Also export, for example 50x jpeg (22 MP .CR2): Ryzen 7 3700X (slower processor) finished in 34.94 second, Ryzen 3800X (faster processor) finished with worse result (35.22 seconds)How it's possible? I'm on a 2016 Macbook Pro w/ 16G RAM and LR can be so slow as to be unusable at times, esp. I expect some improvements with the i9 - … I'm not too concerned about the overclocking. The 8700k has a stock all-core turbo of 4.3ghz, which means that it actually has significant overclocking headroom. New ACR version (12.3), new Bridge, etc. But I am worried, that it's not that future safe, since it doesn't offer hyperthreading. So with 2 sticks of RAM (32GB) I was around 6:45, now with 4 sticks I'm back to 4:42, just where I was with my old 4x8GB RAM. For a few weeks my batch of 64 heavily edited test images (from Sony A7RIII, 42mp .ARW files) consistently took 4 min 45 seconds to save. Clockspeeds are similar; around 4.2 GHz for the active cores (no matter if 16-core mode or 8-core mode). I've run into a mysterious problem. My feelings - with HT/SMT on, scrolling in Develop Module a bit quicker. Nos tests précédents ont conclu que les graphiques étaient pratiquement inutilisés. I NEVER delete anything. And I've just tested the same batch now with SMT OFF. For active tasks, however, the new Intel Core i9 10900K and Core i7 10700K both beat comparable or significantly more expensive AMD and Intel options. I've read many reports about the little difference between the i7 and i9 and I have become indecisive. But in your test import 500x images (22 MP .CR2) we have: Ryzen 7 3700X - 15.33 seconds, Ryzen 3800X - 8.13 seconds. We're hoping to get our benchmark polished up for public download at some point, at which point you could more closely replicate our testing. Based on 513,988 user benchmarks for the Intel Core i7-8700 and the Core i9-9900K, we rank them both on effective speed and value for money against the best 1,276 CPUs. will you ever do a Benchmarking for Capture one? While a GPU may slow things down a bit, it is nothing like in a memory intensive game where you would literally hate your gameplay experience. Interesting, Jayz2cents had much better results oc'ing the 9900K compared to the 8700K: https://youtu.be/9yQRmbe2QPU. https://uploads.disquscdn.c... Hi! It's odd, but that's what it looks like. So basically, after experimenting with various core and/or thread counts, my fastest results are 16 cores, no SMT. I think stock speeds are solid these days, especially because of Turbo Boost. In essence, a score of "90" would mean that it gave 90% the performance of the reference system while a score of "110" would mean it was 10% faster. Tested it several times. Might be a problem with the latest Lightroom Classic version. Also during export 5 cores loaded fully, 6th apr. For example: Ryzen 3700X and Ryzen 3800X - the exactly same processors, but difference in the frequency - 3800X have additional 300 MHz. Exporting is always an excuse to take a break anyway ;). Between the Intel 10th Gen and AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen CPUs, most users are likely going to want an AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen processor due to their significantly better performance in tasks like exporting. Thank you! Intel Core i7-9700K 3.6GHz / 4.9GHz Turbo, Eight Core –> 132% Intel Core i9-9900K 3.6GHz / 5.0GHz Turbo, Eight Core –> 135% Adobe Creative Cloud Photography Plan So the new memory is faster but produced slow export times with only 2 sticks. In the module tasks (scrolling through images and switching between the Library and Develop modules), there was surprisingly little difference between all the Intel CPUs we tested, although the AMD CPUs lagged behind just a bit. Esp. Before undervolting the … with 2 or 4 memory sticks. I currently have a 8700k running at 5.0ghz all core. XMP profiles don't always properly set from what I've experienced. We make copies of the photos so that we have 100 images to export. Adobe Lightroom Classic is an interesting application when it comes to CPU performance since it has some very interesting performance quirks - chief among them the fact that AMD processors are overwhelming faster than Intel for a number of tasks like exporting and generating smart previews. So 2 things changed: new Ram, and new versions of Adobe applications. I don't recommend overclocking, but if that is your goal you will have much better results with the 9000 series because of the better thermal interface material it has compared to the 8000 series (including the 8086). 