[cmillerdesign]

So I have a 1.8ghz dual G5 with 3gb of ram for work. I mainly design in Adobe CS and do a fair amount of Photoshop work. At any given time I may have all of Adobe CS plus Office and a few other apps running -- and a gazillion fonts. Went to the store and saw the new 24" iMac. How would a new iMac compare to my late '04 1.8DP G5? On that same note, how would a new MacBook Pro + second display compare to the above?

[OreoCookie]

First of all, unless your applications are updated to CS3, they'd run via Rosetta on Intel machines -- hence, they'd run slower than on your G5. If you were to upgrade, Intel-based iMacs would be faster, ditto for ProBooks. Both, the iMac and the ProBook connect to one extra screen, so unless you want to span your Desktop across more than two monitors, you'll be fine with those two.

Your machine is still very capable, do you feel any need to upgrade (apart from the fact that your screen has died)? (That's not quite clear from your post.) You might just want to get a new screen and then, if and when you upgrade to -- say -- an iMac, you use it as a second screen.

[cmillerdesign]

Very helpful. Thanks.

I'll admit my post my be confusing when I bring up the MacBook thought. No I don't feel the need to upgrade YET, but I'm always looking ahead. I wasn't aware the iMac supported dual monitors. That plays in big to the equation. Also, I've read elsewhere that the iMac display is not as accurate as the stand alone 23" -- plus it is glossy which over saturates color. If both are the case, then an iMac would work, BUT I'd still need the 23" display. So either way I need to get a new monitor. Sounds like an iMac or MacBook Pro may be a good option when its time to upgrade the G5 and then I'd have dual monitors!

[OreoCookie]

No, the accuracy is the same, but it's a glossy display. Some hate hate, some love it, many are skeptical, but they usually get used to it. You have to try them out yourself, though. I'd just get a screen and upgrade when you really feel the need to.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by cmillerdesign 

So I have a 1.8ghz dual G5 with 3gb of ram for work. I mainly design in Adobe CS and do a fair amount of Photoshop work. At any given time I may have all of Adobe CS plus Office and a few other apps running -- and a gazillion fonts. Recently my 23" Sony monitor died so I need to replace it. Went to the store and saw the new 24" iMac. How would a new iMac compare to my late '04 1.8DP G5?

As time goes on the performance of each older hardware generation continues to fall as apps modernize. Relatively, however, for heavy graphics apps Mac towers always substantially outperform their by definition performance-compromised iMac counterparts. Even though iMacs were recently upgraded, year-plus old Mac Pro towers knock the socks off iMacs:

iMac Aluminum versus Others -Photoshop CS3 and After Effects CS3

IMO more important are future expectations of the relative performance between the two Mac desktop computer forms, i.e. over the course of a computer life cycle. Looking at doing graphic design forward (from today ongoing 3-5 years from today) expected life cycle MP performance is far superior to expected iMac performance.

MacIntels anecdotally seem to want more RAM than Powermacs did, and Photoshop shows improved performance with up to 8 GB RAM even on G5s, even though Adobe apps do not yet directly address more than 3 GB of RAM. With continually falling RAM prices apps/OS will undoubtedly evolve to increasingly take advantage of more RAM. iMacs' 3-4 GB max RAM will become even more limiting.

Most graphics pros find two displays hugely beneficial. I consider 2 displays a necessity for a desktop setup and predicate any workstation planning on 2 displays. Mac Pros allow substantially stronger multi-display graphics support than iMacs do. However individual workspaces do vary.

Glossy vs. matte display is personal preference. However note that only glossy is available in the Apple's consumer-grade Macbooks and iMacs, apparently because most consumers prefer the added contrast and saturation of glossy screens. Most (not all) graphics pros, however, prefer matte because they do not want the display to add contrast/saturation to their work. The prevailing (or perhaps just the most vocal) opinion on the Photoshop forums seems to be that glossy is unacceptable. Carefully eyeball evaluate and make your own decision. I chose matte. As to having both a glossy iMac and a pro matte display on the same desktop, IMO that sounds like a graphic artist's nightmare!

