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

[zobelaudio]

Just to chime in...
just " upgraded my 8 year old 8core MacPro with 16 GB to a new shiny "Garbagebin" with 6cores and 32GB and SSD and two of the topoftheline graphiccards.
and guess what ?
not much of a difference. 8 years down the line I still have to wait for 1:1 previews for ages, zooming in in Develop takes 6seconds if I haven't created 1:1 Previews before and it does not make a real difference, if files are in the Ssd or on an ext FW800 disk.

using the graphicsprocessor, I thought that would help performance, but nada...
the only good thing I can report is the quietness of the little thing. Couldn't live with the noise the iMac makes, when it's really having to pull it's weight.

So yes, please Adobe, give us better performance and more stability...

cheers
Z

[CatOne]

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%).

Correct. Images are displayed at their actual pixel size, so they will be smaller. However, the images look WAY better like this. And I think it's what you'd want anyway - if you want to zoom in, you can always do that. But it's really nice having the real estate so that images in the 20 megapixel range are almost all fit in the screen without having to zoom out.

But text readability is better. It's really a better solution in every way.

[pluton]

Using a 2012 Macbook Pro, i7 Quad core, 2.7GHz, 16Gb RAM, with an external 1440 monitor, the performance of Lightroom 6 on 36 MP raw files is such that if this was the best the that LR could do on the fastest computer, it'd be laughed off the market for being so slow.

[kencameron]

I'm not defending the comparison test, which seems pretty flawed

Only if taken as offering some sort of universal PC vs Mac comparison, which it wasn't. The writer defined the purpose and methodology of his test and drew a precise and limited conclusion from it - about price/performance at a specified price, for a largish studio with access to a skilled PC builder, working on weddings or similar jobs, and using Lightroom. It seems understandable that such a studio might go with PCs and I see no significant flaws in their reasoning. Other people might have good reasons to choose Macs. Steering clear of religion in these matters wasn't meant to be easy, but is surely worth a try.

[dwswager]

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

Windows 10 fixes the problem for the most part allowing much better interface scaling.  I'm 52 and just started using reading magnifiers about 6 months ago.  Now I can't read crap without them.  I'm researching laptops and looking at the Asus Zenbook Pro with 4K screen and I wouldn't even have considered it with Windows 8.

[dwswager]

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.

1.  Different video resolutions will skew results in some tests.

2. Overclocking the CPU and GPU is a choice.  Bottom line is that it is only a choice for one system while the other does not provide that option at all.

3.  The vast majority of the components on the PC side can be reused.  My main system is housed in a 28" high 7" wide Supermicro Tower server case that is housing it's 3rd different motherboard.  Buy wisely and you can upgrade selected parts as desired.  My OrigenAE HTPC case is on it's 2nd motherboard.

4.  What in the world is this guying doing with a $630 GTX video card.  That is a gamer's card.  Great for 3D rendering, but unnecessary for 2D graphics.  If you're going that price point, get a Quadro and do 10 bit color.

[hjulenissen]

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.

I have been overclocking several of my PCs since my 300MHz Celeron some time in the 1990s. Not a single cpu have died, they have all been decomissioned due to technological irrelevance before being technically broken.

I don't overclock my PC now, more due to lazyness and change of priorities. As such, a comparision involving overclocked PCs is not directly relevant to me now, but I do not claim that it is generally irrelevant.

Anyway let's not get into religious discussions

Agreed.

-h

[hjulenissen]

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.

I am writing this on a fairly recent MBP.

I routinely have to kill apps due to the spinning ball syndrome. I have a 27" Dell displayport display that I have stopped using with the MBP because it will invariably go black. Evidently some Apple <-> Dell incompability that worked fine up until some OSX revision. Lots of discussion on the net, no solution from either. My previous MBP had the faulty Nvidia GPU where the system would crash more and more often when it was 3 years old.

I think that the Apple pointing device and the handling of high-dpi displays is great. Way better than any PC/Windows I have tried.

For photo editing, I am using a Windows 7 box. Now don't get me started on the tactics used by Microsoft to shove windows 10 down my throat.

