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. Ce qui a réellement amélioré les performances, c'est d'avoir plus de RAM. System:Ryzen 3950x CPUAsus x570 TUF Gaming Plus motherboardNoctua NH-D15 cooler,Adata XPG8200 pro 512GB NVMEHP EX950 1 TB NVMERAM: initially 4x8Gb ADATA XPG Z1 2800 (CL17) then replaced with 2x16Gb Teamgroup Vulcan Z 3200 CL16 2 days ago (due to the lower physical profile for a better cooler fit). So basically, after experimenting with various core and/or thread counts, my fastest results are 16 cores, no SMT. Puget Systems builds custom PCs tailor-made for your workflow. That may take the fun out of things for some people who enjoy overclocking, but the best case situation to me is one in which everyone can get the maximum performance without having to fiddle with motherboard settings :). But this was only one quick test, and only some geometry adjustments. That way, anytime you launch Lightroom it can automatically have the affinity set to leave 1 or 2 cores unused for multitasking. Somewhat slower is the 8 core, 16 thread (that's with SMT ON but manually turning cores off in the "Set Affinity" option in Task Manager). While a GPU may slow things down a bit, it is nothing like in a memory intensive game where you would literally hate your gameplay experience. 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. And also, I feel that latest Lightroom Classic is slower, then previous (9.2). And I just wondering, does the Ryzen R72700X have the same CPU utilization - about 100%, or less (may be 90%..or may be even 80%?). CPU utilization we typically don't log during these benchmarks since from a performance perspective, it is often more misleading then helpful. New ACR version (12.3), new Bridge, etc. Lightroom CC disgustingly slow - old issue, NEED ANSWERS. In Adobe Lightroom Classic, the Intel Core 10th Gen processors such as the i9 10900K and i7 10700K do very well in active tasks like scrolling through images and switch modules - coming in at about 5% faster than a similarly priced AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen CPU. It was 4:06. With higher-end hardware, it is actually rare to see such a close relationship between an increase in price and the performance gained, which makes the Core i9 … However, with the launch of Intel's new 10th Gen desktop processors, it is possible that Intel has fixed whatever is causing this performance issue (assuming that it is even related to the processor at all and not something in the software). 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. What I would recommend is using a piece of software like System Explorer http://systemexplorer.net/ . We may, but Capture One has a very poor API which makes automated testing much more difficult. The reason I ask is because there are many reports of Lightroom not performing well if the CPU has more than 4 physical cores. I currently have a 8700k running at 5.0ghz all core. The "Number of cores / threads" graph shows the number of cores (darker area). 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. 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. Have you watched memory usage during the benchmark at all? Photoshop and Lightroom benefit little from an expensive GPU. the puzzling results are still the same. Good point about the overclocking and thermals. I would try rolling back to the previous version (in Creative Cloud, click the "..." and select "Other Versions"). Intel Core i7-9700K 3.6GHz / 4.9GHz Turbo, Eight Core –> 132% Intel Core i9-9900K 3.6GHz / 5.0GHz Turbo, Eight Core –> 135% Adobe Creative Cloud Photography Plan Dropping in another 2 to fill all 4 slots made a huge difference, and reduced the times roughly back to the old, pre-upgrade 4-stick setup (actually a few seconds faster due to the faster RAM speed I guess). 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. 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). My current config is i7 6700K oc to 4.4GHz / GTX 750 / 16GB RAM / m.2 ssd for system / sata ssd for Adobe cache / hdd for photos. 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). I'm not too concerned about the overclocking. 90% sure. Thanks for pushing so quickly! One note of caution, GPUs come either integrated/built in or separate/discrete. We just already had a bunch of results already on Z370 before that board came in so we stuck with it rather than having to re-run a bunch of testing. I don't use Lightroom, but Adobe Camera RAW only which I'm accessing via Adobe Bridge. I work with an external monitor and tried any number of things to speed it up to no avail. Hello. 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. Exporting is always an excuse to take a break anyway ;). Next time I will be upgrading is in 5-7 years. 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. For example: Ryzen 3700X and Ryzen 3800X - the exactly same processors, but difference in the frequency - 3800X have additional 300 MHz. Puget's testing methodology is a bit problematic because they are comparing a 4.3ghz 8700k against a 4.7ghz 9700k. The Core i9 9900K is approximately 20% more expensive than the Core i7 8700K, but we only saw about a 6% performance increase in Lightroom Classic. In my case there seems to be a sweet spot; running 16 cores and no SMT. HOWEVER, to complicate things more, there was also an Adobe update right after I installed the new RAM. If you would like to skip over our test setup and benchmark sections, feel free to jump right to the Conclusion. the image yielded the same times (between 5 to 7 seconds for the various tasks I threw at it. It looks like that issue was before Lightrooom Classic was launched - they really improved performance in that new version of Lightroom. Exporting the same batch from Lightroom yields the same results. Is the Intel Core i9 9990XE good for Lightroom Classic CC 2019? Never tested the new RAM with the pre-update Adobe. BUT a couple of days ago I replaced the 4x8gb XPG 2800 ram with 2x16GB Vulcan Z 3200 ram. (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. Now, I just need to run a test with SMT OFF and 4 sticks of RAM. I just tested the time needed to export 24 raw files to jpeg from some of my recent jobs and got results between 55 sec to 65 sec - so very similar to what you scored for the 9700K - 9900K. I did some tests importing RAW files and generating smart previews in Lightroom, which maxed out the i7 pretty well. thanks Rob For most users, this makes the AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen processors a much better overall choice for a Lightroom Classic workstation. Photoshop Lightroom (standalone) is very slow. And I know that some of the folks in videos like the one you posted above have that in mind. If you got the same time with 24 files, then there is probably a difference in export settings. 