Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Computers
Thread started 05 Jul 2013 (Friday) 16:27
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Is this Macbook Pro powerful enough for Lightroom and CS6

 
TheArchitect
Senior Member
TheArchitect's Avatar
326 posts
Joined May 2009
Jul 05, 2013 16:27 |  #1

Hello all. I'm hoping for a little advice on my next computer. I'm looking at a MBP with a Thunderbolt display.

Would the following spec'd MBP be enough for running Lightroom 4 and CS6? I'm not talking about meeting minimum requirements; I'm talking enough power for the software to run smoothly and quickly. Is that video card powerful enough?

15" MBP
2.7 GHz quad core i7
16GB 1600 MHz ram
NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with 1GB GDDR5 memory
512GB flash storage

The other option would be a 27" iMac. It would be more powerful and cheaper but I'd prefer a MBP.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Tony-S's Avatar
9,881 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Jul 05, 2013 17:48 |  #2

For Lightroom and Photoshop, the video card has very little to do with image processing. But that computer should be overkill for 50D files.

And I would take a Mac Mini over an iMac.


"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.

LOG IN TO REPLY
icacphotography
Senior Member
612 posts
Joined Jan 2013
Niagara Region Canada
Jul 05, 2013 17:54 |  #3

Tony-S wrote in post #16094703external link
For Lightroom and Photoshop, the video card has very little to do with image processing. But that computer should be overkill for 50D files.

And I would take a Mac Mini over an iMac.

This. What you need when processing images is lots of floating point power in the cpu as that's what image manipulation relies on you also want lots of ram and hard drive space. outside of that nothing else really matters. I personally edit my images on my current laptop which is an Alienware M14X R1. Yes it is overkill for image editing (which I could get away with doing on a $500 cheapie HP or Dell or Acer just as easily) but I also game on it and do 3D CAD stuff. Basically if all you're doing is editing you're buying WAY too much machine.


Body:50D gripped Magic Lantern'd
Lenses:50mm 1.8,40mm 2.8,28-105 USM II,70-210 F4, 1962 Asahi Pentax Super Takumar 55mm 1.8
Flash: Canon 430 EX
The camera is just a tool - it is not responsible for the picture.

LOG IN TO REPLY
ShotByTom
Goldmember
ShotByTom's Avatar
2,926 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Indianapolis
Jul 05, 2013 18:01 |  #4

Tony-S wrote in post #16094703external link
For Lightroom and Photoshop, the video card has very little to do with image processing. But that computer should be overkill for 50D files.

And I would take a Mac Mini over an iMac.

Why would you take a mini over an iMac?


Gear
Websiteexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
TheArchitect
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
TheArchitect's Avatar
326 posts
Joined May 2009
Jul 05, 2013 19:52 |  #5

Tony-S wrote in post #16094703external link
For Lightroom and Photoshop, the video card has very little to do with image processing. But that computer should be overkill for 50D files.

And I would take a Mac Mini over an iMac.

The 50D is soon to be replaced with a 5D3.

I have the same question as ShotbyTom. Why a Mac Mini?




LOG IN TO REPLY
TheArchitect
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
TheArchitect's Avatar
326 posts
Joined May 2009
Jul 05, 2013 20:04 |  #6

icacphotography wrote in post #16094719external link
This. What you need when processing images is lots of floating point power in the cpu as that's what image manipulation relies on you also want lots of ram and hard drive space. outside of that nothing else really matters. I personally edit my images on my current laptop which is an Alienware M14X R1. Yes it is overkill for image editing (which I could get away with doing on a $500 cheapie HP or Dell or Acer just as easily) but I also game on it and do 3D CAD stuff. Basically if all you're doing is editing you're buying WAY too much machine.

I figured I wouldn't list everything I'd be doing with it but it will be used for more than image editing. Video editing and graphics creation in CS6, amongst other things. Plus, I tend to buy the most powerful machine I can afford and keep it for a longer time before upgrading again.




LOG IN TO REPLY
icacphotography
Senior Member
612 posts
Joined Jan 2013
Niagara Region Canada
Jul 05, 2013 20:14 |  #7

Makes sense I usually do the same. With doing video editing and and graphics creation you're still dependent on CPU power and RAM more than anything else.


