Topic: Lightroom Performance Mac v PC .... Look at this comparison test. (Read 9365 times)

stingray · « **on:** April 25, 2016, 02:14:07 pm »

Lightroom Performance Mac v PC .... Look at this comparison test.

https://www.slrlounge.com/lightroom-mac-vs-pc-speed-test-4k-imac-vs-4k-custom-pc-performance-test/

I am not taking sides on Mac v Pc debate... just providing this link for your information.

Paul2660 · « **Reply #1 on:** April 25, 2016, 02:28:10 pm »

As its apparent that LR cannot utilitlze open CL and video ram well at all I am not surprised that it takes an overclocked PC to get that type of performance.

As I have said many times I would prefer to see less new features from LE and more work on the basics like performance with v ram processing.

LR seems totally core processor dependent using as much processor as it can and very little system ram. Turning on the use of V-ram seems to slow it down even more.

It's sad to as the files from digital camera are just going to get larger and working with all the LR atolls which are excellent just really seems to of the software down.

Paul C.

Slobodan Blagojevic · « **Reply #2 on:** April 25, 2016, 02:34:39 pm »

Someone in the comments section pointed out a potential culprit for the lower Mac performance: 4x higher screen resolution.

Hans Kruse · « **Reply #3 on:** April 25, 2016, 02:52:05 pm »

The PC is overclocked which as far as I know you can't do with a Mac. The CPU's will not last as long I think with the overclocking. Hardly a good comparison. Besides that the 4x in resolution does make a difference in some of the tests. Who want's to look at 2560x1440 when you can have 5K? The price was even almost the same. Anyway let's not get into religious discussions

AlterEgo · « **Reply #4 on:** April 25, 2016, 03:04:57 pm »

Quote from: Hans Kruse on April 25, 2016, 02:52:05 pm

The CPU's will not last as long I think with the overclocking.

sure, if you are not cooling it - but you do

... the same goes for videocard too

AlterEgo · « **Reply #5 on:** April 25, 2016, 03:23:08 pm »

Quote from: Hans Kruse on April 25, 2016, 02:52:05 pm

Who want's to look at 2560x1440 when you can have 5K?

you can configure the matching PC Desktop configuration @ Puget Sound (w/o overclocking anything) with their overhead on prices and get HP Z27q 5K monitor for $1000 from B&H... and still be in the same cost (desktop + 5K monitor) as iMac (w/ tax)... plus your HP monitor will be with hardware calibration, while iMac = doesn't... both granted are not Eizos or NECs but iMac is further away from that level.

Jimmy D Uptain · « **Reply #6 on:** April 25, 2016, 07:03:24 pm »

Quote from: Hans Kruse on April 25, 2016, 02:52:05 pm

The PC is overclocked which as far as I know you can't do with a Mac. The CPU's will not last as long I think with the overclocking. Hardly a good comparison. Besides that the 4x in resolution does make a difference in some of the tests. Who want's to look at 2560x1440 when you can have 5K? The price was even almost the same. Anyway let's not get into religious discussions

Yeah, I've been seeing reports of lethargy due to the higher resolution screens in Capture One as well.
Also, just for giggles, I 'd like to see the same tests done with the Mac running Windows OS (via boot camp of course).
I'm a Mac guy, but not a zealot. The article really made me take a closer look at Windows again. That is until this post.

Paul2660 · « **Reply #7 on:** April 25, 2016, 07:05:21 pm »

Quote from: Hans Kruse on April 25, 2016, 02:52:05 pm

The PC is overclocked which as far as I know you can't do with a Mac. The CPU's will not last as long I think with the overclocking. Hardly a good comparison. Besides that the 4x in resolution does make a difference in some of the tests. Who want's to look at 2560x1440 when you can have 5K? The price was even almost the same. Anyway let's not get into religious discussions

Who wants to look at 2560 x 1440, me, on a 30" monitor. 5K ,4K, screens are just too hard on the eyes, at least for older ones.

Paul C

graeme · « **Reply #8 on:** April 26, 2016, 04:12:46 am »

Quote from: Paul2660 on April 25, 2016, 07:05:21 pm

Who wants to look at 2560 x 1440, me, on a 30" monitor. 5K ,4K, screens are just too hard on the eyes, at least for older ones.

Paul C

I'm 52 & don't have great eyesight but love the screen on my retina iMac. I think Apple have been quite smart in the way they've implemented the UI display for high res screens. ( I wish they were as smart with everything else ).

graeme · « **Reply #9 on:** April 26, 2016, 04:35:41 am »

Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 25, 2016, 02:34:39 pm

Someone in the comments section pointed out a potential culprit for the lower Mac performance: 4x higher screen resolution.

When our retina iMac was delivered we were still running LR 4 & I was expecting it to be unusable at 5K. It actually wasn't too bad. Lightroom CC2015 was worse when we installed it - very flakey. Subsequent updates have improved performance but I get frustrating slowdowns in screen redraw when using adjustment brushes ( even just one or two brushes ). I can't make up my mind whether checking the 'Use Graphics Processor' box makes things better or worse. The iMac has a 4GHz processor, 32GB ram & the higher spec video card option. Photoshop CC & everything else I use run fine so I can't help thinking that the mac isn't the problem.