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. 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've read many reports about the little difference between the i7 and i9 and I have become indecisive. It's odd, but that's what it looks like. We make copies of the photos so that we have 100 images to export. will you ever do a Benchmarking for Capture one? The Intel 10th Gen Core i9 10900K and i7 10700K are a bit better for active tasks, but for most, it will be worth giving up a barely noticeable performance gain in these tasks for close to a 2x improvement in export performance. 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 don't OC myself, and there isn't much headroom on any of these chips. To start off our analysis of the Intel 10th Gen desktop processors we are going to look at the performance in Lightroom Classic versus AMD's 3rd Gen Ryzen processors. So the SMT ON vs OFF phenomenon still persists, which makes sense to me. in warm weather, the fans go off almost immediately and after 20 min, it can be intolerable. I have seen issue with Ryzen 1800X, where CPU utilization during export was just about 30%. I just got a new 10900k with 128gb rgb pro 3600mhz on a msi godlike z490 mb. For most users, this makes the AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen processors a much better overall choice for a Lightroom Classic workstation. 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. This is nowhere near some of the top of the line graphics cards that we had discussed here. Also export, for example 50x jpeg (22 MP .CR2): Ryzen 7 3700X (slower processor) finished in 34.94 second, Ryzen 3800X (faster processor) finished with worse result (35.22 seconds)How it's possible? Or the Adobe update screwed up something (sometimes they're 2 steps froward, 1 step back)? The Core i9 9900K is approximately 20% more expensive than the Core i7 8700K, but in exchange we saw a 15-20% performance increase in Photoshop. Puget Systems builds custom PCs tailor-made for your workflow. 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. It shouldn't. 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. That said, I would expect your system to export the same images/settings we used in somewhere around 70-80 seconds. So a 7900X should be roughly twice as fast for exporting. Some nice new features, but a couple of important-to-me functions or ways of operation were dropped.). Les processeurs ont tous fonctionné à la même vitesse d'horloge. While our benchmark presents various scores based on the performance of each type of task, we also wanted to provide the individual results in case there is a specific task someone may be interested in. Granted, I did not roll-back Lightroom, but I thought if Photoshop and Camera Raw roll-back didn't do the trick, I wouldn't try Lightroom. 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. 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. Overall, this makes AMD's Ryzen 3rd Gen processors our current recommendation for Lightroom Classic. Any thoughts on whether the 2.3 ghz 9th generation i9 8 core processors will be worth the extra money over the 2.6 ghz 9th gen i7 6 core processors? But now the 64 images test batch takes anywhere from 6 to 7 minutes to save/export from ACR using the same settings! And I've just tested the same batch now with SMT OFF. I watched some other 9900K reviews and it seems like a Z390 makes very little difference or none. I understand your reasoning about the new CPUs having better thermal interface, which I guess they need because the run hotter. 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 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 turned SMT off and my test export/save time set a new shortest time record. 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. I know we usually test on 64 GB systems here at Puget. However, I noticed that certain demanding active tasks are faster in the brand new ACR 12.3, such as adjusting an image after auto mask was already applied. I have BIG catalogs- 30K to 100K images. If your software benefits from Hyperthreading, the 8700K / 8068K might still be faster than the 9700K - but if not, that is what I'd go for (out of those three options). Best Workstation PC for Adobe Lightroom Classic (Winter 2020), Adobe Lightroom Classic: AMD Ryzen 5000 Series CPU Performance, Adobe Lightroom Classic - NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070, 3080 & 3090 Performance, Adobe Lightroom Classic - NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 & 3090 Performance, Best Workstation PC for V-Ray (Winter 2020), SOLIDWORKS 2020 SP5 AMD Ryzen 5000 Series CPU Performance, Best Workstation PC for Metashape (Winter 2020), Agisoft Metashape 1.6.5 SMT Performance Analysis on AMD Ryzen 5000 Series, Lightroom Classic CPU performance: AMD Threadripper 3990X 64 Core, What is the Best CPU for Photography (2019), Lightroom Classic CPU performance: Intel Core X-10000 vs AMD Threadripper 3rd Gen, Lightroom Classic CPU performance: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X, Lightroom Classic CPU Roundup: AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen, AMD Threadripper 2, Intel 9th Gen, Intel X-series, Lightroom Classic CPU performance: Intel Core 10th Gen vs AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen. Nos