jhapeman
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
OK, so thanks to Mike for uploading his files and letting me run the same tests. Here's some observations we can draw from some of the results and from my observations on CPU and memory utilization while processes were running:
1) Many tasks remain unoptimized for multiprocessing. Its been known for some years that there is a cap on the number of cores that Lightroom and Photoshop can/will use. It's no doubt tied to some of the libraries they use in the application and they can be improved in the future. For example, in recent years some tasks have been updated and now scale very linearly with core count--rendering previews, imports, exports. You can see that in my graphs on the first page. Creating both HDR files and panoramas in Lightroom requires both RAM and core counts, but right now its very clear that Lightroom is only using 6 cores to do all of this work. The rest just sit idle, no matter how there are available. I expect to see this change sooner rather than later as across the board all of the major processors are moving to more and more cores, not just Apple Silicon.
2) In part due to the above point, the pure speed of each core can give a performance boost. The fastest computers above all have the fastest single-core speed/highest GHz speed. The Apple Silicon machines also get an extra boost that my belief comes from the SoC architecture that gives them incredibly fast access to memory.
3) If you're looking to buy a Mac Studio or MacBook Pro, you can make a choice that doesn't compromise speed on the laptop side, at least for most tasks. This is truly unique IMO. Since not long after the dawn of the modern PC age, laptops have always been crippled in terms of power so they can use battery power, and are often dramatically crippled when on battery vs plugged in. Even then, battery life has always been marginal. The "workstation" laptops you can buy today with Intel processors and Nvidia GPUs typically last only a few hours at most. The new M1 MacBook Pros can last all day with almost no noticeable or measurable drop in performance while on battery.
4) Right now only certain tasks will benefit from the extra performance provide by the M1 Ultra vs. the M1 Max--namely those tasks that are well-optimized for multiple cores. I will skip commenting on the benefits for those doing video editing as these tests didn't focus on that--in those cases the Ultra will have some additional benefits though at least if you use ProRes and/or HEVC. If you are doing large batch imports and exports, the Ultra will be faster, and a Mac Studio will be faster than a MBP, where there is clearly some thermal throttling going on. That's to be expected in a laptop. The weight and height on the Studio is for a massive heatsink, and that has benefits.
5) Memory is an interesting topic. Yes, you can get away with less on the M1 architecture, but I don't recommend it if you don't need to scrimp for some reason. If you're just doing basic photo editing then 32GB should fine. If you do panoramas and HDR merges you are also fine unless you start getting into larger file sets. Given that its unified memory, I would suggest that if you plan on running multiple high-dpi displays you should consider more RAM vs. less as some will get used to push the displays.
We are just seeing the tip of the iceberg with this new processor architecture. While many apps are now Apple Silicon native, that's just the very beginning. There's lots of optimization yet to be done by many vendors--and that also really applies to other processors, too as better multi-processing capabilities will be beneficial when using AMD processors or the higher-end Intel processors. In the next few years we'll see performance gains from better-optimized software and of course the next generations of these processors that Apple releases.
|
. Well for a lot of tasks it really is. But big batch imports and exports it is not. If you need to do those fast then the Ultra is probably worth it. If not, then it really isn't. 