With the launch of AMD's new Ryzen 5000-series processors, however, it is very likely that AMD will be able to take a very solid lead over Intel in Lightroom Classic no matter what task you are looking at. First things first: Thank you for the lightning fast testing of the new 3950X!However, it is very difficult to draw meaningful conclusions without a closer look at your numbers:• You seem to have tested Intel with HT-on. Is the correct interpretation then that Lightroom has become ~13% slower between versions 8.4 and 10.0 in the 'active' test? Why?• Video Card: Is it really meaningful to use a graphics card that would normally not be installed in a Lightroom computer (RTX 2080 Ti)? So for A7R3 42Mp .ARW files , is the 9900k better than 3900x ? Screen resolution is easier, but it also more complicated than it sounds. 8.4)Overall Score: 1000Active Tasks Score: 100Passive Tasks Score: 100, I dont understand why if everything is normalized to 9900K, why the score for 9900K is not 1000 (100 active / 100 passive), Yeah, compare is really interesting.. Interesting, that is a much larger difference than we have seen. No, SMT (and HT on Intel) is on. That is the same reason we use a NVMe storage drive as well. Overall, the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X is currently the fastest CPU we have tested for Lightroom Classic, but the extra 5% performance over the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X for a 50% increase in cost is likely to be hard to justify for most users. At the first look it seems like there can't be more than 5% but :-): RAMDual rank -> Single rank2 DIMM -> 4 DIMMDaisy Chain -> T-Topology2666 Mhz -> 3600Mhz -> 4400 MhzCL 19-19-19-19 -> CL-14-15-15AMD -> INTEL, Resolution1980 + 1020 -> 2560 x 1440 -> 3840 x 2160. Overall, Ryzen is unfortunately not a great choice for Lightroom. If you take results seriously, you must search for your workflow results in details. I recently upgraded from an Intel i5 2500K system to a AMD Ryzen 1800X-based machine. I don't think that is because any of them are scared, but rather because it is much harder to place a value on workflow optimizations than it is for things like "how long does this effect take to apply?". Frequency can be grabbed through WMI or through the command line, but timings would need an external application which we have tried to avoid doing since it makes cross-platform support much harder. That seems huge considering we only see 5-15% gains between CPU generations. In this article, we want to see whether the increase in core count (and price) is worth it for Adobe Lightroom Classic. In Photoshop is “opening a file” or “filter results” for me very important, and on and on... Lightroom is sooo good and simultaneously sooo bad :-) I love and edit my files sometimes in Capture One too, but I found Lightroom for my organisational tasks a little bit better. Lightroom is hard to benchmark since the things that are easiest to test (importing, exporting, generating previews, etc.) (assuming that the 10700k in these results is on par with that old 9900k). Feel free to skip to the next section for our analysis of these results if you rather get a wider view of how each CPU performs in Lightroom Classic. A few notes on the hardware and software used for our testing: First, we have decided to standardize on DDR4-2933 memory for the Ryzen platform. Adobe Lightroom CC 2015.8 AMD Ryzen 7 1700X & 1800X Performance Hier haste einen Vergleich. are often not what people are the most concerned about. Until recently, even 3200MHz didn't meet our stability standards, and going above that is definitely going to cause more system instability. It is looking like a pretty massive programming project to not only allow people to upload, but sort, search, compare, etc., but that is something we are really excited about doing. The 8-core Xeon will fit but considering how much slower it is, not sure that would be an upgrade. I'm currently speccing up a new desktop build to mostly run Lightroom and Photoshop, and have read elsewhere that there are good gains in memory performance by using 3600Mhz ram with CL16 or CL18 timing. Over the last few years, AMD has been making great strides with their Ryzen and Threadripper processors, often matching - or beating - the performance from similarly priced Intel options. That is definitely something I want to look at! It is definitely one of the more "finicky" of our benchmarks (none of these apps are made for benchmarking, so we have to do some "creative" things to get them to work). Is there a solution for the same Benchmark as Photoshop to validate both for example - new PS Action compared with new AP Macro? I’ve narrowed it down to 2 top contenders, the TR 3960X and the Zen 5900X. The Quadro line is mostly about having high amounts of VRAM which almost never a problem for photography applications. Posted by 1 year ago. And that '100' benchmark was established with a 9900k system. There is no need for that high-end of a GPU, but in the off chance that it does make an impact, we want to make sure that the performance is being primarily limited by the CPU rather than another component. Compared to the previous generation AMD Ryzen 3000-series CPUs, these new processors are all roughly 10% faster than the CPUs they are replacing. Generally though, most people don't upgrade their CPU every generation since the performance gains usually aren't enough to warrant it. We might do something for other apps that use the GPU more (Premiere Pro, After Effects, DaVinci Resolve, etc), but I doubt we will invest the time to test Lightroom Classic. 