IMO relatively iMacs are poor desktop choices for graphic design.

Originally Posted by cmillerdesign 

...how would a new MacBook Pro + second display compare to the above-- obviously I'd still need to replace my 23" to get a decent size screen, but then I'd have a portable system and 2 displays. Thoughts?

MBPs (I have a 17" C2D MBP) with RAM maxxed run CS2 adequately and CS3 well. MBPs have the exact same performance limtations that iMacs have. However the huge difference is that MBPs are portable, and for many folks that portability justifies the much reduced performance and much, much shorter life cycle. If you do get a MBP I recommend the 17"; the extra screen real estate, pixels and performance (for whatever reasons 17" MBPs perform 10% better) are worth it for graphics pros. I previously always had 15" but will never go back.

MBPs and iMacs do require external hard drives to complete any pro graphics setup, so add that cost/complexity into your analysis. iMacs should be FW800, MBPs can be FW800 or configured eSATA which is faster.

In any event, the Mac product landscape is going to change a lot over the next ten weeks. Hardware, OS and - as a consequence of the new OS releasing today - applications as well. Even Adobe's apps that just upgraded may see some dot upgrades as OS 10.5 Leopard shakes out. We will see new Mac Pros and prices will rearrange.

Since you have an adequate box for Adobe CS2 now it makes most sense to see how hardware/software evolve over the next ten weeks (ideally visit Mac Expo SF in January, always a worthy trek), then revisit this question. And IMO a (not inexpensive) move to CS3 should occur concurrent with the inevitable move to MacIntel. CS3 is a very worthy upgrade and is lots faster than CS2 running on MacIntels.

-Allen Wicks

[cmillerdesign]

Thanks for the response. I've used dual displays in the past and find it useful for supporting apps -- especially edits and comparing documents. My June 04 G5 only has 1 DVI port. I'd rather look at updating before adding another card.

You say iMacs are poor choice for designers but MBPs are adequate. Aside from portability, why would a MBP be a better graphics system than an iMac or are you just saying the trade-off of portability is acceptable where as an iMac doesn't have portability?

Can you explain what you mean by shorter life cycle of a MBP?

[OreoCookie]

I disagree. Mac Pros are only faster if the app can do something with the additional cores -- something which is usually not the case, especially for Photoshop. You note that the Benchmarks consists only of MP-capable actions.

Also, since every Mac nowadays is a multi-core Mac, the old argument that the second core helps with other stuff doesn't distinguish towers from iMacs anymore. The system can use a second core, yes, but a third, fourth or eighth? Usually no.

So often, towers don't substantially outperform their counterparts, unless you are interested in specific applications. For general computing (e. g. Photoshop), there is not much difference. If you take the benchmarks you've posted at face value (I don't really trust barefeats, they don't have a good reputation, but anyway): if you assume someone has the middle model 2.66 GHz Mac Pro, then this is about as fast as the 2.8 GHz iMac (the four-core 3 GHz model is about 15 % faster, so the 2.66 GHz should be about as fast as the 2.8 GHz iMac).

Furthermore, iMacs can also make use of a second screen (monitor spanning) -- without installing any hacks. (This could be enabled via OpenFirmware on older iMacs and iBooks, too.) The iMac has some limitations, of course: you can connect only one additional screen and (to my knowledge) not the 30" ACD. If you need more than two screens (rather the exception than the rule) or a 30" ACD, then you need a tower.

The classical media apps (Photoshop et al, video apps aside for the moment) usually don't utilize more than 2 cores, so you won't necessarily benefit from extra cores. Aperture, for instance, is a different story: that's an app that can eat cpu and gpu power for breakfast. The advantages of a Mac Pro lie in a different arena: (i) it's more expandable, you can put in more than 4 GB RAM, for instance or more than one harddrive. (External FireWire/USB drives are not always a replacement for fast drives.) (ii) The ability to use PCIe cards. (iii) Being able to use more than two monitors. (iv) For certain applications (in particular video and rendering), they are a lot faster (since these apps utilize the extra cores).

