# Reco Config for Mac Pro (2013)



## RGF (Dec 29, 2013)

I am thinking of buying the new Mac Pro (2013) for Photoshop work. Wondering what configuration is "best" for PS and LR cc.

4 vs 6 cores - leaning towards 6 cores
32 GB Ram - occasionally work on files with large number of layers or 16x48 pans. Total size on disk is top 2GB.
GPU - base 300 or upgrade to 500? Monitors will be current spectra view 25" and 23" (not 4K)

Nearly zero video editing

does this make sense? What about the GPU? Recommendations?

Thanks

Rich


----------



## Harry Muff (Jan 1, 2014)

Simple. The highest spec you can afford, with an emphasis on RAM.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 1, 2014)

I'd get the six core system with the dual d300s and 32gb of ram.


----------



## leGreve (Jan 1, 2014)

Harry Muff said:


> Simple. The highest spec you can afford, with an emphasis on RAM.



A little note here.... Dont specc it with Apple components. Every single part is now proven to be user replaceable except the video cards.
So Id go 6-core, base ram but buy 48gb ram from somewhere else (cc can use 6gb ram pr core and you need to save 25% for background processes), find out if the SSD is already available in stores, dual 500s.

In case you ever fall in love with 12-core even that is replaceble. Just make sure to get the same one apple is stocking.

That would be sweet photo editor. Add a hefty raid setup if you do video.


----------



## RGF (Jan 1, 2014)

leGreve said:


> Harry Muff said:
> 
> 
> > Simple. The highest spec you can afford, with an emphasis on RAM.
> ...



interesting .. I checked with OWC and they told me that they only had RAM. Not much different for 32GB (vs Apple price) but real saving at 64GB. 500 GB SSD is "only" $300 more than the 256 GB but the 1 TB adds $800 over the 256GB.

If I can find a less expensive SSD that would be great. Where are dual 500 available?


----------



## KMKPhoto (Jan 1, 2014)

On something like the Mac Pro I would not waste money on extra internal SSD space, better to spend that $800 on the processor and Ram. I have 1TB of flash storage on my Mac Book Pro because it's a laptop and now only machine, but on my last Mac Pro I ran 256GB SSD and a 1TB Hard Drive.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 1, 2014)

Many parts might, technically, be user replaceable, but the firmware needed to make it work is not necessarily available and the component cost is currently crazy.

I am looking to get a Mac Pro later this year but at this point I am happy to get a reworked "old style" 12 core 3.?? for under $4,000. Simple user upgrades, no firmware issues and not cost prohibitive. You can upgrade them to at least seven internals, 128GB RAM, etc etc, I don't need to pay through the nose for a graphics card that can run six screens effortlessly, or four 4K screens, I can't afford one 4K screen yet! I am sure they have a market for high end video and graphics pros, animation studios and special effects houses will buy them by the dozen, but that isn't what I need to work 4-5GB .PSB files and even when we inevitably go to 30+ MP, I still won't.

For a photographer the only thing Thunderbolt does better than SATA is lighten their wallet.


----------



## ksagomonyants (Jan 1, 2014)

I don't know the exact answer to your question but I can share my experience. I have Macbook Pro laptop (not Mac Pro) from 2011, 2.3 Ghz i7, 8 Gb DDR3 (1333 Mhz) and 500 Gb SSD drive. I'm finishing my PhD in Biomedical Sciences/Pediatric Dentistry, and sometimes I'm taking 20x20 composite images using the microscope and Zeiss software. The size of some files often exceeds 2 Gb and I've never had any issues opening these files. Same is with the time-lapse files, which have the size ~150 gb. Never had any issues. It takes less than 10 sec to open any file. I could be wrong but I think that Mac Pro is overkill for just Photoshop, even if you're taking panoramic images. But I'd love to have one


