Best Mac Pro Configuration for LR?

For various reasons, I'm planning on migrating from my home desktop pc (4 years core2 2.4 ghz xp pro sp 3 32-bit to access the 2.93 on 4 GB of ram) to a new or (slightly used recently) Mac Pro desktop computer.  The Mac Pro is available in many different configurations and I would appreciate advice on the number of cores and the amount of ram I really need to run comfortably LR3x and its upgrades (within reasonable limits) and the PS3 for now and more later probably all that is underway.  I'm a reasonably advanced amateur photographer. I shoot what interests me and now use LR 90-95% of my post processing of my image of Leica and Canon raw files. I use some add-ons (SilverEfex Pro2 and others).

I understand some articles read too much muscle in the Mac Pro can actually slow down LR, so if this is the case I would stay slim; also economic issues are somewhat a matter of concern.

I have already considered a laptop or an iMac and decided that the Mac Pro is what I want.  The question is just "what will work best for me?

Thanks in advance and if you want more information, just make me know.

-Bob

p.s. - What is disabled in this Forum search function?  I couldn't make it work.

@ Bob: I think you might have acquired some misinformation somewhere. There is no such thing as "too much muscle" in a Mac Pro in relation to Lightroom - or any other program. OS X allocates resources to applications as they need. Unused resources remain inactive or are used by other applications.

Adobe posts the minimum requirements for their applications, but these should be just taken as a starting point. In my opinion you should buy the best Mac Pro can manage your budget - and maybe a little more. The computer is an investment, after all, not a luxury. That said, you need to run Lightroom efficiently and Jay what to do video editing are not necessarily the same. For video rendering more hearts are better. For Lightroom, the question of the number of processor cores is less critical. Whereas, to speed the CPU is more relevant. For both, the amount of RAM can make a big difference.

I recommend as a starting point, at least a Mac Pro quad-core with 4 GB of RAM. That would make if you were watching an iMac as well.

I understand, however, looking at the current line-up of Mac Pro how can be confusing. The plu Nehalem powered Mac Pros look faster for less money, but now it is old technology. The new Intel Westmere processors offers significant improvements in performance. Unfortunately, they are also much more expensive than any upgrade Mac CPU previous. But if you want to 'future proof' your new Mac, one with a Westmere CPU is the best way to go. Model of 8 cores with Jay seems to be the best value, with two quadruple-heart 2.4 GHz CPU of Westmere. However, for only $200 more you can get the 6 base 3.33 GHz CPU Westmere. For the purpose of Lightroom, the fastest CPU Model 6 main more of a difference that the two additional cores will be in the version of 8 basis. And the version of the 6 core will take care of any multitasking job you throw at it; She, using Lightroom together with Adobe Photoshop, for example.

To scramble a bit more, however, if the use of Lightroom is your main concern, a Mac Pro can be exaggerated. The new iMacs, which came out since you started this thread, are excellent machines. You could get much more for your money with a 27 "iMac, BTO with a quad-core 3.3 GHz Intel Sandy Bridge CPU, 8 GB of RAM and a hard disk of 2 TB for about $1000 less than the Mac Pro that you look. With a compatible computer, you get a screen wonderful 27 "on the iMac. I don't know why you think you need the Mac Pro. The iMac can now draw up to 16 GB of RAM. If you were to get one with 8 GB factory installed by Apple - as a BTO option - it would be still two empty slots of RAM available for a future upgrade. You could add an SSD to the iMac and always pay less than you would for the Mac Pro.

And the new iMacs have a Thunderbolt port; Indeed, 27 "models have two ports Thunderbolt. These offer much better results and greater flexibility than any previous i/o connection. With a suitable adapter, you can use any device external, including eSATA, FireWire 400 and 800, USB 1, 2 and 3 and even Ethernet and an external monitor. Sure, the iMac has still four USB 2 ports and a Firewire 800 port and a slot for SDXC memory card. For what it may be, I suggest you only give the iMac another look. Your budget will thank you.