Also, another thing to consider is upgradability: you can upgrade the cpus of Mac minis, iMacs and Mac Pros. But you have to use Xeons for the Mac Pro which are expensive. Two Xeons (you obviously have to replace the pair, not just one cpu) may cost about as much as an iMac and about four times as much as a cpu upgrade for one of the consumer Macs.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by cmillerdesign 

You say iMacs are poor choice for designers but MBPs are adequate.

What I said was "IMO relatively iMacs are poor desktop choices for graphic design."

Originally Posted by cmillerdesign 

Aside from portability, why would a MBP be a better graphics system than an iMac or are you just saying the trade-off of portability is acceptable where as an iMac doesn't have portability?

What I said was "the huge difference is that MBPs are portable..." Other than the IMO unacceptable glossy iMac display and the availability of eSATA on a BP, a MBP is not a better graphics system than a top end iMac. The best desktop iMacs are overall a bit stronger than the best MBPs. Note that the much reduced performance I mention has a lot to do with expected application RAM desirability over the life of the box.

Originally Posted by cmillerdesign 

Can you explain what you mean by shorter life cycle of a MBP?

I have owned many Macs including the first, and I find that Mac life cycles primarily end due to technical obsolescence of various kinds. Laptops (logically; look at the engineering compromises laptop designers must make) are inherently much weaker performance-wise than towers are. E.g. it was only recently that laptops could run Photoshop reasonably. Laptops hence start weaker and become technically obsolete more quickly, and upgrades to deal with tech improvements are more challenging. The card slot of MBPs (lacking in iMacs and MBs) allows good flexibility in that regard but tieing-on devices to laptops slowly reduces their portability, which is the only reason to have a laptop in the first place.

The secondary reason Mac lives end is due to damage/hardware failure. Laptops are more susceptible than towers are due to lightweight construction vs. heavy duty, and also the fact that laptops get beat up in the field. AppleCare is not a solution, since it does not cover damage and even when it works it replaces old tech with old tech.

I have always had both desktop and laptop boxes. Currently my (client-supplied) tower is a 6 year old DP G4 (Apple's best when new) about to be upgraded to one of the coming new Mac Pro towers. Although I do not suggest that 6 years is an appropriate graphics tower life (although still coping with CS3, mine is overdue for upgrade), certainly 4-5 years can be expected. I am on my third Mac laptop during that same time period, and IMO a pro graphics user should look at a 1.5-2.5 year appropriate useful life for a MBP.

-Allen Wicks

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I disagree. Mac Pros are only faster if the app can do something with the additional cores -- something which is usually not the case...

Relative to buying a new box apps today are almost irrelevant, except for our expectations of where they will be. With hardware becoming increasingly multiple-processor, do you really expect heavy graphics apps developers like Adobe not to take good advantage of multiple cores, no later than with their next upgrade if not sooner with a dot upgrade? The OP buying a new box in 2008 for usage on heavy graphics 2008-2009-2010-2011 should absolutely plan on graphics applications evolving to take advantage of multiple cores during the majority of the 2008-2011 life cycle of a new box.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

...So often, towers don't substantially outperform their counterparts, unless you are interested in specific applications. For general computing (e. g. Photoshop), there is not much difference...

Graphics design work has evolved. More and more folks are being caught up in workflows that involve hundreds of 20 MB DSLR image files, and the file sizes and volumes are not decreasing as time goes on. Although Photoshop CS3 has not yet taken full advantage of new hardware architecture (especially graphics) PS is not "general computing," towers do outperform iMacs and we are interested in specific applications.