tests précédents ont conclu que les graphiques étaient pratiquement inutilisés. It's looks for me, that results is incorrect. In this article, we will be examining the performance of the new Intel 10th Gen Core i9 10900K, i7 10700K, and i5 10600K in Lightroom Classic compared to a range of CPUs including the AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen, Intel X-10000 Series, AMD Threadripper 3rd Gen, as well as the previous generation Intel 9th Gen processors. I've let the Asus software do it and haven't had issues with it. The “Pentium” series is a tier below also aimed at desktop users, the “Celeron” series is mainly aimed at mobile devices, and the “Xeon” series is tailored exclusively for servers and professional users. Be sure to check our list of Hardware Articles to keep up to date on how all of these software packages (and more) perform with the latest CPUs. AND it was in ACR via Photoshop and not in Lightroom. However, things are a bit different for active tasks like scrolling through images, switching modules and applying adjustments. 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. 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. Now equipped with a quad-core CPU, the 2-in-1 can run Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom without breaking a sweat. Temperatures are about 8 degrees lower than when running only 8 cores. Once you overclock and take these differences out of play, the performance difference will decrease or disappear all together. Before undervolting the … I work with an external monitor and tried any number of things to speed it up to no avail. What mac should I get mainly for using Lightroom,Photoshop and PremierePro ? Listed below are the specifications of the systems we will be using for our testing: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X ($749) 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. **The i9 9900K is 6% faster than the i7 8700K when using Lightroom, but is 15-20% faster in Photoshop in comparison to AMD CPU’s, the 9900K is 20-30% … 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. Is it possibble to know average CPU utilization during the test? My feelings - with HT/SMT on, scrolling in Develop Module a bit quicker. If you would like to skip over our test setup and benchmark result/analysis sections, feel free to jump right to the Conclusion section. I'm on a 2016 Macbook Pro w/ 16G RAM and LR can be so slow as to be unusable at times, esp. Lightroom is my bottleneck- its soslow its annoying. Even with SMT ON, I'm back to short export times (or "Save Images" times)! 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 think stock speeds are solid these days, especially because of Turbo Boost. 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. I'm an event photographer and I'm primarily interested in the fastest export time within sensible price range of course. The new Core i9 9900K was at the top, but it was only a few percent faster than the i7 8700K which is likely within the margin of error for those tests. Keep in mind that the benchmark results in this article are strictly for Lightroom Classic and that performance will vary widely in different applications. 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. Same slow stuff :(. 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. Can you give me a rough estimate? 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. You should notice the biggest difference in tasks like exporting and generating previews, but when navigating around the Library and Develop modules there is very little difference. 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. With the launch of the new 9th Gen Intel Core Processors, Intel has made a number of improvements including a small frequency bump and an increase in core count. Yea, the SMT/HT thing still exists for exporting and making smart previews. But... the last couple versions of Lightroom Classic do much better with SMT/HT on for most of the "active" tasks like applying brushes, scrolling through images, etc. Because it's very, very important - In the time, when Lightroom 5.7.1 utilize I7-2600K on 70-80% during export, Lightroom 7-8 utilize it on 99%. Considering the additional clock speed on top of that, if you're not overclocking, I think it comes back down to hyper-threading. 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. Because of this, we decided to manually set the PL1 and PL2 power limits in the BIOS. The high end workstations Puget sells here in 2020 use Core i9 Intel processors. Lightroom: Slow performance on Xeon CPUs | Photoshop Family Customer Community . But any more, like 12 cores and 24 threads also yields slower than ideal results. I'm on a 2016 Macbook Pro w/ 16G RAM and LR can be so slow as to be unusable at times, esp. 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. 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. Wow, 3:30. Keep an eye out in the coming weeks (or months)! (My absolute best time running my test batch yesterday came using Camera Raw rolled back to 12.2.1, 16 cores, no SMT. Thank you! If you care more about performance when navigating and … This isn't anything new, but now that Intel is being more aggressive about adding cores and pushing the frequency, this is resulting in much higher power draw (and heat) than you would expect from a 125W processor - often resulting in 100c temperatures after only a few seconds of load. 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. Puget Systems offers a range of powerful and reliable systems that are tailor-made for your unique workflow. with 2 or 4 memory sticks. From an overall perspective, AMD continues to maintain a solid performance lead in Lightroom Classic. profile (2800 MHz and 3200 MHz respectively), no stability issues. I think that your findings of a 16% and 6% performance benefit for the 9900k for Photoshop and Lightroom may be overstating what real world results are going to be. In comparison, the 9700k has a stock all-core turbo of 4.7ghz, so it is nearly maxed out at stock.