Nividia Ge Force - question

[fontanka]

Hi, i hope this is the right section for the question :)

What is your opinion on Ge Force 9400M vs Ge Force GT120 performance on iMac (2.66 GHz or 2.93 Ghz, 4g ram, 640gb)?
Is it the right choice at all?

For pro photography (LR, PS) use only (no games etc)?

or: ATI Radeon hd 4850 is the only option?..its plus $300

Thank you!

[shimmishim]

Graphics power isn't that important for rendering 2D pictures.

The 9400M should be more than adequate for photoshop/lightroom/adobe camera raw/aperture/ whatever you use.

Processing power is going to be more important.

Also the 4850 can be had for way less than $200 from places like newegg.com, mwave.com, zipzoomfly.com, tigerdirect.com, etc... video cards tend to be way over priced at brick and mortar stores like best buy.

[fontanka]

thank you:
you know, i assumed the card should be placed by pro. If i'l buy one separately, then i'll get the problem with placing. They say the only non-pro upgrade possible on imac is ram.
p.s. It's just my current pc needs an apgrade and im looking into iMac, since pro series is out of my price range at the moment.

I would hope to use it for photography editing (pro, meaning the speed matters a lot) )for at least 2-3 years, so not sure if GeForce will serve well ...according to the review I’ve read...?

[shimmishim]

I guess it's a matter of which geforce card you're talking about.

All the newer generation cards should be more than adequate for your photographic editing needs. I run a 8800gt and it's more than adequate for what I need to do.

[wlescall]

The iMac does not have an upgradeable graphics card.

Now, after clearing that up; with Snow Leopard only a couple months away, I recommend the 2.93 GHz 24" iMac with the GeForce GT-120. Snow Leopard uses Open CL (http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#opencl) to take advantage of the power of the graphics processor. You may not need it now, but if you get that 1ds mkIV, or 60D, or 70D, or even any of the other mega-megapixel bodies ;) that extra power may come in useful.

If you get the iMac before the official release of Snow Leopard, you can get Snow Leopard for $9.95 (http://www.apple.com/macosx/uptodate/).

[basroil]

The iMac does not have an upgradeable graphics card.

Now, after clearing that up; with Snow Leopard only a couple months away, I recommend the 2.93 GHz 24" iMac with the GeForce GT-120. Snow Leopard uses Open CL (http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#opencl) to take advantage of the power of the graphics processor. You may not need it now, but if you get that 1ds mkIV, or 60D, or 70D, or even any of the other mega-megapixel bodies ;) that extra power may come in useful.

If you get the iMac before the official release of Snow Leopard, you can get Snow Leopard for $9.95 (http://www.apple.com/macosx/uptodate/).

So far no programs take advantage of OpenCL (mainly because it's not even at the 1.0 stage yet), and it will be a long time before they do. 9400m supports CUDA (and therefore ocl), as does the geforce 120, but the 4850 does not (yet). However, getting the 9500 gt (geforce 120) is a good idea, since it's closer to a real graphics card than the integrated graphics level power of the 9400m (well, bit above normal, but still a tiny fraction of the power of even a 260, and actually not much more processing power than a core2). If you do a lot of video though, it's 4850 or bust.

Since OP said he is looking for a new computer, first question is: Is your current computer a mac. If so, geforce 120 or better. If not, forget about the mac and go with a nice i7 system, you can get almost 5x the performance (at least 3x in processing power, for the same price range at least 5x in graphics power).

EDIT:
I guess it's a matter of which geforce card you're talking about.

All the newer generation cards should be more than adequate for your photographic editing needs. I run a 8800gt and it's more than adequate for what I need to do.
8800gt is at least twice as powerful as the geforce 120 despite it's age :rolleyes:

[fontanka]

im pc at the moment looking into my 1st mac. i do mostly wedding photography. post editing take lots of time. i need to upgrade anyways (asap) and since the opportunity came i thougt of imac (once again: pro series is not the option).
my equipment: canon 5d mark ii.

if it helps to clear the picture ;)

well. im leaning tow g force 120...(im so newbuy: it's not even funny).

[basroil]

im pc at the moment looking into my 1st mac. i do mostly wedding photography. post editing take lots of time. i need to upgrade anyways (asap) and since the opportunity came i thougt of imac (once again: pro series is not the option).
my equipment: canon 5d mark ii.

if it helps to clear the picture ;)

well. im leaning tow g force 120...(im so newbuy: it's not even funny).


