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? However, things are a bit different for active tasks like scrolling through images, switching modules and applying adjustments. 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. Puget Systems builds custom PCs tailor-made for your workflow. I don't use Lightroom, but Adobe Camera RAW only which I'm accessing via Adobe Bridge. The all-core and single-core turbo speeds on these 9000 series processors match or exceed the 8000 series, while having two more physical cores. I've run into a mysterious problem. I mean import/export images, especially export. And I've just tested the same batch now with SMT OFF. Je n'ai pas trouvé de réponses concrètes sur le site d'Adobe, ils ne donnent que des configurations "minimales". With it, you can set the affinity (how many cores it can use), but it also has the option to make it permanent. If your software does use hyper-threading effectively, it'll be a more even match. AMD Ryzen 9 3900X ($499), Intel Core i9 9900K ($488) If you are interested in how the 9th Gen Intel Core Processors perform in other applications, be sure to check out our recent Processor articles as we have a number of other articles for looking at the i7 9700K and i9 9900K. 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. In order to see how each of these configurations performs in Lightroom Classic, we will be using our PugetBench for Lightroom Classic V0.9 benchmark and Lightroom Classic 2020 (9.3). 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. Is it possibble to know average CPU utilization during the test? Even my Dell G5 laptop beats that time (i7-9750H, 6 cores 12 threads, 32Gb 2666 MHz memory). Definitely something we are keeping an eye on, but at the moment it looks like the amount of time we would have to dedicate to doing the testing wouldn't make it financially viable for us to do at the moment. Esp. I think everybody is happy to take a faster active task set (and slower export) over a fast export and slow(er) active tasks. Export is not much better than my old intel 3960x. Any less, like 6 cores (12 threads) or 4 cores (8 threads) yields slower results. Premiere pro is a little better but not by as much as I thought it would be. The 8700k has a stock all-core turbo of 4.3ghz, which means that it actually has significant overclocking headroom. 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. 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. Some nice new features, but a couple of important-to-me functions or ways of operation were dropped.). As far as we are aware, there has not been an official explanation as to why this is from Adobe, Intel, or AMD, but the fact of the matter is that if exporting is a bottleneck in your workflow, going with AMD can make exporting significantly faster. the image yielded the same times (between 5 to 7 seconds for the various tasks I threw at it. Before undervolting the … These are the four tiers of Intel’s main “Core” processors and are targeted at most desktop PC users, especially builders. And I know that some of the folks in videos like the one you posted above have that in mind. I'm an event photographer and I'm primarily interested in the fastest export time within sensible price range of course. 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. 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, 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. 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. When I ran your Photoshop benchmark a few months ago, I achieved a score of 1062, which is not far behind your score for a stock 9700k. 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. 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 % ? I'm on a 2016 Macbook Pro w/ 16G RAM and LR can be so slow as to be unusable at times, esp. By reading on this sub about undervolting I thought I'd give it a try and oh my, what a difference it makes! 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. I hate noise, I only have one fan in my system and that's the CPU fan on an oversized heat sinc. What mac should I get mainly for using Lightroom,Photoshop and PremierePro ? For reasons, I prefer to buy a Mac over a Windows PC (advertising ID, rest of family on Apple, iMessage, etc) 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. Performance is very good and the OLED is simply stunning! The "Number of cores / threads" graph shows the number of cores (darker area). GPUs currently come with 2 to 8 GB of RAM. the puzzling results are still the same. 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. Same slow stuff :(. 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. What I would recommend is using a piece of software like System Explorer http://systemexplorer.net/ . Macbook Pro, Vega 20 (i7 vs i9?) 4-core CPUs are becoming hard to find (but not yet impossible), and I would certainly like to upgrade my computer to take advantage of the i9 or Ryzen power in all my applications, not just LR. Lightroom Classic CPU performance: Intel Core X-10000 vs AMD Threadripper 3rd Gen. Are the 9th Gen Intel Core Processors good for Lightroom Classic? So 2 things changed: new Ram, and new versions of Adobe applications. 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. 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. These characteristics, together with an IPC (instructions per cycle) number, determine how well a processor performs. 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. 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. 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. One thing we want to note is that the pre-launch motherboards we received from Gigabyte (and multiple other manufacturers) were not using Intel's specified power limits in their default BIOS settings. Clockspeeds are similar; around 4.2 GHz for the active cores (no matter if 16-core mode or 8-core mode). 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? 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. Still, I quickly tested a Geometry test with an Auto Mask layered A7RIII image with SMT ON and OFF. Benchmark Analysis: Intel Core 10th Gen vs AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen. How does Intel 10th Gen stack up overall? This is frequent with new hardware generations, but appears to be more of an issue right now than I remember in years past. Considering the additional clock speed on top of that, if you're not overclocking, I think it comes back down to hyper-threading. It looks like that issue was before Lightrooom Classic was launched - they really improved performance in that new version of Lightroom. If you got the same time with 24 files, then there is probably a difference in export settings. No change in my test between SMT on or off.) if using masks, etc. New ACR version (12.3), new Bridge, etc. Can you give me a rough estimate? 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. That said, I would expect your system to export the same images/settings we used in somewhere around 70-80 seconds. Puget Systems offers a range of powerful and reliable systems that are tailor-made for your unique workflow. 5.0ghz @ 1.31v is very good, as most copies will require 1.35v to be stable at 5.0. Keep an eye out in the coming weeks (or months)! If you care more about performance when navigating and … It's looks for me, that results is incorrect. One note of caution, GPUs come either integrated/built in or separate/discrete. 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. On average, the Core i7 9700K is about 4% faster that the Core i7 8700K in Lightroom Classic. So apparently, it does matter, at least on my computer, whether I use Lightroom, ACR, etc. 