet we've ALL heard people

complain that their computer isn't fast enough. If you can accommodate the bigger screen, you'll adapt. I had to use a

clients machine once with the 30" Cinema (the one I thought was too big). Within 20 minutes it was like I'd had the thing

my whole life. Only problem was that my then 20" SHRANK when I got back.