The "problem" for personal computers these days is not so much about Apple vs Microsoft, but rather that consumers (and therefore software and hardware manufacturers) have lost interest in the platform. So what if 10000 Photographers and 10000 music producers and 100000 programmers use personal computers. That is not anywhere near the gazillion users doing home economy, writing letters, surfing Facebook, etc on their PC. These have bought new computers/software at a steady pace for decades, feeding the companies that have brought us faster CPUs, more user-friendly OSes, standards based connections etc.

When these guys have figured that they can do most of their work on a small tablet, with more user-friendlyness, less cost etc, they won't buy new computers. Then Intel won't be able to deliver rapid advances in (high-end or low-end) CPUs. As macs become an ever decreasing part of Apples sales, how much resources will they put into improving it?

-h

[dwswager]

Correct. Images are displayed at their actual pixel size, so they will be smaller. However, the images look WAY better like this. And I think it's what you'd want anyway - if you want to zoom in, you can always do that. But it's really nice having the real estate so that images in the 20 megapixel range are almost all fit in the screen without having to zoom out.

But text readability is better. It's really a better solution in every way.

There are benefits and drawbacks to the high resolution displays.  My preference is to do final reviews at an approximate physical size that the image will be shown.  We have all experienced an image that looks good on a high resolution display at small size such as a phone, not looking near that nice at 100% on a lower resolution and much larger sized monitor.  Prep an image at 100% on a 5K display for web or TV say at 1920x1080 and then view it on alternate devices.  What looked fabby at small size on a 5K will look less fabby.  Same thing happens going to large printed sizes.  Same thing happens printing ar 4x6 vs 20x30.

[Alan Goldhammer]

The "problem" for personal computers these days is not so much about Apple vs Microsoft, but rather that consumers (and therefore software and hardware manufacturers) have lost interest in the platform. So what if 10000 Photographers and 10000 music producers and 100000 programmers use personal computers. That is not anywhere near the gazillion users doing home economy, writing letters, surfing Facebook, etc on their PC. These have bought new computers/software at a steady pace for decades, feeding the companies that have brought us faster CPUs, more user-friendly OSes, standards based connections etc.

When these guys have figured that they can do most of their work on a small tablet, with more user-friendlyness, less cost etc, they won't buy new computers. Then Intel won't be able to deliver rapid advances in (high-end or low-end) CPUs. As macs become an ever decreasing part of Apples sales, how much resources will they put into improving it?

-h

There will always be a very large installed corporate base of PCs for doing office work.  The normal upgrade of such units in my old office was 4 years.  For most consumers who do not do Excel, word processing, photo processing, etc; they can buy tablets or use their phones.  I do most web surfing and book reading on my tablet or phone (Android with various apps) and that's just fine for those applications.  For any financial portfolio analysis or word processing tablets are not useful.  I build my own PCs and usually do an upgrade every 3 years if the technology warrants it.  The big advance in CPUs is integrated graphics.  I don't know whether they work well with PS/LR as I have a GPU on my main workstation.  However, my wife's PC and my home theater PC both run on Intel CPU graphics just fine and I can watch high def television without a hiccup.

I don't know where Intel is headed these days despite being a shareholder.  It looks like their efforts in mobile computing hit a big bump.  they will have to figure out a path beyond the server and data storage markets.

[AlterEgo]

The "problem" for personal computers these days is not so much about Apple vs Microsoft, but rather that consumers (and therefore software and hardware manufacturers) have lost interest in the platform. So what if 10000 Photographers and 10000 music producers and 100000 programmers use personal computers. That is not anywhere near the gazillion users doing home economy, writing letters, surfing Facebook, etc on their PC. These have bought new computers/software at a steady pace for decades, feeding the companies that have brought us faster CPUs, more user-friendly OSes, standards based connections etc.

http://www.canalys.com/newsroom/pc-market-2011-levels-tablets-fall-sixth-quarter

"Worldwide PC shipments (desktops, notebooks, two-in-ones and tablets) totaled 101 million units in Q1 2016"... minus ~39mil. "tablets" a quater, that is still a pace of ~240 million units a year... still a gazillion... considering how much were already sold in the eons before.