Mac Pro

Hi again,

I am closer to go with Mac Pro when i get the budget soon, so until that time i am not deciding yet which model i should get, if you are going to choose, what will be your decision of choice?

Option or Machine 1:
Mac Pro Quad Core, one 3.2GHz Intel Xeon W3565 Processor
6GB RAM - 1TB HDD - Bluetooth - Airport
18x double Layer superDrive
ATI Radeon HD5770 With 1GB
USB keyboard and Magic mouse

Option/Machine 2:
Mac Pro 12-core Two 2.4GHz Intel Xeon E5645 Processor
12GB RAM - 1TB HDD - Bluetooth - Airport
18x dou.....
ATI Radeon HD5770 with 1GB
keyboard + magic mouse

Those are the two machine they have ready, and i think they are up to date, means i think they are all with Mountain Lion, i can upgrade any of those two if i go with one of them with more addition price, but if i have to choose one, which one is recommended to go with?

I got some told me to go with first option but with more RAM such as 12 or 16GB, i want the machine for PS work and handling my Hassy H4D-60 and doing some panos and gigaz shots too.

A current-gen, decked-out 27-inch iMac is going to be WAY faster than the first one and (due to the higher clock speed) faster than the second as well unless you happen to actually need 12 cores.

Now is not the time to buy a Mac Pro.

Mac Pro long overdue for a refresh

So i should wait a bit then?

I don't like iMAC, i have Apple Cinema Display 30" and Eizo 22" ColorEdge, so i don't want to through them away or aside with iMAC screen and i am not yet going with dual monitors, suprising why Apple didn't updated their Mac Pro to outperform those iMac ones if so.

Yes, definitely wait a bit, Tareq. I would keep an eye on MacRumors' Buying Guide.
And the forum is great as well.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #15070676
Yes, definitely wait a bit, Tareq. I would keep an eye on MacRumors' Buying Guide.
And the forum is great as well.

Even i don't like to wait longer but sounds i should wait anyway, i will keep my eyes on those rumors or any announcement by Apple, hope the wait will worth it.

I don't want to get iMac now to wait for Mac Pro, so what i can do until that new Mac Pro will be out? My Mac Mini is not so powerful for photoshop work as you all know, and both of my MBPs are handling the workflow to the edge roughly, so i will be like sitting on fire waiting for rains or cold, I was so closer to go with one of those Mac Pros but you awake me up to wait.

I thought that XEON is faster than i7 itself, also i was going to add SSD drive in one of those Mac Pros for faster booting, didn't know that current iMac models are poweful for workflow on par with Mac Pros.

Tareq wrote in post #15070788
I thought that XEON is faster than i7 itself, also i was going to add SSD drive in one of those Mac Pros for faster booting, didn't know that current iMac models are poweful for workflow on par with Mac Pros.

Xeon is just Intel's product line geared towards high-end workstations and servers. It doesn't mean they're faster. In fact, most are clocked slower because they've got more cores instead (like the dual hex-core in your higher model).

The CPUs you mentioned were released in Q4-2009 and Q1-2010. Compared to the 3rd Gen i5/i7 CPUs in the newest iMac (I believe the 3.4GHz model is a i7-3770 from Q2-2012) they're dinosaurs.

I've been giving iMacs to all my photo & video guys for the past year or so and haven't had a single complaint.

jasonlitka wrote in post #15070853
Xeon is just Intel's product line geared towards high-end workstations and servers. It doesn't mean they're faster. In fact, most are clocked slower because they've got more cores instead (like the dual hex-core in your higher model).

The CPUs you mentioned were released in Q4-2009 and Q1-2010. Compared to the 3rd Gen i5/i7 CPUs in the newest iMac (I believe the 3.4GHz model is a i7-3770 from Q2-2012) they're dinosaurs.

I've been giving iMacs to all my photo & video guys for the past year or so and haven't had a single complaint.

Should i try to go to the store and test both the iMac and Mac Pro with photo files? I will try to process H4D-60mp files and also converting to 16bit TIFF and also do some panos shots and see how both machines performs, i am not going with video routes, even my Mac are slow but they are still fast enough, even they are faster than my PC i7 6GB system, and i thought that Mac Pro will be a big leap upon my Mac computers i use and i may not thinking to go with much faster machine, but i will wait, if they will announce the new Mac Pro in first Quarter [Q1] of 2013 then i will go for it, otherwise i don't care much to have so ultimate machine, i can afford current Mac Pro, i may not be able to afford newer upcoming 2013 Mac Pro higher specifications.

Tareq, the Mac Pro's haven't been updated in over 2 years (the June update was no update at all), whereas the iMacs and MBPs etc. have had regular updates in that time period and are thus equipped with the latest, fastest, etc... So, yes, Mac Pros are outdated.