RAM alone makes towers outperform; for many years PS performance has improved with up to 8 GB RAM, and reports with Mac Pros indicate that number is moving up even now. IMO the likelihood that by 2009 pros running graphics apps will prefer in excess of the 4 GB RAM limit of iMacs and MBPs is 100%.

Note that I am not saying that CS3 on a top iMac with 4 GB RAM will not run well today; it will. I am talking about what a graphic designer does to optimize a new box purchase, so the time frame is 2008-2011, not today. The 4 GB RAM limitation alone kills iMacs as a good future desktop choice even if the glossy display did not.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

...Aperture, for instance, is a different story: that's an app that can eat cpu and gpu power for breakfast. The advantages of a Mac Pro lie in a different arena: (i) it's more expandable, you can put in more than 4 GB RAM, for instance or more than one harddrive. (External FireWire/USB drives are not always a replacement for fast drives.) (ii) The ability to use PCIe cards. (iii) Being able to use more than two monitors. (iv) For certain applications (in particular video and rendering), they are a lot faster (since these apps utilize the extra cores).

We agree. And even of one does not use Aperture like I do, IMO Aperture is a model for where we can expect other graphics apps to go in the soon future so we should plan accordingly with new box purchases.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

...Also, another thing to consider is upgradability: you can upgrade the cpus of Mac minis, iMacs and Mac Pros. But you have to use Xeons for the Mac Pro which are expensive. Two Xeons (you obviously have to replace the pair, not just one cpu) may cost about as much as an iMac and about four times as much as a cpu upgrade for one of the consumer Macs.

IMO for pro graphics one buys a high end tower and then uses it for a reasonable 3-5 year life cycle without CPU upgrades. Attempting to upgrade the CPU is a waste of money because throughput performance is about the overall architecture of the box, and upgrading the CPU does not change the underlying architecture.

-Allen Wicks

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Relative to buying a new box apps today are almost irrelevant, except for our expectations of where they will be. With hardware becoming increasingly multiple-processor, do you really expect heavy graphics apps developers like Adobe not to take good advantage of multiple cores, no later than with their next upgrade if not sooner with a dot upgrade? The OP buying a new box in 2008 for usage on heavy graphics 2008-2009-2010-2011 should absolutely plan on graphics applications evolving to take advantage of multiple cores during the majority of the 2008-2011 life cycle of a new box.

No, graphics apps haven't been a major driving force to have more cpu power for a long time now. Many things just aren't parallelizable (i. e. you can distribute them well over many cores), many other things don't scale well beyond 2 or 4 (because interprocess communication limits the achievable speed-up). You could see that in the benchmarks: the 3 GHz 8-core Xeon was in most benchmarks not that much faster than the 4-core variety. Of course, that's the direction the industry is taking.

Photoshop has enough processing power for 95 % of the uses -- even if you edit large RAW files (say 10-20 MB a piece) and add quite a few layers, it won't push the machine to its limits. And I don't think we'll see digital cameras whose RAW file size explodes by a factor of four -- it's just not going to happen.
That's what apps like Aperture do where you edit and view many, many large files at once. Aperture pushes a machine much faster to its limits than Photoshop will ever do.

No offense, but you seem like an old-school photoshopper to me

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Graphics design work has evolved. More and more folks are being caught up in workflows that involve hundreds of 20 MB DSLR image files, and the file sizes and volumes are not decreasing as time goes on. Although Photoshop CS3 has not yet taken full advantage of new hardware architecture (especially graphics) PS is not "general computing," towers do outperform iMacs and we are interested in specific applications.

No, Photoshop at least won't do that. Lightroom and Aperture will. Photoshop just won't take too much advantage of anything OS X has to offer, because of Adobe's policy to keep the Windows version on par with the OS X version. In particular, I don't see any indication to offload certain calculations to the GPU (which is something Aperture does a lot). So as long as you look at Photoshop only, additional cores won't help much. The benchmarks you've posted speak for themselves: a machine that is two, three times as expensive (8-core 3 GHz Mac Pro) is about 30 % faster, this shrinks to 15 % if you consider the 4-core Mac. And this was a selective test that used a rather large file (300 MB) and only multicore-aware filters -- hardly an average everyday scenario for someone who edits a few RAW files. Also, things like harddrive are not that much faster either.

