The other interesting result is generating 1:1 previews. I don't know why exactly, but for some reason Lightroom seems to hate Ryzen. I would like to see if the performance gains from both Intel and AMD. Import a lot of files, color correction, then export a lot of high resolution files to jpeg. Programs like Photoshop and Lightroom deliver the best performance when they’re paired with generalist processors, like the Ryzen … Intel Core i7 6950X 3.0GHz its really bad. Auto Align, Auto Tone, No Deghost, 11x 18MP RAW (5184x3456) Overall, Ryzen still isn't a good match for Lightroom even with the performance improvements. I recommend waiting for 3950x. (for example with FPS capture software like we discussed in another topic some time ago).- looking at the tables - how come Ryzen 3700x is faster in merging panorama than 3800x or even 3900x? I'm getting great performance with the Lightroom Classic and my custom Windows 10 Pro workstation with AMD Ryzen 7 1800x and Radeon Pro WX 7100 GPU. Let me setup a bit of context here: I'm in events photography where high multitasking efficiency is very desirable. I would love to run this benchmark to test mine system (just to see & laugh).--EDIT: well, I forgot that Intel is changing their chipset almost every gen. Well, having Z170 or similar you need to switch mobo too. Disabling HT is one fix, but you can also just adjust the processor affinity so that Lr doesn't use the virtual cores and it gets back most of that performance without affecting other applications. I'll be at Adobe MAX in a few weeks as well, which could potentially throw a wrench in things if the launch happens to be right around the same time. I would suggest looking over out "How much faster is a modern workstation for Lightoom" article as well: https://www.pugetsystems.co... . Recommended Systems For: Adobe After Effects; ... Ryzen Workstations based on AMD Ryzen B550 and X570; ... is using three Puget Systems … Thanks for the rapid and detailed response. But I also feels like the time I spend working in LR makes it gradually more sluggish, even when I still have many GB's of RAM free - so if that's actually the case, then testing that might be even more complicated. No problem at all! Hi Matt, after many bios and drivers updates, Ryzen performance has increased overall. And exactly as you've mentioned opening a few tabs here and there (eg. You may want to skip over the 3800X since the 3700X performs almost exactly the same, but all the other models are great choices. Too bad the Intel K chips weren't OCed in these tests. are limited to 1 thread in critical functions. Really no way to know until it actually launches and we can test it. They are great overclockers. That should be plenty of time for them to get everything fixed. Hey, you are running XMP overclocked memory on AMD, and stock jedec crap on Intel. I think that is really a call that each person has to make for themselves, but I personally would go with the higher capacity. It would not be terribly scientific, but if it would help inform your decision I'm up for giving it a shot :). Plus the windows thread scheduler seems to be an issue at the moment; a lot of the gamer orientated reviews seem to be suggesting that for now it's better to disable multithreading. Thanks for the review Matt. However, if we assume that you would be able to overclock about the same amount for each CPU you could just take our results at face value since you are really talking about relative performance rather than raw number of seconds. Presenting that many results in a clear and concise manner is really difficult. The AMD Ryzen 9 3950X has a $749 launch price, against the Intel Core i9 9900K 8 Core price of $499, so it really is up to users to define if they need the extra speed introduced by AMD’s processor. I think it's a bad call to buy a 7700K for work like this. On the flip side, the Intel Hyperthreading (HT) and AMD SMT issue are still very much present - you can read the details about it in our support post Hyperthreading & SMT causing low performance in Lightroom Classic. As this was tested on Windows 10, would it be possible to test on Windows 7, or possibly when MS fix the scheduling bug which is hitting Ryzen performacne? Unless, I understand the detailed results wrong, see below:- (a slight critique from my side) in the detailed result tables the results are a little confusing: I understand that results for particular raw file types and processors are given as time (seconds?) It is c16, it's 1,35V. Since this is a completely new platform that is still getting uefi/bios updates specifically addressing memory, would it be best to take out some of the memory? It is one of the more "finicky" benchmarks we have since we have to use a lot of external scripts to do things that can't be done through the plug-in API. Since Reg. Of course, if you are building your own system it might not be a big deal since you are probably willing to do some memory diagnostics if you ever have a problem but for us, that isn't really something our typical customer wants to do in the middle of their workday. Even the 4 and 6 core performance advantage exists because it was easy to implement. 