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: Intel Core 10th Gen vs AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen, 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. We are still working on updating our Lightroom testing right now, so it may be a bit before we look at the new Ryzen CPUs in Lightroom. AMD’s focus has been on offering higher core count processors v their Intel rivals but the performance per core of an AMD processor is still very slightly behind that of Intel. The devs have also been putting a ton of work into improving many aspects of LrC that we haven't figured out a good way to test like brush/slider lag and things like that. These results are then combined into an overall score to give you a general idea of how that specific configuration performs in Lightroom Classic. Can you confirm this?• Compared to your roundup on October 16, 2019, the NEF export of the 3900X is suddenly considerably slower - by 35%! Posted on 2020-03-16 07:14:10. "Overall, Ryzen is unfortunately not a great choice for Lightroom. Thanks for the info on Lightroom's inability to use SMT. They do have a 10-20% higher price tag as well, although in terms of absolute cost that works out to only a $50 increase which is fairly small if you look at it as a part of the overall cost of a computer. I think above a small GPU upgrade, you are going to be bottlenecked by your CPU. With that being said, this is going to be a new build for me, and I plan on using it for gaming + my wife will be using it for photo editing (lightroom and some basic photoshop.) With this motherboard, Thunderbolt support is no longer as much of a factor when choosing between Intel 10th Gen and AMD Ryzen CPUs in our workstations. Its a strong alternative to lightroom and it has better performance, but I can´t seem to find how it responds to different hardwareGreat article BTW :D. Capture One is on our list, but it honestly will likely be at least a year or longer before we are able to take it on - we have a few other major project to take on first. So, it is possible the work they are doing there is negatively affecting the tasks we can test, but LrC is still way better overall for the end users. Our Labs team is available to provide in-depth hardware recommendations based on your workflow. The difference shouldn't be more than 40% though. It's more expensive, but you get more cores, threads, and headroom in games and software. There is only a 5-10% improvement above the E5-1650 V4 by the latest 6-core Xeon processors. All of those can affect performance, and it looks like we have overall seen a performance drop of about 8% with the 9900K since that time. In the past, there were arguments for using an Intel processor for Lightroom Classic if you wanted to optimize for active tasks like scrolling through images, but with the new Ryzen 5000 Series CPUs, AMD takes a solid lead no matter the task. System Specs ----- Asus Pro X370 Prime (Bios 0515) Ryzen 1700x @ … Having said that, for Lightroom ONLY (and not other Adobe software, which I cannot comment on), you want the fastest 4-core CPU you can afford. You are of course free to do whatever you want with your own system, but we've always taken the stance that reliability is more important than getting a bit more performance since in a production environment, system crashes and lost work costs far more money than losing a few percent performance. So, personally, I wouldn't worry too much about future socket compatibility, especially with DDR5, PCI-E Gen 5, and who knows what else that might be coming in the next several years. In my case, switching between to Monitors (separately connected and separately tested on the same PC) 1980 + 1020 -> 2560 x 1440 (AMD RX570 4GB) gives me a difference of 17% in some important Tasks! I haven't seen any benchmarks on the Ryzen CPUs, don't go by the hype, find some benchmarks. As always you guys do great work, thank you for the excellent write-ups and tests! Close. The thing is, Ryzen isn’t really impressive at all in terms of performance. While our benchmark presents various scores based on the performance of each test, we also wanted to provide the individual results. The "Passive Score" does a pretty good job of summarizing performance for tasks like that as well. There are quite a few things we want to test in LrC, but unfortunately the API is way behind other apps like Photoshop and Premiere Pro. 