Hey Andy, check it:

[CatOne]

http://blloyd.smugmug.com/photos/146657557-O.png

:wink

[Andy]

Hey Bill:

:flip

:pissed

Sigh.

[dogwood]

http://blloyd.smugmug.com/photos/146657557-O.png

:wink

Looks like a pretty smokin' ride-- and I'm a PC guy through and through. Set-up like yours could convince me to jump ship though... How's it run?

[noeltykay]

http://blloyd.smugmug.com/photos/146657557-O.png

:wink

Hey CatOne...FYYFF!!! :wink

[ccpickre]

I smell photo manipulation, check the file info :D

[CatOne]

I smell photo manipulation, check the file info :D

Nah, no manipulation. Just an older photo that I cropped to remove the background. Can't re-take the photo right now because the security update changed the dialog to say 2 x unknown CPU. Nice bug :huh

[CatOne]

Looks like a pretty smokin' ride-- and I'm a PC guy through and through. Set-up like yours could convince me to jump ship though... How's it run?

Was it Jim Carrey that said SSSSSSSSSMOKIN'! ?

It's quick. I don't have CS3 yet so I haven't put it through those paces. Waiting on CS3 but I'm getting a hook-up on it and these things take a little longer than purchasing at retail. Looking forward to it though... it sure runs Aperture real-nice-like :-)

[wxwax]

Was it Jim Carrey that said SSSSSSSSSMOKIN'! ?

It's quick. I don't have CS3 yet so I haven't put it through those paces. Waiting on CS3 but I'm getting a hook-up on it and these things take a little longer than purchasing at retail. Looking forward to it though... it sure runs Aperture real-nice-like :-)
Compared to which machine does it feel fast? A four core Mac Pro?

[Nikolai]

Compared to which machine does it feel fast? A four core Mac Pro?
To an HP graphing calculator? :wink :lol3

[JohnR]

Nice! Which video card did you get in it?

[CatOne]

Compared to which machine does it feel fast? A four core Mac Pro?

Yeah, it's a fair bit quicker than the Quad 2.5 GHz G5 it replaced.

Oh, and about 20 dB quieter as well.

It has the X1900XT graphics card... as that's WAY better for Aperture and Motion than the stock 7300GT. For Photoshop it won't be any faster, given Photoshop doesn't use the GPU at all.

[CatOne]

To an HP graphing calculator? :wink :lol3

It would probably run star explorer so fast the photos would be tagged before you hit the button... if you were wont to disgrace it with that gnarsty OS :wink

[Nikolai]

It would probably run star explorer so fast the photos would be tagged before you hit the button... if you were wont to disgrace it with that gnarsty OS :wink
Man, get the Parallels, get S*E - and I'll give you a free upgrade:-) :deal

[wxwax]

It has the X1900XT graphics card... as that's WAY better for Aperture and Motion than the stock 7300GT. For Photoshop it won't be any faster, given Photoshop doesn't use the GPU at all.
How about for Lightroom?

[CatOne]

How about for Lightroom?

Lightroom? Whassat?!

:D

Not sure yet. I'm waiting on my copy of that. I still prefer Aperture (given it's what I've used, and I got a lot of time to look at both on the Antarctica trip), but as I have a few friends at Adobe it's worth it for me to get LR at the employee price as a hedge :wink

I could probably try the eval version on this machine while I wait. I suspect it's quick though.

CS3 looks like will be arriving for me in the next week or so. Should be fun.

[wxwax]

Thanks. My inquiry is mostly academic, with a bit of masochism thrown in. I'll probably buy a 2.66 Mac Pro soon, and was wondering how much faster the Octo was for photo work (not video.) Your note on the graphics card caught my attention, as I'd been under the impression that for stills, the card didn't make much difference.

[DavidTO]

Thanks. My inquiry is mostly academic, with a bit of masochism thrown in. I'll probably buy a 2.66 Mac Pro soon, and was wondering how much faster the Octo was for photo work (not video.) Your note on the graphics card caught my attention, as I'd been under the impression that for stills, the card didn't make much difference.


Aperture makes heavy use of the graphics card. That aside, you can safely not worry about the graphics card. It's a mark against Aperture, IMO.

[wxwax]

Aperture makes heavy use of the graphics card. That aside, you can safely not worry about the graphics card. It's a mark against Aperture, IMO.
Thanks, David. Against my better judgment, I ordered a copy of Lightroom yesterday.

[CatOne]

Thanks, David. Against my better judgment, I ordered a copy of Lightroom yesterday.

You'll like it -- it's a good piece of software. On the Antarctica trip all the pros (Reichmann, Resnick, Schewe, Caponigro, Atkinson) were involved in the development of LR. I got to see them use it, and it works very well. Its strength is keywording and editing.

Aperture's organizational features (stacks, etc.) are far ahead of Lightroom. LR does have stacks, but they're just nowhere near as advanced as Apertures. But LR's editing is quite good, and some things like the targeted adjustment tool are fantastic. LR finally got the healing and clone stamp stuff, and it's very nice. The only functionality in LR that still stinks from an editing perspective is sharpening. It's just not good right now -- Aperture's edge sharpening is far ahead. That said, I believe LR will be getting the Photokit Sharpener tools integrated into 1.1 so that should improve.

Sharpening aside, the quality of images you can get out of Aperture or LR are now pretty similar. But the tools in LR will be more familiar to a Photoshop user -- they have curves (and curves that are superior to those in Photoshop CS2 (CS3 is better) with info on all the zones and the TAT -- where Aperture has levels with quarter tone sliders -- and the darned sliders I'm *still* not totally comfortable with after 1.5 years. I can get decent results but I'm always a bit in the dark about how I actually am getting what I want out of the tool. Curves, while complicated, are at least well documented :scratch

[W.W. Webster]

Against my better judgment, I ordered a copy of Lightroom yesterday.:huh Good move, I don't think you'll be disappointed!

