Time for a new editing beast, new Mac Pro

So I have been using a quad core 2008 Mac Pro for my editing for the last 5 years. I have invested a lot of time and money to really have not only a reliable editing machine, but also have a back system in place. Multiple drives, RAID, Time Machine etc. However, with the newer bodies which have massive MP count, this machine is slowly losing pace. Especially when batch editing and working with several files at once (not to mention my PS edits which usually get to 4GB each!).

I'm looking to get the new Mac Pro, but the base quad core model and upgrade over time as my needs expand. I don't do any video work so don't need the crazy 6+ cores, or the insane D700 video cards. My question is, what should I look out for to make editing smooth, especially when working with 36MP files in both LR and PS. Is RAM something that should be a priority? The Mac Pro comes stock with 12GB of RAM, but should I upgrade to more? How much is "enough"? I want to have the most seamless editing system in place and will be getting Thunderbolt RAID enclosures for storage and such. Any tips and recommendations for things to look out for?

Even the base Mac Pro will be way more machine than you'll probably need. Apple's current line up of Macs is not among its best, IMO.

I had a similar question a few years back, and I landed on the 27" iMac. Instead of going for the Pro, you could get one of these, add RAM, and spring for an internal SSD.

Unfortunately the trend in all Macs is moving away from systems you can modify much or at all yourself. The new iMacs look slick, but to do any major internal monkeying, you have to remove the screen, which requires cutting it off (kind of -there's a strip of glue that has to be removed, and then re-glued when you're done). So you would want to get all these extras installed when you order it.

PS is now relying on the graphics card as well as ram so I'd look into PS graphic needs and compair them to the stock card. I don't know the specs of what PS needs or what the macpro has so sorry for not being very helpful on that one.

I'd stick with the stock ram as getting more from Apple is too expensive. The macpro is apples last machine that can actually be easily updated (and some of their other machines the ram is getting soldered on now!) so if you find you do need more you can grab some later and pop it in yourself.

gremlin75 wrote in post #17876889
PS is now relying on the graphics card as well as ram so I'd look into PS graphic needs and compair them to the stock card. I don't know the specs of what PS needs or what the macpro has so sorry for not being very helpful on that one.

I'd stick with the stock ram as getting more from Apple is too expensive. The macpro is apples last machine that can actually be easily updated (and some of their other machines the ram is getting soldered on now!) so if you find you do need more you can grab some later and pop it in yourself.

I'll buy the RAM from third party OWC and save some cash over upgrading directly from Apple. The video cards in the Mac Pro are quite beefy so I'm thinking for PS should be more than adequate.

mltn wrote in post #17876774
I had a similar question a few years back, and I landed on the 27" iMac. Instead of going for the Pro, you could get one of these, add RAM, and spring for an internal SSD.

Unfortunately the trend in all Macs is moving away from systems you can modify much or at all yourself. The new iMacs look slick, but to do any major internal monkeying, you have to remove the screen, which requires cutting it off (kind of -there's a strip of glue that has to be removed, and then re-glued when you're done). So you would want to get all these extras installed when you order it.

The iMacs non-upgrability is why I won't consider it. At least with the Mac Pro I can change everything inside of it over the years if my work load changes.

gremlin75 wrote in post #17876889
PS is now relying on the graphics card as well as ram so I'd look into PS graphic needs and compair them to the stock card. I don't know the specs of what PS needs or what the macpro has so sorry for not being very helpful on that one.

Today's Intel on-chip GPUs are plenty beefy for those few routines in PS that call them, so I wouldn't worry too much. The bigger issue is that a Mac Pro is a lot of computer for photography work. I feel for the OP because of how difficult Apple has made upgrading their computers.

As Tony says, Apple's current lineup of Macs aren't that great, the [2013] Mac Pro uses fairly old hardware with some questionable choices. So while it may be more than you need, it's not a great value in and of itself either.

The very base Mac Pro model is $3000, for which you can build an absolutely monstrous PC workstation, which I know since I have a build laid out for exactly that much (just waiting on the moneis). There is of course the aspect of having to move away from OS X if you do so, but you'll have to consider if the software benefits are worth the substantial price difference. As someone who's accustomed to using various OSes, it's not a problem for me to "switch back" to Windows, but YMMV.

For reference, here's what $3K gets you in a Mac Pro, iMac and PC assuming new prices.