Having said that, I have an 8-core Mac Pro (2 x 2.26 GHz, early 2009 model) that handles Lightroom and Photoshop pretty well. And of course it is very fast when applications can tap into all cores. A programme like Handbrake e.g. does it's renderings extremely fast. Problem is that (still) not too many applications are multi-threaded. Which is why I would advice against the 12-core Mac Pro on your list. All that power and nowhere to go. Unless you are into rendering video, 3D specifically, a Quad core would be the better and faster choice.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #15071097
Tareq, the Mac Pro's haven't been updated in over 2 years (the June update was no update at all), whereas the iMacs and MBPs etc. have had regular updates in that time period and are thus equipped with the latest, fastest, etc... So, yes, Mac Pros are outdated.

Having said that, I have an 8-core Mac Pro (2 x 2.26 GHz, early 2009 model) that handles Lightroom and Photoshop pretty well. And of course it is very fast when applications can tap into all cores. A programme like Handbrake e.g. does it's renderings extremely fast. Problem is that (still) not too many applications are multi-threaded. Which is why I would advice against the 12-core Mac Pro on your list. All that power and nowhere to go. Unless you are into rendering video, 3D specifically, a Quad core would be the better and faster choice.

And i said that some people told me to go with first option of Quad core and increasing the RAM to 16GB and adding SSD drive, maybe also changing the graphics card or GPU later with latest one when come, in fact they convinced me to go with first option with some upgrading over the second one 12-core.

Here are some of their replies/responses:

"I'd get the first one and have them upgrade the RAM to 12GB. It will smoke the second machine in Photoshop."

"Option 1, Less cores, faster processor always beats more cores slower processor for PS work) I would add more ram and spend the little bit of money for an SSD drive - even if it's just a 250GB drive (about $250) of the cheapest per $1 speed boost you'll ever get and it will make a huge difference in how you operate the machine. The SSD would even make a bigger difference in how you interact with the machine than more ram for most everyday work...(though 6GB is about the min - 12 would be ideal). I have 16GB in my 4-core 3.33 GHZ machine but the SSD is where I feel I get the most bang for my buck."

"The quad core can run 8 parallel threads at 3.2GHz while the other system can run 16 parallel threads at 2.4GHz. But there is virtually no software on the market that can actually make use of 16 parallel threads. Only some very specialized 3D rendering stuff. So you are better off with 4 cores and 8 threads running at 3.2GHz than 8 cores and 16 hreads running at 2.4GHz since you will rarely use more than 8 threads anyway.

As for the SSD, you must install the OS and your programs on the SSD. This is a HUGE performance improvement. Then use the HD to store your images.

More memory is always better but 12GB is enough for most people. 6GB in today's world is not enough for a really good Photoshop experience on a fast system. 16GB is of course even better.

The difference between 3.2 and 3.33GHz is not very big. - less than 5% but again 3.33 is faster than 3.2GHz."

Maybe you misunderstood, Tareq, because, yes, if you must buy now, the Quad core 3.2GHz is definitely the better choice. I completely agree with the responses you got: install more RAM, a SSD (a small one would do, just for the applications). I'm quite sure it would handle Photoshop quite well indeed.

But I would still wait a bit... because even if the new Mac Pros would be too expensive for you, the current ones would drop in price and you're likely to see some sweet deals on it.

I would wait, but If I had to buy now (I did in January for work) I would go with the 3.33 Hex. It's what I'm rocking all day and love it.

PS... Don't EVER EVER EVER buy hard drives or RAM from Apple.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #15071212
Maybe you misunderstood, Tareq, because, yes, if you must buy now, the Quad core 3.2GHz is definitely the better choice. I completely agree with the responses you got: install more RAM, a SSD (a small one would do, just for the applications). I'm quite sure it would handle Photoshop quite well indeed.

But I would still wait a bit... because even if the new Mac Pros would be too expensive for you, the current ones would drop in price and you're likely to see some sweet deals on it.

I will wait then, not much left to the end of this year, and who knows what will be next year soon, but i may not able to wait longer than 6 months, also he current model now might not be available when new Apple is due to announcement, i can't buy online, only local stores, so i have to be sure that those machines are available when new machines coming out, i see them always replace the old one with new immediately then i will be forced to go with only new one with higher prices maybe.

Just so you know... I waited forever for the last refresh. If you need the machine now, buy it now. Crippling workflow for the sake of buying newer tech in 6 months isn't intelligent. Hardware is so far ahead of software it is ridiculous. Most software you have can't even harness all the cores effectively of a 2 year old machine.

Gameface wrote in post #15071248
I would wait, but If I had to buy now (I did in January for work) I would go with the 3.33 Hex. It's what I'm rocking all day and love it.

PS... Don't EVER EVER EVER buy hard drives or RAM from Apple.

Ok, i called the stores yesterday and they told me that 3.33GHz is not available and it will take about 4-5 weeks to make it a special order for me, i may wait for that, but if i want to increase that RAM from 6GB up to 32GB, how and from where i should get the RAMs?

The store told me they upgrade each 4GB RAM at about $80, is that a reasonable price or i shud ignore them and look at another place for RAMs?