Tags: Photoshop Lightroom

Similar Questions

  • best mac pro with creative cloud

    Can anyone suggest the best configuration for a (new) Mac Pro for use with creative cloud and in particular Photoshop and InDesign? (Yes, there is a reason, I don't want to just get an iMac).

    Please check the system requirements for | Cloud Creative

    It contains detailed information.

    Concerning

    Stéphane

  • Mac Pro optimized for Photoshop and Premier Pro, yet affordable data sheet

    I'll replace it my old desktop Mac Pro with a new.  I'm looking for advice for the choice of the configuration suitable for the new Mac Pro for use with the latest versions of Photoshop and Premier Pro.  This must be balanced with a budget between $ 4000 to $6500.  I use several storage on hard disk for my files, but I'm not pleading for all the advice to do this, my Photoshop is used for photo editing, with several images of at least 25 MB files panoramas and a high dynamic range and composite (used Photoshop for 10 years).  I have not started using Premier Pro for video editing, but he'll use it mainly in the next 18 months to edit movies in the family home.

    Primary technical issues are the GPU D300 or D500, CPU speed and the number of hearts 4 or 6 or 8 and the memory ECC DDR3 12 GB or 16 GB or 32 GB or 64 GB.

    Read various articles Internet and clients of the Mac Pro, I find that I am unable to lead to a final choice.  An article said that Adobe has designed its software to effectively use the new Mac Pro GPU and CPU cores.

    Thank you

    MIKE

    I would say at least 16 GB of ram with 32 GB really what you want because of the bi - GPU "s. If you do not have enough ram to feed two video cards, then these two cards will have a limited performance. D300 cards are really loss. I wouldn't bother with nothing less than the cards D500, especially if you plan to use the first. AMD cards already have half the performance that Nvidia cards do with acceleration GPU Adobe Premiere. I wouldn't make it worse with D300 cards. I also suggest you the processor 6 4 soul. Otherwise just get the new Imac instead of you want a Mac.

    Eric

    ADK

  • Mac Pro upgrade for Acrobat XI?

    If I have a new version of Adobe Acrobat Standard for Windows XI it may be upgraded to pro or otherwise made available for Mac?

    Yes it is possible and you must contact Adobe Customer Service team.

    http://helpx.Adobe.com/contact.html

    Kind regards

    Anoop

  • Commitment to Apple for Mac Pro line?

    I have a Mac Pro (early 2008), which gave me eight years of service. Good enough. I hope that press another year out of it, put my money and then upgrade to a new Mac. My (non-Apple) local service guy tried to talk to me in an iMac and pointed out that the current Mac Pro 1) is probably overkill for 99% of what I do (photography) and 2) do has not been updated by Apple since 2013. It is #2 that concerns me the most. What is the general consensus on the commitment Appleʻs to line up of range Mac Pro?

    A top of the line iMac is a very powerful computer.

    4 GHz quad core i7, 32 GB RAM, 4 GB graphics, SSD 1 TB or 3 TB Fusion by car, 5K display, a 5K or two external displays 4K, 2 ports Thunderbolt.

    The only benefits of the Mac Pro are:

    Multiple cores CPU (low speed) and a second graphics card, which will be useful if you do a lot of video rendering.

    The Thunderbolt ports more, displays more (low resolution) and a lot of simultaneous disk transfers.

    I agree that the Mac Pro is excessive.  Regarding Mac Pro upgrades, until Intel releases significantly better class server CPU and 3 stroke, it is not much Mac Pro, upgrade for Apple to do.  They do not sell enough to make small annual updates is worth.

  • What happens with the Mac Pro (end 2013)?

    Hello!

    I'm Marc Urtasun, Spain. I have a Pro Mac (end 2013) with 3, 5 GHz 6-Core and two AMD over-pants D500. I am an artist and a 3d animator and I always work with 3d, made, video... and I need a more powerful computer now, because on the 3d, Mac users are moving to Windows due to the advantage of the GPU with CUDA...

