[Cadaver]

I've been using Aperture on and off since version 1.0 first came out. First on a PowerMac G5 2.0GHz with a Radeon 9800 Mac Special Edition (256MB) and an Apple 22" cinema display, then on a PowerMac G5 2.5GHz with a Radeon X800 XT and a 30" cinema display. And up until earlier today on a Mac Pro 2.66GHz with 4GB of RAM and the stock nVIdia 7300GT (also with the same 30" display).

Aperture has always been a far more sluggish program than it seems like it should. Even with my Aperture library on a Raptor 140GB RAID (2x74GB 10,000 rpm Raptors). Apple's attempts at off-loading certain functions to the GPU never seemed to have its promise fulfilled.

Then, today, I broke down and bought the X1900 XT for my machine from my local Apple store. I'm only a casual gamer, so I was feeling a little guilty about spending so much money on a graphics card, but I also figured OS X 10.5 might get a speed bump from it, too. Or, at least that's how I rationalized it to myself.

However, I was not prepared for how much better Aperture would be with it. Its like a completely different program. I can scroll through full-screen images fast enough to make sequential photos look like an animated sequence. The app feels like an app should - it just does what its told when its told. Just like every other app does (which Aperture never before did).

Am I wrong in thinking that:
a) Apple is requiring/using far more horsepower than should seem necessary for Aperture?
b) Leopard and its GPU effects will feel really slow on anything less that top-of-the-line hardware?

[mduell]

a) Perhaps they're taking the easy and elegant route, focusing on features rather than optimization. Plus the files Aperture is working with are relatively large (compared to just a JPEG image) and complex (in terms of rendering and manipulating).

b) I don't really see Leopard pushing the GPU much more; Core Animation will add a bit in apps that use it, but no great leaps.

[rslifka]

Ok... which of those machines did you get the X1900 for?

I ask because the PPC version was released about a week ago and I'm trying to find performance info, anecdotal or otherwise.

[Gee4orce]

I think there are definitely optimisations that could be done in Aperture, and I'm sure we'll see them in the future. But I do think that Aperture was initially aimed at the absolute top pros who could effectively spend whatever they need on a setup that was to become the core of their entire workflow - so development time was better spent on features, rather than optimisations.

I have 2 year old G5 1.8 - can I get an X1900 for that ? I think it's PCI-X

[P]

Apple under Jobs has been pretty consistent in its decisions about performance - when it's easier and cleaner but slower to do it one way, then do it that way. Performance will catch up, and in two years it won't be an issue. As long as the performance is still acceptable, if barely, they'll do it. Quartz is that way - it was really slow to begin with, until Quartz Extreme and updated GPUs made it faster. This is the exact opposite of the first Mac, which ran on a pathetic 8 MHz CPU, but was very hacky and hard to extend. Which is right? Depends on if you're building a system for today or for the next decade.