p.3 #1 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
jhapeman wrote:
OK that's slowwwwww. You will see a big speedup for sure. I personally would not recommend 32GB to anyone working with 100Mpx files; remember the CPU and GPU are sharing this memory. Also, Lightroom now uses the GPU for a lot of functions, including exports, and all of those extra GPU cores on the Ultra will help you out a lot as will the fact the memory bandwidth is doubled in speed. On top of that you get support for more monitors, and 50% more Thunderbolt 4 ports. If you are patient, the model you are thinking of turns up on the Apple Refurb store and you'll save 10%. That puts it at only an $800 delta over the M2 Mini and that's a great value.
If you want to set up a download of some of your files/presets I can run a test for you. Just send me a PM.
My biggest hesitation with springing for the M1Ultra besides the money, is that it's already one year old. While my main need is for a desktop in my studio, I hadn't considered the M2Max MBP which is about as expensive as the Studio Ultra I was considering, if 64gb and a 2TB internal drive are a requirement. It seems like the faster memory bandwidth of 400GB/sec on Max and Ultra machines makes a big difference. So the M2Pro Mini I was considering as my affordable temporary machine likely won't deliver much more performance than my M1Pro MBP because it only has the same 32GB RAM and the same 200GB/sec memory bandwidth.
Given how well the M2Max MBP performs in a confined laptop case, it seems likely that Apple could easily release the M2Max and M2Ultra Studios by the summer. Though that would beg the question of what chips will be in the new MacPros. And Apple has to make sure that the most expensive machines really do perform demonstrably better.
On a related note, does anyone care to comment on why the M1Ultra Studio has such great LR import and export times--still nearly half of M2 machines and even faster than M1 machines? Is it all about more RAM (64GB or more) and the faster memory bandwidth (800GB/sec with 2 M1Max)? Or did Adobe actually tweak the code to efficiently utilize the parallel chips? Seems likely it is all about the memory bandwidth, so Ultra chips may always perform better in these import and export tasks.
p.3 #2 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
It seems that memory bandwidth is not the whole story WRT how fast these machines run. Of course you need the extra bandwidth if you are going to a CPU that supports more RAM but this test by Art shows the same performance for the M2 Mini with the Pro (200Gb/s) as the Studio with the M1 Max (400 Gb/s). They both have 32 GB memory and the same # of CPU cores.
He also includes a Studio with an M1 Ultra and 64GB and it handily beats the other 2 at everything except HDR merge and of course in the PS tests where it uses > 32GB
p.3 #3 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
ptakeuchi wrote:
My biggest hesitation with springing for the M1Ultra besides the money, is that it's already one year old. While my main need is for a desktop in my studio, I hadn't considered the M2Max MBP which is about as expensive as the Studio Ultra I was considering, if 64gb and a 2TB internal drive are a requirement. It seems like the faster memory bandwidth of 400GB/sec on Max and Ultra machines makes a big difference. So the M2Pro Mini I was considering as my affordable temporary machine likely won't deliver much more performance than my M1Pro MBP because it only has the same 32GB RAM and the same 200GB/sec memory bandwidth.
Given how well the M2Max MBP performs in a confined laptop case, it seems likely that Apple could easily release the M2Max and M2Ultra Studios by the summer. Though that would beg the question of what chips will be in the new MacPros. And Apple has to make sure that the most expensive machines really do perform demonstrably better.
On a related note, does anyone care to comment on why the M1Ultra Studio has such great LR import and export times--still nearly half of M2 machines and even faster than M1 machines? Is it all about more RAM (64GB or more) and the faster memory bandwidth (800GB/sec with 2 M1Max)? Or did Adobe actually tweak the code to efficiently utilize the parallel chips? Seems likely it is all about the memory bandwidth, so Ultra chips may always perform better in these import and export tasks....Show more →
If you're not in a rush, I'd wait for sure but only if you're going to get an Ultra model; the performance delta between the M2 Max and M1 Max just isn't really all that large. I personally don't think the Mac Pro will be just an M2 Ultra. That would be bad for Apple and kind of a PR disaster. I suspect it will be something much different, but who knows at this point? IMO, it's much more likely the Studio will get updated with an M2 first.
In terms of Lightroom, the Ultra has a huge advantage in terms of the number of CPU cores and GPU cores. For exports Lightroom can use all of those cores, and it does it very well. It's twice as fast because it's got twice as many cores, plain and simple. BTW, in terms of memory speed, I think this is where it most matters as well--once you can keep a ton of GPU and CPU cores busy, then its most important to keep them fed with data. The overall gain from 200 to 400MB/s on the Pro to Max is just a smaller overall bump.
p.3 #4 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
mcbroomf wrote:
It seems that memory bandwidth is not the whole story WRT how fast these machines run. Of course you need the extra bandwidth if you are going to a CPU that supports more RAM but this test by Art shows the same performance for the M2 Mini with the Pro (200Gb/s) as the Studio with the M1 Max (400 Gb/s). They both have 32 GB memory and the same # of CPU cores.