    I would like to ask two things:

    -are planning an update or something for Apple's Mac Pro?

    -Can I update my Mac Pro 12 hearts? or update with a graphics card more powerful?

    Thank you

    -All those here who know the future plans Apple could not reveal that, because of the NDA, they signed.

    -Yes, you upgrade to the D700, but that requires to replace two wide boards that contain the GPU and other components. You will find the D700, as Apple does not sell to them.

    -The CPU can be upgraded. See:

    https://eShop.MacSales.com/MyOWC/upgrades.cfm?sort=pop & Model = 486 & type = Processor

    However, some app can use more carrots 6-8. Almost none can use all 12 cores.  When one of your apps look at the CPU tab in the activity monitor and see if you now use fully all 6 hearts.

    You have not said how you memory. Memory can be limited. In addition, sometimes the disk i/o is limiting what drive you have and how ae connected

    -For the good information of 2103 Mac Pro configurations see:

    http://macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html#MacPro2013

  • I need good reasons to upgrade my Mac Pro 2009.

    Hello

    I am a new employee in a company that makes me work on a Mac Pro 2009 for heavy After Effects and first projects.  I propose a new Mac Pro, but company's technical team is PC based, does not understand the world of video production and they don't understand why I can't continue to use what I have.

    Here are the specs of my current Mac Pro:

    Mac Pro early 2009

    2x2.26 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon

    16 GB OF RAM

    NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512 MB

    2 internal 1 TB HDs

    10.9.3 OSX

    Adobe CS5 Production Premium is installed.

    I offer this configuration:

    • Processor: 2.7 GHz 12 - core Intel Xeon E5 processors

    with 30 MB of memory cache L3

    • Memory: 64 GB 1866 MHz DDR3 ECC (4x16GB)

    • Graphics: Dual AMD over-pants D700 GPU

    with 6 GB of GDDR5 VRAM

    • Hard drive inside (OS and Application reader): storage 1 TB PCIe flash

    • External hard drive (disk work): PROMISE Pegasus2 12 to R6 (6 per 2 TB)

    Thunderbolt RAID System 2

    • Disk drive: drive Blu-ray/DVD/CD external (with Media & Toast 11 HD)

    (Available at OtherWorldComputing.com hard drive)

    • Adobe CC 2014

    • First CC

    • After Effects CC

    • Media encode CC

    • SpeedGrade CC

    • Illustrator CC

    • Photoshop CC

    (other info: I shoot and edit images from the Canon C100 and 5 d Mark III)

    So, I come from a company that wanted to have a quick configuration to keep the animation and the process of change moving as quickly as possible.  The recommended configuration, I have above is the configuration that I used before.

    The problem is that when the Ministry of technology (I.S.) for my new job sees the minimum requirements posted by Adobe for EFA and AP, they think that I agree with what I have (side maybe form a updated video card).  I need hard stats and figures that will convince my company to buy a faster Mac Pro.

    Can someone share some information that I can use to support my arguments?

    Here's the e-mail I have built so far:

    Adobe After Effects and first are powerful animation and editing programs if they are given a lot of RAM, card graph multiple GPU and VRAM.  Working in the minimum requirements will get me by, but at a cost VERY slow processing and rendering times.

    2009 brand test on Mac Pro bench with After Effects:

    http://www.barefeats.com/nehal04.html

    Note the second 151 comparison test of speed for the model of this society currently.

    2013 mac Pro Bench mark test with After Effects:

    http://www.barefeats.com/tube19.html

    Note that the speed test of 37seconds for model reference below what we advocate.  As they have not yet test the fastest computer of 12 base.

    Premiere Pro system requirements:

    http://helpx.Adobe.com/Premiere-Pro/system-requirements.html

    Although it is optional, the video card should be at least 1 GB of VRAM.  It is a bare minimum of non-professionals.

