The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Anybody Considering a Mac Pro ..How to Configure ?

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Diglloyd is working his way thru an evaluation and I have learned quite a lot from his FREE Mac Performance Blog posts .

Configuration performance is heavily biased by the post processing software architecture . Lightroom utilizes multiple cores on input and out put of files . Capture One relies on the GPU for all intensive processing . Cores don t matter for Capture One .

Both products are heavily influenced by the bus speed available . Internal OWC SSD are the way to go .

If you use dual monitors they can share the I/O capacity ..reducing performance significantly on external files .

Ram and processor speeds are of course important BUT they are not the full story on configuration requirements .

Its not simple and one size does not make sense for all photographers .
 

Christopher

Active member
Just not completely true.

There are a few very specific features the new Mac Pro has which are hard or expensive to come by. However, these are not needed at all for a photo workstation.

What you can get for a lot cheaper is:
- 256GB of Memory
- 24/32/64 Cores
- enough m2 SSD Space
- a great Nvidia RTX card with full 10bit support, without wasting money on a quadro or ago fire card.

I’m currently planing and soon building my new workstation and I already now I will save thousands of eur doing so with windows.


I think that’s a bit of an over stated point. A comparable Windows PC configured with identical components will cost close to the same as the Mac version. Now it’s true that you can get a great “gaming” style PC that can be great at photo/video production for less than some Mac Pro systems - but then they aren’t really the same at that point. There’s also the fact that most people that choose Mac do so because they don’t like using Windows as much. I’m comfortable with Windows but I prefer to not have it in my personal life.

I’m hoping the rumors about Apple making a modular “gaming” computer in the $5k range are true because I think it’ll be a great alternative to the iMac Pro to slot between the iMac and Mac Pro. In any case the Mac Pro went way upmarket and I remember my mid-level G5 Mac Pro was a $2200 expense ($2500 retail). I understand that there’s a market for this type of modular system that isn’t quite as high end. Even better if they make it a fully AMD system with their high end Navi GPU.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Just not completely true.

There are a few very specific features the new Mac Pro has which are hard or expensive to come by. However, these are not needed at all for a photo workstation.

What you can get for a lot cheaper is:
- 256GB of Memory
- 24/32/64 Cores
- enough m2 SSD Space
- a great Nvidia RTX card with full 10bit support, without wasting money on a quadro or ago fire card.

I’m currently planing and soon building my new workstation and I already now I will save thousands of eur doing so with windows.
Yes you can get a faster/larger SSD in an AMD based Windows computer right now. If you’re referring to a Threadripper processor, then yes they’re less expensive than Intel (but then it’s not Apples and Oranges while using the same exact Intel Xeon parts). Yes you can buy RAM cheaper and install it yourself versus obtaining it from Apple. Yes, NVidia RTX cards are great... they’re designed around gaming performance primarily though... and I say that as a person that is also a gamer. The AMD GPU’s in the Mac Pro are better in some ways for doing work and multitasking IMO though - and again you can only really get those specific cards in the Mac Pro (though I accept that they are essentially two Radeon VII’s bonded into one board with twice the amount of HBM Memory). You can also install what is essentially 4 cards for a total of up to 128 GB of VRAM alone Yes it’s pricy but there really isn’t a comparable Nvidia RTX that isn’t priced similarly. A 24TB RTX Titan Card is going to cost upwards of $2k+ depending on what GPU prices are doing. 2080 Ti RTX is going to run you $1200+ but isn’t going to have the same amount of VRAM. It’s an excellent card but you aren’t comparing apples to oranges. A lot of less expensive cards like the 2070 Super or the 5700 XT offer great price to performance alternatives as well and can be had for $500 or less of one is focused on value but again none of these are workstation class cards.

Here’s one (of many videos) that compare comparable setups that aren’t individually built. Even still, Xeon W parts are on the pricy side and before Intel cut prices on consumer desktop parts last fall the same could be said of Core parts. AMD Ryzen, Threadripper, and the like are better values in every way as of today and I would not mind at all if Apple either moved to AMD parts with Intel supply and development issues or at least gave users the option.

https://youtu.be/fsHWHaXrWAM

When you price out a prebuilt workstation from Dell, HP, etc. (with comparable or the same components) you will see that the price of the Mac Pro is NOT over priced but it may be overkill for what you personally do.

