p.4 #1 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
ShootPDX wrote:
Thanks for these tests. I’m looking to spend around $4k and I’m leaning toward either a MBP or Studio.
The M1 Ultra’s very appealing, but so is having a laptop. Wish I could have both.
Does the number of GPU cores matter much for LR or C1?
I haven't re-tested the latest version of CaptureOne but based on what I've read they haven't made any big improvements in performance in the last update. The problem with C1 is that it leans heavily on the GPU for many tasks, even tasks where GPU + CPU would be better/faster. It also just never seemed to scale really well with increased GPU power in my testing.
That said, I don't feel like the minor number of GPU cores you gain on some of the upgrades matter nearly as much as the main core count and clock speed. With your money, I'd get a 16" M2 Max MBP with 64GB of RAM and a 2TB drive (it takes you just over $4K). The extra RAM really matters, especially if you want to drive a larger high-resolution monitor, or multiple monitors. The 16" Max models run the processor at a slightly higher base frequency that does have real-world benefits as well. IMO except for large batch exports and large batches of 1:1 preview renders, the 16" M2 Max feels just as snappy as the Studio Ultra.
p.4 #2 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
Thank you very much!
jhapeman wrote:
I haven't re-tested the latest version of CaptureOne but based on what I've read they haven't made any big improvements in performance in the last update. The problem with C1 is that it leans heavily on the GPU for many tasks, even tasks where GPU + CPU would be better/faster. It also just never seemed to scale really well with increased GPU power in my testing.
That said, I don't feel like the minor number of GPU cores you gain on some of the upgrades matter nearly as much as the main core count and clock speed. With your money, I'd get a 16" M2 Max MBP with 64GB of RAM and a 2TB drive (it takes you just over $4K). The extra RAM really matters, especially if you want to drive a larger high-resolution monitor, or multiple monitors. The 16" Max models run the processor at a slightly higher base frequency that does have real-world benefits as well. IMO except for large batch exports and large batches of 1:1 preview renders, the 16" M2 Max feels just as snappy as the Studio Ultra. ...Show more →
p.4 #4 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
eyal wrote:
Can you do a test of the new noise reduction in LrC and comment on what CPU/RAM seems best suited to take advantage of it?
Thanks!
I have a 2021 MacBook Pro, M1max, 64GB.
After restart, I have open Apple Mail, Safari, Notes and Messages --> 11 GB memory occupied
After starting LR Classic, in develop mode --> 29 GB
Note: ~15 GB of this is consumed by opening the develop mode for the 100MP GFX100 RAF.
DeNoise of a 100 MPixel Fuji GFX 100S RAF:
- Preview ready --> 35 GB
- Executing the DeNoise --> 25-33 GB occupied.
==> All in all, LR Classic is adding approx. 24 GB, of this "only" 6 GB for DeNoise.
I don't know, how much of the 18+6 GB is preview cache. I think, the majority.
I am happy to have done the 64GB investment ... even before this new LR DeNoise AI I had regularly 40+ GB occupied:
- I have Word, Excel, PPT, Teams, Safari open all the time. This plus LR+PS results in the 40+ GB.
- I think, the system is grabbing what is available, and does not free memory of temporarily unused apps.
- But with stitching in PS (8 GFX 100 files), I reach 50-60 GB.
My advice: If money allows it, go for 64 GB.
It helps (maybe only a bit), but future AI updates will continue to increase memory consumption.
And even more, if Adobe implements the AI Denoising without DNG. This will need memory, to store the intermediate non-destructive steps.
Edit:
LR: Timing on 100 MP GFX 100S RAF: 4 sec until preview, 47 sec for denoise.
LR: Same for 26 MP X-H2S RAF: 2 sec / 15 sec.
Topaz DeNoise, 100 MP RAF: 14 sec until preview, 14 sec to process and store (16 bit TIF)
Topaz DeNoise, 26 MP RAF: 9 sec until preview, 9 sec to process and store.
p.4 #7 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
I've learned a fair bit here, thanks for the infos. My assumptions especially around GPUs have changed a bit.
jhapeman wrote:
I haven't re-tested the latest version of CaptureOne but based on what I've read they haven't made any big improvements in performance in the last update. The problem with C1 is that it leans heavily on the GPU for many tasks, even tasks where GPU + CPU would be better/faster. It also just never seemed to scale really well with increased GPU power in my testing.
So as someone who tends towards Capture One (although I do have and occasionally use Lightroom) should I be thinking of more GPU than a purely Lightroom user?