19. AMD was more focused on IPC gain in Ryzen, and under developed in other areas which tend to be underutilized (like AVX). If you want to skip over our individual benchmark results and go straight to the conclusion, feel free to jump ahead! In this article we will be examining how the new Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X CPUs on X299 compare to the previous generation Intel CPUs and AMD's Ryzen CPUs … I would try to stick to a GTX 1050 or above if you can though. So 3200MHz isn't really bottom of the barrel, it is the fastest that AMD is comfortable calling viable with these chips. Our Labs team is available to provide in-depth hardware recommendations based on your workflow. Intel Core i7 6900K 3.2GHz Honestly, I would just leave it alone and not worry about it - you probably wouldn't notice a difference unless you got out a stopwatch and started timing things. I might do a 'light' overclock but has there been any change in terms of ACTIVE tasks with the latest version of LR?Just how noticeable are the active tasks between an i7 9700k and say an AMD equivalent?In my case passive tasks aren't an issue. - we will be basing the majority of our conclusions with HT/SMT disabled in the instances that it improves performance. On a 12core system you have room for having other apps rendering in the background. Jedec memory is C20-C22-C24 and 1.2V.Or use XMP for both systems with like 2666C12 for intel (not c19 crap like now), or find at last jedec spec 3200 memory for AMD system. Spherical Projection, No Crop. On average, the new 3rd generation Ryzen processors were about 20% faster than a similarly priced Intel 9th gen processor. No it means that it’s possible and an option for photographers to do, i really dont think u get 30% more performance on premiere pro (i use it too) just oc'ing your rig ;) the number of cores makes the difference on premiere pro. In fact, if anything the 128GB of RAM will cause a slight performance decrease since it is ECC RAM which causes a very tiny decrease in performance. At the same time, the AMD Threadripper CPUs are just overall not a great fit for Lightroom, especially the higher-end "WX" models, so we would recommend avoiding them if possible. We have been doing testing with all three of these speeds since these chips launched, and I can tell you for sure that running the RAM at 3200Mhz is definitely a bit less stable if using four sticks, and it gets worse if you go beyond spec to 3600MHz. I was wondering will you guys be doing a follow up test with the new Lightroom Classic? Our Recommended Systems for Adobe Lightroom Classic are application tested and optimized to give you the best performance and reliability. 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. Adobe & AMD work closely so we'll likely see improved performance in coming weeks. In these tasks, the Ryzen 9 3900X is about 80% faster than the Core i9 9900K while the Ryzen 7 3700X/3800X are about 55% faster than the Core i9 9700K. Re: Puget Systems tests Lightroom 7.2 In reply to Archer66 • Feb 11, 2018 2 It's be interesting to see what the results would be if you were to script up parallel instances of Adobe's DNG converter to do the same 100 conversions. In your experience, was this actually discernible? Puget Systems. Thank you for such detailed answer, was wondering why it's only Asrock that used TB3.also good news that all x299 got 50% price cut, in Israel all current (9th gen ) X299 8c~18c got 50% off.suddenly workstation got much cheaper ;-). With 3866 c16, or even 3600 c16 kit, the Ryzen CPU could really stretch its legs. Do you think that is right? This new AMD CPUs are really nice :) Last year i have buyed (for next few years) an i7 9700K and its blazingly fast even with huge 42Mpx A7R3 files!I keep watching your reviews and if someone asks for photo/video computer, i know, where to go for relevant informations... :). ... #Puget #Benchmark #Ryzen. Our current plan is to re-do our Ryzen testing sometime in May (probably) to give AMD time to get all their problems worked out with Microsoft and everyone else. And even if adobe manages to significantly improve multicore performance, it's probably going to take some time from now, and if it takes something like 4 years to do so, most users who bought a 7700k today will be already considering buying a new cpu. We did do some testing comparing DDR4-2666 to DDR4-3200 on both Intel and AMD CPUs, but the only place it measurably increased performance was when importing and exporting images. Not enough RAM causes performance problem, but having extra doesn't really improve performance at all. I couldn't find this info in the text, sorry if I missed it. Overall, Ryzen still isn't a good match for Lightroom even with the performance improvements. Would a mid-range GPU of 2gb be enough or would i need something much more powerful? Smart previews are always 2560px on the longest side I believe, and ours ended up with a final resolution of 2560x1707. What was the resolution of the monitor? (3.7-4GHz Turbo) 6 Core From my understanding it doesn't can anyone comment on this? wasted time) and so is my biggest concern. That in itself might