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. The "Number of cores / threads" graph shows the number of cores (darker area). The thermal differences are an additional confounding factor, as you may be able to clock an 8700k or 8086k higher than a 9700k or 9900k. It was 4:06. 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. We make copies of the photos so that we have 100 images to export. From an overall perspective, AMD continues to maintain a solid performance lead in Lightroom Classic. Because of this, we decided to manually set the PL1 and PL2 power limits in the BIOS. - Future Proofing Lightroom 7 months ago Hello. Tested it several times. Wow, 3:30. Benchmark Analysis: Intel Core 10th Gen vs AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen. How does Intel 10th Gen stack up overall? Never tested the new RAM with the pre-update Adobe. I'm looking to upgrade my system and am looking at the i7-8700K, i7-9700K, or i7-8086K. So far as I could tell his testing in that video was limited to the 9900K, and without hyper-threading the 9700K should actually run quite a bit cooler. I think we're getting close with this generation, and you can see that by the fact that there is so little overhead to overclock further without having to crank the voltage up and deal with massive amounts of heat. 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. Exporting is always an excuse to take a break anyway ;). 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. And I've just tested the same batch now with SMT OFF. 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. I am a professional photographer, I use my laptop mainly for photo editing (Photoshop and Lightroom) - no video editing whatsoever. I NEVER delete anything. 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. with 2 or 4 memory sticks. But I'm not sure if I like the brand new, Lightroom-like ACR UI. 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. Might be a problem with the latest Lightroom Classic version. I work with an external monitor and tried any number of things to speed it up to no avail. We may, but Capture One has a very poor API which makes automated testing much more difficult. Still, I quickly tested a Geometry test with an Auto Mask layered A7RIII image with SMT ON and OFF. @Reid: yes, that would be my personal opinion. 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. the puzzling results are still the same. Meanwhile, the Core i9 version nailed a 19,516, making it 9.4 percent faster than the Core i7. 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. So 2 things changed: new Ram, and new versions of Adobe applications. So the SMT ON vs OFF phenomenon still persists, which makes sense to me. (My absolute best time running my test batch yesterday came using Camera Raw rolled back to 12.2.1, 16 cores, no SMT. of base clock, and additional 100 MHz of turbo clock. 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. Feel free to skip to the next section for our analysis of these results. Those that are simply looking to get their export times down as much as possible may want to consider a CPU like the Core i7 7820X or even the Core i9 7900X since they are significantly faster for exporting, but we would consider the Core i7 8700K to be the more balanced option for the average Lightroom user. https://uploads.disquscdn.c... Hi! This further reduces any potential performance gains by the 9th gen chips, as you are trading clock speeds for extra cores. 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. 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. This benchmark version includes the ability to upload the results to our online database, so if you want to know how your own system compares, you can download and run the benchmark yourself. 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. 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. If you care more about performance when navigating and … 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. I think that Jay may have received a golden sample, and he said so himself towards the end of the video. By reading on this sub about undervolting I thought I'd give it a try and oh my, what a difference it makes! That way, anytime you launch Lightroom it can automatically have the affinity set to leave 1 or 2 cores unused for multitasking. 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. I currently have a 8700k running at 5.0ghz all core. But this was only one quick test, and only some geometry adjustments. The new, slower results came after the update (I did downgrade to earlier versions of the Adobe apps to try, but still the same slow speed). 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. 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. XMP profiles don't always properly set from what I've experienced. I've let the Asus software do it and haven't had issues with it. 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. 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. Yea, the SMT/HT thing still exists for exporting and making smart previews. 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. During export 12 cores loaded fully on the 99.99% . I did some tests importing RAW files and generating smart previews in Lightroom, which maxed out the i7 pretty well. 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's testing methodology is a bit problematic because they are comparing a 4.3ghz 8700k against a 4.7ghz 9700k. If your software does use hyper-threading effectively, it'll be a more even match. I've run into a mysterious problem. 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. So could it be because of going from 4 sticks of ram to 2? AMD Ryzen 9 3900X ($499), Intel Core i9 9900K ($488) I have BIG catalogs- 30K to 100K images. https://feedback.photoshop....I understand, it's rather atypical issue, but may be really architecture of this Ryzen processors such, that they show this results, as in your benchmark, and in the same time remains 10-20-30% unused CPU power.if this assumption (partially) true, it can change dramatically CPU preferences. 