[ccpickre]

20dB quieter? I have 2.3 Duo and mine is fairly silent.

[CatOne]

20dB quieter? I have 2.3 Duo and mine is fairly silent.

The Quad 2.5 G5 was loud. A lot louder than the dual 2.5 it replaced. It had a fairly constant hum. It may have been the gigantic Delco-manufactured liquid cooling apparatus -- I'm not sure. I'd say it's *easily* 15 dB difference... and it could well be 20.

I don't know if the dual 2.3 is liquid cooled? In fact that only uses a single CPU package, right? It's a dual core processor? A lot less going on in that box than in the Quad G5.

[ian408]

i priced a machine out the other day....almost passed out from the sticker
shock...

[DavidTO]

i priced a machine out the other day....almost passed out from the sticker
shock...


? Why? What was in the package?

[ian408]

? Why? What was in the package?


2x 3G dual core, 2x 500g drives, 4g memory. standard graphics, wireless
kybd/mouse, wireless card.

[DavidTO]

2x 3G dual core, 2x 500g drives, 4g memory. standard graphics, wireless
kybd/mouse, wireless card.


Oh. K. More bang than you need, most likely. The 2.66 core duo should be fine! :D And a lot cheaper. But it's always fun to look in the showroom and run the numbers.

[ian408]

Oh. K. More bang than you need, most likely. The 2.66 core duo should be fine! :D And a lot cheaper. But it's always fun to look in the showroom and run the numbers.

Yeah. The 2.6 is probably more than I need but I'm looking 3yrs out too.

Not to mention, the disks and memory are available for way less money
elsewhere.

[ccpickre]

The Quad 2.5 G5 was loud. A lot louder than the dual 2.5 it replaced. It had a fairly constant hum. It may have been the gigantic Delco-manufactured liquid cooling apparatus -- I'm not sure. I'd say it's *easily* 15 dB difference... and it could well be 20.

I don't know if the dual 2.3 is liquid cooled? In fact that only uses a single CPU package, right? It's a dual core processor? A lot less going on in that box than in the Quad G5.

Yes. I am ashamed :cry

And I thin kit's just a fan :cry I'm not worthy :cry

[wxwax]

Yeah. The 2.6 is probably more than I need but I'm looking 3yrs out too.

Not to mention, the disks and memory are available for way less money
elsewhere.
You know more than I about these machines.

But here's where my thinking is at the moment: there's not much point in going top shelf and thinking three years out, because by then even the cheap machines will outpace a three year old design. So unless one needs super-duper power right now, a low to medium price machine, with an expected lifespan of 2-4 years, is the way to go. Sounds insane, but there it is.

So I'm looking at a refurb 2.66 (suddenly scarer than hen's teeth) with after-market memory and hard drives. Even that's going to be more than I want to spend. But I went the cheap route last time, and I want to try the middle road this time.

[DavidTO]

Sid,

That makes sense to me.

[ian408]

Nothing wrong with your thinking Sid. My basis is watching what's come out in the last little while whittle away at performance. I suppose one could "upgrade" at a later time but that is often throwing good money after bad--ie; you're at the end of the useful life and trying to spark up the old ghost with a hardware refresh.

The really hard part for me is that I understand how performance works in the windoze world but not mac. In other words, the windows/linux community is well beyond 2.6G processors (we are buying 3.0G for blades--sometimes 3.2 but that is rare).

[CatOne]

...

The really hard part for me is that I understand how performance works in the windoze world but not mac. In other words, the windows/linux community is well beyond 2.6G processors (we are buying 3.0G for blades--sometimes 3.2 but that is rare).

Ian, it depends on what processors you're looking at. A 2.66 GHz Xeon "Woodcrest" processor is substantially faster for a "market basket" of benchmarks than a 3.8 GHz Pentium 4. Intel made a marked shift from cranking up the MHz to more balanced, multi-core CPUs about 18 months ago. Since then, they have been absolutely pummeling AMD on performance in every benchmark. In fact it's not even close right now -- AND Intel is leading the wattage game as well.

So those CPUs you're using in your blades, who knows how fast they really are, and if they're multiple core (without knowing specifics I can't tell). But one of the main things about blades is that they are VERY high density, and they have REAL challenges with heat. Often they use slower CPUs, so a 3 GHz chip there is actually pretty aggressive.

Also, the 2.66 GHz Xeons that Sid is talking about aren't the fastest ones you can get in a Mac Pro. You can get them up to 3 GHz, and in fact you can get 3 GHz Quad Core CPUs (see my post that started this thread ;-) I have 8 CPU cores running at 3 GHz in this machine... if you used simple math I'm running with 24 GHz of computing power (it's not that simple though). The Woodcrest and (or Clovertown, which is the 4-core variant of same) are the fastest server CPUs that Intel offers at the moment. Most of the chips the Intel vendors are using for desktops (Dell, Alienware, Falcon Northwest, etc.) actually Conroe chips, which have a slower bus speed and which can only handle a single package on a motherboard.

Anyway back to your note... Apple offers 3 GHz versions of the Mac Pro, but they're more expensive than the 2.66 GHz chips. Sid is trying to optimize not just for performance, but for price/performance. Me, I'm a "damn the torpedoes!" kind of guy :D :D

[ian408]

The short answer is I'm sure I'm comparing apples to apples (xeon to xeon,
dual core to dual core).