The gap widens for applications other than Photoshop -- which is my point here.

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Note that I am not saying that CS3 on a top iMac with 4 GB RAM will not run well today; it will. I am talking about what a graphic designer does to optimize a new box purchase, so the time frame is 2008-2011, not today. The 4 GB RAM limitation alone kills iMacs as a good future desktop choice even if the glossy display did not.

Remember that iMacs are faster that ProBooks.

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

IMO for pro graphics one buys a high end tower and then uses it for a reasonable 3-5 year life cycle without CPU upgrades. Attempting to upgrade the CPU is a waste of money because throughput performance is about the overall architecture of the box, and upgrading the CPU does not change the underlying architecture.

That depends on the upgrade: if you go from a 2-core to a 4-core cpu (something you can do now), your projects might render much faster. But for most things, the additional cores just idle around and you benefit much more from other upgrades (more RAM, faster harddrive).

So for most people, including your average graphics designer, an iMac is more than capable and a Mac Pro isn't really necessary for most graphics design work. In a world of unlimited financial resources, sure, who wouldn't want a Mac Pro. But that's unfortunately not the world we're living in.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

...Photoshop just won't take too much advantage of anything OS X has to offer, because of Adobe's policy to keep the Windows version on par with the OS X version. In particular, I don't see any indication to offload certain calculations to the GPU (which is something Aperture does a lot).

Interesting observation that explains some things that have been baffling me (like why only use the GPU for simple blitting when a powerful GPU is just sitting there?..) Note that that consequence of such failure to taken full hardware advantage is that folks like me have evolved from 100% PS usage to 98% of images being fully dealt with in Aperture. PS is now used mostly for graphics design, less and less for basic image editing and zero for images handling/management.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

...So for most people, including your average graphics designer, an iMac is more than capable and a Mac Pro isn't really necessary for most graphics design work. In a world of unlimited financial resources, sure, who wouldn't want a Mac Pro. But that's unfortunately not the world we're living in.

Three words, one acronym: RAM. Like I said earlier, a top iMac is indeed generally competent for 95% of PS today. However over the time frame 2008-2011 smart graphics users will want to be addressing more than 4 GB RAM. RAM will be, in fact already is, the bargain of system performance upgrading.

Purchase of a Mac Pro for pro graphics is not about unlimited financial resources. It is about smart life cycle pro graphics purchase decisions.

One could work with a 4 GB RAM underperforming iMac (if one tolerates the display adding saturation and contrast to one's work) for 3 years, then buy another underperforming iMac, essentially discarding the screen via used market selling. Or one could work with an overperforming MP for 4-5 years and keep the screen as one moves up. Each individual can do the math and decide whether he/she wants to pay more for less performance decade after decade, or just build a solid box in the beginning and enjoy pro hardware and essentially unlimited RAM options.

-Allen Wicks

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Each individual can do the math and decide whether he/she wants to pay more for less performance decade after decade, or just build a solid box in the beginning and enjoy pro hardware and essentially unlimited RAM options.

-Allen Wicks

Amen.

[SierraDragon]

My MBP gets used as a portable desktop box more than is ideal, because my tower is a G4, not yet replaced with a Mac Pro, and the MBP is required for some uses like Aperture.

I realized that I should comment that even when performance is otherwise acceptable, the hard drive constraints of a laptop not sequestered into permanent desktop mode can be a PITA. Although I have been wishing for a dual-drive 17" MBP, to date Mac laptops only provide one relatively slow drive. In the graphics biz that single drive reaches 70% full (beyond which performance suffers) very quickly, and a second fast hard drive is needed for usage as a scratch disk for optimum Photoshop performance anyway. The resulting eSATA/FW800 conglomeration of connections to achieve the TB-sized mass storage needs of graphics pros is problematic if the laptop is moved around a lot like mine is.