MP:
3.7Ghz Quad-core Xeon (Ivy bridge)
12GB ECC RAM
256GB M.2 Flash (XP941; 1,100MB/s)
Dual D300s 2Gb

27" iMac:
4.0Ghz Quad-core (Skylake)
8GB RAM
512GB m.2 Flash (XP951; 2,200MB/s)
R9 M395x 4GB
+ 5K display built-in

PC:
3.6Ghz Six-core Xeon (Haswell, can be clocked way higher if you wish)
32GB ECC Registered RAM (Samsung)
512GB m.2 Flash (950 pro; 2,500Mb/s)
M4000 8GB (up to four 4K displays at 30-bit color)
$2,531 - left some buffer room for OS, peripherals, disk drive, etc http://pcpartpicker.co​m/p/ck336h


As you can see the difference is pretty ridiculous, so IMO there's no real reason to consider the MP if you want a powerful system. If you just want a basic system to process images and stitch panos, a high-end quad-core with 16GB RAM and an SSD of some sort are all you really need, at maybe half the price of the suggested system.

I dont have a mac pro but have a late 2014 macbook pro retina and it handles 42MP files fine and no issues with LR or PS.

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #17880207
As Tony says, Apple's current lineup of Macs aren't that great, the [2013] Mac Pro uses fairly old hardware with some questionable choices. So while it may be more than you need, it's not a great value in and of itself either.

The very base Mac Pro model is $3000, for which you can build an absolutely monstrous PC workstation, which I know since I have a build laid out for exactly that much (just waiting on the moneis). There is of course the aspect of having to move away from OS X if you do so, but you'll have to consider if the software benefits are worth the substantial price difference. As someone who's accustomed to using various OSes, it's not a problem for me to "switch back" to Windows, but YMMV.

For reference, here's what $3K gets you in a Mac Pro, iMac and PC assuming new prices.

MP:
3.7Ghz Quad-core Xeon (Ivy bridge)
12GB ECC RAM
256GB M.2 Flash (XP941; 1,100MB/s)
Dual D300s 2Gb

27" iMac:
4.0Ghz Quad-core (Skylake)
8GB RAM
512GB m.2 Flash (XP951; 2,200MB/s)
R9 M395x 4GB
+ 5K display built-in

PC:
3.6Ghz Six-core Xeon (Haswell, can be clocked way higher if you wish)
32GB ECC Registered RAM (Samsung)
512GB m.2 Flash (950 pro; 2,500Mb/s)
M4000 8GB (up to four 4K displays at 30-bit color)
$2,531 - left some buffer room for OS, peripherals, disk drive, etc http://pcpartpicker.co​m/p/ck336h


As you can see the difference is pretty ridiculous, so IMO there's no real reason to consider the MP if you want a powerful system. If you just want a basic system to process images and stitch panos, a high-end quad-core with 16GB RAM and an SSD of some sort are all you really need, at maybe half the price of the suggested system.

I looked at the link you posted for the build, and notice it says there is an incompatablity. It suggests the Motherboard is incompatable with your choice of Samsung RAM.

Alan

xpfloyd wrote in post #17880295
I dont have a mac pro but have a late 2014 macbook pro retina and it handles 42MP files fine and no issues with LR or PS.

Just curious, what Geekbench 3 score you get from your rig? And how do multi layer files work? I find I get quite frequent slow downs on my system doing basic LR adjustments with many A7R files. My system gets a measly 5000 GB3 score. Not great my any means.

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #17880207
As Tony says, Apple's current lineup of Macs aren't that great, the [2013] Mac Pro uses fairly old hardware with some questionable choices. So while it may be more than you need, it's not a great value in and of itself either.

The very base Mac Pro model is $3000, for which you can build an absolutely monstrous PC workstation, which I know since I have a build laid out for exactly that much (just waiting on the moneis). There is of course the aspect of having to move away from OS X if you do so, but you'll have to consider if the software benefits are worth the substantial price difference. As someone who's accustomed to using various OSes, it's not a problem for me to "switch back" to Windows, but YMMV.

For reference, here's what $3K gets you in a Mac Pro, iMac and PC assuming new prices.

MP:
3.7Ghz Quad-core Xeon (Ivy bridge)
12GB ECC RAM
256GB M.2 Flash (XP941; 1,100MB/s)
Dual D300s 2Gb

27" iMac:
4.0Ghz Quad-core (Skylake)
8GB RAM
512GB m.2 Flash (XP951; 2,200MB/s)
R9 M395x 4GB
+ 5K display built-in

PC:
3.6Ghz Six-core Xeon (Haswell, can be clocked way higher if you wish)
32GB ECC Registered RAM (Samsung)
512GB m.2 Flash (950 pro; 2,500Mb/s)
M4000 8GB (up to four 4K displays at 30-bit color)
$2,531 - left some buffer room for OS, peripherals, disk drive, etc http://pcpartpicker.co​m/p/ck336h


As you can see the difference is pretty ridiculous, so IMO there's no real reason to consider the MP if you want a powerful system. If you just want a basic system to process images and stitch panos, a high-end quad-core with 16GB RAM and an SSD of some sort are all you really need, at maybe half the price of the suggested system.