5.0ghz @ 1.31v is very good, as most copies will require 1.35v to be stable at 5.0. It is almost at 8700k level. I don't OC myself, and there isn't much headroom on any of these chips. I was excited when the 8-core chips were announced, but I can't justify making an upgrade due to the launch price and thermals. I don't use Lightroom, but Adobe Camera RAW only which I'm accessing via Adobe Bridge. The high end workstations Puget sells here in 2020 use Core i9 Intel processors. Contrary to William's comment about the 9th gen being able to overclock higher due to having better thermals, testing has shown this not to be the case. Thanks Matt. However, things are a bit different for active tasks like scrolling through images, switching modules and applying adjustments. Export is not much better than my old intel 3960x. Lightroom and Photoshop are the only things that I do that really tax my old PC, but it is sadly dying from old age and needs replaced. While our benchmark presents various scores based on the performance of each test, we also like to provide the individual results for you to examine. For the i7 to i9 95% of peoples daily use it won't be any differnet. The 9th gen chips have a higher stock turbo compared to the 8700k, but other reviews have found that the 9th gen 8-core chips also run significantly hotter, which reduces maximum overclocking potential. Wow, 3:30. For these types of tasks, the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X is on average about 35% faster than the new Intel Core i9 10900K while the AMD Ryzen 7 3800X is 23% faster than the Intel Core i7 10700K. So on Thursday I'll see if that changes anything. Next time I will be upgrading is in 5-7 years. And I know that some of the folks in videos like the one you posted above have that in mind. It was 4:06. Since Lightroom tends to value both core count and frequency, these new CPUs should do great but the only way to know for sure is to actually benchmark them and find out. From an overall perspective, AMD continues to maintain a solid performance lead in Lightroom Classic. Are these 24 files we can see on the LR screenshot? Je suis en réflexion pour me monter une tour PC pour mes retouches photos (Photoshop) et tris/archives (Lightroom). I even temporarily reinstalled 2 sticks of the old RAM (not 4 sticks because I had managed to damage one stick during a heatsink removal). BUT a couple of days ago I replaced the 4x8gb XPG 2800 ram with 2x16GB Vulcan Z 3200 ram. Next, if passive tasks like exporting is a concern for your workflow, you really can't beat the AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen or (if you have the budget for it) the more expensive AMD Threadripper 3rd Gen processors. Photoshop and Lightroom benefit little from an expensive GPU. They certainly compare favorably against the more expensive i7 7820X, but if exporting is a major consideration at this price point than you may be better off with the AMD Threadripper 1920X. HOWEVER, to complicate things more, there was also an Adobe update right after I installed the new RAM. Benchmark Analysis: Intel Core 10th Gen vs AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen. How does Intel 10th Gen stack up overall? With higher-end hardware, it is actually rare to see such a close relationship between an increase in price and the performance gained, which makes the Core i9 … Will be returning it this week, unless the i9 proves to be worse than the i7 at anything. You might also try setting the RAM timings/frequency/voltage manually if you aren't already. It will be helpful.But my main thought, or assumption was such: May be CPU utilization in AMD Ryzen 2700X during export (which may take many hours for thousands of pictures) not 99%, as in I7 processors (definitely for I7-2600K), but just 60-70-80 % ? If you got the same time with 24 files, then there is probably a difference in export settings. And saving/export slowed down significantly. Granted, I did not roll-back Lightroom, but I thought if Photoshop and Camera Raw roll-back didn't do the trick, I wouldn't try Lightroom. If you are looking for a new workstation at roughly this price point, there is no reason not to use the i9 9700K over the i7 8700K, especially considering how well it performs in other applications like Photoshop. However, unlike Photoshop, there is probably no reason to upgrade if you