Don't get me wrong, I expect to sacrifice some speed in order to use a display of this res as it brings other benefits & I still enjoy using Lightroom but I'm surprised that it isn't a bit better optimised for high res displays. ( & a bit more stable ).

stevenskl · « **Reply #10 on:** April 26, 2016, 05:19:08 am »

Didn`t anyone notice that the PC has an 8-core vs. the Mac, which has a 4-core?

Simon Garrett · « **Reply #11 on:** April 26, 2016, 07:06:22 am »

Quote from: stevenskl on April 26, 2016, 05:19:08 am

Didn`t anyone notice that the PC has an 8-core vs. the Mac, which has a 4-core?

I'm not defending the comparison test, which seems pretty flawed, but number of cores beyond about 4 makes very little difference to Lightroom performance.

AlterEgo · « **Reply #12 on:** April 26, 2016, 10:08:51 am »

Quote from: stevenskl on April 26, 2016, 05:19:08 am

Didn`t anyone notice that the PC has an 8-core vs. the Mac, which has a 4-core?

you can "deconfigure" 8 core to 4 core if you want and see no need for extrac cores and use the spare money withing this amount on something else, for example stick extra discrete GPU in PC box ... if you are using for example C1 then that extra GPU will be used too = profit

CatOne · « **Reply #13 on:** April 26, 2016, 04:03:05 pm »

Quote from: Paul2660 on April 25, 2016, 07:05:21 pm

Who wants to look at 2560 x 1440, me, on a 30" monitor. 5K ,4K, screens are just too hard on the eyes, at least for older ones.

Paul C

I don't think you understand how Apple's Retina screens work. Everything on the 5K iMac is the same size as it would be on a 2560x1440 screen. It's just that there are 4x the number of pixels, so everything is much better, clearer, and smoother. It's an absolutely huge improvement in every way over the older screens, and it's way _easier_ on the eyes.

4K is different, because the resolution differs and can't be a true doubling like the 5K screen is. The latest iMac 5K has the best screen out there in terms of resolution and gamut. It's an incredible display.

It's also apparently too much for Lightroom to push with good performance ;-)

ButchM · « **Reply #14 on:** April 26, 2016, 04:11:39 pm »

Quote from: CatOne on April 26, 2016, 04:03:05 pm

It's also apparently too much for Lightroom to push with good performance ;-)

That may change once Adobe codes Lightroom to take advantage of Metal for OS X. It may not be as much of a boon as it seems to be for gaming and video ... but should help a little.

https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2015/603/

AlterEgo · « **Reply #15 on:** April 26, 2016, 04:15:15 pm »

Quote from: ButchM on April 26, 2016, 04:11:39 pm

That may change once Adobe codes Lightroom to take advantage of Metal for OS X.

but Metal is to use GPUs, no ? and he writes about CPU

ButchM · « **Reply #16 on:** April 26, 2016, 07:40:27 pm »

Quote from: AlterEgo on April 26, 2016, 04:15:15 pm

but Metal is to use GPUs, no ? and he writes about CPU

Well ... if some of the chores are accomplished by the GPU, wouldn't that take the pressure off the CPU?

adias · « **Reply #17 on:** April 26, 2016, 08:45:38 pm »

Quote from: CatOne on April 26, 2016, 04:03:05 pm

I don't think you understand how Apple's Retina screens work. Everything on the 5K iMac is the same size as it would be on a 2560x1440 screen. It's just that there are 4x the number of pixels, so everything is much better, clearer, and smoother. It's an absolutely huge improvement in every way over the older screens, and it's way _easier_ on the eyes....

I think that what you wrote above is correct as far as application interface graphics. Pixel-based images as shown in photo editors (PS, Lr, C1, etc.) better be displayed on a 'retina display' pixel for pixel. What that implies is that an image shown on a 5k display will be physically smaller than one shown on a smaller pixel count display. Example: a 4096-pixel-wide image would fit completely at 100% viewing on a 5k display, and would only show 2048 pixels on a 2048-pixel wide display, when viewed at 100% and it would require scrolling to view other imnage sections (at 100%).

Hans Kruse · « **Reply #18 on:** April 27, 2016, 05:42:48 am »

Quote from: AlterEgo on April 25, 2016, 03:23:08 pm

you can configure the matching PC Desktop configuration @ Puget Sound (w/o overclocking anything) with their overhead on prices and get HP Z27q 5K monitor for $1000 from B&H... and still be in the same cost (desktop + 5K monitor) as iMac (w/ tax)... plus your HP monitor will be with hardware calibration, while iMac = doesn't... both granted are not Eizos or NECs but iMac is further away from that level.

Well, it's still like comparing apples and oranges and the test was not done with the 5K on the PC.

kers · « **Reply #19 on:** April 27, 2016, 06:28:58 am »

In the 'cost being equal' forgotten is that you have to build the PC yourself...
and then all the problems that may occur or the technician you have to pay.
With the Imac you get a 5K screen, a very powerful yet elegant solution and a very elegant operating system.
Looking at an ugly windows 10 operating system whole day is not very inspiring.

Author Topic: Lightroom Performance Mac v PC .... Look at this comparison test. (Read 9365 times)

graeme

graeme

adias