I'll state it in clear words: Get an i7 based 64bit vista system for the price of a low end imac and reap several times more processing power, which WILL show itself with batch processing you'll likely do. No sense in going mac, spending 20 bucks in shipping costs to get mac version of your photoshop license, and then finding out you could have gotten the power of a mac pro for under 1500.

If you want OSX for other things, look up efix, but still go with i7. I would suggest any non-mac owners to never switch without needing mac-only programs in their workflow (final cut hd is the only thing I can think of right now, may be more, but not too many more).

Best of all, buy a vista computer now and you get a free license for windows 7 when it is released, none of this $10 for a soon to be released upgrade nonsense :D

EDIT: Forgot to say: "If you decide on a mac later on, remember to add the average of about 300 bucks in productivity software you will likely need to replace with mac versions, like office, accounting software, etc. Cost of switching can get very large, especially if you have a lot of programs you would need to switch over or if you have to change your workflow to get around products missing."

[MaxxuM]

If you want a Mac and don’t want to pay a premium for support, design or OS X then you can look into something like this (below). I’m getting to the point of upgrade time for my PC due to work but want the option of a quick shift to a better OS (OS X). This is the best of two worlds IMO and even the PC guys cannot argue :)

EFI-X USB (Internal) Dongle $190 (here (http://www.expresshd.com/p135/EFi-X%E2%84%A2-USB-V1/product_info.html?osCsid=7c915f34ed9cb016099e41caf a9c2c9a)) will allow you to boot into OS X with no hacking on your part. You use it as a boot loader and OS X actually 'thinks' the computer is a Mac. Bad part is that i7 CPU itself is not fully supported yet (this i7 motherboard is however - GA-EX58-UD4P). So, what I'm doing is just buying all the supported hardware (motherboard, video cards, sound cards and so on). Then, when version 2 comes out I'll buy it and then install OS X. I'll save a bit of money (maybe 200-400) but I'll still have a PC to do office work on.

This is how it works. Buy 2+ hard drives, install Windows on one of the drives. Disconnect that drive after you're all done. Place EFI-X on USB port on the motherboard itself (its pretty easy). Reboot with Mac OS X disk in the loader but use the EFI-X as a USB boot device. In the EFI-X boot screen select OS X and it will load the Mac loader. Install OS X. Once you have finished (you can install Linux too this way if you wish) turn off machine then connect the Windows drive back. Reboot and pick EFI-X (set this as the defalt first boot device). A pretty screen will come up with a symbol for every OS you have installed. Next, have fun :)

Now, I would wait until October before doing anything with EFI-X or Apple products. Apple is set to update their iMac line as well as release OS X 10.7. Windows 7 is also coming out which you'll want more than Vista.

If you still want an iMac (and I don't blame you) I would advise waiting until Apple has updated the iMac line (and lowered prices). They may very well add quads and an i7 to their line and make the point moot :)

[basroil]

If you want a Mac and don’t want to pay a premium for support, design or OS X then you can look into something like this (below). I’m getting to the point of upgrade time for my PC due to work but want the option of a quick shift to a better OS (OS X). This is the best of two worlds IMO and even the PC guys cannot argue :)

EFI-X USB (Internal) Dongle $190 (here (http://www.expresshd.com/p135/EFi-X%E2%84%A2-USB-V1/product_info.html?osCsid=7c915f34ed9cb016099e41caf a9c2c9a)) will allow you to boot into OS X with no hacking on your part. You use it as a boot loader and OS X actually 'thinks' the computer is a Mac. Bad part is that i7 CPU itself is not fully supported yet (this i7 motherboard is however - GA-EX58-UD4P). So, what I'm doing is just buying all the supported hardware (motherboard, video cards, sound cards and so on). Then, when version 2 comes out I'll buy it and then install OS X. I'll save a bit of money (maybe 200-400) but I'll still have a PC to do office work on.

This is how it works. Buy 2+ hard drives, install Windows on one of the drives. Disconnect that drive after you're all done. Place EFI-X on USB port on the motherboard itself (its pretty easy). Reboot with Mac OS X disk in the loader but use the EFI-X as a USB boot device. In the EFI-X boot screen select OS X and it will load the Mac loader. Install OS X. Once you have finished (you can install Linux too this way if you wish) turn off machine then connect the Windows drive back. Reboot and pick EFI-X (set this as the defalt first boot device). A pretty screen will come up with a symbol for every OS you have installed. Next, have fun :)

Now, I would wait until October before doing anything with EFI-X or Apple products. Apple is set to update their iMac line as well as release OS X 10.7. Windows 7 is also coming out which you'll want more than Vista.