I’ll leave it at that.

This isn’t to start an argument (because no one really wants to read pages of disagreement) but it is to add nuance when comparing the Mac Pro (which is designed to be a professional workstation) on price to performance with a custom built PC that is largely derived of a mix of workstation and/or high end consumer parts. That’s the beauty of going Windows PC (if you will) in that you can pick and choose from a litany of parts... unfortunately there’s no way to currently have that option in a Mac OS X system that’s fully/natively supported system. Personally I’d prefer to pay the “Apple premium” on a less customized system that I prefer to use once and if they release the system I’m willing to pay for. I agree that the Mac Pro is overkill for the vast majority of pure photographers. An iMac or Mac Mini is likely a better option with the caveat that it limits future upgrade ability. The iMac Pro is great too but again it is limited in the ability to self upgrade. Hopefully Apple drops the iMac Pro and places a “non-Pro” Modular Mac that is based on consumer desktop Intel Core (or AMD Zen architecture since there’s some efficiency benefits to using AMD Zen based CPU’s with their RDNA based GPU’s) but then once would presumably lose Intel Quick Sync.
 

Christopher

Active member
I don't disagree with you on most points. I only think that for a Photographer, the current mac Pro in ANY configuration is a big waste of money. There are many use cases where the Mac Pro is an amazing tool and one of its kind.

One more point, which is not known to most people, HP and similar companies give huge discounts on even ONE workstation which is "official" priced at 20k.... Apple doesn't.

My point was, that for a photographer a workstation class graphic card or CPU do NOT make sense at all. Especially after Nvidia opened there 30bit (10bit) support for all "consumer" cards. I still use a workstation card and a Xeon CPU in my current workstation. However, it would be a waste of money for me to do the same on my new one.



Yes you can get a faster/larger SSD in an AMD based Windows computer right now. If you’re referring to a Threadripper processor, then yes they’re less expensive than Intel (but then it’s not Apples and Oranges while using the same exact Intel Xeon parts). Yes you can buy RAM cheaper and install it yourself versus obtaining it from Apple. Yes, NVidia RTX cards are great... they’re designed around gaming performance primarily though... and I say that as a person that is also a gamer. The AMD GPU’s in the Mac Pro are better in some ways for doing work and multitasking IMO though - and again you can only really get those specific cards in the Mac Pro (though I accept that they are essentially two Radeon VII’s bonded into one board with twice the amount of HBM Memory). You can also install what is essentially 4 cards for a total of up to 128 GB of VRAM alone Yes it’s pricy but there really isn’t a comparable Nvidia RTX that isn’t priced similarly. A 24TB RTX Titan Card is going to cost upwards of $2k+ depending on what GPU prices are doing. 2080 Ti RTX is going to run you $1200+ but isn’t going to have the same amount of VRAM. It’s an excellent card but you aren’t comparing apples to oranges. A lot of less expensive cards like the 2070 Super or the 5700 XT offer great price to performance alternatives as well and can be had for $500 or less of one is focused on value but again none of these are workstation class cards.

Here’s one (of many videos) that compare comparable setups that aren’t individually built. Even still, Xeon W parts are on the pricy side and before Intel cut prices on consumer desktop parts last fall the same could be said of Core parts. AMD Ryzen, Threadripper, and the like are better values in every way as of today and I would not mind at all if Apple either moved to AMD parts with Intel supply and development issues or at least gave users the option.

https://youtu.be/fsHWHaXrWAM

When you price out a prebuilt workstation from Dell, HP, etc. (with comparable or the same components) you will see that the price of the Mac Pro is NOT over priced but it may be overkill for what you personally do.

I’ll leave it at that.

