How much VRAM does Aperture *really* use?

I've got a G5 2x2.5Ghz with 2Gb RAM and 17" and 20" Apple displays running on a X800 XT 256Mb.
Playing around with full screen/zooming images/etc... I got it to only have 17Mb of VRAM available.

Hi Richard,

From what Apple said at PhotoExpo in NYC, the VRAM is shared between the two monitors (makes sense) for setting up the image for rastering at whatever resolution/pixel count. So, 2 x 30" would need more VRAM than the 17" and 20" you used in your test. So .... just go and pick up a couple, re-run the test and you should completely max out the VRAM 🙂

Of course, the image data itself plays a part as that is held close to the GPU for image manipulation and viewing. So 12Mpixel images are going to need more VRAM than the same number of 8Mpixel or 6Mpixel images.

All in all, more VRAM seems to give us more headroom for more monitors, more images, bigger images or any combo. Also seemingly true is that unless we max out the VRAM (when Aperture apparently will page images in/out system RAM), there is no impact on performance.

From your test, it sounds like anyone wanting to run Aperture on two monitors needs a minimum of 256Mb VRAM for optimal performance.

Hope this helps.

G.

MacBooks are a bad choice for heavy graphics apps.

Remember, you are buying a box for the future rather than just today. That means OS 10.5 and beyond, Aperture 2.0 and beyond, etc. Apps and the OS are moving to both heavier RAM usage and heavier graphics card usage in the future.

Already today just Aperture plus the OS will use 2.3 GB of RAM on a Mac Pro. a MacBook limited to 2 GB RAM and no graphics card would be a mistake.

-Allen Wicks

I do not pretend to know the answer, I just wanted to ask the meaning of the Daruma in your avatar.
I am also interested in this topic so am subscribing via this response.

oh i know - another main source of hesitation is that
the MBP can only hold 3G of ram - which hardly makes
it future proof! I need a laptop, so this decision
is quite painful

Correct, 3 GB is not future proof, but with 50% more RAM and with a competent graphics card (vs no card in MacBooks) MBPs are far superior graphics app boxes for the future.

-Allen Wicks

I could not disagree more.

For as long as I've been on any forum, be it cars, cameras or in this case computers, you see time and time again, the advice of 'don't buy less that you'll need'.

Here's the thing, no matter what you buy, it's still gonna be slower than molasses when compared to the new shiny model. Why are you going to go out of your way (and out of pocket) to fight that inevitability?

A MacBook is hands down faster than a G5 iMac used to be, which in turn is faster than the best 1.4ghz Dual G4 and so on. My point, todays mid level machines are better than yesterday's top of the line. I know that there are people out there popping out 20mp files, professionally, and their company will pay for their gear. Who's paying for yours?

Most people blow -their- cash on more machine than they need–only to get super attached to the huge amount of money they spent, which prevents them from upgrading in a timely manner...annnnnd the machine still ends up being too slow.

Buy middle of the road. Get the 'good' not the 'best'. Spend the money you saved on lenses, and make better pictures.

I know this will ruffle feathers, mainly because it goes against the grain, and other's experiences will differ (maybe you do NEED all the speed possible). I would recommend that you judge by actually USING the app, and decide if the difference is really worth the extra money–instead of being convinced not to buy 'too little machine'

Just my .02

Hi Matthew,

That is just a very good way to buy any thing. What good is middle of the road safety in a middle of the road car when you crash? I want to pay premium for the best safety. What good is a few 1000$'s when I am dead?

What you need to do is look at you workflow and the time you spend. Can you do your work 20 minutes faster a day with a new machine. Then add the daily savings and the time you want to keep the machine. So if the value of your time is greater than the cost of the machine, buy a faster one, if not don't.

Then there is the "soft" part of it. Do you have the temper to wait for your machine to do work. I personal think my computer is to slow if I have to wait, but I guess that it will take years if ever that my computer can do all interactive task without wait-times.

Vishal, don't buy a MacBook it won't perform especially if you put a 23" screen on it. The graphic card just is not good enough.

Best regards - Per.

Per,

Your safety analogy is a little off base- as buying a slightly less fast computer isn't going to put your work in danger.

A performance analogy would have been a bit more suitable. In other words, I prefer to buy the VW GTI, as opposed to the Ford GT, simply because both will get me there, in relatively good speed, and safety. Sure the GT can do 200mph, but I'm not really going to get to use any of that in normal daily driving.

I process roughly 200-400 images a day as a product photographer, and the speed difference between my MacBook, and my PowerMac G5 is minimal. Hooked up to a 20" display, I have not felt a tremendous slow down.

Just be honest with yourself and buy the machine you need for the next year. Anything more is wasted money in my opinion.

Just remember that you could have bought nearly 2 MacBooks for the price of one MacBook pro. Remember that when they tell you that your MacBook Pro is going to be 'in the shop' and you try to use the 'BUT THIS IS A WORK MACHINE! DOWNTIME IS UNACCEPTABLE!'.

No...downtime is nearly inevitable, what's unacceptable is when people don't plan for it.

Again, my .02

And I don't mean to be a thread jacker, so I'll stop my moaning.

P.s. you're right, the MacBook isn't not be the best thing that you could throw at graphics intensive apps...but that's my point, do you NEED the best? Be as honest with yourself as possible.

Matthew, you make your points eloquently, but I agree with Allen.