If you still want an iMac (and I don't blame you) I would advise waiting until Apple has updated the iMac line (and lowered prices). They may very well add quads and an i7 to their line and make the point moot :)

i7 to an imac will be nearly impossible, short of a phase shift cooling option there's no way to fit a 130W heatsink in the space that would be required. core2 quad core s series though... that may very well be possible.

[Tony-S]

i7 to an imac will be nearly impossible,

No it isn't. The Clarksfield processors are due in a few months and those could be implemented in high-end iMacs (although Arrandales are more likely).

[Tony-S]

What is your opinion on Ge Force 9400M vs Ge Force GT120 performance on iMac (2.66 GHz or 2.93 Ghz, 4g ram, 640gb)? Is it the right choice at all?

The GT120, which is effectively an updated GT8600, is better than the 9400m's gpu. Remember, the 9400m is a chipset with its own gpu. If you buy any Mac (other than a Mac Pro) it will have a 9400m on it because that's what controls everything else (memory, hard drives, ethernet, wifi, etc). With the additional gpu you get dedicated RAM and more graphics cores, which will have the potential to be used by OpenCL. Only the MacBook Pro can use both of the gpus - all others use either the 9400m or the dedicated gpu.

For pro photography (LR, PS) use only (no games etc)?

The 9400m is fine for nearly all photo and video work. The limitation will be the cpu speed. Personally, I'd rather invest the money in a faster cpu than a better gpu. However, that may change with Snow Leopard where OpenCL will allow general computing tasks to be performed by the gpu, in which case all bets are off. If you can wait until SL release to make your decision (2 months) then I'd suggest you do that. I'm pretty sure Aperture will be revised to make use of OpenCL since it already uses the gpu for many of its tasks.

or: ATI Radeon hd 4850 is the only option?..its plus $300

Probably overkill for photo work.

[Tony-S]

So far no programs take advantage of OpenCL (mainly because it's not even at the 1.0 stage yet),

Of course no app uses it (other than a few Apple apps) since it's part of Snow Leopard and SL hasn't been released.

and it will be a long time before they do.

You're just speculating. And just how long is "a long time"?

9400m supports CUDA (and therefore ocl), as does the geforce 120, but the 4850 does not (yet).

CUDA is proprietary technology of nVidia. You will never see it on the ATI 4850. However, ATI has their own version of CUDA (FireStream) which is OpenCL compliant. You really don't think Apple would sell technology that didn't support one of their core APIs, do you?

[basroil]

Of course no app uses it (other than a few Apple apps) since it's part of Snow Leopard and SL hasn't been released.



You're just speculating. And just how long is "a long time"?



CUDA is proprietary technology of nVidia. You will never see it on the ATI 4850. However, ATI has their own version of CUDA (FireStream) which is OpenCL compliant. You really don't think Apple would sell technology that didn't support one of their core APIs, do you?

I know CUDA is "C for the Unified Driver Architecture" which means nvidia only. The english language isn't subtle enough to let you distinguish between modifiers for one subject or another, and by context you should have assumed that CUDA modified only nvidia cards and the implied words of "something similar" modified the ati card. And yes, they are somewhat similar, but how they can be used is very different, mainly because of the scale of being parallel processing. Nvidia cards have low SP counts (9400m and 120 have 64, a 260 has 196 or 216, and highest end ones have 240), while ati cards have giant thread counts (3850 has 320, 4850 has 800), so they aren't exactly 1:1 compatible. While they can all handle OCL, the main issue will be how well OCL based programs can manage large SP counts and smaller (but faster) ones as well.

No it isn't. The Clarksfield processors are due in a few months and those could be implemented in high-end iMacs (although Arrandales are more likely).

You mean the laptop based "i7". Then technically yes, but you know that's not what I meant. The laptop i7 chips are not really related to the desktop ones, since they use DMI instead of QPI, support only dual channel ram, no hypertread, 1.6-2.0ghz instead of 2.66-3.32 , etc. iMacs are still limited to 55W max, so if they really wanted to they could have used low voltage xeon MP chips and gotten four core iMacs years ago. The L5410 is quad core and only 380 bucks (about the price a 2.8ghz imac processor would be if it was available to the public). L5300 series is also there, and the list goes back pretty far. One reason I don't see Apple announcing clarksfield processors? They wouldn't be able to demand a modification to it because they are already 35-55W and if they try overclocking they could easily exceed their thermal design specs. If anything, it'll be something based off of the Lynnfield i5 rather than the i7 or i3, since i7 has too much power (cannibalize mac pro orders), and i3's integrated graphics may be too unfashionable compared to even a 9400m.