----------



## Rofflesaurrr (Jan 2, 2014)

I have to agree with ksagomonyants. The new Mac Pro is slightly overkill for most Photoshop work. About 1/3 of the price you pay for the Mac Pro is for the workstation grade graphics adapters. Any OpenCL enabled adapter will greatly enhance your Photoshop experience, even Intel 4000 graphics. IMO, the difference between a $150 graphics card and a $1500 one is not significant enough to justify the additional expense. On top of that, according to Adobe, Photoshop will not even utilize the second graphics adapter in the Mac Pro. If you are intent on buying one, opt for 6 cores and 32GB of RAM with the lowest end graphics option. The limited internal storage is not as big of an issue as most make it out to be. There are 6 thunderbolt 2 ports. Thunderbolt is basically an extension of a PCI express lane. Any external drives or SSDs connected to these ports will be just as fast as an internally mounted drive. You will see zero difference in speed or latency.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 2, 2014)

It isn't the speed pf additional storage, it is the cost. In the old model with four internal bays it cost nothing other than the drive to expand or upgrade, now a comparable speed four bay Thunderbolt housing is $700-2,000 EXTRA. Why would anybody feel comfortable butting $150 drives in an $800 housing?


----------



## gbchriste (Jan 2, 2014)

I'd love to have all the horsepower of a Mac Pro. The "sexy" factor is undeniably appealing. But for straightforward photo editing it really is overkill. I have a 2009-era iMac with a 2.X-something, quad core processor and 4 GB of RAM and it handles pretty much anything I throw at. Granted I'm not trying to push a dozen 5DIII-size files around in PS all at the same time. But LR gives me no problems at all, and taking 3 or 4 images simultaneously from LR to PS for edits and back again is painless.

If I had the money and nothing else I needed to spend it on, I'd probably be all over a Mac Pro. But maxing out processor and RAM for bread-and-butter photo editing wouldn't be a compelling factor.

The one advantage the Mac Pro does bring, even though it's extra cost, is the requirement for an external monitor. The iMac built-in monitor is very, very difficult to calibrate. Out of the box it is nuclear, surface-of-the-sun bright and super contrasty. Shadows and black areas get very easily blocked and clipped on it. The flexibility to pair a Mac Pro with a different primary monitor would be very nice indeed.


----------



## 7enderbender (Jan 2, 2014)

I'm no expert and I have no idea what exactly you are doing overall in in PS in particular. But I would argue that you don't need a Mac Pro. I just bought a slightly tricked out Mac Mini (i7, SSD, 8GB) and I have no doubt that the thing will do anything I can possibly throw at it. And my main application for that machine is going to be LR, PS and a bunch of audio recording stuff (which is a lot more demanding than what I would ever do in photoshop).

Just for laughs and giggles: the Mini is replacing my 10 year old designated desktop PC which is a Pentium 4 with 4GB (3 of which are usable) - and even that thing was still workable within reason.

So far I've been doing most of my photo editing on my old IBM T60 laptop (which has a wonderful hi res screen by the way - too bad they stopped making those). That one's from 2007. Even that handles several files with multiple layers if need be.

Don't get me wrong. If money was no issue I would most certainly have the latest version of Darth Vader's trash can. Just because. But I would argue that very few people actually need it in this day and age.


----------



## RGF (Jan 2, 2014)

Thanks for the comments.

If I get everyone's comment correctly, 6 core processor, I'll go w/ minimal memory and buy from OWC (lower cost). Either 32GB or 64GB. I'll price 2 x16GB sims.

As far as SSD, I am still leaning toward 512 but will consider sticking with 256

Thanks again


----------



## cayenne (Jan 2, 2014)

RGF said:


> I am thinking of buying the new Mac Pro (2013) for Photoshop work. Wondering what configuration is "best" for PS and LR cc.
> 
> 4 vs 6 cores - leaning towards 6 cores
> 32 GB Ram - occasionally work on files with large number of layers or 16x48 pans. Total size on disk is top 2GB.
> ...



While I'll be doing more video that you...with the lack of upgradeability of the mac pro, I'd take into consideration of getting all you can afford.

