Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: 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.
-
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.
-
Someone in the comments section pointed out a potential culprit for the lower Mac performance: 4x higher screen resolution.
-
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 :)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 ).
-
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 ).
-
Didn`t anyone notice that the PC has an 8-core vs. the Mac, which has a 4-core?
-
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.
-
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
-
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 ;-)
-
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/ (https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2015/603/)
-
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
-
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?
-
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%).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.