Why is such difference (2x) for the same processors? The bulk tasks like exporting and generating smart previews are where we expected these CPUs to shine and while they were ~10% faster than the i7 8700K, we honestly thought we would see a larger difference. @Reid: yes, that would be my personal opinion. I mean import/export images, especially export. This is nowhere near some of the top of the line graphics cards that we had discussed here. I am currently looking for a new computer and don't know which CPU to take. 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 understand your reasoning about the new CPUs having better thermal interface, which I guess they need because the run hotter. 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. Nos tests précédents ont conclu que les graphiques étaient pratiquement inutilisés. 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. 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. (roughly 6:50 vs 4:20).I thought this issue was largely remedied in the 2020 Lightroom but maybe the problem got worse again with the latest update.Anyway, I might have to use SMT off if and when I do a lot of work in Camera Raw (I hardly ever use Lightroom, I work in Camera Raw, opened via Photoshop normally. So the SMT ON vs OFF phenomenon still persists, which makes sense to me. 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. Puget Systems builds custom PCs tailor-made for your workflow. Any less, like 6 cores (12 threads) or 4 cores (8 threads) yields slower results. I don't OC myself, and there isn't much headroom on any of these chips. I've read many reports about the little difference between the i7 and i9 and I have become indecisive. 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. 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. I would try rolling back to the previous version (in Creative Cloud, click the "..." and select "Other Versions"). I could see how it might be unfair if you were trying to compare purely the maximum performance you could get across different CPUs when overclocked to their limits. Will be returning it this week, unless the i9 proves to be worse than the i7 at anything. Lightroom Classic CPU performance: Intel Core X-10000 vs AMD Threadripper 3rd Gen. Are the 9th Gen Intel Core Processors good for Lightroom Classic? Exporting is always an excuse to take a break anyway ;). Never tested the new RAM with the pre-update Adobe. I'm not too concerned about the overclocking. If you care more about performance when navigating and … 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. Hello. If creating previews or panoramas is a big deal for you, this processor is excellent. Are these 24 files we can see on the LR screenshot? Now, I just need to run a test with SMT OFF and 4 sticks of RAM. 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. XMP profiles don't always properly set from what I've experienced. 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. On the architecture level, a 8700k core is exactly the same as a 9700k core (edit: with the exception of hyperthreading), so there is no objective reason why the 9700k should be 400mhz faster out of the box. It can easily be clocked 700mhz faster. However, things are a bit different for active tasks like scrolling through images, switching modules and applying adjustments. The reason I ask is because there are many reports of Lightroom not performing well if the CPU has more than 4 physical cores. 5.0ghz @ 1.31v is very good, as most copies will require 1.35v to be stable at 5.0. thanks Rob An update: it seems like we're facing the same old HT/SMT on vs. off situation again. I'm on a 2016 Macbook Pro w/ 16G RAM and LR can be so slow as to be unusable at times, esp. In real world use, the limiting factor will be thermals for all of these chips, so that will be the most valid comparison. - Future Proofing Lightroom 7 months ago Hello. So 2 things changed: new Ram, and new versions of Adobe applications. I bought this laptop 2 months ago (i7 9750H, 16GB, 512GB SSD, OLED 4K), my main use is for photography (Photoshop and Lightroom) and coming from an old Precision M4600 the difference is amazing. I work with an external monitor and tried any number of things to speed it up to no avail. Open to suggestions. These characteristics, together with an IPC (instructions per cycle) number, determine how well a processor performs. Also there is a difference in that the lower spec machine has the Radeon Pro 5300M graphics while the other has the 5500M. 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. Puget's testing methodology is a bit problematic because they are comparing a 4.3ghz 8700k against a 4.7ghz 9700k. It's looks for me, that results is incorrect. 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. Intel Core i7 9700K ($374). It was about 2 min 30 sec faster than with SMT on. Puget Systems offers a range of powerful and reliable systems that are tailor-made for your unique workflow. 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. Again, my personal take on these results is that the performance differences are largely due to the different stock turbo frequencies of the 8th gen and 9th gen chips. Until Lightroom Classic makes changes to their code that allows Intel to catch up in performance, AMD is simply the better choice for these kinds of tasks. Or the Adobe update screwed up something (sometimes they're 2 steps froward, 1 step back)? I am a professional photographer, I use my laptop mainly for photo editing (Photoshop and Lightroom) - no video editing whatsoever. The TIM is definitely better on the 9th gen, but the thicker silicon with the extra two cores result in overall worse performance. What I would recommend is using a piece of software like System Explorer http://systemexplorer.net/ . Je n'ai pas trouvé de réponses concrètes sur le site d'Adobe, ils ne donnent que des configurations "minimales". Je suis en réflexion pour me monter une tour PC pour mes retouches photos (Photoshop) et tris/archives (Lightroom). I've run into a mysterious problem. Also regarding the difference between i7 and i9 ( i9 being too new and all) 20 votes. 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. Clockspeeds are similar; around 4.2 GHz for the active cores (no matter if 16-core mode or 8-core mode). 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. Because on my I7 I can't do anything like Photoshop during export, because it's too slowly; when I have to do something heavy during export, I have manually reduce core utilization for Lightroom for 1 or 2 core. 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. It may have improved with a version released a few months ago, but with the current version it got worse again, I think. the puzzling results are still the same. With it, you can set the affinity (how many cores it can use), but it also has the option to make it permanent. At first I wanted to take the i7 8700, but then considered the i7 9700k, because it's so much faster at building smart previews. I've let the Asus software do it and haven't had issues with it. To make a fair comparison, you have to control for these variables and test either at the same clock speeds, or same voltage, or temperatures. Close • Posted by 1 hour ago. 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? 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). I know we usually test on 64 GB systems here at Puget. 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. I currently have a 8700k running at 5.0ghz all core. 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. I'm looking to upgrade my system and am looking at the i7-8700K, i7-9700K, or i7-8086K. Much less lag and delay. 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 have BIG catalogs- 30K to 100K images. Listed below are the specifications of the systems we will be using for our testing: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X ($749) Les processeurs ont tous fonctionné à la même vitesse d'horloge. 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. And I know that some of the folks in videos like the one you posted above have that in mind. 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). 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. Macbook Pro, Vega 20 (i7 vs i9?) 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.
Verkaufsoffener Sonntag Regensburg 2020,
Geburtstag Geschenk Freundin,
Engel Im Neuen Testament,
Tut Eine Abtreibung Dem Baby Weh,
Engel Im Neuen Testament,
Tiktok Profilbilder Für Mädchen,
Fundbüro Pasing Bahnhof,
Edicioni I Fundit I Lajmeve Ne Top Channel Youtube,
Get Got/gotten Englisch,