be something we could benchmark (maybe), but LR gives almost no feedback for when things like that happen. Why not get 30-40% more speed for free (other than power and heat)? I'm totally aware this is not something scientific but nevertheless super valuable. He uses stock setting Without using any OC settings. Puget Systems Lightroom Classic Benchmark. I love stabilty. We have reported the issue to all the relevant parties, but we are not sure how long it will take for a permanent solution to be put in place. This is not gaming benchmarks. But it may be sooner or later (I know, so precise) depending on what happens at MAX. By all accounts, it does seem that AMD might have been better off delaying the launch by a month. I keep zooming in and out and that's where I lose most of my time. My impression is that the relative performance between different CPU models should be similar, but again I can't be 100% sure at the moment. We discovered an issue with Intel Hyperthreading and AMD SMT that causes low performance for some tasks. Worst case, it shouldn't be more than a week or two after launch that we have at least most of our articles up. It is definitely an interesting question that I would love to know the answer to, though. Considering that Ryzen is also either slower or comparable to these two Intel CPU options in other programs like Photoshop, Intel CPUs are a pretty clear winner for photo editing and image processing workstations. I believe I am more concerned with "Active Tasks" or seeing results as I edit. This does still mean that our testing is a bit biased in favor of Ryzen since we decided to stick with DDR4-2666 for the Intel and AMD Threadripper platforms, but as you will see in the final results, that extra performance in a couple of tests is not really going to change our conclusions so we are not too worried about it. Some applications are struggling with CCX performance where cache data has to be copied to support a context switch, again, not really a Ryzen issue per se, more about the some of the compile switches that were used when the program was written. However, if you really dig into the results, there are really two primary tasks where Ryzen blows away Intel that is causing the higher overall scores: exporting and building smart previews. The PCI-E add-on cards (even from Gigabyte) just don't seem to be as stable or reliable as the integrated version for whatever reason. These test configurations include three different platforms along with six different CPU models. I am perplexed that 6850k and 6900k were 40-50% faster at exporting images than the 1700X given that exporting seems to benefit from more cores. It may be a year or two before Ryzen II addresses all of its limitations, until then, we have the 32 core Naples to look forward too. We try to compensate by running the benchmark multiple times and taking the best overall run, but you still get those kinds of discrepancies. Thanks again for this additional time investment :). Would this not explain, in part, the performance improvements? All this means is that if you don't have a problem with longer export times and don't often use smart previews, Intel is likely to still feel a bit "snappier" in Lightroom Classic. Wait - save - upgrade higher. If it's less than 15% .. i wouldnt go all the trouble. For quite a while now Intel has held a dominant position in nearly every computing market, but there is a lot of hype around Ryzen due to the fact that you can get eight CPU cores for half the cost of an Intel processor of the same size. Greater Salt Lake City Area Embedded Systems Engineer Computer Hardware Education Utah State University 1988 — 1992 BS, Electical Engineering Experience Beijer Electronics, Inc. August 2008 - … In addition, we will have a separate table in the "Benchmark Results" section that has the results with HT/SMT enabled on every CPU that supports it. Changes in core count/price are coming.I don't think you're gonna have 15% gain in "active tasks" with 3600x over 6700. We generally recommend a GTX 1060 as a starting point on our systems, but if you are in a budget crunch something a bit lower should be fine. Thank you for nice comparison! Unfortunately, in the trials I've done this is really inconsistent so it isn't really a reliable way to compare hardware. If you want, though, I could fire up some sort of all-core load test on both the 9900K and 3900X and then try using the systems to see how they feel... start a browser and pull up a web page, copy a file around, that sort of thing. I'm curious if disabling SMT and/or using the High Performance (or Ryzen Balanced) power profiles would change the results? We also have a number of other articles looking at the performance of the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X & 1800X CPUs in other applications including: To see how the new AMD Ryzen CPUs perform in Lightroom, we will be testing with the following hardware: Intel Core i7 6850K 3.6GHz Would greatly appreciate hearing your thoughts on this,Kind regards. Thanks for your response and explanation. On the "low" end, the Ryzen 5 3600 ranges from 70% to more than 2x faster than the Core i5 9600K!