This isn’t to start an argument (because no one really wants to read pages of disagreement) but it is to add nuance when comparing the Mac Pro (which is designed to be a professional workstation) on price to performance with a custom built PC that is largely derived of a mix of workstation and/or high end consumer parts. That’s the beauty of going Windows PC (if you will) in that you can pick and choose from a litany of parts... unfortunately there’s no way to currently have that option in a Mac OS X system that’s fully/natively supported system. Personally I’d prefer to pay the “Apple premium” on a less customized system that I prefer to use once and if they release the system I’m willing to pay for. I agree that the Mac Pro is overkill for the vast majority of pure photographers. An iMac or Mac Mini is likely a better option with the caveat that it limits future upgrade ability. The iMac Pro is great too but again it is limited in the ability to self upgrade. Hopefully Apple drops the iMac Pro and places a “non-Pro” Modular Mac that is based on consumer desktop Intel Core (or AMD Zen architecture since there’s some efficiency benefits to using AMD Zen based CPU’s with their RDNA based GPU’s) but then once would presumably lose Intel Quick Sync.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I don't disagree with you on most points. I only think that for a Photographer, the current mac Pro in ANY configuration is a big waste of money. There are many use cases where the Mac Pro is an amazing tool and one of its kind.

One more point, which is not known to most people, HP and similar companies give huge discounts on even ONE workstation which is "official" priced at 20k.... Apple doesn't.

My point was, that for a photographer a workstation class graphic card or CPU do NOT make sense at all. Especially after Nvidia opened there 30bit (10bit) support for all "consumer" cards. I still use a workstation card and a Xeon CPU in my current workstation. However, it would be a waste of money for me to do the same on my new one.
Fair enough and I don’t disagree with you that these may be overkill for most. For those that have an increasing mix of photo and video though it makes a lot of sense to consider assuming one has the budget for one. For a pure photographer - an iMac is fine... or a Windows PC if one wants to go that route. My point and hope is that Apple going way upmarket with this iteration of the Mac Pro leaves a huge gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro. Again when I bought my PowerMac G5 the base system started at $1999, mid tier was $2499, and the top end one was $2999. They continued that structure with the Intel MacPro until the “trash can” Mac Pro was released. I was expecting the Mac Pro options to get expensive but a $5999 base price is beyond what I expected personally. Hopefully there’s a cheaper option for a modular Mac system because frankly I don’t love to use Windows in my free time.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
How do you keep a thread on track ...I am convinced it cannot be done here at GETDpi . The intent of the thread was to discuss “How to configure a New Mac Pro “ Was I not clear in setting up the discussion ?

If you want to build a Windows based system ...have at it ..in your own thread

If you believe you can configure the 2013 MP with upgrades and have a bargain 2019 MP ...start your own thread.

There is a lot to be considered should you want to actually buy an 2019 MP ....cores ,memory ,GPU,SSD strategy, displays . Its appears to matter a lot whether you are LR or C1 user.

Why does every thread have to degenerate into a discussion on how to get a better deal . You can probably buy a used Toyota and make the case that its fast enough and you must be either stupid or have too much money to want that Porsche .
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Roger,

Apple in general, and Mac Pros in particular, attract so much hatred that this thread had no chance anywhere. On MacRumors it’s the same. It’s weird.

I, too, have feelings about the MP as a photography workstation, but a) that wasn’t your question and b) software is moving in the direction where it may well change the balance.

To your original question, alas, I have no advice.

Matt
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
How do you keep a thread on track ...I am convinced it cannot be done here at GETDpi . The intent of the thread was to discuss “How to configure a New Mac Pro “ Was I not clear in setting up the discussion ?

If you want to build a Windows based system ...have at it ..in your own thread

If you believe you can configure the 2013 MP with upgrades and have a bargain 2019 MP ...start your own thread.

There is a lot to be considered should you want to actually buy an 2019 MP ....cores ,memory ,GPU,SSD strategy, displays . Its appears to matter a lot whether you are LR or C1 user.

Why does every thread have to degenerate into a discussion on how to get a better deal . You can probably buy a used Toyota and make the case that its fast enough and you must be either stupid or have too much money to want that Porsche .
I think it’s the nature of the Internet is the short answer.