Just to give folks who may be unaware an idea of the kinds of files that increasingly are being handled as many pro photogs shift to all-DSLR workflows, the (19 MB RAW + 4 MB JPEG ) originals from a September wedding I shot (Nikon D2x) totalled ~21 GB of image data on DVDs when backed up. That is one person, one shoot; the other photog on site had even more files. Processing such image files does pretty much require the computer used to become a bit of a rendering farm.

-Allen Wicks

[OreoCookie]

That's hardly your average work environment, including the graphics business. A colleague of mine who layouts books (perhaps you held some of her work in your hands already) certainly is very happy with her iMac, although she sometimes also uses an old 1 GHz MDD G4.
I'm certainly not generating 21 GB per day (as an ambitious amateur), but 1-1.5 GB per day, tops. My ProBook (which is slower than an iMac) handles this just fine. I know I could use another GB of RAM or two, but it works for me (I'm an avid Aperture user). I'm very happy with the performance, if I were to feed it another GB of RAM, I'd be set for two, three years to come (my machine is almost 2 years old).

There is a space for Mac Pros, but you take your own requirements and conclude that you can't do serious work on i machines or that you will benefit significantly from a Mac Pro. You personally, perhaps (although your MacBook Pro is faster than your G4 desktop which can't use more than 4 GB RAM anyway).

[SierraDragon]

Oreo-

You continue to relate my comments to the present when my comments are about the future of where I think pro graphic design hardware needs are going. Of course many folks are happy with their iMacs for graphics today. Like I said earlier: I am not saying that CS3 on a top iMac with 4 GB RAM will not run well today; it will. Even on 2-3 GB RAM for some.

Nor am I commenting on anyone's past purchase decisions - they are history, moot, irrelevant. I am evaluating the future hardware upgrade from a multiprocessor G5 tower for an individual doing "design in Adobe CS and a fair amount of Photoshop work."

The statement that I "conclude that you can't do serious work on i machines" is untrue. I have repeatedly said that CS3 on a top iMac with adequate RAM will run well today.

I am not even saying that new or existing iMacs (except for the glossy display issue that each designer must individually decide) will be inadequate in 2008. I am talking about what a graphic designer does to optimize a future new box purchase over the time frame 2008-2011 and beyond.

My comments about a wedding shoot were not meant to suggest that every graphics person processes wedding pix. Specifically, I was pointing out "the kinds of files that increasingly are being handled as many pro photogs shift to all-DSLR workflows." Obviously not all graphic designers have that specific workflow, but the fact is that desktop graphics apps are rapidly evolving due to the demands that modern pro DSLR capture introduce, even for those pros (a decreasing number) who do not handle images and never intend to handle images. Concurrent with hardware evolution and falling RAM prices graphics apps are becoming more hardware/RAM demanding.

[Edit:] I don't so much mean demanding in the sentence above as I mean utilizing. Most apps will continue to "run" on lesser RAM; it is just that additional RAM will become increasingly cost-effective performance-enhancing.

As an example of falling RAM prices, I paid in excess of US$400 to add a 2-GB OWC DIMM to my C2D MBP; today - exactly one year later - that same 2-GB DIMM costs US$85 from OWC. IMO over the time frame 2008-2011 smart graphics users will want to be addressing more than 4 GB RAM. RAM will be, in fact already is, the bargain of system performance upgrading. IMO the 4 GB RAM limitation alone kills iMacs as the preferable future desktop choice for graphics pros even if the glossy display did not.

-Allen Wicks

P.S. You are correct, I am an old-school photoshopper but I much prefer the new school. Aperture rocks! The 1.5.6 upgrade seems substantially faster/smoother to me.