There's no doubt Capture One is slower than Lightroom when it comes to browsing a large library. I get a spinning wheel quite often. Although I'm running an Intel MacBook Pro Lightroom is fine. But I prefer to use Capture One.
So what should be on my shopping list? Still 64GB ram but perhaps more GPU? I'm assuming much or Capture One slowness is hard drive I/O speed, so faster here too?
p.4 #8 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
Delta Golf wrote:
I've learned a fair bit here, thanks for the infos. My assumptions especially around GPUs have changed a bit.
So as someone who tends towards Capture One (although I do have and occasionally use Lightroom) should I be thinking of more GPU than a purely Lightroom user?
There's no doubt Capture One is slower than Lightroom when it comes to browsing a large library. I get a spinning wheel quite often. Although I'm running an Intel MacBook Pro Lightroom is fine. But I prefer to use Capture One.
So what should be on my shopping list? Still 64GB ram but perhaps more GPU? I'm assuming much or Capture One slowness is hard drive I/O speed, so faster here too?...Show more →
Based on what I tested it's not really I/O, it's just slower overall. More GPU cores will really help on the Mac side for Capture One but I found that on the PCs I tested there's a limit--once you get above say a 30x0 series Nvidia GPU there's not much to gain in speed.
IMO if you're looking at an M2 Max model MacBook Pro I'd suggest the 16" if it fits the budget as the processor and GPU cores are clocked higher and are therefore faster. With 38 GPU cores that should give the best performance you can get with Capture One.
p.4 #9 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
hello,
i had a question, did you get a chance to test the export time for PNGs ?
I compared my mac studio m2 max with i9, 3090ti
i found that mac is almost double as fast when exporting jpegs as compared to i9
but while exporting PNGs it is much much slower than the i9
I have full gpu acceleration enabled (use gpu for export) and it recognises my m2 chip too
i mean the jpeg exports are blazing fast, so it definitely is working, i can see the gpu is full peak in activity monitor too
but for PNG it is painstakingly slow, even the GPU graph is not at a constant high, it has drops and peaks, both equally frequently,
do you have any idea why this is happening or more importantly, any way to fix this ?
p.4 #10 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
Mac Event announced for 10/30...hoping for M3 reveal and getting an adequate amount of RAM in my upgraded laptop (settled for the store 14" 16gb model when their first M1 launched)
p.4 #11 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
kunwarsharma wrote:
hello,
i had a question, did you get a chance to test the export time for PNGs ?
I compared my mac studio m2 max with i9, 3090ti
i found that mac is almost double as fast when exporting jpegs as compared to i9
but while exporting PNGs it is much much slower than the i9
I have full gpu acceleration enabled (use gpu for export) and it recognises my m2 chip too
i mean the jpeg exports are blazing fast, so it definitely is working, i can see the gpu is full peak in activity monitor too
but for PNG it is painstakingly slow, even the GPU graph is not at a constant high, it has drops and peaks, both equally frequently,
do you have any idea why this is happening or more importantly, any way to fix this ?
p.4 #12 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
eyal wrote:
Mac Event announced for 10/30...hoping for M3 reveal and getting an adequate amount of RAM in my upgraded laptop (settled for the store 14" 16gb model when their first M1 launched)
It's going to be the iMac refresh. Most likely we won't see M3 MacBooks until spring 2024
p.4 #13 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
jhapeman wrote:
It's going to be the iMac refresh. Most likely we won't see M3 MacBooks until spring 2024
The usual leakers are saying Apple will announce M3 MacBook Pro models at this event. I wonder if the base memory will jump to 32gb like the Studio. I could see them doing this for at least the Max, to take advantage of the extra GPU cores.
p.4 #15 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
RoamingScott wrote:
It's most likely that the iMac gets the M3 now and the rest follow suit in regular release cadence.
I would normally agree but it seems like suddenly today the rumor mills have shifted gears and Apple has announced a "scary fast" event for October 30.
It would be mildly annoying to see an M3 Max MBP come out less than a year after the M2, but the M2 was also delayed apparently. If the M3 has the hard ray-tracing GPU I could see why Apple wouldn't want to delay any longer than needed, as that will be a massive game changer.
Also, with that capability now available in the iPhone 15 it would sort of make sense to have the desktop version out there too for all of the developers. Of course what I really want is an M3 Ultra.
p.4 #16 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
It wouldn’t be Apple without a mildly annoying hardware release or two!
jhapeman wrote:
I would normally agree but it seems like suddenly today the rumor mills have shifted gears and Apple has announced a "scary fast" event for October 30.
