2560 x 1440 (AMD RX570 4GB) gives me a difference of 17% in some important Tasks! There are quite a few things we want to test in LrC, but unfortunately the API is way behind other apps like Photoshop and Premiere Pro. Their lead over Intel was not small either, the Ryzen 9 3900X was a very impressive 22% faster than the Intel Core i9 9900K in our Lightroom Classic benchmark. In this article, we will be examining the performance of the new AMD Ryzen 5600X, 5800X, 5900X, and 5950X in Lightroom Classic compared to a range of CPUs including the Intel 10th Gen, Intel X-10000 Series, AMD Threadripper 3rd Gen, and the previous generation AMD Ryzen 3000-series processors. It seems like Affinity Photo is in some Tasks much faster. Benchmark Analysis: AMD Ryzen 5000-series vs Intel 10th Gen. Are the AMD Ryzen 5000-series or Intel Core 10th Gen better for Lightroom Classic? First things first: Thank you for the lightning fast testing of the new 3950X!However, it is very difficult to draw meaningful conclusions without a closer look at your numbers:• You seem to have tested Intel with HT-on. However, the increase in core count comes with a fairly large MSRP price of $749. It also gets a bit hairy for us since we are partners with many of these companies, and very few of them seem to welcome head-to-head comparisons. When I bought the 3900X I immediately noticed the huge difference when exporting images. The API is about as barebones as it could possibly be which makes it really difficult to get a benchmark created that isn't going to constantly break. The reason I ask is because there are many reports of Lightroom not performing well if the CPU has more than 4 physical cores. That reference score is completely static and won't ever change until we add tests to our benchmark that forces us to re-create it. Please add the Quadro RTX 4000 to your GPU test. (assuming that the 10700k in these results is on par with that old 9900k). Might not be much if you are lucky, or it might result in numerous random bluescreens or application crashes. Ryzen 3000 series Lightroom performance? This benchmark version includes the ability to upload the results to our online database, so if you want to know how your own system compares, you can download and run the benchmark yourself. Thank you for such a competent and detailed reply. Having said that, for Lightroom ONLY (and not other Adobe software, which I cannot comment on), you want the fastest 4-core CPU you can afford. Even this relatively small 10% increase in performance allows the modest Ryzen 5 5600X to beat every single Intel processor we tested, although it only snuck by the Intel Core i9 10900K by a few percent. Until recently, even 3200MHz didn't meet our stability standards, and going above that is definitely going to cause more system instability. The differents can be mor den 40% !!! When AMD released the first of their 3rd generation Ryzen processors back in July 2019, they were quickly established as the fastest processors for Adobe Lightroom Classic. I NEVER delete anything. Adobe Lightroom CC 2015.8 AMD Ryzen 7 1700X & 1800X Performance Hier haste einen Vergleich. The reason we use a 2080Ti in our CPU-based testing is simply to make sure that the GPU is not a bottleneck. I’ve narrowed it down to 2 top contenders, the TR 3960X and the Zen 5900X. Benchmark. 16gb ram and gtx1080. In my opinion that is a shame for Intel, AMD and Adobe altogether and not a reason to hype anybody. In theory, this could translate to almost a 20% performance increase over the previous generation, although it will likely heavily depend on the application. Eine kleine Benchmark Orgie meines neuen Ryzen 2700er Computers. If you were to compare AMD and Intel processors based on price alone, AMD is anywhere from 11% to 30% faster than Intel. I'm having a blast editing 4K content in Premiere, but Lightroom? We saw some odd performance issues with the Ryzen 9 5950X, but the Ryzen 7 5800X and Ryzen 9 5900X beat the Intel Core i9 10900K by a solid 14% and 21% respectively, while the Ryzen 5 5600X outperforms the similarly-priced Intel Core i5 10600K by a bit smaller 11%. In other reviews, however, there are indications that the 3950x could do significantly better than the 3900x with SMT-off. I dont understand why the 9900K is not 1000. Either way you look at it, however, the 3950X further solidifies AMD's lead over Intel for Lightroom Classic. 3. There are also some back-end features we want to make that makes it even more complex, but hugely useful for our articles. Yep, you are right on the average thing, the only thing you missed was that we multiple the average by 10 because a bigger number means it is more important. Why? Our Lightroom Classic benchmark tests a wide range of tasks that are divided between "active" tasks (scrolling through images, brush lag, etc.) For comparison, both the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12 Core and Intel Core i9 9900K 8 Core have a MSRP of $499. Lightroom is my bottleneck- its soslow its annoying. Archived. One thing we do want to note is that the pre-launch BIOS that is available for Ryzen motherboards is using AGESA 1.0.8. Soon after launch, there should be an update that adds support for AGESA 1.1.0 which is supposed to increase the performance of each Ryzen CPU by another few percent. They do have a 10-20% higher price