[wlescall]

So far no programs take advantage of OpenCL (mainly because it's not even at the 1.0 stage yet), and it will be a long time before they do.



Since you apparently have the power to see into the future :rolleyes: , can you tell me the lottery numbers for tonight?

Actually, Snow Leopard won't be released until september.

I think you will find that the next version of Aperture will take even more advantage of Open CL and Grand Central (it already uses the graphics processor to increase speed). I wouldn't be surprised that next Photoshop will also make use of these advances.

[fontanka]

The GT120, which is effectively an updated GT8600, is better than the 9400m's gpu. Remember, the 9400m is a chipset with its own gpu. If you buy any Mac (other than a Mac Pro) it will have a 9400m on it because that's what controls everything else (memory, hard drives, ethernet, wifi, etc). With the additional gpu you get dedicated RAM and more graphics cores, which will have the potential to be used by OpenCL. Only the MacBook Pro can use both of the gpus - all others use either the 9400m or the dedicated gpu.



The 9400m is fine for nearly all photo and video work. The limitation will be the cpu speed. Personally, I'd rather invest the money in a faster cpu than a better gpu. However, that may change with Snow Leopard where OpenCL will allow general computing tasks to be performed by the gpu, in which case all bets are off. If you can wait until SL release to make your decision (2 months) then I'd suggest you do that. I'm pretty sure Aperture will be revised to make use of OpenCL since it already uses the gpu for many of its tasks.



Probably overkill for photo work.

thank you everybody :)

well, to wait makes sense, the only thing: my current pc has problems and to wait even two months might be a mistake.

i guess i'll still go with gt120 on 24 imac.

[basroil]

Since you apparently have the power to see into the future :rolleyes: , can you tell me the lottery numbers for tonight?

Actually, Snow Leopard won't be released until september.

I think you will find that the next version of Aperture will take even more advantage of Open CL and Grand Central (it already uses the graphics processor to increase speed). I wouldn't be surprised that next Photoshop will also make use of these advances.

I dunno, photoshop already makes use of OGL to accelerate rendering and some (very limited) filters. On my i7 rig, ocl type stuff wouldn't really make me edit faster, though I can see it helping on an iMac, since they are horribly underpowered.

And as for the future, random chance changes every time you look forward thanks to quantum mechanics. Luckily, my comments aren't random chance, it is a constrained outlook hypothesizing the non-random thought of other humans. Theoretically we could program a mind reading machine that could tell you exactly what apple will do based on past and current information. Problem is, we have no idea how to program it in such a way... Kind of like the stock markets. They aren't random at all, rather have clear patterns we can't fully see yet (though I've seen some high end models that are pretty damn accurate, and nowhere near random)

thank you everybody :)

well, to wait makes sense, the only thing: my current pc has problems and to wait even two months might be a mistake.

i guess i'll still go with gt120 on 24 imac.

120 would be a good idea, especially if you ever want to add a second monitor, 9400m isn't really a good option for running dual 1920x1200 screens.

I can bet you that if I had a day with your current machine I could get it running faster than ever, and more stable too (though if there's hardware issues involved, it could cost a few bucks to replace them). Try having someone look at it though, even if you get a new computer, two machines are better than one (unless it's two iMacs vs 1 mac pro style comparison).

[nphsbuckeye]

When editing photos, what improvement would a more expensive graphics card bring? Faster preview rendering? I have a $70 card and am not complaining, but just curious as to what a more expensive card offers.

[basroil]

When editing photos, what improvement would a more expensive graphics card bring? Faster preview rendering? I have a $70 card and am not complaining, but just curious as to what a more expensive card offers.

Right now, just that ;)

Cards with larger memory buffers let you open more files in ogl mode in CS4, and more expensive cards (not consumer or gamer cards, professional ones) can actually provide acceleration CS4 above ogl. And good cards can provide better color management services. If you have CS3 or lower, or LR1/2, the only thing you can look forward to is color management.

[MaxxuM]

... see it helping on an iMac, since they are horribly underpowered.