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. For example: Ryzen 3700X and Ryzen 3800X - the exactly same processors, but difference in the frequency - 3800X have additional 300 MHz. Je suis en réflexion pour me monter une tour PC pour mes retouches photos (Photoshop) et tris/archives (Lightroom). Hello. 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. 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. So the new memory is faster but produced slow export times with only 2 sticks. **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% … 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. 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. You really don't need much for photo editing, running lightroom and/or photoshop requires a decent amount of ram. I'm on a 2016 Macbook Pro w/ 16G RAM and LR can be so slow as to be unusable at times, esp. 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. Nos tests précédents ont conclu que les graphiques étaient pratiquement inutilisés. of base clock, and additional 100 MHz of turbo clock. Thanks! My Ryzen 3950x is exporting images from Lightroom much slower recently using all 16 cores than using just 8 cores. Lightroom Classic CC is much better at using a higher number of CPU cores than its predecessor, but for many tasks the speed of each core is often more important than the total number of cores. Then after the RAM upgrade it slowed down to about 6:45 with the 2 x 16 = 32GB setup (2x16Gb T-Force Vulcan Z 3200 C16). But I am worried, that it's not that future safe, since it doesn't offer hyperthreading. 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. AND it was in ACR via Photoshop and not in Lightroom. And when you overclock the Core i9, it outputs 21,204, which is a 16.8 percent increase over the Core i7. Rotating, skewing, etc. While our Lightroom testing is still evolving, we are currently able to accurately benchmark the following tasks with both sets of images: We are currently working on putting up an alpha version of our benchmark for public download (similar to our Photoshop Benchmark) which will have a much more in-depth description of each of these tests. I work with an external monitor and tried any number of things to speed it up to no avail. It can easily be clocked 700mhz faster. I experimented with some settings, and found that if I disable half the cores (for the Adobe app in Windows task manager's "Set Affinity"), speed is mostly back, and time was reduced to 4:50 for the test batch, very close to the original 4:45. Also regarding the difference between i7 and i9 ( i9 being too new and all) 20 votes. Really the only times it'll matter is when doing maxed out stuff like exporting a ton of raw files from lightroom, and at that point you're looking at something taking 3:41 to export vs 3:59. Passant à des tests réels, nous n'avons constaté aucune différence dans Lightroom d'Adobe. Or the Adobe update screwed up something (sometimes they're 2 steps froward, 1 step back)? For the i7 to i9 95% of peoples daily use it won't be any differnet. Fascinating! 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. 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. I think stock speeds are solid these days, especially because of Turbo Boost. Both brands worked and work properly at the correct D.O.C.P. And also, I feel that latest Lightroom Classic is slower, then previous (9.2). 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. Wow, 3:30. 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. 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. Meanwhile, the Core i9 version nailed a 19,516, making it 9.4 percent faster than the Core i7. Once you overclock and take these differences out of play, the performance difference will decrease or disappear all together. Interesting, Jayz2cents had much better results oc'ing the 9900K compared to the 8700K: https://youtu.be/9yQRmbe2QPU. The same problem persists if doing "Save Images" directly from Adobe Camera Raw (via either Bridge or Photoshop). 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. Core i7 9700K vs Core i7 8700K. 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. 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. 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. It is almost at 8700k level. 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. Lightroom is my bottleneck- its soslow its annoying. 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. 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. Because of this, we decided to manually set the PL1 and PL2 power limits in the BIOS. It's odd, but that's what it looks like. Also there is a difference in that the lower spec machine has the Radeon Pro 5300M graphics while the other has the 5500M. It's correspond to another CPU test benchmark, where 3700X have 22698 points, and 3800X have 23325 points. 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 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. It was about 2 min 30 sec faster than with SMT on. During export 12 cores loaded fully on the 99.99% . Our Labs team is available to provide in-depth hardware recommendations based on your workflow. 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. Is the Intel Core i9 9990XE good for Lightroom Classic CC 2019? I currently have a 8700k running at 5.0ghz all core. 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. Thank you for response and advice! So, my question is - how much I will benefit (in terms of exporting time) from upgrading to one of theses cpus? For these tasks, the Intel 10th Gen processors take the lead with the Intel Core i9 10900K and i5 10700K beating the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X and 3800X by a small 5% respectively. Overall, this makes AMD's Ryzen 3rd Gen processors our current recommendation for Lightroom Classic. But now the 64 images test batch takes anywhere from 6 to 7 minutes to save/export from ACR using the same settings! I turned SMT off and my test export/save time set a new shortest time record. Puget's testing methodology is a bit problematic because they are comparing a 4.3ghz 8700k against a 4.7ghz 9700k. So could it be because of going from 4 sticks of ram to 2? So on Thursday I'll see if that changes anything. 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 Overall, this will likely make the AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen processors a more attractive option for most Lightroom Classic users, although if exporting is not at all a problem in your workflow, the Intel 10th Gen processors can be a great choice as well. We just already had a bunch of results already on Z370 before that board came in so we stuck with it rather than having to re-run a bunch of testing. if using masks, etc. Feel free to skip to the next section for our analysis of these results. 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). Dropping in another 2 to fill all 4 slots made a huge difference, and reduced the times roughly back to the old, pre-upgrade 4-stick setup (actually a few seconds faster due to the faster RAM speed I guess). It may have improved with a version released a few months ago, but with the current version it got worse again, I think. XMP profiles don't always properly set from what I've experienced.

Mannheim Universität Marketing, Munich Airport Parking P81, Berliner Zoo Corona, Asus Tuf Gaming B460-plus Review, Das Glasperlenspiel Pdf, Fernstudium Personalmanagement Erfahrungen,