Were I to go that route...

Post #404,139 by rcareaga 8/19/15 12:51:59 PM Reply	Were I to go that route... I have an old Mac 30" display that doesn't get a lot of use. It's not Retina- or 4K-grade, but I'm not going to be doing industrial-strength video or photo editing. The screen will require an inexpensive adaptor before it will work properly with the black cylinder. I will accordingly not be going, if I go at all, for the optionally higher-end graphics cards. Nor indeed do I regard it as likely that I'll require the studlier CPUs on offer. Repeat after me: Photoshop. Illustrator. InDesign. These represent something north of 85% of what my paid gig requires of me. The little video work I contemplate should be accommodated by Final Cut Express/Pro, both of which versions I have on hand ought not make undue demands on Apple's new top-of-the-line. I will go for max RAM, (64GB) because, yes, every new OS makes more savage demands on that element. Comments? cordially,
Post #404,142 by Another Scott 8/19/15 1:42:40 PM Reply	Sounds good. Sounds like a nice machine. But it sounds like you want something that's reasonably current that takes a boatload of RAM. An XServe might work well and be substantially cheaper. But if it's not out of your pocket, then ... :-) They're cheap. You'd have to put some parts in it (an SSD, etc.) to make it comparable to the MacPro. The graphics card in the XServe might be a turtle as well, so it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison at those prices. :-( Good luck. Cheers, Scott.
Post #404,158 by scoenye 8/19/15 6:20:20 PM Reply	InDesign We flung one of the upper end Core i7 CPUs at CS6 about a year ago because it was a dreadful slug on anything less. "Less" at the time was just below the Core i* series CPUs. Unless the Windows version is somehow a much bigger resource hog than the Mac version. (It is Adobe, so I would not put that past them.)
Post #404,162 by rcareaga 8/19/15 8:43:04 PM Reply	Re: InDesign Good (discouraging) to know. Thank you.
Post #404,172 by pwhysall 8/20/15 3:08:50 AM Reply	Experiences with PS CC 2015 and LR CC 2015 Both are predominantly CPU-bound. Both use the GPU (LR to a much lesser extent) LR seems to top out at 3GB of RAM used, no matter what I'm doing. PS will EAT ALL UR RAMS. This is on Windows 10, so YMMV.

Welcome to IWETHEY!