I can bet you that if I had a day with your current machine I could get it running faster than ever, and more stable too (though if there's hardware issues involved, it could cost a few bucks to replace them).

It's always entertaining to read your posts basroil.

[René Damkot]

Let's try to stay on topic, shall we?

[Moppie]

im pc at the moment looking into my 1st mac. i do mostly wedding photography. post editing take lots of time. i need to upgrade anyways (asap) and since the opportunity came i thougt of imac (once again: pro series is not the option).
my equipment: canon 5d mark ii.

if it helps to clear the picture ;)

well. im leaning tow g force 120...(im so newbuy: it's not even funny).

thank you everybody :)

i guess i'll still go with gt120 on 24 imac.



The current 24inch iMac uses an old, laptop based processor.

If your like 90% of the wedding photogs out there then you are shooting large numbers of photos (100-500 or more) per wedding, and need to process a large percentage of them in a short space of time to meet client demands and get proof galleries up quickly to maximise print sales.

An intel Core 2 Duo (the chip used in the iMac) will not handle high volumes (or even low volumes) of 5D MKII files in an effcient manner. There will be slow downs and interuptions to your processing workflow, you will spend lots of time waiting for the computer to process instructions and you will not be able to multi task.
All of the systems resources will be needed to process the photos.
Since we don't know what spec your current computer is, a Core 2 Duo might not even be an upgrade.

Quite simply they are old technology that was out dated before the 5D MKII was even released. The two systems are not well suited to working together, especially in a proffesional environment.

If your at all serious about having an editing system that can match the 5D MKII and allow you an un-interupted workflow, then you need spend a lot more and look at a Mac Pro, or find a local shop who can build you an Intel i7 920 based computer with 6GB of RAM.
This will also allow you to have multiple internal HDD's for back up, and easy connection through eSATA to external discs for remote back ups.

You will also be able to upgrade the HDD's to larger units and add more RAM if needed, especially if the number of megapixels in cameras keeps increasing.

The particular graphics card you use will be largely irellevent regardless of what you buy or get built. Even the most basic cards available are more than enough for working with Photoshop and they all exceed the minimum specs required to use Open GL in CS4.

You only to be weary if your using multiple wide screen monitors. You need to make sure you have a card that will support the full resolution of both monitors. Most of the cards avilable now won't have a problem, but if your unsure check with the supplier.


Quite simply OS-X will not some how make an old, out dated processor work better, neither will any version of Windows.
The core 2 duo chip used in the iMac is a nice laptop processor, but it is old and seriously out dated when compared to current desktop based chips. The iMac was only ever designed to be (and possibly is) the best consumer level computer. It was never intended to be a serious photographic work station and it is poorly suited to the task.

[Tony-S]

An intel Core 2 Duo (the chip used in the iMac) will not handle high volumes (or even low volumes) of 5D MKII files in an effcient manner.

I used to think this too, up until a few weeks ago when someone posted here their experiences with their new iMac. My position was based on my current iMac, a 2.16 gHz Core 2 Duo with an Intel chipset that is now almost 4 years old. Aperture is pretty slow on this computer with my 5Dii raw files. However, after I read about the experiences with a current iMac I'm not so sure it would be all that bad. I checked Geekbench for 10 recent entries each with the following:

Windows (not specified if XP or Vista, or 32 bit or 64 bit) with a 2.4 ghz Q6600 Core 2 Quad
Hackintoshes with a 2.4 ghz Q6600 Core 2 Quad
iMacs with 2.93 ghz E8335 Core 2 Duo

The Geekbench results were all with the 32 bit app (which is free) and here are the means and standard deviations of those 30 computers (higher mean is better):

Win: mean=4210, SD=71
Hac: mean=4851, SD=117
iMac: mean 3978, SD=37

(I should point out these results reflect what I see with my MacBook Pro and Q6600 hackintosh - namely that I get better Geekbench scores booting under OS X than I do booting with Win XP Pro SP3 32-bit.) So while the iMac is the slowest of the computers I don't think it's all that far behind the Windows computers with Q6600 cpus in them. Of course, this does not reflect the use of Photoshop, Aperture or Lightroom, nor does it take into account the higher cost of the 24" iMac (even when pairing a Win/Hac box with a 24" H-IPS display and all the other bells and whistles that come with the iMac), but I suspect that the 2.93 ghz iMac is much better than I suspected. I think a lot of this has to do with the nVidia 9400m chipset that runs the iMac, which is really quite a piece of engineering.

