PS2 performance on a Mac Pro

Question

Level 2

378 points

PS2 performance on a Mac Pro

I'm sick and tired of waiting for the mythical x1900XT G5 PCI-e edition, and I'm considering a Mac Pro with that card and 3 GB of RAM. I know from reports here that it should be quite fast with Aperture, but what I'm concerned about is Photoshop performance. I do most of my editing in PS2 (using the open in external editor command). The image files start out at 45 MB or so, and are often at 150 MB by the time I save them again.

My current set-up is a dual-core G5 2.0Ghz with 2.5 GB RAM and Raptor 10k RPM boot drive, using a second 400 GB HD as a scratch disk in PS2. I'm wondering how PS2 performance with a 2.66 MP + 1900XT + 3 GB of RAM would compare in "real world" usage with my current set-up.

My other option would be to get a ridiculously priced 7800GT for $800 and bump up RAM to 4 GB on my G5. But I figure I can sell the G5 for $1800 or so, and for a few hundred bucks more get a MP instead of sinking money into an older machine.

What do you think?

G5 2.0 dual-core Mac OS X (10.4.6) 17" Apple LCD, NVIDIA 6600 LE, 2.5 GB RAM, 10,000 RPM 74G Raptor boot drive

Posted on Oct 26, 2006 9:35 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Oct 26, 2006 9:54 AM in response to Badlydrawnboy

I find that Photoshop CS2 performs more or less the same as a your current PowerMac although I don't edit images anywhere near the size you do so in that score I can't really comment. If you know more or less how your PM 2GHz DC compared to a 2.5GHz QC then you might want to check out the Bare Feats…

http://www.barefeats.com/

… comparisions. If anything I think you'll be making a sideways step with regards to Photoshop and forward steps with Aperture.

Reply

Answer 2

The hatter

Level 9

61,031 points

Oct 26, 2006 9:54 AM in response to Badlydrawnboy

Have you looked at threads here discussing CS2? Barefeats? AppleInsider? The 1900 isn't needed for 2D performance, but does nice in 3D, games, etc or to drive 30" ACD.

So you would be going from dual core to four (or eight) and have a four hard drive bays for extra drives for media, scratch, 150GB Raptor, BTO 750GB 'Cuda 7200.10 now also.

Reply

Answer 3

Badlydrawnboy Author

Level 2

378 points

Oct 26, 2006 10:05 AM in response to The hatter

I have looked at the barefeats test, but they compare it to a Quad G5 and a 2.7 G5. My machine is considerably slower than a Quad and somewhat slower than a 2.7, so I was hoping someone here who had a G5 2.0 and moved up to a MP 2.66 with 1900XT could tell me how it is.

From what people are saying on the Aperture board, a 1900XT is necessary for Aperture to really run well.

Reply

Answer 4

Oct 26, 2006 10:08 AM in response to The hatter

The 1900 isn't needed for 2D performance, but does nice in 3D, games, etc or to drive 30" ACD.

It will definitely help with any application that used any of Apple Core graphics libraries such as CoreVideo and CoreImage. Aperture uses CoreImage.

Reply

Answer 5

The hatter

Level 9

61,031 points

Oct 26, 2006 10:33 AM in response to infinite vortex

I missed that part of using Aperture. My goof. ;-(

Reply

Answer 6

Oct 26, 2006 12:28 PM in response to Badlydrawnboy

"But I figure I can sell the G5 for $1800"

how do you figure that? my rather brief research indicates a soft market for these. i would be happy to learn otherwise.

Reply

Answer 7

Badlydrawnboy Author

Level 2

378 points

Oct 26, 2006 12:51 PM in response to Forrest Jerome1

My G5 will sell with a 160 GB and 250 GB HD, 2.5 GB RAM, Bluetooth, Airport, AppleCare (2 years left) and $3k worth of professional software. Just glancing at eBay, and craigslist locally in the SF Bay Area, similar configs are going for about that price.

Reply

Answer 8

The hatter

Level 9

61,031 points

Oct 26, 2006 1:17 PM in response to Badlydrawnboy

... never under estimate what ebay prices are 😉

WE may not, and it may not be "blue book value" but hey, if someone wants to help pay for some upgrades.... more power!

Reply

Answer 9

Badlydrawnboy Author

Level 2

378 points

Oct 26, 2006 1:27 PM in response to The hatter

Exactly. I can't figure eBay out. I've often seen a used version of a product sell for more than a brand new version of the same one (granted, you'd have to do a bit of poking around to find the price, but come on)! My armchair psychosocial analysis is that people get so caught up in the bidding process and trying to "win" that they temporarily lose touch with common sense.

That said, if you want a Mac desktop right now, and you can't afford the $2500 it will cost for even a base config of the Mac Pro, then $1700 or so for a fully loaded machine with 2 years of support/warranty doesn't look so bad.