    Article on the reading Mercury of Adobe Premiere engine:

    https://forums.Adobe.com/message/3377595

    Thanks in advance for any help in a configuration of MOUNTING sales PROFESSIONAL.

    See this page for more information on material for Premiere Pro and Adobe After Effects: http://adobe.ly/pRYOuk

    These resources can build a strong case for processors more and more fast and more than RAM, not to mention a GPU that Premiere Pro can be used for acceleration.

  • Mac Pro power whirring noise

    I have a mac pro 2.1 with a Radeon mac-flashed 7970, witch makes a fairly strong and annoying hum noise. It sounds like a fan bearing or a blade fan of friction or something.

    Initially, I suspected the fan on the graphics card, as the noise got worse when I put the graphics card under load. But stop fans with my finger for a second did not stop the noise.

    I checked all the other fans in the system by turning their speed one by one using a control application third fan, but that doesn't seem to cause noise. When the system was not under tension, speed fans only sounded like a plane taking off, no strange whirring / clicking noises.

    I also followed him Nadim fan when running the reference of sky charts, and none of the fans seems to speed up the noise at startup.

    The noise seems to come from the power supply area. I stick my finger in this fan aswel, but that also did not stop the noise.

    My graphics card is put a lot of stress on the power supply? (seems unlikely, there is not much else in the system.) 128 SSD samsung, and 16 GB of memory, without HARD drives or optical drives.)

    Or maybe just a case of whining reel? I never heard talking about the cases where it is is bad. Sound clearly audible with the mac pro onder my office with the closed side panel. It's about as strong as the average of a mechanical hard drive.

    Someone at - it suggestions on what it might be? Anny information is appreciated!

    UPDATE:

    I've did some more research and tests today, and now I don't know if it's the POWER supply. Further examination, the noise seems to come from the graphics card rather than feeding.

    However, I got the mac pro crash on me earlier and seemed to associate PSU.

    When I tried to run the benchmark in the Valley of launchpad, the mac pro froze for a second about, and then both screens of. Fans and LEDS have remained, and pressing the button did not stop instantly the mac of. After pressing the SPACEBAR and mouse movement a little I tried the button of power again and this time he did close some instantly. After reboot I met the gray screen telling me my computer restarted because of a problem, and I had to almost any key to start.

    Later, I tried to run the benchmark of sky without the installed card via screen sharing, but that did not work. I did trie with another card installed, but who also refused to run the reference point. If unfortunately I have no way to ensure the sound comes from the GUP or POWER supply right now.

    I think that there is still an old mac pro at work that I might be able to test the card Friday, maybe wil give me some guidance on the issue of whether this is in fact my GPU. And if not, I might be able to take the power supply of the mac pro at work and test it in my mac pro.

    But I'm stil torn on the weather to suspect my GPU or PSU. the accident that I got today sounds PSU related to me, but the noise seems to come from the GPU. Anyone have any ideas?

  • What is currently the best video card for mid 2012 Mac Pro?

    I have a videocard ATI Radeon HD 5770 in my Mac Pro, but I thought it is a 2009 vintage card and is not common for applications Adobe CC 2015.  What would be the current map for this will be the best performer for Premiere Pro and After Effects 2015CC apps?

    Read http://barefeats.com/imac5k7.html

  • Where to buy the best upgrade of ram for Mac Pro end of 2013

    Where do you want to buy the best upgrade of ram for Mac Pro end 2013.  I am under creative cloud.  Thank you!

    It is a software Adobe forum... you need to find a forum for Mac hardware

  • CS5 for mac is installed on an old mac.  I have a new Mac Pro and iMac, that I want to install.  I can do this, and if not what is my best option.  I mainly use Photoshop later.  Thank you!

    I have a new Mac Pro and iMac, I want to install CS5 on them.  I can do this, and if not what is my best option.  I mainly use Photoshop later.  Thank you!