already have an 8700K since you are unlikely to notice a difference unless you are actively benchmarking Lightroom. This is nowhere near some of the top of the line graphics cards that we had discussed here. I'm wondering if the 8086 is the sweet spot as it may overclock better without the thermal issues, yet is faster than the 8700. Passant à des tests réels, nous n'avons constaté aucune différence dans Lightroom d'Adobe. - Future Proofing Lightroom 7 months ago Hello. We did some comparison testing with a Z390 board and the results were pretty consistent. In Adobe Lightroom Classic, the Intel Core 10th Gen processors such as the i9 10900K and i7 10700K do very well in active tasks like scrolling through images and switch modules - coming in at about 5% faster than a similarly priced AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen CPU. By reading on this sub about undervolting I thought I'd give it a try and oh my, what a difference it makes! Looking at how the Intel 10th Gen processors compare against a wider range of CPUs, there are a couple of key points we want to note: First, compared to the previous 9th Gen processors, we are looking at about a 3-7% performance gain with the new 10th Gen models. The Core i9 9900K is approximately 20% more expensive than the Core i7 8700K, but in exchange we saw a 15-20% performance increase in Photoshop. Yea, the SMT/HT thing still exists for exporting and making smart previews. Same slow stuff :(. @Reid: yes, that would be my personal opinion. The thermal differences are an additional confounding factor, as you may be able to clock an 8700k or 8086k higher than a 9700k or 9900k. So, my question is - how much I will benefit (in terms of exporting time) from upgrading to one of theses cpus? That may take the fun out of things for some people who enjoy overclocking, but the best case situation to me is one in which everyone can get the maximum performance without having to fiddle with motherboard settings :). So a 7900X should be roughly twice as fast for exporting. Why is the i9 9900k slower at creating previews than the 9700k? I understand your reasoning about the new CPUs having better thermal interface, which I guess they need because the run hotter. (My absolute best time running my test batch yesterday came using Camera Raw rolled back to 12.2.1, 16 cores, no SMT. Keep in mind that base clocks and turbo clocks are arbitrary. Lightroom is generally single-threaded There are diminishing returns on more cores, especially for the Develop Module, so if the i9 has a significantly higher single-core clock speed (and isn't thermally limited as in previous macbooks), it could be worth it to you. Close • Posted by 1 hour ago. I work with an external monitor and tried any number of things to speed it up to no avail. Core i9 9900K vs Core i7 8700K for Photoshop. This is frequent with new hardware generations, but appears to be more of an issue right now than I remember in years past. Given the three I'm looking at and considering heat, thread, and clockspeed, would you still recommend the i9700? If you export an unusually high number of images every day and have the budget for it, the AMD Threadripper 3rd Gen CPUs (in particular the 3960X) may also be worth a look as they can export images up to 2x faster than a Ryzen processor, but you would likely need to be exporting images for a significant portion of your day for one of those processors to be worth the investment. To make a fair comparison, you have to control for these variables and test either at the same clock speeds, or same voltage, or temperatures. We've done some testing with more photos and while it took longer to complete, it seems to be pretty pretty linear after you have more than just a few to export. The Core i9 9900K is approximately 20% more expensive than the Core i7 8700K, but we only saw about a 6% performance increase in Lightroom Classic. AMD vs Intel is always a popular discussion, so we included the Ryzen 7 2700X - which tends to be cheaper than either of these new CPUs - as well as the Threadripper 1920X which is similar in price to the i9 9900K. The graphs below compare the most important i9-9900K and Intel i7-8700 features. 90% sure. The reason I ask is because there are many reports of Lightroom not performing well if the CPU has more than 4 physical cores. I've just put another 32Gb RAM into my computer, making the total 64Gb, but more importantly, filling all 4 RAM slots again. With it, you can set the affinity (how many cores it can use), but it also has the option to make it permanent. But I'm not sure if I like the brand new, Lightroom-like ACR UI. i7 9700K平均比i7 8700K快了4%。