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. Feel free to skip to the next sections for our analysis of these results to get a wider view of how each configuration performs in Lightroom Classic. Is there any chance that it's not so much a two versus four sticks of memory issue as it is a 32 versus 64 GB of memory capacity issue? I ordered another 2 sticks of the exact same Vulcan Z memory, since I've been contemplating on having 64 Gb total RAM anyways. Passant à des tests réels, nous n'avons constaté aucune différence dans Lightroom d'Adobe. ), Very interesting.I have made some tests om my PCSystem:Ryzen 3600 CPUAsus TUF B450-Pro Gaming motherboardZalman CNPS 14X cooler,Samsung 850 pro 250 GB SSDRAM: 1x HyperX DDR4-3333 16384MB PC4-26660 PredatorLatest Lightroom Classic 9.3, Export 180 pictures with adjustments - - with HT/SMT off takes 5 minutes 29 seconds. Intel Core i3 vs i5 vs i7 vs i9 For Lightroom and Photoshop. Is this test relaible? https://www.newegg.com/Prod... : The 8086k is the exact same chip as the 8700k, so I would not buy it unless it is the same price or cheaper than the 8700k. Overall, this makes AMD's Ryzen 3rd Gen processors our current recommendation for Lightroom Classic. We did some comparison testing with a Z390 board and the results were pretty consistent. 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. 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 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. the image yielded the same times (between 5 to 7 seconds for the various tasks I threw at it. On average, the Core i7 9700K is about 4% faster that the Core i7 8700K in Lightroom Classic. I have seen issue with Ryzen 1800X, where CPU utilization during export was just about 30%. Is the Intel Core 10th Gen or AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen better for Lightroom Classic? For most users, this makes the AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen processors a much better overall choice for a Lightroom Classic workstation. CPU utilization we typically don't log during these benchmarks since from a performance perspective, it is often more misleading then helpful. It's correspond to another CPU test benchmark, where 3700X have 22698 points, and 3800X have 23325 points. Maybe the 8700 is still the best bet? Not being knowledgable about the difference between an i7 and an i9 processor other that the number of cores they support, would not a 2.6 GHz 6-Core i7 actually be a better choice for LR than a 2.4 GHz 8-Core i9? I'm an event photographer and I'm primarily interested in the fastest export time within sensible price range of course. 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. Why is such difference (2x) for the same processors? I'm on a 2016 Macbook Pro w/ 16G RAM and LR can be so slow as to be unusable at times, esp. 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. But now the 64 images test batch takes anywhere from 6 to 7 minutes to save/export from ACR using the same settings! 5.0ghz @ 1.31v is very good, as most copies will require 1.35v to be stable at 5.0. 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. And also, I feel that latest Lightroom Classic is slower, then previous (9.2). Puget Systems offers a range of powerful and reliable systems that are tailor-made for your unique workflow. Intel Core i7 9700K ($374). Exporting the same batch from Lightroom yields the same results. However, unlike Photoshop, there is probably no reason to upgrade if you already have an 8700K since you are unlikely to notice a difference unless you are actively benchmarking Lightroom. With it, you can set the affinity (how many cores it can use), but it also has the option to make it permanent. So, my question is - how much I will benefit (in terms of exporting time) from upgrading to one of theses cpus? - Future Proofing Lightroom 5 months ago Hello. Lightroom CC disgustingly slow - old issue, NEED ANSWERS. 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. 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. 85 % - with HT/SMT on takes 5 minutes 01 second. Can you give me a rough estimate? It is technically the fastest CPU we have tested for navigating around the modules and photo merge tasks, but if you are looking for the best export performance you may be better served with a Threadripper 1920X or a Core i9 7900X or higher CPU instead. For the i7 to i9 95% of peoples daily use it won't be any differnet. While our benchmark presents various scores based on the performance of each test, we also like to provide the individual results for you to examine. Considering the additional clock speed on top of that, if you're not overclocking, I think it comes back down to hyper-threading. Looking at how the Intel 10th Gen processors compare against a wider range of CPUs, there are a couple of key points we want to note: First, compared to the previous 9th Gen processors, we are looking at about a 3-7% performance gain with the new 10th Gen models. I really wonder if the Z370 motherboard you used negatively affected the 9th gen results? The TIM is definitely better on the 9th gen, but the thicker silicon with the extra two cores result in overall worse performance. Keep an eye out in the coming weeks (or months)! It's odd, but that's what it looks like. 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). 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. 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. Next time I will be upgrading is in 5-7 years. For example: Ryzen 3700X and Ryzen 3800X - the exactly same processors, but difference in the frequency - 3800X have additional 300 MHz. Have you watched memory usage during the benchmark at all? Lightroom Classic CPU performance: Intel Core X-10000 vs AMD Threadripper 3rd Gen. Are the 9th Gen Intel Core Processors good for Lightroom Classic? In real world use, the limiting factor will be thermals for all of these chips, so that will be the most valid comparison. Performance is very good and the OLED is simply stunning! If you are interested in how these processors compare in other applications, we also have other articles for Premiere Pro, After Effects, Photoshop, and several other applications available on our article listing page. Also during export 5 cores loaded fully, 6th apr. As this article states, the "the Core i7 9700K is about 4% faster that the Core i7 8700K" so the 8086 would be even less of a difference, but cost $30 more than the 8700. I think everybody is happy to take a faster active task set (and slower export) over a fast export and slow(er) active tasks. I don't recommend overclocking, but if that is your goal you will have much better results with the 9000 series because of the better thermal interface material it has compared to the 8000 series (including the 8086). 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? If you would like to skip over our test setup and benchmark result/analysis sections, feel free to jump right to the Conclusion section. Why is the i9 9900k slower at creating previews than the 9700k? My feelings - with HT/SMT on, scrolling in Develop Module a bit quicker.
Lustige Ideen Zum 70 Geburtstag, Neurologische Klinik Stuttgart, Pizza Pronto Speisekarte Wiedenest, Wohnmobil Toskana Reiseführer, Iphone Display Test Code, Study Past Tense, Blumenwiese Samen Mehrjährig, Zahn Abschleifen Zuhause,