    Personally, I would install just without turning off. Worst thing that will l be happen you will need to disable a. Does not mean that you must uninstall just disable and when you need it, just disable one of the other and activate the current. But I assume CS5 because he is not yet supported most probably don't even follow the activations. I'm guessing the last part but when trying to install and activate without disabling one will not harm what anyone,.

  • iMac times 5K vs Mac Pro which is best for export and rendering?

    I am looking for a new machine edition and I'm debating between the new 5K iMac or Mac Pro.  I'm looking for something that will allow me to save time on exports of compression.

    Typical editing session:

    Adobe first Pro CC mixed with some compositions after effects CC.  Export via Media encode.

    -90 minutes of film Pro Res 422

    -Simple fades chained between songs

    -Green Screen to inlay

    -Light color correction

    -Graphic non-animation on screen

    -Possibility of some sequences of 4K (no more than 5 minutes)

    -Sequences linked to the external hard drive - exports going to the same drive. (Work of thunderbolt flow - see question below)

    When I edit the rough cuts for the approval of the customer, I would be compressed in H.264 format for easier time download and playback via the cloud service (Vimeo, Dropbox or car) sharing

    Which of these machines will be most effective in rendering, export and compression?

    When I say effective, I mean, the Mac Pro will save an hour or two in the export of time me?  From what I understand, they are almost identical.  Mac Pro can accelerate a little with 12-cores, but the processor is slower on the 12-core.

    PS - someone has a suggestion of confidence on a Thunderbolt 2 hard drive to edit out of?

    Ryan

    Yes IE reading using 1 disk as media and exported to a separate drive will be faster export. Time of export of the AE exceed normally until the time of the export of first if the comps are something more basic. So if this time receiver is something your tent to relieve the cores/threads are making a difference in the RAM. The drive Bay 4 will give you redundancy and protection of data. If losing a days worth of work is not a big deal separated readers are very good. If this isn't the case, then you may want to consider the Bay 4 after all.

    Eric
    ADK

  • Mac Pro 5 1-PCIe Configuration

    Hello

    I have upgraded my Mac Pro 5, 1 (model mid-2010) with a few changes/additions PCIe and need some advice. Frankly, I was surprised by the fact that the Expansion Slot utility was not usable here and the old interface to help me refine the best configuration. Reading about the possible configuration options started his contradictory between reseources. Anyway, this is what I have:

    Slot 1 (x 16) - ATI Radeon 5770 graphics card

    Slot 2 (x 16) - ATI Radeon 5770 graphics card

    Location 3 (4 x) - empty (no physical space due to above)

    Unit 4 (x 4) - card Sonnet PCI Tempo SSD Pro Plus

    So, is this look of effective configuration for the priority of the data read/write verses performance graphics performance?

    Peace,

    Dr. Z.

    The utility of PCI slot is not usable on the 2009 to 2012 Mac pro.

    The allocation of housing-gears the 2009 Mac Pro 2012 is fixed, not configurable and is exactly as you say: the two 16 x slots, the two upper slots lower slots are 4 x speed, but of "provide support for up to 16 x cards" (in other words, they use the biggest connectors, but everything beyond 4 x is not connected).

    Your installation seems fine. Some users prefer to leave the top slot open for a better circulation of air above all the cards. But as you say, you do not have this option.

    4 x is fast enough for this SSD card. Which is about as fast they do these cards so far. Extra speed as a 16 slot x could not possibly serve in the drafting of this article.

  • Ask for help upgrade (Mac Pro early 2009 2x2.6 GHz Quad-Core)

    I am a videographer who has need to bring my Mac Pro from the dead. Cheesy with video files, but not parts of. My reading so far led me to look at in what follows. I'm looking for a better understanding of each of the following items and upgrades are beneficial and worth that may be too kill for a round of aging.