这个差异都是在导出和生成预览时产生的，在目录和开发模块它们的表现基本相同。 Core i9 9900K vs Core i7 8700K. Best Workstation PC for Adobe Lightroom Classic (Winter 2020), Adobe Lightroom Classic: AMD Ryzen 5000 Series CPU Performance, Adobe Lightroom Classic - NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070, 3080 & 3090 Performance, Adobe Lightroom Classic - NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 & 3090 Performance, Best Workstation PC for V-Ray (Winter 2020), SOLIDWORKS 2020 SP5 AMD Ryzen 5000 Series CPU Performance, Best Workstation PC for Metashape (Winter 2020), Agisoft Metashape 1.6.5 SMT Performance Analysis on AMD Ryzen 5000 Series, Lightroom Classic CPU performance: AMD Threadripper 3990X 64 Core, What is the Best CPU for Photography (2019), Lightroom Classic CPU performance: Intel Core X-10000 vs AMD Threadripper 3rd Gen, Lightroom Classic CPU performance: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X, Lightroom Classic CPU Roundup: AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen, AMD Threadripper 2, Intel 9th Gen, Intel X-series, Lightroom Classic CPU performance: Intel Core 10th Gen vs AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen. Esp. Hello. Thanks! Photoshop Lightroom (standalone) is very slow.
For extra performance for editing or even a spot of gaming, an NVIDIA GTX 1650 dedicated graphics card (GPU) with 4GB of VRAM is on offer. You should notice the biggest difference in tasks like exporting and generating previews, but when navigating around the Library and Develop modules there is very little difference. Between AMD and INtel, if you have a similar number of cores I don't think you should see all that different of CPU load unless there is an issue with your system. These characteristics, together with an IPC (instructions per cycle) number, determine how well a processor performs. Still, I quickly tested a Geometry test with an Auto Mask layered A7RIII image with SMT ON and OFF. The 8700 is currently 100 € cheaper than the 9700k, is it worth 100 € more? I turned SMT off and my test export/save time set a new shortest time record. Money/quality wise, of course the most expensive one would be the best. the puzzling results are still the same. Je n'ai pas trouvé de réponses concrètes sur le site d'Adobe, ils ne donnent que des configurations "minimales". I have BIG catalogs- 30K to 100K images. If you are interested in how these processors compare in other applications, we also have other articles for Premiere Pro, After Effects, Photoshop, and several other applications available on our article listing page. To start off our analysis of the Intel 10th Gen desktop processors we are going to look at the performance in Lightroom Classic versus AMD's 3rd Gen Ryzen processors. This is likely to be what the majority of readers are going to be interested in, so we decided to pull these results out from the full slew of results that are in the next section. Puget Systems builds custom PCs tailor-made for your workflow. The "Number of cores / threads" graph shows the number of cores (darker area). Lightroom: Slow performance on Xeon CPUs | Photoshop Family Customer Community . With your CPU having 6 cores and 12 threads, running all of those is apparently better than just running the 6 cores without HT/SMT. What mac should I get mainly for using Lightroom,Photoshop and PremierePro ? However, I noticed that certain demanding active tasks are faster in the brand new ACR 12.3, such as adjusting an image after auto mask was already applied. in warm weather, the fans go off almost immediately and after 20 min, it can be intolerable. Fascinating! Now, I just need to run a test with SMT OFF and 4 sticks of RAM. It may have improved with a version released a few months ago, but with the current version it got worse again, I think. However, I personally think that the ideal situation will be when Intel is putting out CPUs that offer maximum performance without needing any more overclocking. The new i7 9700K and i9 9900K are certainly good for Lightroom Classic CC, but they are only about 5% faster than the i7 8700K on average. I am a professional photographer, I use my laptop mainly for photo editing (Photoshop and Lightroom) - no video editing whatsoever. https://feedback.photoshop....I understand, it's