[Moppie]

I think it is a problem with benchmarking. It never truely reflects how a computer is used and most of the tests were designed to run on Pentium 1s and 2s. They are simply un-able to handle multi core systems very well, or have problems with a bottle neck else where in the system, for example HDD or BUS.

I've spent several hours processing a photo shoot on my Q6600, then a similar amount of time with an Apple Mac instructor using his 2.4ghz Macbook Pro to work on the same photos.
The Macbook performed reasonably well, I would say it performed about 90% as well as my desktop when just editing photos. There were some slow downs, and it did have issues with lots of 16bit TIFFs, but for RAW and JPEG work using files from my 30D it was acceptable (the owner claims files from his 5D MKII are also easy to work with, when handled in small numbers, or one at a time).
The problem came when tring to multi task.
If apature and CS4 were both working on something then switching between, or opening a 3rd app caused problems. There were definite delays and slow downs and I could not work the same way I do on my desktop.

This is not just a problem for the iMac (Which has other issues, like a single HDD etc) but a problem for any core 2 duo computer, laptop or desktop.
I work on a core 2 duo 2.6ghz desktop most days at work, and find similar problems with multi tasking that I had with the Macbook.
There is simply a limit to how much work the hardware can do.

[fontanka]

...120 would be a good idea, especially if you ever want to add a second monitor, 9400m isn't really a good option for running dual 1920x1200 screens.

I can bet you that if I had a day with your current machine I could get it running faster than ever, and more stable too (though if there's hardware issues involved, it could cost a few bucks to replace them). Try having someone look at it though, even if you get a new computer, two machines are better than one (unless it's two iMacs vs 1 mac pro style comparison).
u know: it's my 3rd buy since i've started having anything in common with the computers 11 years ago. Meaning: i've always had my very close somebody to take care of it. But at the moment times had changed and in order to build my own pc i have to ask people give me a favor: investing their time etc. I will surely keep both of them: my current pc and my soon to be mac on the same desk :) I'll use one for photography work and the other for the rest (i hope it doesn’t sound too lame :)).

[fontanka]

The current 24inch iMac uses an old, laptop based processor.

If your like 90% of the wedding photogs out there then you are shooting large numbers of photos (100-500 or more) per wedding, and need to process a large percentage of them in a short space of time to meet client demands and get proof galleries up quickly to maximise print sales.

An intel Core 2 Duo (the chip used in the iMac) will not handle high volumes (or even low volumes) of 5D MKII files in an effcient manner. There will be slow downs and interuptions to your processing workflow, you will spend lots of time waiting for the computer to process instructions and you will not be able to multi task.
All of the systems resources will be needed to process the photos.
Since we don't know what spec your current computer is, a Core 2 Duo might not even be an upgrade.

Quite simply they are old technology that was out dated before the 5D MKII was even released. The two systems are not well suited to working together, especially in a proffesional environment.

If your at all serious about having an editing system that can match the 5D MKII and allow you an un-interupted workflow, then you need spend a lot more and look at a Mac Pro, or find a local shop who can build you an Intel i7 920 based computer with 6GB of RAM.
This will also allow you to have multiple internal HDD's for back up, and easy connection through eSATA to external discs for remote back ups.

You will also be able to upgrade the HDD's to larger units and add more RAM if needed, especially if the number of megapixels in cameras keeps increasing.

The particular graphics card you use will be largely irellevent regardless of what you buy or get built. Even the most basic cards available are more than enough for working with Photoshop and they all exceed the minimum specs required to use Open GL in CS4.

You only to be weary if your using multiple wide screen monitors. You need to make sure you have a card that will support the full resolution of both monitors. Most of the cards avilable now won't have a problem, but if your unsure check with the supplier.


Quite simply OS-X will not some how make an old, out dated processor work better, neither will any version of Windows.
The core 2 duo chip used in the iMac is a nice laptop processor, but it is old and seriously out dated when compared to current desktop based chips. The iMac was only ever designed to be (and possibly is) the best consumer level computer. It was never intended to be a serious photographic work station and it is poorly suited to the task.
thank you for ur opinion: i appreciate it and i get ur idea, but: i can not afford pro series (as i've mentioned before). The simplest one mac pro is 2.5K and i dont see the point having this one. The one i would need is 5-6K - not my price range at the moment. Unfortunately, but true...