I spec'ed out mine and was going for the max on GPU, 6 cores...the 500GB internal drive (can be user replaced I believe at later time)...and 16GB or so RAM which also can be upgraded by user, although in this case Apple doesn't seem to be gouging on factory ram as it did in the old days.

I've hear rumors you *might* could upgrade the CPU yourself, but I've not confirmed that yet. But for the GPU, since they are soldered into the thing, I'd max it out on purchase.

Even photoshop and other Adobe products are really utilizing the GPU's..so, if you're at all 'artsy' and wanna use any type graphics tools, I'd max out the GPU on this thing.

HTH,

cayenne


----------



## RGF (Jan 2, 2014)

cayenne said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > I am thinking of buying the new Mac Pro (2013) for Photoshop work. Wondering what configuration is "best" for PS and LR cc.
> ...



For 32GB Apple and OWC are similar in price (OWC is around $75-100 lower price). For 64GB OWC is much cheaper.

The whole GPU is a mystery to me. For "straight" still photos the base GPU may be the best bet ???


----------



## iKenndac (Jan 2, 2014)

cayenne said:


> I've hear rumors you *might* could upgrade the CPU yourself, but I've not confirmed that yet.


It uses the standard LGA 2011 socket and a standard Xeon configuration. (Source)



cayenne said:


> But for the GPU, since they are soldered into the thing, I'd max it out on purchase.


The GPU isn't soldered on, but it does use a proprietary connector (same source as above) that will make any future upgrade options pricey. I maxed out my GPUs.


----------



## dcm (Jan 2, 2014)

The Mac mini is a reasonable alternative for photos. I even do some video on it. My maxed out 4 core i7/16Gb/SSD Mac mini does pretty well on 64-bit GeekBench3 (single/multi core) compared to some recent benchmarks appearing for the new MacPros. 

MacMin i 4 core - 3246/12675
iMac27 4 core - 4084/15299
MacPro 6 core - 3612/20599
MacPro 8 core - 3651/25422
MacPro 12 core - 3214/33066

I think I can live with the mini for a while. 

I always max out memory/processor/GPU in any system I buy and have recommended this approach to others for many years. That gives you to longest lifetime for the system. I work for a computer manufacturer (30+ years) and could upgrade it myself, but no longer choose to do so. For most people it's better to treat it like an appliance and buy a new system than to try to upgrade existing hardware.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 2, 2014)

Yes I am currently using a Mac Mini for my photo editing. I put in a second HDD and made the boot drive an SSD and it works fine. But I will be moving to an old style Mac Pro later this year.


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 3, 2014)

I love Macs, and the new pro machine is awesome. But, it honestly seems like overkill for photoshop. Still it really comes down to budget. If that machine is affordable go for it. 

My machine is a 27 inch iMac i7 3.4ghz 32GB RAM. What is really pimp is the Hard Drive. An OWC 512GB SSD + a 4TB HD combined in a fusion drive. Super fast and 4.5TB of internal storage.


----------



## cayenne (Jan 3, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> It isn't the speed pf additional storage, it is the cost. In the old model with four internal bays it cost nothing other than the drive to expand or upgrade, now a comparable speed four bay Thunderbolt housing is $700-2,000 EXTRA. Why would anybody feel comfortable butting $150 drives in an $800 housing?



If you want a cheap thunderbolt to SATA set up you can put this together (they actually sell it alltogether in one box but it is cheaper to buy the components separately)

Thunderbolt to SATA Adapter (2 connections for daisy chaining)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009HQCAPQ/ref=oh_details_o06_s00_i02?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Harddrive for Adapter
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00829THQE/ref=oh_details_o06_s00_i01?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Thunderbolt cable 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00B3Y4FAS/ref=oh_details_o06_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I hooked this up to give me a higher speed large data source for PS, AE and Premier work from my macbook pro (late 2011)...and daisy chaining it to run my Dell U2711 monitor...it terminates with a thunderbolt to displayport adapter.

