Skip navigation
Hstubc1
Currently Being Moderated

URGENT HELP NEEDED! Lightroom 5.2 runs slow on my new PC

Oct 10, 2013 3:59 PM

Tags: #lightroom #8 #performance #slow #core #laggy #octacore

Hello everyone!

 

Thank you for the time you devote to reading this! I'm very grateful!

 

Few months ago, I decided to connect my laptop to a Full HD monitor so that I hopefully can have a better resolution when editing the photos. I bought the monitor but BAM! It was all lagy and I realized that my laptop is not good enough to run things smoothly (although it can do it at its native resolution perfectly  720p) So, as a student, I started working and investing money to buy a computer case and use it with the monitor that I had already bought for no reason!

 

So, I assembled my new PC recently and I put (relatively) decent hardware on it but I still have the same problem

 

Here is the specs of my PC:

 

Windows 7 SP1 64 bit

Ram: 8GB DDR3 1600

CPU: AMD FX-8320 8 Core 3.5 Ghz

MB: ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. M5A97 LE R2.0 (Socket 942)

Graphics Card: 1024MB ATI AMD Radeon HD 7700 Series (Gigabyte)

Hard Drive: 500GB Western Digital SATA 3

 

Here is the video of my computer lagging:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtaKV1wH9pY

(video is from lightroom 4.4 but 5.2 is the same)

 

I know some of you might say it's not SSD so it's slow but I don't believe that my hard drive is causing an issue. My friend's laptop which has lower specs than mine (a 2.5 hard drive) + weaker graphics card +weaker CPU (but Intel i7) performs much better and it's much smoother (is almost perfect) during the cropping and change of exposure.

 

What do you think is the problem? Is it the damn AMD cpu that is causing this or is it lightroom that is not compatible with my cpu? What parts should I change if any or should I return the whole thing and work with lower resolution on my laptop

 

I really need you help with this because if I cannot fix this issue, I have to return the PC and get refunded because it will have no use for me.

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 10, 2013 5:13 PM   in reply to Hstubc1

    I would seriously look at the CPU. I am a Mac user but have seen many reported issues with AMD processors, sorry.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 10, 2013 5:50 PM   in reply to Geoff the kiwi

    Lightroom works great with my AMD processor (Phenom II X4 965 on a Asus M4A89GTD main-board), and another fellow forumer just recently posted a substantial performance boost upgrading to AMD FX-8320 (or maybe it was 8350(?) - I'll post back if I find the link).

     

    Here are some benchmarks for Lr performance with AMD processors:

     

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-8320-6300-4300_7. html

     

    I'm not sayin' there ain't no issues with your CPU, just that other people are using the same model CPU without any issues .

     

    PS - I have seen many reported issues with Intel processors too .

     

    PPS - Try testing with main-board graphics if you have it - video drivers are all-too-frequent offenders.

     

    PPPS - How did you go about installing system drivers (e.g. chipset)? - maybe the ones you're using are not sufficiently robust. Consider obtaining new ones from manufacturer's website, if you haven't already.

     

    e.g. drivers for main-board hardware:

     

    http://support.asus.com/download

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 10, 2013 8:59 PM   in reply to Hstubc1

    Hi Hstubc1,

     

    Whoa - I see what you mean: it looks pretty good in ACR, but not so good in Lr.

     

    I'm not a total expert on just what should be expected, but for reference, here's 2 samples from me, using Lightroom (system specs are in post above):

     

    1. Rendering 1:1 previews (6 files):

    cpu_building_final_previews.gif

     

    2. Whipping exposure slider from left to right as fast as I could:

    cpu_whist_whipping_exposure.gif

    (note: first spike is loading for develop)

     

    As you can see I get fairly even distribution, and relatively good CPU utilization (similar to what you get in ACR).

     

    Summary: Yes - I think the low & uneven cpu utilization in Lightroom is indicative of a problem, but I dunno what might be causing it. I mean system drivers spring to mind, but also, Lr can get weird doing things like repeatedly trying to access the internet or attending to connected cell-phone... - so it might be worth sneeking a peek at your event log, and try starting Lightroom with -tracebacks switch and connecting a debugger to see whether it's encountering bunches of errors, if you can figure out how... - also disconnect all non-essential hardware and disable all non-essential software services whilst trouble-shooting. Sorry about all this...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 10, 2013 10:43 PM   in reply to Hstubc1

    I can't speak for Adobe, but if you live near New Jersey, trshaner (not from Adobe) might have a look, or if you live near Portland Oregon, Brett N (from Adobe) might have a look.