rather atypical issue, but may be really architecture of this Ryzen processors such, that they show this results, as in your benchmark, and in the same time remains 10-20-30% unused CPU power.if this assumption (partially) true, it can change dramatically CPU preferences. Thanks for pushing so quickly! That way, anytime you launch Lightroom it can automatically have the affinity set to leave 1 or 2 cores unused for multitasking. Watch this YouTube video for a full explanation of why soldering the IHS has not helped as much as people have been expecting: https://youtu.be/JTAAXCpNhxM, Well, that video was quite an earful. On average, the Core i7 9700K is about 4% faster that the Core i7 8700K in Lightroom Classic. In this article, we will be examining the performance of the new Intel 10th Gen Core i9 10900K, i7 10700K, and i5 10600K in Lightroom Classic compared to a range of CPUs including the AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen, Intel X-10000 Series, AMD Threadripper 3rd Gen, as well as the previous generation Intel 9th Gen processors. Matt, I know that it is impractical for you guys to test at overclocked speeds, but how do you think the 8700k will compare against the 9900k and 9700k when all are overclocked? If you look across all reviews, you will find that most 8700k's will hit 5.0ghz on a standard air cooler (like the NH-U12S that Puget uses on their benches), while most 9700k's and 9900k's will run into a thermal limit at 4.8ghz on the same cooler. While our benchmark presents various scores based on the performance of each type of task, we also wanted to provide the individual results in case there is a specific task someone may be interested in. Our Labs team is available to provide in-depth hardware recommendations based on your workflow. It looks like that issue was before Lightrooom Classic was launched - they really improved performance in that new version of Lightroom. To thoroughly test each processor, we will be using two sets of images: one set of 22MP.CR2 RAW images taken on a Canon EOS 5D Mark III and a set of 45MB .NEF RAW images taken on a Nikon D850. Now equipped with a quad-core CPU, the 2-in-1 can run Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom without breaking a sweat. Listed below are the systems we will be using in our testing: While benchmarking the i7 9700K and i9 9900K against the i7 8700K is likely the most direct comparison we could make, we also wanted to see how these new CPUs stack up against a number of other processors. When running an export (or "Save Images" in ACR) with all 16 cores working (default scenario), the 3950x just doesn't seem to work hard enough. For reasons, I prefer to buy a Mac over a Windows PC (advertising ID, rest of family on Apple, iMessage, etc) Regardless if you choose to manually overclock or not, the 9700k is overclocked higher out of the box than the 8700k, so the comparison is unfair. What mac should I get mainly for using Lightroom,Photoshop and PremierePro ? Much less lag and delay. (I consider it unlikely). During export 12 cores loaded fully on the 99.99% . I'd recommend going for an 8th gen i3 or i5 paired with a dedicated graphics card and 16gb of ram. This may not be all that exciting, but this is fairly typical for CPU launches from Intel over the last few years. If your software does use hyper-threading effectively, it'll be a more even match. if using masks, etc. Even with SMT ON, I'm back to short export times (or "Save Images" times)! Our Labs team is available to provide in-depth hardware recommendations based on your workflow. That is why we keep it on for our testing - most people will likely be willing to take the hit in export times in order to make the active tasks a bit faster. All else being equal in your system, I believe that there will be no meaningful difference between the 8700k and 9700k once you optimize and overclock both CPUs. I have seen issue with Ryzen 1800X, where CPU utilization during export was just about 30%. Once you overclock and take these differences out of play, the performance difference will decrease or disappear all together. At first I wanted to take the i7 8700, but then considered the i7 9700k, because it's so much faster at building smart previews. So the SMT ON vs OFF phenomenon still persists, which makes sense to me. The Intel 10th Gen Core i9 10900K and i7 10700K are a bit better for active tasks, but for most, it will be worth giving up a barely noticeable performance