tag as well, although in terms of absolute cost that works out to only a $50 increase which is fairly small if you look at it as a part of the overall cost of a computer. It probably isn't just Lightroom though, Windows updates and drivers also have an impact on performance - and sometimes not in a good way. It is definitely one of the more "finicky" of our benchmarks (none of these apps are made for benchmarking, so we have to do some "creative" things to get them to work). Feel free to skip to the next sections for our analysis of these results to get a wider view of how each configuration performs in Lightroom Classic. I would guess maybe in 2-3 weeks we can have a version for Windows up for download. I notice that you perform the Lightroom benchmarks with 3200Mhz CL22 memory. As has been stated in the benchmarks that the video card, above a minimum level, doesn't much impact Lightroom performance (except for the Texture slider); if I upgrade from the K1200 to the RTX 4000 vs the GTX 2080 Ti, am I going to see equivalent performance with the RTX 4000? I see, it's difficult and very interesting. It’s the Mac Pro that’s *REALLY* bad. I'm currently speccing up a new desktop build to mostly run Lightroom and Photoshop, and have read elsewhere that there are good gains in memory performance by using 3600Mhz ram with CL16 or CL18 timing. Some of the active tasks are accelerated by LR through the GPU ... Perhaps the difference in CPU performance would be much clearer with a lower GPU.• Many Lightroom users still have a Core i7-4700K in use. AMD’s focus has been on offering higher core count processors v their Intel rivals but the performance per core of an AMD processor is still very slightly behind that of Intel. Since the 5600x isn't out yet, there's no testing to indicate if it's supposed faster single core speed will help improve performance in Lightroom over a CPU like the 3700x, which is around the same price but has 2 more cores/4 more threads. 3950x: 19 min 30 sek Here both CPUs had 100% usage for the entire exporte, but despite having twice the core counts the 3950x was slower. Maybe you should setup a databases system where people could upload their results to compare with others. In the worst constellation and best constellation, I bet there exist more than 40% difference (LR Classic and PS). I also know Puget Systems recommendations for RAM frequency but in the real world there are many out there with 3600 Mhz or more, see Puget systems database results :-) My working settings are moderate CL 16-18-18-38 2933 Mhz. Even with all the improvements Adobe has done in the last couple of Lightroom versions to take advantage of the GPU, it is still primarily a CPU-driven application. In this article, we want to see whether the increase in core count (and price) is worth it for Adobe Lightroom Classic. If there is a specific task that is a hindrance to your workflow, examining the raw results for that task is going to be much more applicable than the scores that our benchmark calculated. High praise & recommendation for the current generation Ryzen CPUs. I don't think that is because any of them are scared, but rather because it is much harder to place a value on workflow optimizations than it is for things like "how long does this effect take to apply?". That shouldn't happen though, since Lightroom likely won't ever use all your cores.3) I don't think there is an arbitrary limit like that. I found these past couple of benchmarks incredibly helpful in choosing my next CPU. There could be merit to using only the CPU for encoding, but while that was once de facto, the performance improvements a GPU can bring can make a huge difference. I'm sure the hardware itself has an impact as well. Maybe once we are able to test the features that use the GPU a bit better, but for now, there is almost no chance our testing would show any difference. With that really quick look at workstation performance out-of-the-way, we can move onto a look at gaming performance – aka: the true reason for this article’s existence today. And it's not always straightforward and faster and 100% utilized with more cores etc, as export is.Also it helps import previews and develop module when you make and apply a some preset with Sharpening and Noise Reduction set to 0. Is there any chance you might add capture one to the software you benchmark in the future? Puget Systems' testing of Lightroom seems to indicate that multiple cores (up to around 8) do seem to help with performance. For years, neither Intel nor AMD have done anything to really justify an upgrade. In the past, there were arguments for using an Intel processor for Lightroom Classic if you wanted to optimize for active tasks like scrolling through images, but with the new Ryzen 5000 Series CPUs, AMD takes a solid lead no matter the task. We might do something for other apps that use the GPU more (Premiere Pro, After Effects, DaVinci Resolve, etc), but I doubt we will invest the time to test Lightroom Classic. So, it is possible the work they are doing there is negatively affecting the tasks we can test, but LrC is still way better overall for the end users. Why?• Video Card: Is it really meaningful to use a graphics card that would normally not be installed in a Lightroom computer (RTX 2080 Ti)? You can apply those after you're done, as a batch. Could you do this, please?