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #17880207
As Tony says, Apple's current lineup of Macs aren't that great, the [2013] Mac Pro uses fairly old hardware with some questionable choices. So while it may be more than you need, it's not a great value in and of itself either.

The very base Mac Pro model is $3000, for which you can build an absolutely monstrous PC workstation, which I know since I have a build laid out for exactly that much (just waiting on the moneis). There is of course the aspect of having to move away from OS X if you do so, but you'll have to consider if the software benefits are worth the substantial price difference. As someone who's accustomed to using various OSes, it's not a problem for me to "switch back" to Windows, but YMMV.

For reference, here's what $3K gets you in a Mac Pro, iMac and PC assuming new prices.

MP:
3.7Ghz Quad-core Xeon (Ivy bridge)
12GB ECC RAM
256GB M.2 Flash (XP941; 1,100MB/s)
Dual D300s 2Gb

27" iMac:
4.0Ghz Quad-core (Skylake)
8GB RAM
512GB m.2 Flash (XP951; 2,200MB/s)
R9 M395x 4GB
+ 5K display built-in

PC:
3.6Ghz Six-core Xeon (Haswell, can be clocked way higher if you wish)
32GB ECC Registered RAM (Samsung)
512GB m.2 Flash (950 pro; 2,500Mb/s)
M4000 8GB (up to four 4K displays at 30-bit color)
$2,531 - left some buffer room for OS, peripherals, disk drive, etc http://pcpartpicker.co​m/p/ck336h


As you can see the difference is pretty ridiculous, so IMO there's no real reason to consider the MP if you want a powerful system. If you just want a basic system to process images and stitch panos, a high-end quad-core with 16GB RAM and an SSD of some sort are all you really need, at maybe half the price of the suggested system.

While I do appreciate that you can get quite a bit more hardware performance using Windows, I've been a Mac guy for as long as I can remember. Even when I worked brief jobs in IT, I absolutely hated using Windows. No doubt the new Windows 10 is nice, but I just can't do it. I guess when you're "stuck" with a single option you end up having to pay the price.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #17880949
Just curious, what Geekbench 3 score you get from your rig? And how do multi layer files work? I find I get quite frequent slow downs on my system doing basic LR adjustments with many A7R files. My system gets a measly 5000 GB3 score. Not great my any means.

I've never heard of geekbench 3 but if its free ill try it out and let you know the score for reference. I can confirm I dont get slow downs in lightroom and it can handle multi layered processing in photoshop. Ill check my exact spec and post tonight. It may help you make a decision

Edit - without actually testing the website for geekbench says my macbook will be around 3500-3800 which is way less than your current machine. I chose the max ram I could but not sure how much that helps editing. All I know is it handles a7rii files exactly the same as 5d3 files

xpfloyd wrote in post #17881156
Edit - without actually testing the website for geekbench says my macbook will be around 3500-3800 which is way less than your current machine. I chose the max ram I could but not sure how much that helps editing. All I know is it handles a7rii files exactly the same as 5d3 files

Its worth doing a test. Software is completely free. Seems quite low for a 2014 machine.

BigAl007 wrote in post #17880888
I looked at the link you posted for the build, and notice it says there is an incompatablity. It suggests the Motherboard is incompatable with your choice of Samsung RAM.

Alan

This website isn't 100% accurate on all compatibilities, that specific serial number of RAM has been tested and known to work with all Asus and ASRock X99 motherboards, as long as you use a Xeon processor. You can check this by looking at the QVL sheet in the support page of most motherboard brands, since they perform individual testing.

If you're still worried, using any motherboard with the -WS moniker is guaranteed to have been certified for use with ECC RDIMMs, and it may result in getting higher stable clocks if you're into that.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #17880952
While I do appreciate that you can get quite a bit more hardware performance using Windows, I've been a Mac guy for as long as I can remember. Even when I worked brief jobs in IT, I absolutely hated using Windows. No doubt the new Windows 10 is nice, but I just can't do it. I guess when you're "stuck" with a single option you end up having to pay the price.

That's fine too, I do agree that OS X is a nicer environment for working with images and for productivity in general.
If I had to pick something from Apple's stable, it would likely be a spec'ed out iMac. It uses the latest tech and gives you decently better hardware while also including a 5K display in the price.
It is a shame that Apple doesn't offer a standard "tower" system anymore, as that would've been the choice for a lot of people. As it stands, you have to choose between two devices with heavy thermal and power limits, one of which partly uses mobile components and the other has needlessly expensive construction.