#Corel vs photoshop 2013 pro#
#Corel vs photoshop 2013 software#
#Corel vs photoshop 2013 mac#

#Corel vs photoshop 2013 software#

Most software does not take advantage of multiple cores, or can only do so in a limited fashion. Your machines are very nice.Д«ut you're missing the point. Hey, dudes, i don't want to start any trouble. Apple's data (from early Intel-on-OS X work) showed the P4 was faster in screen scrolling but something like 20X slower in floating point math. This was the basis of the old notion that a Pentium 4 was actually faster than G5. There are some single clock instructions that may execute a bit faster based on the clock rate. The operative word here is 'intensive.' You provide no metrics, so I can only assume that you mean 'a whole boatload' which is, as I recall, several orders of magnitude greater than 'a bunch.' But for browsers, word processing, PowerPoint, etc., the imac will likely be faster. For video work, graphics, scientific calculation, photo editing, the six-core will sometimes be faster. Which Apple computer were you thinking of? Even an iPad has multiple cores.ДЄs I said, the tasks specified by the OP are not multiprocessor intensive, so will reflect the single processor scores more than the multiprocessor scores. That is like comparing single-cylinder performance in automotive engines it's interesting but has no relevance in the real world. Single-processor geekbench scores show the imac much faster than the pro. You are providing multiprocessor-intensive geekbench scores. Postscript: We've retired our '01 PowerMac 867MHz 'Quicksilver' G4.

#Corel vs photoshop 2013 mac#

Three things will always be true: the next Mac will always be cooler, the last Mac will still be a good machine, and there's always a maniac out there with a insanely old Mac. An ATI 5770 will fit any of the Mac Pros and supports a max of three monitors I have two 27' Samsungs and a 37' HDTV on mine. I like writing to a thumb drive at 100 MB/sec. I added a USB 3.0 card to my ('08) system and that opened up a fast lane to cheap external storage. 8 is great! All can handle 4 hard drives and the SSD without a problem. '10s and newer are all pretty nifty and have more processor configurations but are still pricey.ДЄll will benefit from a SSD system drive.

'09s feature the HyperThreading Nahalem processor so you get lots of virtual cores. '08 Mac Pros are getting very cheap lately but are a little long in the tooth.

I had some friends bring over a new quad-core i5 iMac a couple of months ago and I was unimpressed. If you're excited about raw power, the Mac Pros are where you'll end up. The only thing odd about your question is you actually have a budget! рџ™‚ Also, I don't want the 21.5' iMac because I need a large screen so that I can have Word and a browser open side by side, so the i7 model is out.

#Corel vs photoshop 2013 pro#

The raw power of the Mac Pro attracts me to it, which makes me think it will last me longer despite being a few years old already. I have a local seller with a 2010 Mac Pro 6 core 3.33 + 16GB ram for $1800. I want a couple dozen browser tabs open, MS Word, Powerpoint, and Endnote open without noticing much lag as I do currently). My primary usage is research with multitasking (i.e. No, I don't do any video editing or anything like that. I have ~$1800 to spend on a machine that I want to last me for another 4 years at least. I'm a medical student currently working on a 2010 Macbook Air.

This is probably an odd question, I know.