It would be mildly annoying to see an M3 Max MBP come out less than a year after the M2, but the M2 was also delayed apparently. If the M3 has the hard ray-tracing GPU I could see why Apple wouldn't want to delay any longer than needed, as that will be a massive game changer.
Also, with that capability now available in the iPhone 15 it would sort of make sense to have the desktop version out there too for all of the developers. Of course what I really want is an M3 Ultra.
p.4 #17 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
jhapeman wrote:
I would normally agree but it seems like suddenly today the rumor mills have shifted gears and Apple has announced a "scary fast" event for October 30.
It would be mildly annoying to see an M3 Max MBP come out less than a year after the M2, but the M2 was also delayed apparently. If the M3 has the hard ray-tracing GPU I could see why Apple wouldn't want to delay any longer than needed, as that will be a massive game changer.
Also, with that capability now available in the iPhone 15 it would sort of make sense to have the desktop version out there too for all of the developers. Of course what I really want is an M3 Ultra.
Apple may introduce a higher base config for the M3 Macbook Pro (32gb/1tb), which would mean a much higher starting price.. That would allow Apple to continue selling the M2 MacBook Pro with lower base configs.
p.4 #18 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
kunwarsharma wrote:
hello,
i had a question, did you get a chance to test the export time for PNGs ?
I compared my mac studio m2 max with i9, 3090ti
i found that mac is almost double as fast when exporting jpegs as compared to i9
but while exporting PNGs it is much much slower than the i9
I have full gpu acceleration enabled (use gpu for export) and it recognises my m2 chip too
i mean the jpeg exports are blazing fast, so it definitely is working, i can see the gpu is full peak in activity monitor too
but for PNG it is painstakingly slow, even the GPU graph is not at a constant high, it has drops and peaks, both equally frequently,
do you have any idea why this is happening or more importantly, any way to fix this ?
I always export into PNG and it's crazy slow no matter what system/OS it's running on. Apparently it's either not optimized or isn't using any hardware acceleration.
After running Windows since 2015 I finally got a basic MacBook Pro 12/19 cores (for software development) and everything is running very smoooooth on it. Out of curiosity I tried LR Classic and while it also runs super smooth, the ML-based denoise is taking more than 1.5 minutes for a 50Mpx ARW file. In comparison, my i9-14900K + RTX4090 workstation can denoise the same 50Mpx file in 5 seconds.
p.4 #19 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
docusync wrote:
I always export into PNG and it's crazy slow no matter what system/OS it's running on. Apparently it's either not optimized or isn't using any hardware acceleration.
After running Windows since 2015 I finally got a basic MacBook Pro 12/19 cores (for software development) and everything is running very smoooooth on it. Out of curiosity I tried LR Classic and while it also runs super smooth, the ML-based denoise is taking more than 1.5 minutes for a 50Mpx ARW file. In comparison, my i9-14900K + RTX4090 workstation can denoise the same 50Mpx file in 5 seconds.
Since Adobe made performance improvements I’ve done well over 75 edits including multiple masks and not even a hiccup on both my devices.
My 2019 iMac intel 64GB RAM and 8GB VRAM runs Denoise in 33 seconds on 30mp. My 2020 MacBook Air M1 16GB which is basically faster at everything takes 115 for Denoise. We know that if the neural network thing ever gets fixed it will be faster.
p.4 #20 · UPDATED: Lightroom Benchmarking: M2 and M1 Macs and PCs
jhapeman wrote:
I haven't re-tested the latest version of CaptureOne but based on what I've read they haven't made any big improvements in performance in the last update. The problem with C1 is that it leans heavily on the GPU for many tasks, even tasks where GPU + CPU would be better/faster. It also just never seemed to scale really well with increased GPU power in my testing.
That said, I don't feel like the minor number of GPU cores you gain on some of the upgrades matter nearly as much as the main core count and clock speed. With your money, I'd get a 16" M2 Max MBP with 64GB of RAM and a 2TB drive (it takes you just over $4K). The extra RAM really matters, especially if you want to drive a larger high-resolution monitor, or multiple monitors. The 16" Max models run the processor at a slightly higher base frequency that does have real-world benefits as well. IMO except for large batch exports and large batches of 1:1 preview renders, the 16" M2 Max feels just as snappy as the Studio Ultra. ...Show more →
RAM matters. Get as much as you can afford. I’m so glad I got 8GB VRAM to future proof my 2019 iMac. I knew more AI would come and at least I can use it. Adobe Denoise may take 33 seconds but Topaz PAI and PureRaw 3 both took 45 seconds. PR2 took 23 seconds.