HTH,

cayenne


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 3, 2014)

Thanks for illustrating my point so well. $180 to connect a $100 drive, Thunderbolts biggest "issue".


----------



## dadohead (Jan 3, 2014)

The authoritative review:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013

My takeaway? Don't get too worked up about the GPUs. They won't do much for you for quite awhile. The new Mac Pro is a demonstration machine for FCPX.


----------



## BoneDoc (Jan 3, 2014)

I think it's a pretty sweet setup. Reading Anandtech's review gives you the impression that Apple is ahead of the curve by leveraging GPU power to continue increasing computing power as CPU improvement stales out.

... However, it's so early to the game, that unless your main workflow involves editing 4K videon on FCPX, you won't realize its full potential. I think in 6 months we'll see a much more mature market with better software optimization. For most of us who wants one, that will be a wiser time to pull the trigger.


----------



## RGF (Jan 3, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Thanks for illustrating my point so well. $180 to connect a $100 drive, Thunderbolts biggest "issue".



Thunderbolt holds lots of promise. Like being able to daisy chain devices. Apple placed a big bet on Thunderbolt - for monitor makes sense. For external HDD, not sure there is any real gain in speed, daisy chaining device together for sure, printers, keyboards/mice, tablets, ... USB 3.0 is sufficient and ubiquitous.

Better config for the Mac would have been a few thunderbolt ports and many (more) USB 3.0 ports.

If only Thunderbolt devices were the same price as USB 3.0 devices ..


----------



## Brand B (Jan 3, 2014)

If you read the Anand review section on busses, you'll see that going with two memory sticks instead of 4 is going to have an impact on your memory speed, i.e. 4 sticks of 8GB will perform a bit faster than 2 sticks of 16GB, so unless you're firmly planning to up it to 64GB in the near or medium term future, I'd not go that route.


----------



## RGF (Jan 3, 2014)

BoneDoc said:


> I think it's a pretty sweet setup. Reading Anandtech's review gives you the impression that Apple is ahead of the curve by leveraging GPU power to continue increasing computing power as CPU improvement stales out.
> 
> ... However, it's so early to the game, that unless your main workflow involves editing 4K videon on FCPX, you won't realize its full potential. I think in 6 months we'll see a much more mature market with better software optimization. For most of us who wants one, that will be a wiser time to pull the trigger.



Let's see if Apple new form factor holds. Small box with fast external connections Could be the further ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 3, 2014)

RGF said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for illustrating my point so well. $180 to connect a $100 drive, Thunderbolts biggest "issue".
> ...



It does, but history has demonstrated time and again that given the choice consumers will make a "good enough" decision based more closely on cost than ultimate tech specs. If something is technically "better" but cost $180 to connect a $100 device that used to be, effectively, free to connect, market penetration will be a big challenge. 

I have a 17" Mac Pro with an Expresscard 34 expansion port with two SATA connectors, it has Firewire 800, it has two internal drives and ten externals attached to it, the cost was comparatively minimal and for practically any application short of high end gaming and video production it excels. It laughs at 6GB PSB files.

How many people actually need, and want to pay for, six screen graphics capability, when what they really want is cheap and plentiful storage connectivity?

Testers, reviewers, high end animators and video production users will love it; the general public, I just don't see it. One of the beauties of Macs, and especially the Mac Pro, has been the design and aesthetics, and the fact you can put what you need in it and it still maintains that design integrity, not anymore, I can just imagine the users boastful images with boxes and $50 cables spewed all over their workstations, about as un-Apple as you can be.

I haven't seen anything yet to convince me my plan to get an "old" Mac Pro is wrong for a workstation concentrating on photography. Indeed from what I have read so far I am certain my idea is more sound than ever. I don't need Thunderbolt to make an extremely powerful photo computer, in fact thunderbolt offers me no real advantages as current tech is well up to speed, even for 80mp cameras, and the cost penalty makes no sense, also, even modest graphics cards are not taxed running an optimal two monitors.