     

    ref: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4801433

     

    Dunno what it would take to have a real "Lightroom Engineer" look at it, but you may have better visibility here:

     

    http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/new

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 11, 2013 4:38 PM   in reply to Hstubc1

    Hstubc1 wrote:

     

    (I meant an engineer that checks these posts online in the community - if there is such person afterall)

    This is a user-to-user forum, but sometimes Adobe employees participate, and sometimes those employees are real-live Lightroom engineers/programmers. But I can't summon them... this link is for issuing feedback intended primarily for Adobe (e.g. bug reports):

     

    http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/new

     

    (granted, even there it's mostly users who respond).

     

    I'm really not qualified to give CPU (specific model number) advice. I've also read that clock-speed may be preferred over core-count, but I can't corroborate - my guess: it doesn't make much difference, as long as all the cores you've got are keeping fairly busy (which unfortunately yours aren't).

     

    Sorry, I can't find the specific link for the other AMD cpu user - I think it was in the feedback forum, posted maybe 1-3 months ago, in response to one of the fairly popular performance threads, but I could be wrong..

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 12, 2013 7:31 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    I'm the Todd Shaner Rob mentioned. Sorry for the late reply, but I'm having my own issues with Adobe's new 'Sign In' system. My current account is no longer accessible.

     

    Todd-Russell = trshaner....at least for now!

     

    Here's a quick run down on the mentioned processor performance:

     

    PassMark

    AMD Phenom II X4 965               4,297 Quad Core (Your processor)

    Intel Core i7 860 @ 2.80GHz      5,103 Quad Core (My processor)

    Intel Core i5-3570K @ 3.40GHz  7,114 Quad Core

     

    My Intel processor is only about 18% higher performance than your AMD 965 and I'm not having your issues.

     

    The System Information screenshot you posted shows 8 hyper-threads, but AMD processors do NOT support hyper-threading. Your performance graph should look like Rob's with just 4 cores showing. What application did you use to display the graph? Try using Windows 7's Performance Monitor - CTRL + ALT + DEL > Start Task Manager> Performance tab. What does it look like?

     

    Along with Rob's suggestion to download and install the latest motherboard drivers I suggest doing the same for your AMD Radeon HD 7700 graphics adapter. My past experience with AMD graphics chipset is that you need to do a "clean install" of the graphics drivers. Follow the procedure outlined here and install the latest drivers:

     

    http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/GraphicsDriverInstallat ionInstructionforMicrosoftWindows7.aspx

     

    You mention using a "Full HD monitor," which I assume means 1920 x 1080. Are you using dual-monitors and if so please list the resolution of each. The higher the monitor resolution and/or if using dual monitors with LR the performance will noticeably decrease. LR does NOT use graphics acceleration such as Open GL with the graphics processor– all done using the system processor.

     

    Using your single 1920 x 1080 monitor make the LR side panels as large as possible by dragging them in toward the center. Also pull up the filmstrip bar to make its as large as possible. Now check the different controls for lag. etc. By making the screen preview image smaller it should speed up LR.

     

    I'm also not using any SSDs, just internal 7K 3Gb/sec SATA hard drives. I have two drives with the pictures on one and everything else on the other, but I ran this system previously using one HDD with LR4 with no issues.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 12, 2013 12:15 PM   in reply to Todd-Russell

    Todd - I'm not having any issues with the AMD 965 4-core. The OP has an 8-core FX-8320 which he is having trouble with. I'm certain others with same CPU are not having such issues, so there is something amiss in his/her system. Could be faulty CPU or RAM, or could be driver, or main-board problem, or........

     

    I mean, I suppose it's possible that there is some sort of inherent incompatibility of motherboard & Lr, but I doubt it.

     

    If it were me, I'd yank everything out of the system and find a hard drive to reformat and install nothing but OS (lean as possible) & Lr, and create a new catalog - import only one photo. Boot up with only those services required to support Lr. If still no go, then probably there is a hardware or driver problem (assuming no inherent compatibility problem as mentioned above).