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. So overall, performance is not better with HT enabled than with it disabled, which is why we didn't disable it for this testing. Historically many Adobe products have seemed to favor Intel processors. Turning off SMT can improve performance a bit in tasks like exporting, but in the last few versions of LrC, it also lowers performance in active tasks. 3. Is there any chance you might add capture one to the software you benchmark in the future? We saw some odd performance issues with the Ryzen 9 5950X, but the Ryzen 7 5800X and Ryzen 9 5900X beat the Intel Core i9 10900K by a solid 14% and 21% respectively, while the Ryzen 5 5600X outperforms the similarly-priced Intel Core i5 10600K by a bit smaller 11%. In addition, both Intel and AMD have new processors coming out in the near future which may change the price to performance picture. Another factor that has changed recently is that the Gigabyte B550 Vision D motherboard - with fully certified Thunderbolt support - has launched and passed our internal qualification process. Are you going to do a Lightroom Classic 9.0 GPU performance test?It seems that Adobe has improved the GPU usage in Lightroom and I would like to know if I should update my graphics card or not.Great article, keep up with the great work. Not sure there is anything meaningfully faster that will go into the current CPU socket. I see that the 'active score' benchmarks are all under 100. And hold that thought on the upload thing - that is a project we are hoping to get to next year. Der Intel Core i9-11900K kann den AMD Ryzen 9 5950X bei einem Gaming-Benchmark übertreffen 14.12.2020 Cydia, der "App Store für Jailbreaker", verklagt Apple wegen des App Store-Monopols 11.12.2020 Lightroom Classic is not an easy application to directly benchmark, but we hope to have a publicly available version for download in the coming months. Their lead over Intel was not small either, the Ryzen 9 3900X was a very impressive 22% faster than the Intel Core i9 9900K in our Lightroom Classic benchmark. We saw some odd performance issues with the Ryzen 9 5950X, but the Ryzen 7 5800X and Ryzen 9 5900X beat the Intel Core i9 10900K by a solid 14% and 21% respectively, while the Ryzen 5 5600X outperforms the similarly-priced Intel Core i5 10600K by a bit smaller 11%. You say that the score of 1000 is made by the average of Passive Score + Active score of a system who is based on the Intel 9900K. At least today we have the option to get twice the performance for twice the money. Could you do this, please?• In comparison today vs 6 years ago (in IT-Calender: When the dinosaurs still walked the earth): you have to pay twice as much for the CPU and twice as much for the motherboard, to get a 2-3 times faster export, but only about 35% more power in active tasks. 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 As has been stated in the benchmarks that the video card, above a minimum level, doesn't much impact Lightroom performance (except for the Texture slider); if I upgrade from the K1200 to the RTX 4000 vs the GTX 2080 Ti, am I going to see equivalent performance with the RTX 4000? There are also some back-end features we want to make that makes it even more complex, but hugely useful for our articles. Ryzen 3000 series Lightroom performance? Interestingly the Texture slider on the K1200 is real time, no measurable delay. Things have actually changed a bit regarding HT/SMT with Lightroom Classic V9.0 . Er schafft den Test in 119 Sekunden und kostet gerade mal 370 Euro.. Der Intel Core i7-8700K kostet ähnlich wenig, braucht aber für den Parcours 195 Sekunden.. Ist sieht also so aus, als ob ein aktueller AMD Ryzen Prozessor eine sehr gute und preisgünstige Wahl für Lightroom ist. Display resolution I don't have an article to back it up (yet), but from what I've seen the difference is at most 5-10%. When using nvidia FPS counter my rysen system peaks to 3-4fps while my intel system goes up to 20-30fps while regulating the sliders. We don't re-use results from previous testing (or do so very rarely and clearly mark them), and since performance changes over time, that means that the 9900K will pretty much never hit exactly the same scores that it did on that specific day. Something like a RTX 2060 is probably a better choice since it will likely perform about the same in Lightroom Classic, but at a much lower cost. Think it's time to jump ship! The Lightroom benchmark is a bit finicky at times since we have to do quite a bit of the testing via external scripts, and de-focusing the Lightroom window can make things break. Keep in mind that the benchmark