He also includes a Studio with an M1 Ultra and 64GB and it handily beats the other 2 at everything except HDR merge and of course in the PS tests where it uses > 32GB
Yes, it's always more complicated than that, but also keep in mind that the M2 Pro is clocked faster than the M1 Max and has more cores. The Performance cores alone on the M2 run 15% faster than the M1, and the Efficiency cores run a lot faster than the M1's efficiency cores, about 60-70% faster. That means you can't compare an M2 Pro to an M1 Max like that video does and make too many conclusions about memory speed.
Without a Max version of an M2 in a Studio the best comparisons are the M1 Max laptop to the M2 Max laptop and there we see that depending on the task, the speed bump on the newer chip basically tracks the increase in core counts and clock speed pretty well. IMO, the M2 is a logical buy if you've held out on the M1 so far, but if you have any of the M1's then it's not really worth spending any money to upgrade now. This is pretty much the review consensus of others, and even Apple's marketing it mostly targeted at folks who haven't migrated to Apple Silicon yet.
p.3 #5 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
Thanks for linking the video. I think I will wait a few weeks (March 14 or all the way to WWDC in June) and just start using my M1Pro MBP instead of my hackintosh to see what Apple releases next. The M2 Pro Mac Mini I'd get would be $2600 plus tax, a MBP M2Max would be $4300 plus tax, and I could get an M1 Ultra Studio from B&H for $4400 no tax. The Ultra is clearly the much faster machine for what I do. So I'll wait to see if a Pro or M2 Ultra is released in the next couple of months and how that affects the pricing for older M1 Ultras or if the M2 Ultra Studio or new Mac Pro is say 30% or more faster than the current M1 Ultra and a compelling purchase. I have a feeling both of the new machines will be priced starting at $4500-5000 for configurations with only 32GB RAM, so it will be a difficult cost/benefit tradeoff.
p.3 #6 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
Bumping this to the top since I updated it with some new results using an Nvidia RTX 4080 GPU. Note that the M2 Max GPU is still 22% faster for Topaz DeNoise than even this very high-end $1300 GPU. For Lightroom, the additional benefits of this GPU are minimal, but if you were doing large batch processing of images in Topaz, it would add up quickly.
p.3 #7 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
One thing I did not see noted was the monitor(s) and resolution used
I'm on an M1 Pro 14" MacBook Pro and ram-limited as got the stock version with 16gb (old Mac died and couldn't wait 4-6 weeks at the time). Anyway, I have found (and confirmed by ArtIsRight) that RAM pressure is significantly impacted by the number of monitors connected and, even more so, the resolution chosen.
Curious if you see a hit in these numbers if you connect the machines to 2 externals and especially if choose resolution that is not 1x or 2x native but rather something odd like my preferred 3008x1692 on a 27" Eizo.
I'm especially curious if the dedicated GPU pulls away on most tasks or if the M2 GPU with enough RAM can keep up.
p.3 #8 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
eyal wrote:
One thing I did not see noted was the monitor(s) and resolution used
I'm on an M1 Pro 14" MacBook Pro and ram-limited as got the stock version with 16gb (old Mac died and couldn't wait 4-6 weeks at the time). Anyway, I have found (and confirmed by ArtIsRight) that RAM pressure is significantly impacted by the number of monitors connected and, even more so, the resolution chosen.
Curious if you see a hit in these numbers if you connect the machines to 2 externals and especially if choose resolution that is not 1x or 2x native but rather something odd like my preferred 3008x1692 on a 27" Eizo.
I'm especially curious if the dedicated GPU pulls away on most tasks or if the M2 GPU with enough RAM can keep up....Show more →
I've messed with this before but it's really not time-efficient to go through all of the iterations possible. In my experience, it has no impact once you're at the 32GB RAM side on Apple Silicon side, even with two monitors, unless you are pushing non-standard resolutions. Pushing non-native resolutions on either the PC or Mac side does cause a performance drop (and both Windows and the Mac will tell that can happen) as the GPU has a lot more work to do.
BTW, this is why I'm so insistent here in my replies to people that they should be looking at 32GB for their Apple Silicon Macs, because most people here are using external monitors, often more than one. Simple tests using just the built-in monitor on a laptop won't catch the fact that 8GB or 16GB is just not enough to run all of your applications and multiple monitors. This is especially the case if you like to run multiple apps at the same time.
I test all of the desktop computers running at native resolution pushing a single 6K Apple ProDisplay XDR; the PCs are pushing a 32" 4K BenQ display. If anything that gives them an edge as they don't have to push as many pixels. In fact, on the 32-core AMD there's an extra advantage, as that machine is running three GPUs, and the one used for Topaz and Lightroom isn't pushing the monitor at all, its just used for compute power.