• In comparison today vs 6 years ago (in IT-Calender: When the dinosaurs still walked the earth): you have to pay twice as much for the CPU and twice as much for the motherboard, to get a 2-3 times faster export, but only about 35% more power in active tasks. Turning off SMT can improve performance a bit in tasks like exporting, but in the last few versions of LrC, it also lowers performance in active tasks. Could you make the benchmark downloadble to execute yourself? Right now I’m running an Intel i7-6850 and lightroom pretty much locks up my system (100% CPU Usage) when I’m importing and creating previews or exporting. Hello AMD! And that '100' benchmark was established with a 9900k system. Ah, got you, sorry I misunderstood! The Quadro line is mostly about having high amounts of VRAM which almost never a problem for photography applications. A Quadro RTX4000 is going to perform about on par with a RTX 2060 Super or RTX 2070. We were close about a month ago, then we realized Lightroom 9.0 was going to launch during Adobe MAX so we held off. When we can, we try to have many of the tests be similar, but we first and foremost want to measure the performance for "typical" workflows in each app separately. Lightroom is hard to benchmark since the things that are easiest to test (importing, exporting, generating previews, etc.) Compared to the previous generation AMD Ryzen 3000-series CPUs, these new processors are all roughly 10% faster than the CPUs they are replacing. From what I remember, the difference between various CPUs for 1:1 previews was pretty close to what we see with generating smart previews. so great that you did the test with the new 9.0 version! Can you please explain this? i understood how you calculate the total score (Active + Passive)/2*10 .. I actually had been considering the 9900 prior to the 3900x, but the link in my OP is to some benchmarks specifically related to Lightroom performance, and the 3900x has about a 25-30% gains over the Intel counterparts. Takt und IPC zählen. The "Passive Score" does a pretty good job of summarizing performance for tasks like that as well. 3) Adobe CLAIMS it only uses 6 cores, if that’s the case, do we expect them to start utilizing more cores in the future? As for the future, only the developers could tell you.4) No way to really know. Quite often I have to let my computer sit there over night while it churns out previews… I don’t want to do that. In Photoshop is “opening a file” or “filter results” for me very important, and on and on... Lightroom is sooo good and simultaneously sooo bad :-) I love and edit my files sometimes in Capture One too, but I found Lightroom for my organisational tasks a little bit better. it is very hard to know where you stand with performance on your current system. Now I can just take a small break and get back to work. Lightroom catalog is essentially a database that contains all imported … Should you choose the new Ryzen 9 3900X 12-core CPU or the Intel i9 9900K 8-core? To get up to the same performance as a RTX 2080 Ti, you are going to need a Quadro RTX 6000, and even then it will likely be slightly slower. I haven't tried exporting with SMT off, but I have turned off SMT when editing and it runs so much smoother. It's more expensive, but you get more cores, threads, and headroom in games and software. 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. Can you confirm this?• Compared to your roundup on October 16, 2019, the NEF export of the 3900X is suddenly considerably slower - by 35%! Since this testing was completed, Premiere Pro 14.2 released with some huge GPU performance improvements. Puget Systems builds custom PCs tailor-made for your workflow. In fact, this is the speed we are planning on using in our Ryzen workstations once JDEC DDR4-2933 16GB sticks are available. HP Z440, 6-core Xeon, 64GB ECC RAM, Quadro K1200 4GB, five SSDs (dedicated Samsung 2TB 860 EVO on the PCIe bus for the library/catalog and 1 TB Samsung 840 EVO for the Preview Cache), two 4K monitors but Lightroom full screen on just one monitor. It shouldn't affect performance much, but good benchmarking is about removing variables to try to get the most accurate results as possible. Comparing the 5600X to the more similarly-priced Intel Core i5 10600K, the 5600X is a decent 11% faster in our Lightroom Classic benchmark. What took the Ryzen 3 3100 1,026 seconds to encode dropped to 200 seconds once a GPU was added in. So for A7R3 42Mp .ARW files , is the 9900k better than 3900x ? Noch interessanter wird Platz 2! Our Labs team is available to provide in-depth hardware recommendations based on your workflow. Also, waiting for the LR benchmark. Yet, if i take a look on the scores of the 9900k it's 921 (87.7 active + 96.5 passive). I recently upgraded from an Intel i5 2500K system to a AMD Ryzen 1800X-based machine. Generally though, most people don't upgrade their CPU every generation since the performance gains usually aren't enough to warrant it. Currently, we have articles for Photoshop, Premiere Pro, After Effects, DaVinci Resolve, and a number of other applications. Posted on 2020-03-16 07:14:10. Puget Systems offers a range of poweful and reliable systems that are tailor-made for your unique workflow. Hier findet man auch einen AMD, nämlich den Ryzen 7 3700K mit 8 Kernen. The Lightroom benchmark is a bit finicky at times since we have to do quite a bit of the testing via external scripts, and de-focusing the Lightroom window can make things break. Calibrating the monitors had no impact as expected, Datacolor Spyder 5 Pro. If you want more information on the specs of this new processor, we recommend checking out our New CPU Announcement: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X post. For the Crowd - The overall result of active and passive tasks are indicators. Frequency can be grabbed through WMI or through the command line, but timings would need an external application which we have tried to avoid doing since it makes cross-platform support much harder. It's actually slower on the new setup, and I see many people complaining about Lightroom's bad performance on CPUs with more than four cores. If you are concerned about general Lightroom performance, the Intel Core i7 7700K is significantly faster for most tasks and only ~10% slower when exporting images. I'm currently building a desktop machine for editing in Lightroom Classic based on an AMD Ryzen 9 3900X, 12x 3.80GHz. 2) Should I expect my PC to continue to lock up with either of these CPU’s? If you are concerned about general Lightroom performance, the Intel Core i7 7700K is significantly faster for most tasks and only ~10% slower when exporting images. These results are then combined into an overall score to give you a general idea of how that specific configuration performs in Lightroom Classic. Why? Overall, the new Ryzen 5000-series CPUs from AMD are terrific for Lightroom Classic. The second thing to note is that we are using our soon to be released Lightroom Classic Benchmark. In our testing for RAM timings for example, we only saw around a 5% max difference between RAM speeds: https://www.pugetsystems.co... . Historically many Adobe products have seemed to favor Intel processors. Lightroom Classic CPU performance: Intel Core X-10000 vs AMD Threadripper 3rd Gen. Is the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X good for Lightroom Classic? As always you guys do great work, thank you for the excellent write-ups and tests! One of the first things is to get our Lightroom Classic benchmark up for public download. Yep, it looks like performance has gotten worse for the active tasks we are testing since we first made the reference scores. We do have a couple of projects planned for 2020 that we hope will help things quite a bit for this however. Its a strong alternative to lightroom and it has better performance, but I can´t seem to find how it responds to different hardwareGreat article BTW :D. Capture One is on our list, but it honestly will likely be at least a year or longer before we are able to take it on - we have a few other major project to take on first. {{ links" />

lightroom benchmark ryzen

From what your headaches are, the Threadripper 3960X is probably the way to go. Most important, however, is the performance leap in editing. Interesting, that is a much larger difference than we have seen. So my questions are: 1) given everything I’ve told you, which should I go with? The officially supported RAM speed varies from DDR4-2666 to DDR4-3200 depending on how many sticks you are using and whether they are dual or single rank, and DDR4-2933 is right in the middle as well as being the fastest supported speed if you want to use four sticks of RAM. But 9960x is suddenly much worse with smart previews in comparison to your October-Benchmark. All of those can affect performance, and it looks like we have overall seen a performance drop of about 8% with the 9900K since that time. There is almost no reason to use the X-series when the Core i9 10900K is both less expensive and faster, so the true performance lead with the AMD Ryzen 5000-series peaks out closer to only 20%. You already know it better!• Looking at the NEF numbers, there is really no reason to spend even a penny more for a 3950x instead of a 3900x (for Photoshop and Lightroom only). Hey Matt, there are some things that are not clear to me. 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: Intel Core 10th Gen vs AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen, 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. Er schafft den Test in 119 Sekunden und kostet gerade mal 370 Euro.. Der Intel Core i7-8700K kostet ähnlich wenig, braucht aber für den Parcours 195 Sekunden.. Ist sieht also so aus, als ob ein aktueller AMD Ryzen Prozessor eine sehr gute und preisgünstige Wahl für Lightroom ist. I also see bad performance in Lightroom classic where I exported from ARW to JPG 397 files (the same files with the same edit on both systems) with quality set to 80 and got these times: 7820x: 16 min 21 sek. I will quote from your Lightroom benchmark procedure : How does the scoring work?The scoring system used in our benchmark is based on the performance relative to a reference system with the following specifications: Intel Core i9 9900K 8 CoreNVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 8GB64GB of RAMSamsung 960 Pro 1TBWindows 10 (1903)Adobe Lighroom Classic CC 2019 (ver. Same with the new Ryzen - as far as I know, AMD hasn't made an official announcement, so no way to know for sure. So, the i9 with its faster speed and bvecause Lightroom is "intel optimized" (Dont kid yourself, Ligfhroom isnt optimized for anything) or the 50% more cores in a 3900x Another factor that has changed recently is that the Gigabyte B550 Vision D motherboard - with fully certified Thunderbolt support - has launched and passed our internal qualification process. The CPUs in the HP Z440 are almost 6 years old now, so that is what is going to be holding you back. 9.1's biggest reduction was undo (Ctrl-Z), now with 9.2, applying the slider is as slow as undo. In order to see how each of these configurations performs in Lightroom Classic, we will be using our PugetBench for Lightroom Classic V0.92 benchmark and Lightroom Classic version 10.0. and "passive" tasks (exporting, generating smart previews, etc.). System Specs ----- Asus Pro X370 Prime (Bios 0515) Ryzen 1700x @ … How about a comparison between the fastest affordable Quadro (the RTX4000) and the GTX 2080 TI? It is looking like a pretty massive programming project to not only allow people to upload, but sort, search, compare, etc., but that is something we are really excited about doing. Listed below are the specifications of the systems we will be using for our testing: *All the latest drivers, OS updates, BIOS, and firmware applied as of November 11th, 2019. In addition, both Intel and AMD have new processors coming out in the near future which may change the price to performance picture. Is the correct interpretation then that Lightroom has become ~13% slower between versions 8.4 and 10.0 in the 'active' test? Puget Systems Lightroom Classic Benchmark. For me in my example, switching between Modules in Lightroom and scrolling in developer modul is very important, also 1:1 Rendering . So overall, performance is not better with HT enabled than with it disabled, which is why we didn't disable it for this testing. Wanted to ask - will there be benchmarking series, where the new amd GPUs are used in tandem with the new CPUs and SAM on, i am curious weather there is any performance gain to be found outside of games. I would believe that scaling goes way down after 6 cores though. If you would like to skip over our test setup and benchmark sections, feel free to jump right to the Conclusion. In my case, switching between to Monitors (separately connected and separately tested on the same PC) 1980 + 1020 -> 2560 x 1440 (AMD RX570 4GB) gives me a difference of 17% in some important Tasks! There are quite a few things we want to test in LrC, but unfortunately the API is way behind other apps like Photoshop and Premiere Pro. Their lead over Intel was not small either, the Ryzen 9 3900X was a very impressive 22% faster than the Intel Core i9 9900K in our Lightroom Classic benchmark. In this article, we will be examining the performance of the new AMD Ryzen 5600X, 5800X, 5900X, and 5950X in Lightroom Classic compared to a range of CPUs including the Intel 10th Gen, Intel X-10000 Series, AMD Threadripper 3rd Gen, and the previous generation AMD Ryzen 3000-series processors. It seems like Affinity Photo is in some Tasks much faster. Benchmark Analysis: AMD Ryzen 5000-series vs Intel 10th Gen. Are the AMD Ryzen 5000-series or Intel Core 10th Gen better for Lightroom Classic? First things first: Thank you for the lightning fast testing of the new 3950X!However, it is very difficult to draw meaningful conclusions without a closer look at your numbers:• You seem to have tested Intel with HT-on. However, the increase in core count comes with a fairly large MSRP price of $749. It also gets a bit hairy for us since we are partners with many of these companies, and very few of them seem to welcome head-to-head comparisons. When I bought the 3900X I immediately noticed the huge difference when exporting images. The API is about as barebones as it could possibly be which makes it really difficult to get a benchmark created that isn't going to constantly break. The reason I ask is because there are many reports of Lightroom not performing well if the CPU has more than 4 physical cores. That reference score is completely static and won't ever change until we add tests to our benchmark that forces us to re-create it. Please add the Quadro RTX 4000 to your GPU test. (assuming that the 10700k in these results is on par with that old 9900k). Might not be much if you are lucky, or it might result in numerous random bluescreens or application crashes. Ryzen 3000 series Lightroom performance? This benchmark version includes the ability to upload the results to our online database, so if you want to know how your own system compares, you can download and run the benchmark yourself. Thank you for such a competent and detailed reply. Having said that, for Lightroom ONLY (and not other Adobe software, which I cannot comment on), you want the fastest 4-core CPU you can afford. Even this relatively small 10% increase in performance allows the modest Ryzen 5 5600X to beat every single Intel processor we tested, although it only snuck by the Intel Core i9 10900K by a few percent. Until recently, even 3200MHz didn't meet our stability standards, and going above that is definitely going to cause more system instability. The differents can be mor den 40% !!! When AMD released the first of their 3rd generation Ryzen processors back in July 2019, they were quickly established as the fastest processors for Adobe Lightroom Classic. I NEVER delete anything. Adobe Lightroom CC 2015.8 AMD Ryzen 7 1700X & 1800X Performance Hier haste einen Vergleich. The reason we use a 2080Ti in our CPU-based testing is simply to make sure that the GPU is not a bottleneck. I’ve narrowed it down to 2 top contenders, the TR 3960X and the Zen 5900X. Benchmark. 16gb ram and gtx1080. In my opinion that is a shame for Intel, AMD and Adobe altogether and not a reason to hype anybody. In theory, this could translate to almost a 20% performance increase over the previous generation, although it will likely heavily depend on the application. Eine kleine Benchmark Orgie meines neuen Ryzen 2700er Computers. If you were to compare AMD and Intel processors based on price alone, AMD is anywhere from 11% to 30% faster than Intel. I'm having a blast editing 4K content in Premiere, but Lightroom? We saw some odd performance issues with the Ryzen 9 5950X, but the Ryzen 7 5800X and Ryzen 9 5900X beat the Intel Core i9 10900K by a solid 14% and 21% respectively, while the Ryzen 5 5600X outperforms the similarly-priced Intel Core i5 10600K by a bit smaller 11%. In other reviews, however, there are indications that the 3950x could do significantly better than the 3900x with SMT-off. I dont understand why the 9900K is not 1000. Either way you look at it, however, the 3950X further solidifies AMD's lead over Intel for Lightroom Classic. 3. There are also some back-end features we want to make that makes it even more complex, but hugely useful for our articles. Yep, you are right on the average thing, the only thing you missed was that we multiple the average by 10 because a bigger number means it is more important. Why? Our Lightroom Classic benchmark tests a wide range of tasks that are divided between "active" tasks (scrolling through images, brush lag, etc.) For comparison, both the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12 Core and Intel Core i9 9900K 8 Core have a MSRP of $499. Lightroom is my bottleneck- its soslow its annoying. Archived. One thing we do want to note is that the pre-launch BIOS that is available for Ryzen motherboards is using AGESA 1.0.8. Soon after launch, there should be an update that adds support for AGESA 1.1.0 which is supposed to increase the performance of each Ryzen CPU by another few percent. They do have a 10-20% higher price tag as well, although in terms of absolute cost that works out to only a $50 increase which is fairly small if you look at it as a part of the overall cost of a computer. It probably isn't just Lightroom though, Windows updates and drivers also have an impact on performance - and sometimes not in a good way. It is definitely one of the more "finicky" of our benchmarks (none of these apps are made for benchmarking, so we have to do some "creative" things to get them to work). Feel free to skip to the next sections for our analysis of these results to get a wider view of how each configuration performs in Lightroom Classic. I would guess maybe in 2-3 weeks we can have a version for Windows up for download. I notice that you perform the Lightroom benchmarks with 3200Mhz CL22 memory. As has been stated in the benchmarks that the video card, above a minimum level, doesn't much impact Lightroom performance (except for the Texture slider); if I upgrade from the K1200 to the RTX 4000 vs the GTX 2080 Ti, am I going to see equivalent performance with the RTX 4000? I see, it's difficult and very interesting. It’s the Mac Pro that’s *REALLY* bad. I'm currently speccing up a new desktop build to mostly run Lightroom and Photoshop, and have read elsewhere that there are good gains in memory performance by using 3600Mhz ram with CL16 or CL18 timing. Some of the active tasks are accelerated by LR through the GPU ... Perhaps the difference in CPU performance would be much clearer with a lower GPU.• Many Lightroom users still have a Core i7-4700K in use. AMD’s focus has been on offering higher core count processors v their Intel rivals but the performance per core of an AMD processor is still very slightly behind that of Intel. Since the 5600x isn't out yet, there's no testing to indicate if it's supposed faster single core speed will help improve performance in Lightroom over a CPU like the 3700x, which is around the same price but has 2 more cores/4 more threads. 3950x: 19 min 30 sek Here both CPUs had 100% usage for the entire exporte, but despite having twice the core counts the 3950x was slower. Maybe you should setup a databases system where people could upload their results to compare with others. In the worst constellation and best constellation, I bet there exist more than 40% difference (LR Classic and PS). I also know Puget Systems recommendations for RAM frequency but in the real world there are many out there with 3600 Mhz or more, see Puget systems database results :-) My working settings are moderate CL 16-18-18-38 2933 Mhz. Even with all the improvements Adobe has done in the last couple of Lightroom versions to take advantage of the GPU, it is still primarily a CPU-driven application. In this article, we want to see whether the increase in core count (and price) is worth it for Adobe Lightroom Classic. If there is a specific task that is a hindrance to your workflow, examining the raw results for that task is going to be much more applicable than the scores that our benchmark calculated. High praise & recommendation for the current generation Ryzen CPUs. I don't think that is because any of them are scared, but rather because it is much harder to place a value on workflow optimizations than it is for things like "how long does this effect take to apply?". That shouldn't happen though, since Lightroom likely won't ever use all your cores.3) I don't think there is an arbitrary limit like that. I found these past couple of benchmarks incredibly helpful in choosing my next CPU. There could be merit to using only the CPU for encoding, but while that was once de facto, the performance improvements a GPU can bring can make a huge difference. I'm sure the hardware itself has an impact as well. Maybe once we are able to test the features that use the GPU a bit better, but for now, there is almost no chance our testing would show any difference. With that really quick look at workstation performance out-of-the-way, we can move onto a look at gaming performance – aka: the true reason for this article’s existence today. And it's not always straightforward and faster and 100% utilized with more cores etc, as export is.Also it helps import previews and develop module when you make and apply a some preset with Sharpening and Noise Reduction set to 0. Is there any chance you might add capture one to the software you benchmark in the future? Puget Systems' testing of Lightroom seems to indicate that multiple cores (up to around 8) do seem to help with performance. For years, neither Intel nor AMD have done anything to really justify an upgrade. In the past, there were arguments for using an Intel processor for Lightroom Classic if you wanted to optimize for active tasks like scrolling through images, but with the new Ryzen 5000 Series CPUs, AMD takes a solid lead no matter the task. We might do something for other apps that use the GPU more (Premiere Pro, After Effects, DaVinci Resolve, etc), but I doubt we will invest the time to test Lightroom Classic. So, it is possible the work they are doing there is negatively affecting the tasks we can test, but LrC is still way better overall for the end users. Why?• Video Card: Is it really meaningful to use a graphics card that would normally not be installed in a Lightroom computer (RTX 2080 Ti)? You can apply those after you're done, as a batch. Could you do this, please?• In comparison today vs 6 years ago (in IT-Calender: When the dinosaurs still walked the earth): you have to pay twice as much for the CPU and twice as much for the motherboard, to get a 2-3 times faster export, but only about 35% more power in active tasks. Turning off SMT can improve performance a bit in tasks like exporting, but in the last few versions of LrC, it also lowers performance in active tasks. Could you make the benchmark downloadble to execute yourself? Right now I’m running an Intel i7-6850 and lightroom pretty much locks up my system (100% CPU Usage) when I’m importing and creating previews or exporting. Hello AMD! And that '100' benchmark was established with a 9900k system. Ah, got you, sorry I misunderstood! The Quadro line is mostly about having high amounts of VRAM which almost never a problem for photography applications. A Quadro RTX4000 is going to perform about on par with a RTX 2060 Super or RTX 2070. We were close about a month ago, then we realized Lightroom 9.0 was going to launch during Adobe MAX so we held off. When we can, we try to have many of the tests be similar, but we first and foremost want to measure the performance for "typical" workflows in each app separately. Lightroom is hard to benchmark since the things that are easiest to test (importing, exporting, generating previews, etc.) Compared to the previous generation AMD Ryzen 3000-series CPUs, these new processors are all roughly 10% faster than the CPUs they are replacing. From what I remember, the difference between various CPUs for 1:1 previews was pretty close to what we see with generating smart previews. so great that you did the test with the new 9.0 version! Can you please explain this? i understood how you calculate the total score (Active + Passive)/2*10 .. I actually had been considering the 9900 prior to the 3900x, but the link in my OP is to some benchmarks specifically related to Lightroom performance, and the 3900x has about a 25-30% gains over the Intel counterparts. Takt und IPC zählen. The "Passive Score" does a pretty good job of summarizing performance for tasks like that as well. 3) Adobe CLAIMS it only uses 6 cores, if that’s the case, do we expect them to start utilizing more cores in the future? As for the future, only the developers could tell you.4) No way to really know. Quite often I have to let my computer sit there over night while it churns out previews… I don’t want to do that. In Photoshop is “opening a file” or “filter results” for me very important, and on and on... Lightroom is sooo good and simultaneously sooo bad :-) I love and edit my files sometimes in Capture One too, but I found Lightroom for my organisational tasks a little bit better. it is very hard to know where you stand with performance on your current system. Now I can just take a small break and get back to work. Lightroom catalog is essentially a database that contains all imported … Should you choose the new Ryzen 9 3900X 12-core CPU or the Intel i9 9900K 8-core? To get up to the same performance as a RTX 2080 Ti, you are going to need a Quadro RTX 6000, and even then it will likely be slightly slower. I haven't tried exporting with SMT off, but I have turned off SMT when editing and it runs so much smoother. It's more expensive, but you get more cores, threads, and headroom in games and software. 