[NZDoug]

I dont know anyone who went from mac to pc
,
I mac since 1989

[Moppie]

The simplest one mac pro is 2.5K and i dont see the point having this one. The one i would need is 5-6K - not my price range at the moment. Unfortunately, but true...

But you could get a local shop (or an online if your somewhere really remote) to build you a really, really nice, silent reliable i7 based rig for well under US$2,000. It will perform better than the base model Mac Pro and 3-5 times better than an iMac.

[MaxxuM]

thank you for ur opinion: i appreciate it and i get ur idea, but: i can not afford pro series (as i've mentioned before). The simplest one mac pro is 2.5K and i dont see the point having this one. The one i would need is 5-6K - not my price range at the moment. Unfortunately, but true...

I didn't see it written in this post, but if you have a Best Buy or Apple store near by why not just take your camera over there, take some pictures in the store of shelves then upload them onto one of the iMac's? I've done this before (to see how Aperture worked on an iMac 3Ghz for my daughter). The sales person just punched up the pass and let me go - looking over my sholder of course. These show case Mac's usually have everything installed, even Windows Vista via VMWare, but if they don't at least you'll be able to use iPhoto. This will show if the speed issue is actually an 'issue' for you.

I can guarantee however, in PSCS4 files under 500MB will not be any problem because they're not on my MacBook Pro 2.5Ghz. Over that and it really depends on what you're doing (layers mainly). I batch process sometimes thousands of photo's on my MBP and I've never felt that I was being held back (resize tiffs, add boarders, shrink 89% and then send to Picasa to make a couple hundred DVD photo albums for the kids - burning id of course done on multi-burner :) ).

[Moppie]

I batch process sometimes thousands of photo's on my MBP and I've never felt that I was being held back (resize tiffs, add boarders, shrink 89% and then send to Picasa to make a couple hundred DVD photo albums for the kids - burning id of course done on multi-burner :) ).


Big difference between batching files from your 40D and files from a 5D MKII :cool:

Also a big difference between just being able to process lots of photos and being able to process lots of photos while doing other things at the same time.

[MaxxuM]

Big difference between batching files from your 40D and files from a 5D MKII :cool:

Also a big difference between just being able to process lots of photos and being able to process lots of photos while doing other things at the same time.

I found some 5DMKII sample's on the net - they are on average 24-26MB each. My 40D's RAW files are around 10-12MB. I exported both; RAW to TIFF 16-bit and resized to 1024x1024. The 5D files took on average of 4.7 seconds to convert while mine took 3.3 seconds each. This is hardly scientific; times were measured with a iPhone and tried 3 times with three different files for each RAW file using Aperture 2.1.3. The second test was to watch a 720p movie while Aperture processed 20 photos (10/10 RAW) - no noticeable degradation in the movie. I did notice increased times for thumbnail and preview creation, but there did not seem to be any difference in editing. Cloning (usually the most intensive action that I use) was smooth as was editing color, blacks, sharpening, noise removal...

The way people were making it sound was an iMac would not be able to process 5D files within a reasonable amount of time if even at all. Would an i7 or even quad be faster, ummm YES. No one was arguing that. For me, 11.6 minutes is not going to make or break the schedule (time difference to process 500 photos). Tests were done on a MacBook Pro, Early 2008 model, 2.5Ghz, 4GB RAM - open programs during all tests was Aperture, VLC, Little Snitch, Spyder Color, Firefox 3.5.1, iTunes (was listening to music the entire time) and Mail.

[Moppie]

I would be interested in how long those 5D MKII files taken to convert on a Mac Pro.

I think you will find it is almost instant, prehaps 1 sec per file.
That is 40 minutes difference over 500 files :)

There is more to just converting them, there is time to open and save in photoshop, working on each file, batch to smaller JPEG for proofing etc.

If you save 4 seconds over 3 different process's you have just saved over an hour in time, not to mention not having to wait between each of those processes.


I'm not doubting that an iMac can work on 5D MKII files, but for the same money you can get a rig with considerably more performance that will work several times better, and have allow you to do other things, that the iMac, by limitation of its formfactor is unable to do.

[MaxxuM]

I would be interested in how long those 5D MKII files taken to convert on a Mac Pro.

I think you will find it is almost instant, prehaps 1 sec per file.
That is 40 minutes difference over 500 files :)

There is more to just converting them, there is time to open and save in photoshop, working on each file, batch to smaller JPEG for proofing etc.

If you save 4 seconds over 3 different process's you have just saved over an hour in time, not to mention not having to wait between each of those processes.