The reality is that the "dedicated" Nvidia GPUs are really just a lot of wasted power for most photography use cases--this is something that isn't a big secret, if you look at all of the benchmarking Puget does you'll see the same thing. Most of the power there is geared to 3D rendering for games and those who do 3D rendering for work (which is why I have those GPUs, we do a lot of 3D rendering for my business). It just doesn't give any real significant advantages in regular use. The only thing that does seem to take advantage of it is Topaz DeNoise.
The bottom line is that if you're buying a PC you can save a lot with a cheaper GPU; the older 30x0 series Nvidia GPUs perform about 90% as well as the newer ones, and at a much lower price. In terms of memory, even the older 8GB and 10GB cards do well, as it doesn't seem to require a ton of memory to push performance in Topaz. Puget actually has some new testing with Topaz that shows this, although it's already outdated as the new 3.7.2 release of DeNoise addressed some performance issues with Nvidia cards and in my testing showed about a 5-7% gain in performance.
p.3 #10 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
Thanks for all the info provided in this thread. Right now I’m running an older i7 6 core Mac Mini w/ 64gb Ram hooked up to 3 external monitors. My workflow includes pretty much just Photo Mechanic and Lightroom Classic with the occasional use of Photoshop. It’s worked great but I have a need to be somewhat mobile again and looking at MBPs. I’ve watched all the Artisright videos on YouTube as well. Monitoring the Activity Monitor as well as iStat is telling me I tend to use 24gb memory on my Mac Mini when importing/exporting in LR, etc. Do you think there is a need to upgrade a M1max MBP or M2max MBP to 64gb in my case? I’ll be using the MBP mostly as a desktop hooked up to 2 of the 3 monitors I currently am using 90% of the time with the occasional need to turn around work while on assignment.
p.3 #11 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
andrewhenders wrote:
Thanks for all the info provided in this thread. Right now I’m running an older i7 6 core Mac Mini w/ 64gb Ram hooked up to 3 external monitors. My workflow includes pretty much just Photo Mechanic and Lightroom Classic with the occasional use of Photoshop. It’s worked great but I have a need to be somewhat mobile again and looking at MBPs. I’ve watched all the Artisright videos on YouTube as well. Monitoring the Activity Monitor as well as iStat is telling me I tend to use 24gb memory on my Mac Mini when importing/exporting in LR, etc. Do you think there is a need to upgrade a M1max MBP or M2max MBP to 64gb in my case? I’ll be using the MBP mostly as a desktop hooked up to 2 of the 3 monitors I currently am using 90% of the time with the occasional need to turn around work while on assignment. ...Show more →
While while you can get away with 32GB, I'd strongly suggest 64GB will give you a longer lifespan and better performance. The additional GPU cores will also be useful for running multiple monitors. The M1 Max isn't a bad idea if you're looking to save money; you can get a certified refurb from Apple for almost $900 less than a similarly-equipped new M2 Max:
p.3 #12 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
I have just installed a new 16" MacBook Pro M2 with 64 GB RAM and 1TB HD.
A quick test of the times it takes to convert 7 (seven) Sony A1 (50MP) ARW (raw) files:
Topaz DeNoise (RAW model, default settings, converted to dng): 65 s or 9.3 s per file
Topaz Photo AI (RAW model, default autopilot, converted to dng): 120 s or close to 17 s per file
DxO Photolab (DeepPRIME denoising, default settings, converted to jpg): 39 s or close to 5.6 s per file
DxO Photolab (DeepPRIME XD denoising, default settings, converted to jpg): 57 s or close to 8.2 s per file.
GPU Apple M2 MAX was used in the settings.
p.3 #13 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
A slightly different question for anyone who is able/willing to help:
(Context if it matters: I'm coming from a 15''MBP, 2.9ghz 6core i9, 32GB RAM, Radeon Pro 560X 4 GB, editing on a 30'' Apple Cinema Display)
I'm a heavy LR user and a medium Ps user, primarily working on D850 files (which I find meaningfully faster to work on than a7rV files for some reason). LR catalogue is on a USB-C SSD, and RAWs are on a RAID5. This computer is mostly fine.)
If I don't really care about import or export speeds, but actually care about how responsive LR is for Developing (and popping in full res previews...I do build 1:1
s on import), especially slow things like Sky Masks and brushes, which of these M1/M2/Pro/Max/Ultra versions make sense? In PS I do sometimes have 3-7 layer stacks where each layer is a RAW file.