    1. Memory. I currently have 4x2gb or total of 8 GB of ram. I know this is ridiculous, I have not increased by at least 16 GB so far. However, I have read that memory can only help so much and that some of the items here are actual speed thrusters. How much memory is recommended for this configuration? Should I buy? http://www.Amazon.com/16GB-DDR3-1066-PC3-8500-1066Mhz-Apple/DP/B0098MLFJG/
    2. Solid State Drives. I currently have 3 disks internal thatrange of 500 GB to 2 TB. If I used that as my boot drive, where is the best place to install (see photo below)? I read of people installing in a Bay SATA HDD or SATA optical drive unused. I read good things about it. http://www.Amazon.com/Samsung-2-5-I...p/B00OBRE5UE/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?IE=U TF8
    3. Video/graphics card. First of all, both mean the same thing? Are the belowonly of slots PCI Express 4 for this type of card? Also, can you have two installed? I have the NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512 MB series. What is the best way to upgrade? My research so far has led me to the GeForce GTX680. Looks like I'll have to buy it was good. T7ZS http://www.Amazon.com/EVGA-GeForce-DisplayPort-Graphics-02G-P4-3682-KR/DP/B00C81
    4. Processor upgrade. I'm intimidated by it due to intensive installation and prices. What would be the next best bet - upgrade to 12-core? Where to buy?
    5. Firmware? I've seen videos and forums on (4.1 - I) (5.1) or (6.1). I don't really understand what that means. Should I be concerned?

    Thank you!

    -The fastest drive is a blade of base PCle SSD. Very very fast

    The SSD to 'Classic' Mac Pro training

    -The bus SATA on the Mac Pro is only SATA II (3 GB/s) and connected to the bus SAT SSD is therefore limited to speed SATA II, not the speed of current SATA III (6 Gbps) drives.

    -You can get cards PCle who accept the standard SATA SSD and who can get speeds of SATA III

    -You can install several graphics cards. I have my 2009 MP, I have the original GT120 in slot 2 and a 5770 PC card into slot 1 (slot width double only).

    A graphics for PC cards will not display anything while booting, as well as an installed PC card can be used for the Startup Option or special start-up as recovery mode.

    For more information on graphics cards:

    Tip: Mac cards replacement Graphics Pro money Tour (2006-2012)

    http://www.macvidcards.com/index.html

    http://forums.MacRumors.com/showthread.php?t=1440150

    -J' would upgrade not processors. Frequently reading and writing to disk is the bottleneck.

    About the firmware, you can update the firmware of the 2009 to 2010 MP. Which allows the use of faster memory, using a processor six cores and audio mini displayport for the graphics card offline

  • The Mac Pro to buy - base 4 or 6 for Indesign, Illustrator, Photoshop CC

    Hey there, I'm new to this forum and I wanted to ask a question on the current Mac Pro.

    I am with the purchase of a new Mac Pro, but I honestly can't work if it's interesting to go to 4 or 6 core version.  I do not think that Illustrator CC takes advantage of multi-hearts, but I think possibly Indesign CC and certainly made photoshop CC.  I could be wrong completely well things may have changed.

    I'm a graphic designer and especially work in the press.  I create posters, brochures and event work sometimes large format.  Recently, I worked with files around the mark of 500 MB to 1 GB, in photoshop, indesign, and Illustrator, who is about as big as they get ever size wise.

    I'm not rendering or doing anything too crazy, especially to throw about 100 MB + files with all of these 3 applications open with multiple layers, possibly Office apps too in the word of the background, powerpoint etc.

    I have heard conflicting views on that and I hope to come to some kind of conclusion.  This question was asked before in the past, but without a final resolution.  Whenever I saw a mod Adobe join the conversation its usually a copy and pasted minimum spec link or something like that.  Not a clear jump off of the fence, comment "I would recommend this configuration, it is best for your workflow.

    I realize more ram would be nice... biggest SSD etc... but its more the actual base machine I am interested by picking, assistance are additional cores worth? bells and whistles can be added later and I have a good idea that has chosen here.

    Future proofing would be the reason to get the kernel 6. It won't be a big difference now with these specific applications. If you add multimedia video/motion against still only down the road then you would like the 6 core.

    Eric

    ADK

Maybe you are looking for