Photoshop for macbook pro 2013 mac#
Photoshop for macbook pro 2013 windows#

Photoshop for macbook pro 2013 windows#

But, hey, from experience in that Windows environment, Apple users do NOT want a mass exodus of Windows grunge to the Apple community.

Photoshop for macbook pro 2013 mac#

DRailroad - Friday, Novemlink A belated (much belated) ABSOLUTELY! Having come from a Windows (I've always abhorred the 'PC' reference, most desktops ARE 'Personal Computers!') environment, we switched (more like escaped, RAN!) from that execrable platform over 14 years ago to Mac Pros and have never been more productive.

The Mac Pro is at least performance competitive, but in these lightly threaded workloads you won't see a huge uplift. Anyone with lighter workloads looking for a huge performance increase thanks to the Mac Pro will have to look elsewhere. Our Lightroom 3 export test tells a very similar story. Out of curiosity I ran the test under Photoshop CS6 and came away with a completion time of around 6 seconds. In CS5 our benchmark looks more like a lightly threaded test by comparison. I still have our Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 3 tests though:ДЄs I mentioned earlier, threading seems to have improved on newer versions of Photoshop. The latest versions of iPhoto and iMovie break comparisons to my older benchmarks so I've had to drop them here. The story doesn't really change here, I just thought I'd publish the numbers in case anyone wants data using this new test: I'm slowly but surely amassing Cinebench 15 results. We're talking about multiple times the performance offered by anything else in Apple's lineup with a Pro suffix. If you need more cores, the Mac Pro is literally the only solution Apple offers that can deliver. The Mac Pro is designed to offer competitive single threaded performance, but really deliver for everyone who depends on great multithreaded performance: We're not talking about huge margins of victory here, a matter of a handful of percent, but as a much more expensive machine it's frustrating to not see huge performance leadership in all areas. The 2013 27-inch iMac with its fastest CPU should still be quicker though. I suspect if you had one of the 8-core models you'd see peak single threaded performance similar to what the 2012 27-inch iMac delivers. Now part of this is exaggerated by the fact that I'm reviewing the 2.7GHz 12-core Mac Pro configuration. Granted everything else around the CPU cores is beefed up (there's more cache, many more PCIe lanes, etc.), but single threaded performance does suffer as a result. So while the latest iMac and MacBook Pro ship with Intel's latest Haswell cores, the Mac Pro uses what those machines had a year ago: Ivy Bridge. The Mac Pro follows Intel's workstation roadmap, which ends up being cut down versions of Intel's server silicon, which happens to be a generation behind what you can get on the desktop. If there's one graph that tells the story of why Intel's workstation roadmap is ridiculous, it's this one. I've already gone through Cinebench 11.5 results, but the following graphs should put in perspective the Mac Pro's performance relative to all consumer Macs: Here we'll get an idea of how the new Mac Pro, in its most expensive configuration, fares as a normal Mac. There are definitely multithreaded components to these tests (some are indeed highly threaded), but the suite also values good single threaded performance. For my final set of CPU performance charts I put the new Mac Pro through the same set of tests I do all new Macs.