I am leaning 16'' MBP either M1Pro, or M2Pro, with 32GB RAM, since the the Pro's (compared to the Max chips) have meaningfully better battery, but I am somewhat concerned about the RAM for my usage, since it is now shared. If 32GB isn't enough, then I have to go MAX chip, and then I'm like why don't I just go Studio. I don't think I can afford the Ultra, since I am expecting the Cinema Display to die someday and I'll replace it with the nano-matte Studio Display (yes I know its over-priced, but I _must_ have matte where my office is)
p.3 #14 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
How big are the largest files you have? And when open (with everything else) how much total ram on your current system is being used? Include LR if you typically keep that open when using PS.
I would start with that info. If you're already paging, or close to, then I'd go up to 64GB. I have plenty of multi layer PSB files over 16GB and a good few over 30GB and my Win10 machine is using ~10GB when neither LRC or PS are open, so it was a pretty easy decision when I bought my MBP to get 64GB.
p.3 #15 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
cope07 wrote:
A slightly different question for anyone who is able/willing to help:
(Context if it matters: I'm coming from a 15''MBP, 2.9ghz 6core i9, 32GB RAM, Radeon Pro 560X 4 GB, editing on a 30'' Apple Cinema Display)
I'm a heavy LR user and a medium Ps user, primarily working on D850 files (which I find meaningfully faster to work on than a7rV files for some reason). LR catalogue is on a USB-C SSD, and RAWs are on a RAID5. This computer is mostly fine.)
If I don't really care about import or export speeds, but actually care about how responsive LR is for Developing (and popping in full res previews...I do build 1:1
s on import), especially slow things like Sky Masks and brushes, which of these M1/M2/Pro/Max/Ultra versions make sense? In PS I do sometimes have 3-7 layer stacks where each layer is a RAW file.
I am leaning 16'' MBP either M1Pro, or M2Pro, with 32GB RAM, since the the Pro's (compared to the Max chips) have meaningfully better battery, but I am somewhat concerned about the RAM for my usage, since it is now shared. If 32GB isn't enough, then I have to go MAX chip, and then I'm like why don't I just go Studio. I don't think I can afford the Ultra, since I am expecting the Cinema Display to die someday and I'll replace it with the nano-matte Studio Display (yes I know its over-priced, but I _must_ have matte where my office is)...Show more →
Honestly I'd suggest 64GB and a Max chip in your use case, especially driving a large external screen. One of the reasons LR is dogging for you now is that external screen on the Radeon Pro; I used to have the same issues with my old MBP's with discrete graphics, LR and external screens.
The M2 Max version will make your imports much faster than the Pro as it uses more cores. I wouldn't waste time or money now on an M1 version when you can get the M2; as my first graph shows the M2 is significantly faster on preview renders for whatever reason.
BTW, the matte versions of the Studio and ProDisplay are amazing, even if expensive.
p.3 #17 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
cope07 wrote:
looks like in my most demanding usage scenario (LR Develop with mask, multiple multi-raw layer PS, and etc) I am at about 28GB RAM usage.
I assume it is difficult to quantify how much universalRAM a 5k display takes>?
What you can't measure is the GPU RAM (and the OS and in my experience most monitoring tools do a terrible job of giving you accurate data on that). You should assume that the current 4GB of VRAM is inadequate, and in general a good base GPU RAM recommendation for a GPU is 8GB--so you'd already be in swap if you stuck with 32GB of RAM.
On top of that LR really likes to use VRAM when it can now that it GPU acceleration, and having more than 8GB available to it does help--although more than 16GB seems to not matter much. Where you will most notice this as you work on adding more masks or other edit tools, like healing brush strokes, etc. It will get more and more laggy as it pushes the VRAM limit.
If you like to even think about using other applications at the same time, you have already starved the system of RAM and will notice it. I personally like to have my browser open and Mail and Messages running too. When you add all of that up, it will put you in swap. Not bad, but not ideal, and since the RAM isn't upgradeable, you can't fix that now or in the future except by starting out with more RAM from the beginning.
p.3 #18 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
yes, like you I also keep open other things (safari, messages, mail, etc).
My general rule has been to double RAM and storage each time I upgrade (which is not particularly frequent) and that seems to be true here too, especially so now that it is inclusive to VRAM
p.3 #19 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
cope07 wrote:
yes, like you I also keep open other things (safari, messages, mail, etc).
My general rule has been to double RAM and storage each time I upgrade (which is not particularly frequent) and that seems to be true here too, especially so now that it is inclusive to VRAM
I will say 64GB is going to be far and away all you'll need though, at least for a while. I have similar use cases and when I am running all of the above I can get it to go up into the 50GB range, driving a 32" 6K ProDisplay XDR. That leaves some overhead for growth in memory usage before I hit the 64GB limit and I also know that it will page fairly well with lower RAM--I have a Studio with only 32GB of RAM at work, and I can use more than that and it will slow a little.
BTW, if you do for the MBP vs. a Studio, the 16" is the better choice. It has a high-power mode so it's a little bit faster, and the bigger battery means a longer useful battery life too.