On the question of how to configure, I think the 12 or 16 core option with a Radeon Pro II would be my choice. I’d add aftermarket RAM and SSD’s to save money on easily upgraded parts that I didn’t have to pay Apple and extreme premium on. I think one could save a few thousand that way and come up with a system that has either 192 or 384 GB of RAM with a few TB of storage. I think this sort of system can be had in the $11-15k range depending on RAM and storage prices.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Apple in general, and Mac Pros in particular, attract so much hatred that this thread had no chance anywhere. On MacRumors it’s the same. It’s weird.
I don’t know that it’s hatred so much as ignorance in repeating common ideas regarding Apple products. Yes, there is an “Apple tax” that one pays on upgrades like RAM but it’s a moot point on nearly every current desktop Mac that isn’t a iMac Pro as the user can elect to self upgrade. In the case of my MacBook Pro I upgraded the RAM and hard drive to an SSD myself as it was well out of warranty when I needed to replace my battery.

I took the time above to show that the Mac Pro isn’t overpriced, though I admit it’s expensive for most people to consider. I think all too often people judge based on price to performance because most people have limited budgets. I am not saying it’s right but it’s the reality for most people. Would I love to own a fully upgraded Mac Pro? Without question. Can I justify spending over $50 on a computer? Absolutely not for what I do. That being said I can build a much lore reasonable (by comparison) machine that’ll do everything I want and need right now but I see Mac Pro as a option to future proof. I think many people miss that people choose workstation parts to do actual work when able because it’s optimized to do work. I see a lot of younger people, gamers, and hardcore DIY types that are most anti-Apple. I use Windows for my 9-5 just fine but I don’t consider it a pleasant experience. I prefer the stability of a Inix/Linux based OS. Mac OS provides that outlet and I personally prefer the ecosystem in every way. It’s not because I’m “dumb” or “like to waste money” but I understand that is what comes from internet brand trolling... no matter the brand.
 

Christopher

Active member
My negative comments are not against Apple. I got stock, love their iPhone, iPad, and MacBook Pro.

Could I afford a 15k Mac for my business... sure. What’s 15k if you have two full Phase One Systems... would I ever spent 15k on a Mac, which will be slow compared to a modern system in 4 years? Certainly not. I could upgrade my pc 3 times for that money.

Now let’s get back to topic. What is there to discuss? Go to Puget system and look at their benchmarks, look at C1 Benchmarks and think about what you want after that it’s pretty easy.

For photography 64GB Memory is fine. you. An go with more of you actually work on 200Mp Images a lot.

CPU doesn’t need to be more than 8 cores. 12 won’t hurt, but the added speed isn’t much.

Video card isn’t much choice as you are Limited to AMDs Pro Cards. Just get the best you can afford.

Storage is a completely different topic and depends on what you need. I got 16TB of images and won’t store them internal. I have a NAS with 10g that’s good enough for storage. Current projects are on 2x2TB m2 SSDs.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
I know that nobody here reads Diglloyd s blog because he appears to be universally disliked at this forum. If you do want to take a look at his learnings on the MP they are FREE at his blog .

There is nothing simple about configuring a MP . Take any aspect of your choices ....How many cores ? Depends on the type of photography you are doing , the software used (LR Vs C1 ) and your budget . From his benchmarks ...he shows that having 16 to 24 cores can significantly speed the input output speeds on LR (and in fact more cores means faster always ) . However when he tested C1 he found that the number of cores made no difference at all and that it was completely dependent on the GPU .

So lets say you are doing Sports ...and you come in with what 3-5000 captures from an event (not unreasonable shooting all day and on 10FPS or more ) . Using LR ..you would care about the I/O speed . Calls for more Cores .

Or take another possible scenario ...you are a Fine Art Landscape photographer using an IQ4/150 ...C1 is your choice ...you need to look carefully at the GPU .

I could go on . I know how to size hardware requirements ..what I don t have are the insights into software requirements . Saw the C1 paper on configuration ..first rate insights . But nothing on LR .

You also have to think ahead ...how much of your work relies on combining multiple captures . Today ? In the future ?

How much will you post processing software rely on AI for new features ?

Let me know if you have seen any benchmarks using C1 or LR with a MacPro .
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I know that nobody here reads Diglloyd s blog because he appears to be universally disliked at this forum. If you do want to take a look at his learnings on the MP they are FREE at his blog .

There is nothing simple about configuring a MP . Take any aspect of your choices ....How many cores ? Depends on the type of photography you are doing , the software used (LR Vs C1 ) and your budget . From his benchmarks ...he shows that having 16 to 24 cores can significantly speed the input output speeds on LR (and in fact more cores means faster always ) . However when he tested C1 he found that the number of cores made no difference at all and that it was completely dependent on the GPU .

