Is there any machine known to man which runs Aperture at a decent speed?

bigredshark

bigredshark

bigredshark

Man of Honour
Joined
30 Jun 2005
Posts
9,515
Location
London Town!
So, my machine it not slow, it's a 2.53 with 8GB of RAM and a 160GB SSD, everything else I do still impresses me with it's snappyness, but Aperture runs like it's on my old 2.16 core duo machine. It's a dog.

I'm not doing anything vastly complex, just importing a memory card full of RAW files and letting it process them takes 10 minutes.

So does anybody have a setup under which Aperture actually runs quickly? I'd rather not get rid of it as performance aside I like it very much but then again I'd rather not buy a Mac Pro for it (and I'd like even less to buy a Mac Pro and discover it's as slow as ever.
 
Are you sure you're just not waiting on the memory card? Or are you saying the processing is taking 10 minutes after the import is complete?
 
Yeah it's a top end CF card and it keeps up with the camera fine so I doubt it, and it's slow to process after the import...

I'm wondering about the iMac, just wondering if it really helps having the extra cores...
 
it runs fast on my two machines

see sig

do you use quick preview or Fine Preview after when/importing?

maybe try Quick preview after import once its all imported switch to fine.

i recon that will help.
 
Last edited:
my 24inch imac 3ghz is super fast with importing RAW files from my 8Gb sdhc card so the new i7 will eat them up

edit: whats your connection method for your importing is the card plugged straight in to your machine via a memory card reader of is it a usb cable from mac to camera ???
 
Last edited:
Quick preview isn't a great deal of use to me, about the first thing I'm doing is using the loupe tool to check how sharp they are and how much noise there is, so I kinda need them processed.

I'm usually importing from a card reader but occasionally from the camera direct, not much difference really, it's the processing which seems to eat up time.

I should maybe just bite the bullet and cough up the cash for a high end imac or mac pro, I've been thinking about it for long enough but I'm reluctant to toss £2k at the problem without knowing it's a definite fix...
 
just out curiosity to see if we can find out why

Aperture Version?

Battery power or Power Cord? (make a difference?)

im guessing yours is the 9400m/9600 does it make a difference?

How Long roughly would say it takes to import, then process? (time for each)

OSX version?

i know you said quick preview isnt no use, but maybe try it least we could rule it out to struggling loading loads of fine previews?

if i get time tomorrow ill try the import 150/+, plus fine preview on my MP & see how long it takes. i have D60 so about 10-11mb a .raw

im interested in this because, well aperture seems to run fine for most.
 
Aperture v3.0.2
On mains power
9400m
Varying with number and I didn't time exactly but around 10 minutes in total for 160 shots, import took about 90 seconds maybe.
OSX is 10.6.3 and everything is up to date.

To be honest I've heard a fair few complaints about Aperture's speed, particularly with the older version but still with v3 so I'm not expecting a magic fix...would interesting to see how to does on a mac pro though...
 
Aperture is so slow for me I have given up and gone to Lightroom which is so much faster. It's a shame, it has some really great features but if it takes too long to do simple tasks it's pretty much useless.
 
Mac Pro 2009 8 core 2.26ghz 12GB 4870 HDD - on a Samsung F3 1TB - apertureV2 - OSX 10.6.3

this test was running with Adium,Safari,Itunes,Aperture,bowtie,Tacks,Istats menu

import from a 15mb/s Sandisk 8GB Card using USB to Memory card reader 160shots on D60 in .Raw
Click for full size - Uploaded with plasq's Skitch

Processing of these pictures timed from after Eject to after checking each Preview image for Processing label. though i think it was done in 8 seconds
Click for full size - Uploaded with plasq's Skitch
. as after that i had no more processing labels but it took me time to go through them all.
Click for full size - Uploaded with plasq's Skitch
 
Last edited:
Cheers for that benchmark - seems maybe the extra cores do make a difference then (that or the graphics boost though I doubt that so much). Might have to have another think about a iMac or Mac Pro for home in the near future.
 
cool cool and no problem for the benchmark.

personally i think my next mac will be an Imac i love my Mac Pro but it would be nice to be without the box.

only thing is id lose out on the HDD storage...
 
Indeed, the iMac is the better value proposition right now unless you need 8 cores and heaps of RAM, I'd swap the drive for an SSD as I can't live without one any more anyway so I'd be looking at a Drobo connected with FW800. Mac Pro is tempting though, just makes me feel a bit guilty spending £2k+ on a home workstation purely to edit photos...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom