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 … This further reduces any potential performance gains by the 9th gen chips, as you are trading clock speeds for extra cores. It looks like that issue was before Lightrooom Classic was launched - they really improved performance in that new version of Lightroom. 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. HOWEVER, to complicate things more, there was also an Adobe update right after I installed the new RAM. I am currently looking for a new computer and don't know which CPU to take. https://uploads.disquscdn.c... Hi! Both brands worked and work properly at the correct D.O.C.P. I think stock speeds are solid these days, especially because of Turbo Boost. It's definitely not the 32 vs 64 GB, since my export time before the RAM upgrade was consistently about 4:45 with my 4 x 8 = 32GB setup (4x8Gb Adata XPG Z1 2800 C17). Puget Systems builds custom PCs tailor-made for your workflow. Even with SMT ON, I'm back to short export times (or "Save Images" times)! On the architecture level, a 8700k core is exactly the same as a 9700k core (edit: with the exception of hyperthreading), so there is no objective reason why the 9700k should be 400mhz faster out of the box. However, I do understand that Puget are system integrators, and their primary interest is system stability, so it's not likely that they will test under these conditions. 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. My understanding that for Lightroom the speed of the processor is important (got that) and that LR does not effectively use multiple cores. I hate noise, I only have one fan in my system and that's the CPU fan on an oversized heat sinc. And when you overclock the Core i9, it outputs 21,204, which is a 16.8 percent increase over the Core i7. 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. (I consider it unlikely). It was about 2 min 30 sec faster than with SMT on. if using masks, etc. 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. Still, I quickly tested a Geometry test with an Auto Mask layered A7RIII image with SMT ON and OFF. Much less lag and delay. I've run into a mysterious problem. 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. Our Labs team is available to provide in-depth hardware recommendations based on your workflow. However, both the i7 9700K and i9 900K were definitely a bit faster in photo merge tasks, coming in at 4-6% faster than the i7 8700K. My all 16 core, 32 thread SMT ON setup result is so slow that it is roughly on par with 4 cores, 8 thread setting. 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. If you're using software that doesn't utilize hyper-threading well then the 9700K's extra cores and clock speed will make it a better value. I expect some improvements with the i9 - … I did try two earlier versions of ACR (12.1 and 11.4), one earlier version of Photoshop (which was utilizing the aforementioned earlier versions of ACR for the roll-back test), still the same slow speed. Same slow stuff :(. Good point about the overclocking and thermals. If you care more about performance when navigating and … It shouldn't. Given the three I'm looking at and considering heat, thread, and clockspeed, would you still recommend the i9700? 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. Intel Core i7 9700K ($374). Performance is very good and the OLED is simply stunning! Intel Core i3 vs i5 vs i7 vs i9 For Lightroom and Photoshop. 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. New ACR version (12.3), new Bridge, etc. 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). the puzzling results are still the same. The performance gain over AMD's Ryzen 3rd Gen processors may be only ~5%, but if you spend the vast majority of your time tweaking images in Lightroom and a relatively small amount of time exporting, these processors are a solid choice. 5.0ghz @ 1.31v is very good, as most copies will require 1.35v to be stable at 5.0. 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. 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. In real world use, the limiting factor will be thermals for all of these chips, so that will be the most valid comparison. 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. If you would like to skip over our test setup and benchmark result/analysis sections, feel free to jump right to the Conclusion section. I could see how it might be unfair if you were trying to compare purely the maximum performance you could get across different CPUs when overclocked to their limits. 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. Is the Intel Core i9 9990XE good for Lightroom Classic CC 2019? Interesting, Jayz2cents had much better results oc'ing the 9900K compared to the 8700K: https://youtu.be/9yQRmbe2QPU. 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. 85 % - with HT/SMT on takes 5 minutes 01 second. This is frequent with new hardware generations, but appears to be more of an issue right now than I remember in years past. The graphs below compare the most important i9-9900K and Intel i7-8700 features. Tested it several times. - Future Proofing Lightroom 5 months ago Hello. Close • Posted by 1 hour ago. In comparison, the 9700k has a stock all-core turbo of 4.7ghz, so it is nearly maxed out at stock. 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. The TIM is definitely better on the 9th gen, but the thicker silicon with the extra two cores result in overall worse performance. However, Lightroom Classic currently heavily favors AMD processors for passive tasks like exporting which allows the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X and Ryzen 7 3800X to be around 25-30% faster than the Core i9 10900K and i7 10700K respectively. These are the four tiers of Intel’s main “Core” processors and are targeted at most desktop PC users, especially builders. It is almost at 8700k level. 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. 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. 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. Is the Intel Core 10th Gen or AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen better for Lightroom Classic? I'm not too concerned about the overclocking. And saving/export slowed down significantly. 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. The “Pentium” series is a tier below also aimed at desktop users, the “Celeron” series is mainly aimed at mobile devices, and the “Xeon” series is tailored exclusively for servers and professional users. Rotating, skewing, etc. Are these 24 files we can see on the LR screenshot? Export is not much better than my old intel 3960x. If you are hitting peak CPU utilization, that is actually good from a performance perspective, but I totally understand how it can cause issue with multitasking. Thank you! (roughly 6:50 vs 4:20).I thought this issue was largely remedied in the 2020 Lightroom but maybe the problem got worse again with the latest update.Anyway, I might have to use SMT off if and when I do a lot of work in Camera Raw (I hardly ever use Lightroom, I work in Camera Raw, opened via Photoshop normally. 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 Exporting is always an excuse to take a break anyway ;). I don't OC myself, and there isn't much headroom on any of these chips. Even if the exporting performance still isn't on par with AMD, it is also possible that these new processors will be significantly faster for active tasks like scrolling through images, switching modules, applying adjustments, etc, which may make them ideal for photographers that do heavier edits on a smaller number of images. Can you give me a rough estimate? I've read many reports about the little difference between the i7 and i9 and I have become indecisive. I think that Jay may have received a golden sample, and he said so himself towards the end of the video. I watched some other 9900K reviews and it seems like a Z390 makes very little difference or none. 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. In my case there seems to be a sweet spot; running 16 cores and no SMT. Thank you! Once you overclock and take these differences out of play, the performance difference will decrease or disappear all together. 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. Be sure to check our list of Hardware Articles to keep up to date on how all of these software packages (and more) perform with the latest CPUs. However, if we dig into the results a bit deeper, we find that most of this performance advantage comes from passive tasks like exporting and generating previews. If you got the same time with 24 files, then there is probably a difference in export settings. 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. Puget's testing methodology is a bit problematic because they are comparing a 4.3ghz 8700k against a 4.7ghz 9700k. While the Intel Core i9 9990XE achieved a higher overall benchmark score in Lightroom Classic than any other CPU we tested, that doesn't mean it is an automatic pick even assuming you can get your hands on it. Feel free to skip to the next section for our analysis of these results. But this was only one quick test, and only some geometry adjustments. The reason I ask is because there are many reports of Lightroom not performing well if the CPU has more than 4 physical cores. 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. Keep in mind that base clocks and turbo clocks are arbitrary. 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. This may not be all that exciting, but this is fairly typical for CPU launches from Intel over the last few years. That said, I would expect your system to export the same images/settings we used in somewhere around 70-80 seconds. XMP profiles don't always properly set from what I've experienced. So similarly to previous experience here, it looks like the more cores the processor has, beyond a certain number, the more SMT or HT hurts performance. If your workflow includes other software packages (we have similar articles for Premiere Pro, After Effects, and Photoshop), you need to consider how the system will perform in those applications as well. Now equipped with a quad-core CPU, the 2-in-1 can run Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom without breaking a sweat. In real world use, the 8700k can be clocked 100-200mhz faster for the same temperatures, so a fair comparison might be a 8700k @ 5.0ghz and a 9700k/9900k @ 4.8ghz. 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. And I just wondering, does the Ryzen R72700X have the same CPU utilization - about 100%, or less (may be 90%..or may be even 80%?). But I'm not sure if I like the brand new, Lightroom-like ACR UI. Lightroom: Slow performance on Xeon CPUs | Photoshop Family Customer Community . In fact, for most users there is little reason to use the more expensive i9 9900K as the i7 9700K is only a tiny bit slower. 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. The 8700k has a stock all-core turbo of 4.3ghz, which means that it actually has significant overclocking headroom. Never tested the new RAM with the pre-update Adobe. On average, the Core i7 9700K is about 4% faster that the Core i7 8700K in Lightroom Classic. So on Thursday I'll see if that changes anything. I'm on a 2016 Macbook Pro w/ 16G RAM and LR can be so slow as to be unusable at times, esp. Somewhat slower is the 8 core, 16 thread (that's with SMT ON but manually turning cores off in the "Set Affinity" option in Task Manager). 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. 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. Also during export 5 cores loaded fully, 6th apr. 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. What I would recommend is using a piece of software like System Explorer http://systemexplorer.net/ . I'm on a 2016 Macbook Pro w/ 16G RAM and LR can be so slow as to be unusable at times, esp. Before undervolting the … If you would like to skip over our test setup and benchmark sections, feel free to jump right to the Conclusion. Open to suggestions. The "Number of cores / threads" graph shows the number of cores (darker area). It isn't by a small amount either - AMD can at times be up to 2x faster than a similarly priced Intel CPU! Money/quality wise, of course the most expensive one would be the best. To get an idea of whether or not purchasing a more expensive Intel CPU would give you a notable increase in performance, we also include the i7 7820X and the i9 7900X.
Motorrad Tank Lackieren Lassen Preis, Uni Düsseldorf Medizin Höheres Fachsemester, Ramses Ii Moses, Srh Fernhochschule Standorte, Bundesagentur Für Arbeit Abkürzung, Monte Verità Spielplatz,
Leave a reply