Member Avatar for wsewall

For about the same cost, I can get either the previous version G5dp 2.0, or the current G5dp 2.0. The difference is in the max RAM slots (8GB max vs 4GB max) and the 64MB video card vs 128MB. I do graphics with big files (no video) using PShop and NDesign. Is the older machine with more RAM a better bet than the newer one? (I just don't know if the newest G5 dp has any other added features that are not apparent to the lay user.

Thanks,

wsewall

  • 3 Contributors
  • 4 Replies
  • 194 Views
  • 6 Days Discussion Span
  • Latest Post Latest Post by kc0arf

Dani AI

Generated

Practical takeaway for a graphics workstation decision: prioritize the system parts that reduce Photoshop/InDesign I/O and make large documents live in memory. Letting image data reside in RAM and giving Photoshop a fast, dedicated scratch volume produces far bigger, real-world speed gains than small jumps in video RAM or minor model refreshes. ()
(See Adobe’s performance guidance: .)

GPU vs. RAM/CPU — nuance to ’s point: a beefier GPU improves redraws, zooming and multi‑monitor performance at very high pixel counts, but most heavy pixel-processing (filters, compositing, large layered edits) remains CPU/RAM‑bound and shows diminishing returns from extra CPU cores. If long service life matters, favor the configuration with easier upgrade/expansion options so RAM, drives or the graphics card can be improved later. ()
(See G5 revision/expansion notes: EveryMac Power Mac G5 guide.)

Practical, immediately actionable steps:

  • Put Photoshop’s primary scratch disk on the fastest internal drive available (or a dedicated RAID/SSD) and keep plenty of free space. ()
  • Keep InDesign files with linked (not embedded) images and use Package before delivery; linked workflows drastically reduce INDD file size and improve responsiveness. ()
  • In Photoshop, raise cache levels when working with very large images, lower History states if memory is tight, and watch the Efficiency readout — when it drops under ~95%, scratch I/O is slowing work. ()

On RAM disks and long-term planning: ’s RAM‑disk idea is valid for ultra‑fast temp caches, but RAM disks are volatile — lose power and the contents vanish. Use them only for ephemeral caches, not as the only copy of in‑progress work, and consider a UPS or frequent automated saves if using one. For longevity, choose the box with the friendliest upgrade path (DIMM type/slot count and drive bays) so memory and storage can be expanded as needs grow. (en.wikipedia.org)

Recommended Answers

All 4 Replies

Member Avatar for yellow

The question is, will you ever need that much RAM, to which I would respond, probably not. You can get easily get away with 1GB or 2GB of RAM. If you need up to 4GB, so be it, but that's a TON of RAM. Will you ever need more? I'd be shocked if you did.

I would say that you should be spending your money on the one with the 128MB video card. And since that's probably the new Mac, I'd even splurge for the 256MB video card.

Member Avatar for wsewall

Thanks. I do handle Pshop files up to 500MB, as well as InDesign layouts up to 6' x 8'. I would like to use this machine for many years, and since RAM demands continue to grow, more seemed better than less. However, is the faster video card important to graphic design use? maybe it is more critical.

thanks,

wsewall

Member Avatar for yellow

I look at it this way.. people have been fiddling with PhotoShop files that large when the RAM max was 2GB. I would think a Mac with a much faster subsystem and 2x the RAM would be fantastic. But I'm also a Mac support professional, not a design person, so anything I say should be taken with a grain of salt.

I know there are plenty of design professionals at http://forums.macrumors.com you might want to ask the same question there and see what reaction you get.

Member Avatar for kc0arf

Hello,

I would think that your world would be happy at the 4 GB level, unless you were interested in setting up a RAM disk, and keeping a lot of materials within it. RAM Disks are very very fast (the speed of RAM!), with the danger that if you loose power to the computer... the content within the RAM disk goes away too. I used to use RAM disks with OS 9... my OS X box does not have enough RAM for me to make a useful one and find out.

I do have a RAM disk on my Linux box that is used for small temporary files. I also liked using the RAM disk for internet temp / cache files and cocookies that I love to see crumble at the fate of the power cord.

Christian

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.