gain in these tasks for close to a 2x improvement in export performance. CPU utilization we typically don't log during these benchmarks since from a performance perspective, it is often more misleading then helpful. https://www.newegg.com/Prod... : The 8086k is the exact same chip as the 8700k, so I would not buy it unless it is the same price or cheaper than the 8700k. Close to that results is the 8 cores and 16 threads setup (SMT ON but manually turning half the cores off). I'm an event photographer and I'm primarily interested in the fastest export time within sensible price range of course. The new i7 9700K and i9 9900K are certainly good for Lightroom Classic CC, but they are only about 5% faster than the i7 8700K on average. Because of this, we decided to manually set the PL1 and PL2 power limits in the BIOS. I bought this laptop 2 months ago (i7 9750H, 16GB, 512GB SSD, OLED 4K), my main use is for photography (Photoshop and Lightroom) and coming from an old Precision M4600 the difference is amazing. Lightroom CC disgustingly slow - old issue, NEED ANSWERS. Again, my personal take on these results is that the performance differences are largely due to the different stock turbo frequencies of the 8th gen and 9th gen chips. Is there any chance that it's not so much a two versus four sticks of memory issue as it is a 32 versus 64 GB of memory capacity issue? In real world use, the limiting factor will be thermals for all of these chips, so that will be the most valid comparison. **The i9 9900K is 6% faster than the i7 8700K when using Lightroom, but is 15-20% faster in Photoshop in comparison to AMD CPU’s, the 9900K is 20-30% … I just tested the time needed to export 24 raw files to jpeg from some of my recent jobs and got results between 55 sec to 65 sec - so very similar to what you scored for the 9700K - 9900K. Core i7 9700K vs Core i7 8700K. With the launch of the new 9th Gen Intel Core Processors, Intel has made a number of improvements including a small frequency bump and an increase in core count. But this was only one quick test, and only some geometry adjustments. I know we usually test on 64 GB systems here at Puget. If you care more about performance when navigating and … If Intel hadn't decided to launch the even faster Core i9 9900K, this would have been the fastest CPU we have ever tested for Photoshop. I would try rolling back to the previous version (in Creative Cloud, click the "..." and select "Other Versions"). The TIM is definitely better on the 9th gen, but the thicker silicon with the extra two cores result in overall worse performance. Considering the additional clock speed on top of that, if you're not overclocking, I think it comes back down to hyper-threading. Because on my I7 I can't do anything like Photoshop during export, because it's too slowly; when I have to do something heavy during export, I have manually reduce core utilization for Lightroom for 1 or 2 core. thanks Rob But... the last couple versions of Lightroom Classic do much better with SMT/HT on for most of the "active" tasks like applying brushes, scrolling through images, etc. An update: it seems like we're facing the same old HT/SMT on vs. off situation again. That's true. We may, but Capture One has a very poor API which makes automated testing much more difficult. I'm on a 2016 Macbook Pro w/ 16G RAM and LR can be so slow as to be unusable at times, esp. The same problem persists if doing "Save Images" directly from Adobe Camera Raw (via either Bridge or Photoshop). The Intel i7-8700K six-core processor looks like the best value, but there have been numerous reports of poor performance with six or more core based systems. Puget Systems offers a range of powerful and reliable systems that are tailor-made for your unique workflow. Mac, Lightroom, i5 or i9? Je compte partir sur : - processeur Intel i9 (ou équivalent AMD) - ssd pour les disques durs - 32 Go de RAM (ou 64) So apparently, it does matter, at least on my computer, whether I use Lightroom, ACR, etc. So could it be because of going from 4 sticks of ram to 2? We used a value of 125W for the PL1 setting on all three Intel 10th Gen CPUs we tested along with the following PL2 limits according to Intel's specifications: Setting these power limits made our Noctua NH-U12S more than enough to keep these CPUs properly cooled and helps match our philosophy here at Puget Systems of prioritizing stability and reliability over raw performance in our workstations.