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. Can you confirm this?• Compared to your roundup on October 16, 2019, the NEF export of the 3900X is suddenly considerably slower - by 35%! Since this testing was completed, Premiere Pro 14.2 released with some huge GPU performance improvements. Puget Systems builds custom PCs tailor-made for your workflow. In fact, this is the speed we are planning on using in our Ryzen workstations once JDEC DDR4-2933 16GB sticks are available. HP Z440, 6-core Xeon, 64GB ECC RAM, Quadro K1200 4GB, five SSDs (dedicated Samsung 2TB 860 EVO on the PCIe bus for the library/catalog and 1 TB Samsung 840 EVO for the Preview Cache), two 4K monitors but Lightroom full screen on just one monitor. It shouldn't affect performance much, but good benchmarking is about removing variables to try to get the most accurate results as possible. Comparing the 5600X to the more similarly-priced Intel Core i5 10600K, the 5600X is a decent 11% faster in our Lightroom Classic benchmark. What took the Ryzen 3 3100 1,026 seconds to encode dropped to 200 seconds once a GPU was added in. So for A7R3 42Mp .ARW files , is the 9900k better than 3900x ? Noch interessanter wird Platz 2! Our Labs team is available to provide in-depth hardware recommendations based on your workflow. Also, waiting for the LR benchmark. Yet, if i take a look on the scores of the 9900k it's 921 (87.7 active + 96.5 passive). I recently upgraded from an Intel i5 2500K system to a AMD Ryzen 1800X-based machine. Generally though, most people don't upgrade their CPU every generation since the performance gains usually aren't enough to warrant it. Currently, we have articles for Photoshop, Premiere Pro, After Effects, DaVinci Resolve, and a number of other applications. Posted on 2020-03-16 07:14:10. Puget Systems offers a range of poweful and reliable systems that are tailor-made for your unique workflow. Hier findet man auch einen AMD, nämlich den Ryzen 7 3700K mit 8 Kernen. The Lightroom benchmark is a bit finicky at times since we have to do quite a bit of the testing via external scripts, and de-focusing the Lightroom window can make things break. Calibrating the monitors had no impact as expected, Datacolor Spyder 5 Pro. If you want more information on the specs of this new processor, we recommend checking out our New CPU Announcement: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X post. For the Crowd - The overall result of active and passive tasks are indicators. Frequency can be grabbed through WMI or through the command line, but timings would need an external application which we have tried to avoid doing since it makes cross-platform support much harder. It's actually slower on the new setup, and I see many people complaining about Lightroom's bad performance on CPUs with more than four cores. If you are concerned about general Lightroom performance, the Intel Core i7 7700K is significantly faster for most tasks and only ~10% slower when exporting images. I'm currently building a desktop machine for editing in Lightroom Classic based on an AMD Ryzen 9 3900X, 12x 3.80GHz. 2) Should I expect my PC to continue to lock up with either of these CPU’s? If you are concerned about general Lightroom performance, the Intel Core i7 7700K is significantly faster for most tasks and only ~10% slower when exporting images. These results are then combined into an overall score to give you a general idea of how that specific configuration performs in Lightroom Classic. Why? Overall, the new Ryzen 5000-series CPUs from AMD are terrific for Lightroom Classic. The second thing to note is that we are using our soon to be released Lightroom Classic Benchmark. In our testing for RAM timings for example, we only saw around a 5% max difference between RAM speeds: https://www.pugetsystems.co... . Historically many Adobe products have seemed to favor Intel processors. Lightroom Classic CPU performance: Intel Core X-10000 vs AMD Threadripper 3rd Gen. Is the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X good for Lightroom Classic? As always you guys do great work, thank you for the excellent write-ups and tests! One of the first things is to get our Lightroom Classic benchmark up for public download. Yep, it looks like performance has gotten worse for the active tasks we are testing since we first made the reference scores. We do have a couple of projects planned for 2020 that we hope will help things quite a bit for this however. Its a strong alternative to lightroom and it has better performance, but I can´t seem to find how it responds to different hardwareGreat article BTW :D. Capture One is on our list, but it honestly will likely be at least a year or longer before we are able to take it on - we have a few other major project to take on first.

Tom Gerhardt Instagram, Thunderfury Demon Hunter, Admiral Markets Professional Client, Mietminderung Lärm Kinderlärm, Gewobau Erlangen Büchenbach, Schulplaner Online De, Als Ich Ein Baby War Text, Führerschein 14 10, Ich Wünsche Dir Einen Schönen Sonnigen Tag, Borussia Dortmund Wallpaper 1920x1080,

23.12.2020, Kategorie: Allgemein