results in this article are strictly for Lightroom Classic. If you are concerned about general Lightroom performance, the Intel Core i7 7700K is significantly faster for most tasks and only ~10% slower when exporting images. Why? Since this testing was completed, Premiere Pro 14.2 released with some huge GPU performance improvements. It does seem that Lightroom Classic in particular is memory speed sensitive and could benefit from faster RAM. I'm having a blast editing 4K content in Premiere, but Lightroom? And 4) Lastly, AMD is saying that the TR socket will be compatible with future Treadrippers… If the 2 CPU’s are close already, does that push the TR over the top to make it that worth the added expense? Even with all the improvements Adobe has done in the last couple of Lightroom versions to take advantage of the GPU, it is still primarily a CPU-driven application. I have BIG catalogs- 30K to 100K images. Maybe it is a bigger deal on older GPUs like your RX 570? In fact, this is the speed we are planning on using in our Ryzen workstations once JDEC DDR4-2933 16GB sticks are available. Benchmark. Most important, however, is the performance leap in editing. Future software or BIOS updates could of course fix this issue, although we saw the same behavior between the Ryzen 9 3900X and 3950X, so this is unlikely to be a simple BIOS or software bug. Same with the new Ryzen - as far as I know, AMD hasn't made an official announcement, so no way to know for sure. For me in my example, switching between Modules in Lightroom and scrolling in developer modul is very important, also 1:1 Rendering . However, your testing (Messy Memory Speed Standards) showed an overall increase of 9% in Lightoom compared with the slower 2666Mhz memory. Both missing informations are very important for the endresult. The reason we use a 2080Ti in our CPU-based testing is simply to make sure that the GPU is not a bottleneck. Ideally, I would love to have both, as well as if the CPU and GPU are overclocked or not. Since that reference score was made, we've upgraded to Lightroom Classic 9.0 and there have been numerous BIOS, driver, and Windows updates that have come though. How is the performance? It will probably end up being a pretty big project since we are going to have to take into account how many displays are being used as well as the resolution for each display (since that apparently is a big factor for Lightroom GPU performance). 4-core CPUs are becoming hard to find (but not yet impossible), and I would certainly like to upgrade my computer to take advantage of the i9 or Ryzen power in all my … Please add the Quadro RTX 4000 to your GPU test. It’s the Mac Pro that’s *REALLY* bad. Hey Matt, there are some things that are not clear to me. After all that, we can try to track RAM timing, screen resolution, overclocking, and a number of other aspects of the system information. Comparing applications is something we don't really try to do since there is so much more to why you would use one application over another than straight performance. Eine kleine Benchmark Orgie meines neuen Ryzen 2700er Computers. It is also worth noting that the 5800X and 5900X outperformed the 10900K not only in the passive tasks but the active ones as well, which was where Intel was previously maintaining a slight edge. I honestly don't know what specifically has caused that drop, but there have been a number of Intel security vulnerabilities that have been fixed at the expense of performance, and Lightroom Classic is adding more GPU acceleration which sometimes can reduce performance at first until they get it really dialed in. With that really quick look at workstation performance out-of-the-way, we can move onto a look at gaming performance – aka: the true reason for this article’s existence today. Soon after launch, there should be an update that adds support for AGESA 1.1.0 which is supposed to increase the performance of each Ryzen CPU by another few percent. Comparison of 2700x and 3900X stock rendering 550 still photos. Our Lightroom Classic benchmark tests a wide range of tasks that are divided between "active" tasks (scrolling through images, brush lag, etc.) From what I remember, the difference between various CPUs for 1:1 previews was pretty close to what we see with generating smart previews. 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. How about a comparison between the fastest affordable Quadro (the RTX4000) and the GTX 2080 TI? So if import with previews is a big concern, I would look at the scores for the Import and Smart Preview tests. When we can, we try to have many of the tests be similar, but we first and foremost want to measure the performance for "typical" workflows in each app separately. For a number of reasons which I won't go into here, there is a preference for Quadro cards. Can you please explain this? AMD Ryzen 9 5950X Gaming Performance.