TechAddict
Level 1
(18 points)
Q: Macbook for Aperture 3.3
So after the (not so captivating) WWDC I think it's time to go ahead with the new MacBook for Aperture. Prior to the new refresh I was planning to go with the 15" MBP but not the top one of the two. After the refresh I'm not so sure. The new retina models are nice but what a price!! I'm reluctant to drop that kind of money on a laptop TBH. The big problem for me is also that they have no FW or Ethernet connectors. It'll be my only laptop and at times there is a need for ethernet, if only to access a troublesome router or get faster speed. While I'm planning on a Thunderbolt external HDD for back up at soame stage I also have FW drives that I'd still like to access, so the sparkly retina machines (thankfully - esp when looking at the $3,000 + 750 GB SSD version) are out of the equation. Any upgrade will also bring me Mountain Lion and Aperture 3.3 of course.
I'm not that heavy a processor of pics to be honest but at times I do do a lot. I also use the full range of Nik Software. My Aperture library is only about 50GB at the moment so either the 500 or 750 HDDs on the 15" would suffice. I'd move my masters off to external referenced if it ever became an issue.
The question now though is which 15"? I'm sure the 2.3 GHz would be MUCH faster than my ageing MB (white) 2.16 GHz ICD2 with its 2 GB of RAM, esp if upgraded to 8GB RAM. The 2.6 is around $400 more here in Malaysia and I'm wondering if it is worth the cost given that the extra 250 GB of HDD I probably don't need. The only issue I suppose maybe the 1GB video instead of the 512 MB, given that Aperture is quite graphics intensive and, I believe, will prefer to use the discreet video card if it can, thereby also putting less strain on the rest of the system. Whichever I go for I'll likely upgrade to the anti-glare screen. Surprisingly it seems the 15" cannot be upgraded to 16GB RAM, the only other thing I'd consider.
Of course the 2.6 is probably the best option, it's just how much of a compromise the 2.3 would be.
Aperture 3, Mac OS X (10.6.8)
SierraDragon
Level 4
(2,695 points)
TechAddict wrote:
1) How essential is an SSDD? May ageing 2007 MB 2.16 with it's 2GB RAM has coped well up until now, albeit the SBOD is proving more and more of a problem these days. Is an SSDD essential for good Aperture performance or does it just make it excellent? For many, good may well be enough.
It is about cost-effective 2012 purchase decision-making rather than about what may or may not be "well enough."
For all apps and the OS an SSD is simply the most important overall performance improvement available after all the "givens" like: -all 2011/2012 MBP CPUs are strong, -all 2011/2012 MBP non-integrated GPUs are strong enough, -all 2011/2012 MBPs are available with at least 8 GB RAM.
An SSD is not "essential" any more than fuel injection instead of carburetor in a motor vehicle is essential. But a rational person does not logically purchase a modern performance motor vehicle with a carburetor.
Note too SSD would probably make that SBOD go away because page outs caused by inadequate RAM would be to SSD instead of to HDD, and SSD latencies are orders of magnitude quicker than HDD latencies.
2) How much discreet video RAM does Aperture need? It seems to be the case that people have historically suggested the first machine in the old (2011) 15" MBP line, with 4GB and the 512 MB Radeon card. I ask this specifically because for those who don't feel the need to go down the SSDD route, that same machine in 2012 in it's base state is just $1,799 and fitted out with 8GB (which I think is essential) and anti-glare still only costs $1,999
Specific numbers are hard to forecast because a new box is for 2012-2016, which means it will live with OS and app versions we have not seen yet.
GPUs and RAM are the weak links in MBPs because MBPs only have 2 RAM slots and because the GPUs are mobile-strength and not upgradable. Historically Aperture has been very GPU-sensitive, but we have no 2011/2012 info in that regard.
The non-upgradable RAM in new MBPs is a horrible precedent a) because Apple RAM is always way, way overpriced and b) because non-upgradable prevents users from future upgrading when RAM is more needed as well as much less expensive.
From another post of mine regarding RAM:
------------------------------------------------------
• RAM is (finally) cheap.
• 64-bit operation is (finally) mainstream and largely functional among OS, apps and hardware.
• Memory bandwidth is (finally) improving.
• Under OS X apps like Photoshop have been capable of benefiting from at least 32 GB RAM for many years.
• Digital image file sizes continue to get larger. E.g. Nikon just upped the ante in files sizes with 36 MP images from the relatively inexpensive D800 DSLR. Others will follow.
• DSLRs now produce video - which adds Mac processing not previously needed. Many still photogs now also do video.
• Image processing continues to get more complex.
• 3D is becoming much, much more mainstream.
• More and more, lower level graphics folks are accessing pro-level tools.
Given the above, IMO designers will incorporate accessing large RAM amounts into their designs. Buyers should plan accordingly.
The life of a pro box is 3-5 years; appropriate RAM is not about what happened last year, it is about 2013-2017. Of course we will see increasing RAM demand.
My 02 FWIW. HTH.
-Allen