     

    I mean, one could also try a different model CPU in case that might shake things into working order - ya never know...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 12, 2013 1:18 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    My bad, I must of picked up your AMD CPU model by mistake. Here's the CPU the OP has:

     

    AMD FX-8320 Eight-Core           8,170 Eight Core (OP's processor)

    Intel Core i7 860 @ 2.80GHz      5,103 Quad Core (My processor)

    Intel Core i5-3570K @ 3.40GHz  7,114 Quad Core

     

    We've seen performance issues in the past with Xeon dual-processor "beasts" that should scream. For some reason LR doesn't utilize more than 4 cores/8 threads very well, but my guess is it's a driver issue (motherboiard or graphics card). The FX-8320 shouldn't have these issues!

     

    To the OP,  download and run PassMark's benchmark software and see how close you are to the 8,170 posted score:

     

    http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm

     

    It's a free 30-day trial and also tests your Graphics and HDD performance.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 12, 2013 9:14 PM   in reply to Hstubc1

    One thing that might be helpful is to capture overall cpu utilization across all running processes, not just the general CPU chart (which doesn't isolate an app). Not saying it's unrelated to Lightroom, but it could be another task burning cpu cycles. In Win7, there should be an option at the bottom of the task manager dialog, under the Processes tab, to show processes from all users (to get the complete list of running processes). You can then sort by cpu usage, to see if there are any other "hot" processes running that could be interfering with Lightroom.

     

    Since we're in a guessing mode: Are you running AV software? And does that software scan files in a directory? (most do, by default). If so, there's typically an option to exclude specific directories from virus-scanning. There's always the chance that, every time the Lightroom catalog is touched, the AV scan software is re-scanning the file. Ok, this one's a long-shot, I admit, but as a software developer, I learned this lesson the hard way, having my source code tree being constantly re-scanned until I excluded my dev directory.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 13, 2013 11:13 AM   in reply to Hstubc1

    Some other thoughts:

     

    Since you have moved to a higher resolution monitor you need to change your Preview size in the Catalog Settings. With my 1920 x 1080 monitor I use 2048 pixels, Medium Quality, Never Discard. I also suggest purging your Camera Raw Cache under Preferences> File Handling> Purge Cache and do a Catalog Backup with 'Test Integrity' and Optimize' options checked.

     

    After completing the above try the following test:

     

    1) Open a folder with about 10 raw image files that have LR Develop processing applied to them.

     

    2) Select ALL images in the Library module and go to toolbar Library> Previews> Build 1:1 Previews. Wait until completed!

     

    3) Switch to the Develop module, select the first image and change to 1:1 view. Wait at least 5 seconds until the 1:1 view preview image is built, then select to the next image and wait 5 seconds again, repeat until all images have been selected in 1:1 view mode. I know this sounds redundant, but it will help rule this out as the cause.

     

    Now try editing and reviewing just these 10 images in the Develop and Library module. If still a slow try this suggestion:

     

    Using your single 1920 x 1080 monitor make the LR side panels as large as possible by dragging them in toward the center. Also pull up the filmstrip bar to make its as large as possible. Now check the different controls for lag. etc. By making the screen preview image smaller should speed up LR. I agree you shouldn't have to make the LR preview image small to obtain decent performance, but it will help us determine the cause. Also please tell us the make and model of the camera and monitor resolution you are actually using.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 13, 2013 11:30 AM   in reply to Hstubc1

    Hstubc1,

     

    You're not the first to have ACR run smoothly but Lightroom not. I don't know if Adobe ever figured anything out about this or if those afflicted just quit shouting as much. Whatever the problem it's not something that affects other apps, so unlikely to uncover anything by running benchmarks...

     

    I wish Adobe would come forth with a "system differences executing ACR in Lr environment vs. Photoshop/Bridge environment" document, but they have not. I mean, Lr uses Lua for top level UI and other programming, whereas ACR uses 'C++' (I think). I can't help but wonder whether there is something affecting the 'C'/Lua smoothness, like 'C' runtime libraries or something - maybe things affecting co-routines/threading or something (you said you were a programmer, right?).

     

    Example: one gentleman (Bill Anderson) who had problem with Lr but not ACR reported extreme excess of threads created by Lr - dunno if ever there was a resolution, but it pointed to something wonky system-wise affecting Lr but not ACR.

     

    Sorry I'm not more help..