So lets say you are doing Sports ...and you come in with what 3-5000 captures from an event (not unreasonable shooting all day and on 10FPS or more ) . Using LR ..you would care about the I/O speed . Calls for more Cores .

Or take another possible scenario ...you are a Fine Art Landscape photographer using an IQ4/150 ...C1 is your choice ...you need to look carefully at the GPU .

I could go on . I know how to size hardware requirements ..what I don t have are the insights into software requirements . Saw the C1 paper on configuration ..first rate insights . But nothing on LR .

You also have to think ahead ...how much of your work relies on combining multiple captures . Today ? In the future ?

How much will you post processing software rely on AI for new features ?

Let me know if you have seen any benchmarks using C1 or LR with a MacPro .
I was basing what I’d configure based on the pro level software that I’d personally use (C1, FCPX/Davinci Resolve, Affinity Suite, Fundy Designer, etc.). I agree that 8 core is fine for most applications but I think 12 or 16 is the future proofing sweet spot when it come to value to performance. If you can afford the 24 or 28 core CPU’s the performance will almost certainly never be worse but for my own usage I can’t see needing more than 12 or 16 core for the next 5 years or so that I’d use the computer as my main workhorse. Yes, I agree that more software is becoming GPU dependent and Apple is always updating the Metal API to take better advantage of this and offload some of the heavy lifting from the CPU’s to the GPU/APU. Personally I don’t have an issue with AMD GPU’s and for doing work I prefer them in many ways to the Nvidia ones. For pure gaming operations then maybe this wouldn’t be true 100% today. I do believe that Apple will continue to develop custom chipsets like the T2 to assist both the CPU and GPU in performing certain types of preocessing operations and it seems that the Afterburner card makes a huge difference in deciding/encoding ProRES Video.

...and no I don’t have a huge issue with Digilloyd... I just don’t read it personally.
 

tcdeveau

Well-known member
I'd probably buy the base 8-core but do a 1tb SSD....would upgrade the RAM later through OWC or another vendor. If the video cards are available a la cart, I'd start with the base video card and then upgrade later as needed, otherwise I might consider a single Vega II.

My working photo library is on a promise pegasus external, and I'd consider transferring it to a large internal PCI SSD (https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/ssd/owc-accelsior-4m2) or the internal promise RAID MPX setup they're cooking up (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...DgNZXCULNmt4v2M4cDMY98FyGgwmGF5hoCs5gQAvD_BwE) and go back to everything in one box and no wires.

I enjoyed my 2013 Mac Pro. I spent a good bit of money on it, but it did what I needed to, and it saved me a bit of time when I was in grad school and working on my PhD thesis (which I only had two weeks to complete) with the processing power it had...which has value to me. I then sold it after 5 years of ownership for a little over 1/3 of what I paid for it, which isn't bad resale value at all IMHO. I didn't like the lack of user upgradeability or the modularity aspect (wires everywhere). The new Mac Pro takes care of both of those concerns for me.

I have considered the Mac Pro (after all I am a GetDPI member and like shiny new things like the rest of us; I'm also a student again and qualify for educational discounts) but I'm not sure I can justify it since I currently have so little time for photo processing. Most of everything I do right now my 2018 15" Macbook Pro can handle. Looking to get a back for my tech cam in 2021 and will re-evaluate my desktop needs after that. A mac mini and external GPU may do just fine too.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Well I ended up buying a 16” MacBook Pro today. Intel i9 2.4 GHz, 32 GB RM, 2TB SSD, and the Radeon Pro 5500m 8GB GPU. So far so good. Spent most of the afternoon doing updates and downloading software I use but I’ll probably keep this machine as clean as possible to be mostly just an photo/video editing station. I almost bought a Razor Advanced laptop (because it’s the most “Apple feeling” Windows laptop) but I’m glad I spent a little extra on the MacBook Pro.
 

f8orbust

Active member
I was a fan of the trash can design, but I get the limitations that were inherent to its design. This really does look like a giant cheese grater :p
 
Top