Reply

Answer 10

Badlydrawnboy Author

Level 2

378 points

Oct 27, 2006 3:18 PM in response to infinite vortex

Ned (or anyone),

Do you have a sense of how upgrading from 2.5 GB to 4 GB of RAM on my G5 would affect Photoshop performance? Is it likely to be noticeable at all?

Also, how dependent on the graphics card is Photoshop? If an x1900XT ever becomes available for PCI-e G5s (which unfortunately seems unlikely at this point), would upgrading to that have any effect on Photoshop performance?

I'm trying to evaluate whether to upgrade my current system or get a Mac Pro.

Thanks!

Reply

Answer 11

Oct 27, 2006 3:27 PM in response to Badlydrawnboy

Do you have a sense of how upgrading from 2.5 GB to 4 GB of RAM on my G5 would affect Photoshop performance? Is it likely to be noticeable at all?

Depends on what you do with Photoshop and what sized files you regularly use although the general answer is yes, you'll see performance improvements.

Also, how dependent on the graphics card is Photoshop?

It's not, at least up to CS2. While I doubt Adobe will implement use of CoreImage (who's performance is greatly improved with GPU performance) due to parity with the Windows version you can't rule that out just yet.

I'm trying to evaluate whether to upgrade my current system or get a Mac Pro

If your bread and butter is Adobe CS2 products then my current feeling is to stick with your PowerPC products. If you do have to buy new and buy now then I would not recommend buying PowerPC and go with a Mac Pro.

Reply

Answer 12

Badlydrawnboy Author

Level 2

378 points

Oct 27, 2006 3:46 PM in response to infinite vortex

Ned,

Thanks for your very quick reply! I'm in a sort of limbo, because as a photographer I use both Aperture and PS2 a lot. Aperture runs like a dog on my G5 because of the very lame 6600 graphics card, and there are no reasonable upgrade options. PS2 runs fairly well on the G5, but I do work on large, 16-bit files so I find myself waiting for filters, effects, saving, opening quite a bit.

Honestly, if there was a way to upgrade my graphics card I'd just do that and wait on the Mac Pro. But I'm afraid that won't ever be possible (upgrading the graphics card), and I don't really want to be stuck with this machine. I keep thinking that the longer I hold onto this G5, the less likely I'll be able to sell it.

One more thing... the barefeats test I saw shows both Power Macs outperform even the 3.0 MP. Someone on this thread or another one told me the MP outperforms all of the G5s except for the Quad in Photoshop. I'm confused....

Reply

Answer 13

Oct 27, 2006 3:58 PM in response to Badlydrawnboy

I guess that puts you between a rock and a hard place. All I can really do is to try and put myself in your position as to what I would do. What I do know is that I really hate spending money on older equipment, especially when I know it will be replaced soon, just to keep its head above water.

Basically, if there were no money that needed to be spent to keep your G5 happy then I would stick with that. However, given that doesn't look like the case then I feel you're really only left with one way forward. To compensate for Rosetta you might well have to go with a 3GHz model along with 4GB RAM.

If that's acceptable to you then the earlier the better as Christmas is coming and you might not want to find yourself stuck in the post Christmas glut of unwanted gifts or system made redundant by those gifts.

Reply

Answer 14

Badlydrawnboy Author

Level 2

378 points

Oct 27, 2006 4:04 PM in response to infinite vortex

Thanks, Ned - you've been very helpful. There's no easy answer... I can't really afford a 3GHz model with 4 GB of RAM, especially considering the high price of RAM. But I agree with you about putting money into old technology. I can swing a 2.66 GHz with 3 GB of RAM now... and I can hope that PS will be roughly comparable to what I've got in real world usage, until CS3 comes out next summer!

Reply

Answer 15

Oct 28, 2006 7:46 AM in response to Badlydrawnboy

My .02

I too am a photographer and my experience with my home machine (Mac Pro 2.66 2GB of RAM), is that Photoshop performance is on par or slightly faster than my previous DP 1GHz Quicksilver.

I have to disagree with Ned. You will definitely take a step backwards performance-wise with a MP compared to your 2GHz G5 with files that large. (I use the same G5 at work) The performance penalty with running PS on an Intel machine isn't solely because of Rosetta emulation - it's also because Rosetta is a RAM hog in it's own right. I'm severely limited with only 2GB of RAM on my Mac Pro and I doubt your extra gig would help much should you go that route. Naturally, Aperture runs well on the MP, despite only having the NVidia 7300 GT card. I should add that I'm still in an experimental stage with Aperture - I don't use it yet as part of my workflow. However, when Aperture and Photoshop is open at the same time, Aperture slows to a crawl which is due to a lack of available RAM.

Your files start out at 45 MB? That's the size my Canon 1Ds MK II produces at 8 bit so your either using the same or a lower rez camera and bringing them in at 16 bit. I'd be afraid to bring in a 16 bit image into my MP. Photoshop is certainly useable, but let's just say I can't wait for CS3! 🙂

The only advice I could give you is to determine where most of your time is spent - Aperture or Photoshop and then purchase (or not), accordingly. If you can wait for CS3, that's probably the wisest choice.

Reply