I'm not doubting that an iMac can work on 5D MKII files, but for the same money you can get a rig with considerably more performance that will work several times better, and have allow you to do other things, that the iMac, by limitation of its formfactor is unable to do.

Yea, I purposely left that part out ;)

I tossed the files onto a USB and tried them out on my Mac Pro... I couldn't measure the time. As soon as I hit Export Version I didn't have time to hit the stop button on the iPhone. It took less than a second. All 10 5DMKII RAW files were exported in about 10 seconds. There probably is some latency between drive's kicking on, HDD cache and both CPU caches because the second time I exported (to a new folder) I took less than 5 seconds.

And as far as editing, I didn't see any real measurable difference. Every tool/action was responsive and not in the least laggy. However, this is likely because Aperture is caching as much as possible as I did see more the program using more memory than usual. I would not recommend getting any less than 4GB RAM and if possible 6 or 8GB if you're going to use a laptop or iMac. I didn't test in LR which from what I hear is a tad faster than Aperture - but I haven't personally tested this.

I typically take from 200-500 photos per week, discuard about half, edit those that are left, then of all of those only select about 10-20 for publication. Over 30 or so weeks combined with group photos (about another 200) and that's what I have at the end of the year photo wise to batch process. I don't see the 5DMKII impacting me personally very much, if at all. Someone that is taking 2000-3000 photos a week - well, I would highly recommend a Mac Pro or Dell Workstaion.

As far as the 5DMKII's video, I didn't find any full size clips, but I doubt they would be any different to edit than the XL H1A and XH A1 we use at work. Editing HD video is as can be expected on any dual core - low to medium preview with limited effect previews. Even on my home 3Ghz (not over clocked atm) working with HD video can be taxing. The only computer I can comfortably work on is my Mac Pro - however even the Mac Pro can be pushed beyond it's limits and start skipping when working with four camera's, 3D Motion, Shake and 5.1 projects! I'll be upgrading to the new Mac Pro as soon as 10.6 comes out and I can wrangle a deal out of our district sales representative. :D

[Moppie]

ROFLOL!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[fontanka]

ok, i still got 24/2.93/4/640/gt120. As for the multiprocessing: I am going to use pc for internet and fun stuff and mac mainly for photography. It might not be the best decision, byt it somehow gives a break to each of my computers :) I have them both on my deck and so far it works J

Well, once im in a position to get mac pro - i'll be happy to, but as i mentioned not at the moment :).

Also: to build up new pc is great idea, but: friends are out of question and store people: best buy etc - i never used them and don't really want to: it's like going to the body shop and shop for car part: i have no idea what will work better and what is just being bs.

Thank you everybody...again! :)

[basroil]

Also: to build up new pc is great idea, but: friends are out of question and store people: best buy etc - i never used them and don't really want to: it's like going to the body shop and shop for car part: i have no idea what will work better and what is just being bs.

Thank you everybody...again! :)

In general, all major brands are very compatible in quality. When you talk about Dell, HP, Apple, Acer, etc, each and every one of those companies will give you quality products. Dell and HP also have fairly unmoderated user reviews sections so you can see what other people think about certain lines and products (here's to hoping Apple does the same in the future, and like Dell makes it open only to people who have purchased a product online through them). Best Buy and other major stores don't make their own computers, just resale major brands (Again, you can see they sell Apple, HP, Dell, Sony, etc), and going with one of the major brands will get you what you want without too many issues (occasionally all brands make mistakes and release a clunker, and they end up pulling the item or fixing it). And of course, there are plenty of hardware review sites (like tom's hardware, hot hardware, etc) that can help you chose computers and accessories (some have Apple reviews as well so you can see how your configuration stacks up to a Mac Pro; and plenty of external drive comparisons with firewire, esata, and usb 2). When your old computer needs a fixing, be sure to check those sites out to see if there's a cheap solution (like turning it into a server or even a router :D).

Until your next upgrade (and who knows when that might be), that computer pair should do everything you need it to. And if you decide to use two computers one at a time, learn to put one in sleep mode while you use the other, it'll save a ton of money on your electrical bill ;) (I have three, my laptop running as a media center, old p4 as a home server, and my new desktop as my workhorse; usually only one on, and at most two are on; even then the electrical bill is about 10 bucks higher than before)

[fontanka]

thank you, especially for web sites info! :)

p.s. well, my electrical bill is so high: $10 will not make any difference lol. But i'll keep it in mind :).