Body:50D gripped Magic Lantern'd
Lenses:50mm 1.8,40mm 2.8,28-105 USM II,70-210 F4, 1962 Asahi Pentax Super Takumar 55mm 1.8
Flash: Canon 430 EX
The camera is just a tool - it is not responsible for the picture.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Tony-S's Avatar
9,881 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Jul 05, 2013 20:47 |  #8

TheArchitect wrote in post #16094927external link
The 50D is soon to be replaced with a 5D3. I have the same question as ShotbyTom. Why a Mac Mini?

I have a 5D Mark II (~26 mb files), Fuji X-E1 (~25 mb files), Sigma DP1 Merrill and DP3 Merrill (~50 mb files), and shoot film up to 4x5" (which are 320 mb files when scanned as 16-bit TIFFs at ~12,000 x 9,600 ppi) and my 2012 Ivy Bridge quad-core i7 Mac Mini renders those images in real time using Aperture (as does the Nik suite). This is one area where Aperture is much better than Lightroom because Aperture uses the gpu and the integrated HD4000 gpu that comes with the Ivy Bridge Mini is a significant improvement over Intel's previous gpu technology. Pixelmator also uses the gpu and is the fastest bit-mapped image editing program you can buy (I have Photoshop CS5 but rarely use it).

The reasons for the top end Mini over an iMac are:

1. You can use nearly any display you want. I have a 27" Apple display for my Mac Pro 12-core at work, but the glossy display and LED backlight limit its usefulness for photography. So I am still using my 24" HP S-IPS matte display, which covers all of sRGB and about 95% of Adobe RGB and has CFL backlighting. For photo work, most photographers agree that matte is better than glossy, which is what you would get with an iMac.

2. The Mac Mini is relatively easy to upgrade. I bought the top-end 2.6 gHz quad-core i7 with the 1 TB spinning hard drive. I spent another $300 to buy a 240 GB 6GB/s SSD and the Data Doubler from OWC and installed it along with the 1 TB spinning drive. I then initialized the drive as a 1.24 TB Fusion drive and it is quite a bit faster now since Apple's Fusion driver is very good - much better than those hybrid drives you can buy from Seagate or Western Digital. Adding a second hard drive to an iMac is dicy work - I sure wouldn't attempt it.

3. The Mac Mini has a Firewire 800 port; the iMac does not.

4. You can upgrade the Mac Mini to 16 GB in about 5 minutes. You can upgrade the RAM in the 27" iMac, but not the 21" iMac.


"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.

LOG IN TO REPLY
yuribox
Senior Member
257 posts
Joined Mar 2009
Jul 05, 2013 20:59 |  #9

I have 15" MBP with Retina, 8GB RAM.
I do process 5D3 and Nikon D4 image on it and not having any problem with it.


1Ds IR, 5DIII, 1DIII, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200, TS-E24, 40, 50, 85, 100, MP-E65

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tareq
"I am very lazy, a normal consumer"
Tareq's Avatar
17,669 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Jan 2006
Ajman - UAE
Jul 05, 2013 22:47 |  #10

I still use old Mac Mini[core 2 duo + 8GB + 512GB Samsung 840 Pro] and never felt i want to get an iMac, and that oldie Mac Mini is connected to a 30" Apple Cinema Display old one too, matte, couldn't be happier, later if that monitor die then i will try to depend on my Eizo 22" until i can afford a better large monitor such as Eizo 27" or NEC 30" or even Dell US 27-30".


Galleries:
http://hamrani.deviant​art.com/gallery/external link
Gear List
Facebookexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
TheArchitect
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
TheArchitect's Avatar
326 posts
Joined May 2009
Jul 06, 2013 07:41 |  #11

Thanks for the replies. I still want the portability of a laptop but after this I need to look seriously at a Mini as an option.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

1,499 views & 0 likes for this thread
Is this Macbook Pro powerful enough for Lightroom and CS6
FORUMS General Gear Talk Computers


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00141 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.05s
Latest registered member is J4T4lyfe
763 guests, 314 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016