Accepting your point of buy what you need as your start point (and I don't BTW). What is the delta between dropping $1200 on a laptop that doesn't cut it vs. $2000 on one that does?

You pay to get in the game, then you pay to move up the performance curve (sweet spot) and then you pay for diminishing returns, yes? Sometimes the diminishing returns investment is needed as you say, sometimes not. That is Day 1.

Let's assume that I'm a photographer (and therefore not living in Beverly Hills or Beliz). That means I'm going to run a piece of hardware into the ground. So, I want the most physically robust solution and I want to buy as much performance as I can realistically afford. Why? Because we all know from experience that new program features require more performance and not less. Will Leopard require more than Tiger? Unknown but probably. We do know that OS X required more than OS 9, and that Vista will need heavy duty hardware vs. XP, and ditto XP vs. 2000, and ...

So, a $1200 investment made now, could well be $1200 thrown away. Not only would I lose productivity now, but it secures less runway for my future. My overall TCO goes up and my productivity goes down. THAT I suggest is a bad investment.

As to the either alternative, I stand by my original thoughts. The MBP is fundamentally limited by RAM, which is a real shame. However, to an extent that can be managed around by running fewer apps. You can't work around a less capable graphics card (PLEASE TRUST ME AFTER A BITTER YEAR WITH A 6600 LAME DUCK) in Aperture. It impacts everything.

Bottom line? My 2c says you are wrong, but at least it's only cost us 4c to disagree 🙂

Their tests did not stress the GPU .... and so it is unsurprising.

Spot/Patch
Straighten
Crop (as an addition to the above)

Plus Levels, White Balance esp. in conjunction with Spot/Patch

Vishal, all I can say is that after a year of hurt for myself and shared by others, the strong recommendation would be for anyone to buy the best graphics card they can realistically afford and arguably at the expense of RAM (that can be added later) if necessary.

VRAM only appears to play a significant part with multiple displays, and is an incremental hit depending upon what the second display is presenting (Aperture images or Mail/Safari/word etc.).

David,

I agree with you: Buy the machine that makes sense. Don't be short sighted, and don't by all means, buy a machine that won't do what you want.

My rhetoric is based on the idea that most photographers -aren't Apple product specialists- and as such are usually going to be inquisitive about what products they 'should' get. The advice they receive from others (which is most likely based on the idea of Faster/More/Power at all costs = Better, and better=what I should be using) is the primary consideration when purchasing a new machine-NOT their own actual usage of the product in their workflow.

In my experience I have seen people waste a ton of money on machines that cost a lot because they were 'top shelf'. Only to see Apple introduce a machine in a month or 2 that trumped theirs. This is the nature of the computer industry, as you and I well know.

But you've illustrated my point– 'That means I'm going to run a piece of hardware into the ground'. This is the key of my argument– the large initial investment delays the upgrade process.

Running a machine into the ground is a polar decision, with it comes the performance delta of going from old 'top of the line' to new. It reinforces the desire to purchase a new top of the line machine, and start the wasteful (time/money) process all over again.

Buy middle of the road, upgrade more often, and save money while doing it. Not only that, but never go out of a warranty situation in the process.

In this case, buy the middle MacBook Pro, or the Mid MacPro, or the Mid iMac...which ever one meets your needs + a little.

I could not disagree more.

For as long as I've been on any forum, be it cars,
cameras or in this case computers, you see time and
time again, the advice of 'don't buy less that you'll
need'.

Here's the thing, no matter what you buy, it's still
gonna be slower than molasses when compared to the
new shiny model. Why are you going to go out of your
way (and out of pocket) to fight that inevitability?

A MacBook is hands down faster than a G5 iMac used to
be, which in turn is faster than the best 1.4ghz Dual
G4 and so on. My point, todays mid level machines
are better than yesterday's top of the line. I know
that there are people out there popping out 20mp
files, professionally, and their company will pay for
their gear. Who's paying for yours?

Most people blow -their- cash on more machine than
they need–only to get super attached to the huge
amount of money they spent, which prevents them from
upgrading in a timely manner...annnnnd the machine
still ends up being too slow.

Buy middle of the road. Get the 'good' not the
'best'. Spend the money you saved on lenses, and make
better pictures.

I know this will ruffle feathers, mainly because it
goes against the grain, and other's experiences will
differ (maybe you do NEED all the speed possible). I
would recommend that you judge by actually USING the
app, and decide if the difference is really worth the
extra money–instead of being convinced not to buy
'too little machine'

IMO very bad advice. This is an Aperture forum. Aperture wants strong hardware support, with even the very best C2D laptops being limiting to the app. Laptops have always been limiting to heavy graphics apps, and buying anything but close to the highest end laptop at any given point in time for use on heavy graphics apps like Aperture for the next few years is a mistake.

Just peruse the dozens of other threads here to get a feeling for how hardware-hungry Aperture is.
E.g. http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=3497796#3497796.

Who's paying for mine? Me. And it will be the best MBP available ordered with maximum RAM. Even today at version 1.5 Aperture and the OS - with nothing else running - use 2.3 GB of RAM.

Note that files sizes and application demands on hardware have always increased, not decreased over the life of each new box.

There are details of box building to work out by reviewing real test results as they come out from BareFeats over the next couple of weeks, but best choices looking forward for graphics laptops will always be near the top of the line.

-Allen Wicks

I just wanted to
ask the meaning of the Daruma in your avatar.

Ask Apple, it's theirs!
http://discussions.apple.com/avatar-settings.jspa