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 13, 2013 11:49 AM   in reply to Hstubc1

    Sorry - I get mixed up who's who sometimes, but you did say ACR works smoothly and Lr does not. So there's a clue there, I'm just not exactly sure what to make of it yet. I wonder if Adobe ever made a "cleaner" script which would scrub every possible thing Lr uses. Anyway, that's one of the reasons I recommended re-building from newly formatted hard disk (as a test I mean), since it eliminates a whole host of things like wonk'd installs of various components... I mean, I just installed a video encoder and it screwed up my TV recorder (and installing iTunes always screws up TiVo desktop) - dll hell is not just a thing of the past! PS - I'd like to propose another phrase "codec hell" - hope it sticks.

     

    Cheers,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 13, 2013 1:09 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    "But I had already tried making the side panels small and the filmstrip large and it definitely helps a lot! Also, if I make the lightroom window smaller (not full screen), it also speeds up. In addition, if I decrease the resolution of my monitor, again, things become smooth."

     

    It looks like the real-time Loupe Develop preview building is the problem due to the raw image size (24 Mp) and relatively high monitor resolution (1920 x 1080). Normally we see this performance hit when using dual-monitors (i.e. full-screen Loupe) or a higher resolution single monitor (2560 x 1440).

     

    Some other things to try in this order:

     

    1) Uninstall LR5.2, delete the Preferences file, and reinstall using a fresh download of the LR5.2 Installer.

     

    2) Download and install the latest AMD Radeon HD 7700 graphics driver. My past experience with AMD graphics chipset is that you should do a "clean install" of the graphics drivers. Follow the procedure outlined here and install the latest drivers, it shouldn't take long:

     

    http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/GraphicsDriverInstallat ionInstructionforMicrosoftWindows7.aspx

     

    3) Check the ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. M5A97 LE R2.0 MB chipset driver and make sure you have the the latest Version 8.0.903.0 installed.

     

    4) Try Rob's suggestion in post #11 & #20.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 13, 2013 2:08 PM   in reply to Hstubc1

    Many will argue there is no benefit to partitioning the drive. I have two partitions on my main drive. The C: partition and a separate J: partition with my Camera Raw Cache, Lightroom catalog, and previews. I also have my images on a 2nd HDD, but that's simply because I ran out of space. There's no real performance advantage I can see using multiple partitons or drives unless you move to SSD(s)....even then not much! I'm just trying to reduce fragmentation.

     

    Good luck!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 13, 2013 2:50 PM   in reply to Todd-Russell

    Todd-Russell wrote:

     

    There's no real performance advantage I can see using multiple partitons or drives unless you move to SSD(s)....even then not much!

    To be clear: multiple disks and partitions improve performance of file system in general, but may not improve performance of Lightroom noticeably.

     

    Technical details:

    ---------------------

    Time to locate file in file allocation table (assuming not in OS "smart cache") depends on number of entries in the file allocation table  - one of the primary reasons most server installations use a multitude of disk partitions - for enhanced performance.

     

    Multiple drives improve performance of simultaneous accesses, since access can occur in parallel instead of sequentially.

    Multiple partitions reduces average file location time (i.e. time to locate file in FAT).

    ----------------------

     

    Todd - I'm sure you know all of that already, but not everybody does. - seemed germaine to the discussion somehow...

     

    But Lightroom's bottle-necks are mysterious:

    * CPU under-utilization suggests disk constraint, but multiple SSD disks for everything doesn't improve performance to the point where multi-core CPU is 100% utilized. I guess bottle-necks in Lr are somewhere else - maybe somebody else understands: I don't, yet.

     

    We hear complaints constantly from people trying to build uber-systems for Lightroom but fall far short of their expectations: rip-snortin' CPUs go hungry, and massively parallel raids or multiple SSDs don't bring up the slack... - go figure (I'd love to hear an explanation if anyone has one - haven't heard anything satisfying yet...).

     

    PS - I'm talking about normal operation, which OP has not yet achieved, so all of this could be considered off-topic - sorry, again...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 13, 2013 5:58 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob, my comments apply only to using multiple partitions and/or multiple "rotating" HDDs with LR. I have a standard 7K C: drive and faster WDD Black Caviar drive I'm using for the image files. I've tried multiple location combinations of the LR catalog, images, and camera raw cache to different disks and/or sectors. It makes virtually no difference and in fact I saw more variation in performance simply running the same test configuration a few times!

     

    I am only running a moderate speed quad-core Intel processor with hyper-threading, but I've never had any real performance issues with LR3, 4, or 5, except for known bugs that were fixed in an update.