Thunderbolt MIGHT be the connection of the future (it might not) but at this time it is not the connection of the current, it isn't even six months off prime time, maybe a year, maybe two, but not now.


----------



## David_in_Seattle (Jan 3, 2014)

RGF said:


> I am thinking of buying the new Mac Pro (2013) for Photoshop work. Wondering what configuration is "best" for PS and LR cc.
> 
> 4 vs 6 cores - leaning towards 6 cores
> 32 GB Ram - occasionally work on files with large number of layers or 16x48 pans. Total size on disk is top 2GB.
> ...



What type of photoshop work do you do? The answer to this question will heavily impact your buying decision.

The base mac pro will easily handle a large psd file with 50+ layers and 2GB file sizes. But if you're accessing an image library with tens of thousands of 10MB+ files then you may want to consider getting an external thunderbolt raid array to speed up access times and reliability of your storage. Use the Mac Pro's SSD for applications and current projects you're working on. Leave the rest on a RAID array that's backed up by another external drive.

Unless you're doing a lot of 3D modeling in photoshop or would later require 4k monitors I wouldn't bother upgrading from the base GPU. Photoshop is more CPU and RAM intensive for most tasks. If you can afford it then I'd recommend getting at least 6 cores and 32GB of RAM. This setup would really help when working with multiple 2GB psd files.


----------



## cayenne (Jan 3, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Thanks for illustrating my point so well. $180 to connect a $100 drive, Thunderbolts biggest "issue".



Well, one thing I forgot to mention, if you want...instead of the spinning SATA disk on there, you can connect to a SSD drive which will be lightning fast...daisy chain a few of those together....

I may do that with one as a fast scratch disk for work and rendering...and keep the larger one for storage, etc.


----------



## cayenne (Jan 3, 2014)

BoneDoc said:


> I think it's a pretty sweet setup. Reading Anandtech's review gives you the impression that Apple is ahead of the curve by leveraging GPU power to continue increasing computing power as CPU improvement stales out.
> 
> ... However, it's so early to the game, that unless your main workflow involves editing 4K videon on FCPX, you won't realize its full potential. I think in 6 months we'll see a much more mature market with better software optimization. For most of us who wants one, that will be a wiser time to pull the trigger.



Well, I know on my macbook pro, late 2011 edition...it is loaded up with 16GB RAM, and I can start to pretty easily slow it down in PS with nested smart objects containing RAW files and doing a lot with them...and really start to bog it down when doing FCPX and Davinci Resolve edits/renders. 

I would love to get one of the mac pros. However, I'm gonna have to save my pennies a bit, and also...I *rarely *jump in on a new platform on version 1.0.

I usually wait till at least the 2nd version to arrive and have the bugs shaken out of it.

;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 3, 2014)

Even more cost, look the throughput is not an issue for current computers, I have a 24GB SSD internal scratch disc for PS to use, it rarely touches it even with a meager 8GB of RAM.

I can daisy chain 54 SSD's via FW800, for free (well the $2 cost of a FW cable). Photo files are not generally large enough to be a serious issue, I regularly work with 4-6GB PSB files (the file naming you get when it is too big for PSD). A current MacBook Pro will do the work on that faster than I can, let alone a Mac Pro.

Unless you are doing huge batch actions, like animations, and can multi-thread those actions, then PS doesn't slow down current computers that much. Video is a completely different subject though.


----------



## KMKPhoto (Jan 5, 2014)

OP, have you considered the 27" iMac maxed out instead of the Mac Pro?

$3300 gets you the 3.5GHz quad core i7, 32GB RAM, 3TB Fusion Drive, and NVADIA GTX780M w/4GB


----------



## RGF (Jan 5, 2014)

KMKPhoto said:


> OP, have you considered the 27" iMac maxed out instead of the Mac Pro?
> 
> $3300 gets you the 3.5GHz quad core i7, 32GB RAM, 3TB Fusion Drive, and NVADIA GTX780M w/4GB



No because as I understand it, I can not connect my 2 NEC spectraview monitors to the iMac.


----------