     

    It is a "mystery why LR doesn't perform better with six-core, eight-core systems. I worked with Intel as an Embedded System designer during ramp up of processors supporting hyper-threading. It was touted to improve performance with very few code modifications. Most of my customers found that was NOT the case with their embedded applications. Regardless, we know that's NOT the issue here since AMD CPUs don't support hyper-threading....or is it?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 13, 2013 8:09 PM   in reply to Todd-Russell

    Todd-Russell wrote:

     

    we know that's NOT the issue here since AMD CPUs don't support hyper-threading....or is it?

    This is really outside my area of expertise. I started my high-tech career as a computer (hardware) engineer, around the time of the 8080.

     

    Back then I had a fairly complete understanding of digital computer hardware, but I haven't kept up (I've been software-only for decades...).

     

    Anyway, I assume you're right: hyper-threading not the issue since AMD CPUs don't support hyper-threading.

     

    And indeed, modern (multi-core) systems are often constrained by more than CPU/RAM and/or I/O, even in the best of circumstances (thus the reason improving disk speed and faster CPUs with more cores and more ram etc. doesn't help as much as one would hope), and when Lr is constipated and moody - it's not the best of circumstances...

     

    Cheers,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 14, 2013 12:04 AM   in reply to Todd-Russell

    Todd-Russell wrote:

     

    It is a "mystery why LR doesn't perform better with six-core, eight-core systems.

    I believe there is still a demon hidden in the Lightroom code somewhere. He's been fed well enough for the last few releases so that he doesn't make too much trouble, but he's still there, lurking.

     

    Both my present systems are in the clear and performing well, but another desktop that I retired 8 months ago was awful with Lightroom 4. That was the main reason I killed it, since it was otherwise still going strong and showing no real signs of age. It performed like a champ with Photoshop/InDesign/Illustrator, and occasionally Premiere.

     

    The interesting fact is that, although of course having different parts and components, these  machines are all configured identically. They have to be, since I have one machine at work and the other at home, and I need to work on either one at any time and they have to be perfectly synchronized at all times. So they all have exactly the same software installed, identical disk configuration and so on.

     

    So why would one run Lightroom as if it was nobody's business, and the other choke and fall over? No reason at all, as far as I could see.

     

    And there is no reason, hardware-wise, that Hstubc1 should have these problems. His machine should fly. He just got bitten by the demon.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 21, 2013 6:47 PM   in reply to Hstubc1

    Glad to hear about your success, and welcome to the fold.

     

    But just to be clear, LOTS of people with intel-based systems have had similar problems - I've been running Lr on AMD-based systems for several years with great success, as have many others. Anomalies like you experienced are related more to strange system peculiarities than CPU manufacturer.

     

    Don't get me wrong: stick with intel if you're superstitious - I don't blame you. I'll be sticking with AMD.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 22, 2013 6:22 AM   in reply to Hstubc1

    I spent eleven years (2000–2011) working in the system business with an Intel Embedded Alliance manufacturer. We looked at offering AMD processor based motherboards to our customers for Medical, Industrial, and Retail eTicket and POS applications. Most of these customers would only consider using AMD processors in new designs because we couldn't guarantee their applications would run without issues on both an AMD and Intel platform. I can also tell you AMD had far fewer resources (i.e. people) to help us with debug of issues in these embedded applications. I'm also quite sure Adobe and other software developers do far less application testing on AMD processor based systems (i.e. fewer processor models). AMD processor based systems

     

    The bottom-line is that for processor intensive or mission-critical applications Intel should be your first choice.

     

    Disclaimer: I'm now retired and don't own any Intel stock.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 22, 2013 7:54 AM   in reply to Todd-Russell

    I had to look up POS...the urban dictionary has a different definition which probably isn't what you had in mind

     

    But really, what happened to AMD? When I started building computers AMD Athlon was the cool way to go, while Intel was considered a dinosaur that the real aficionados wouldn't touch. Everybody (as in everybody...) said the Pentium sucked big time. Then BAM came the Core2Duo and changed everything, and AMD never recovered. I'm sure they make very good CPUs, but the general impression nowadays is one of a budget brand and all the prestige is gone. Maybe they should just raise their prices?

     

    Sic transit gloria mundi. Next month the Nikon D800 is so last year, because Canon has come up with a 50MP sensor with 25 stops dynamic range.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 22, 2013 12:01 PM   in reply to twenty_one

    twenty_one wrote:

     

    I had to look up POS...the urban dictionary has a different definition which probably isn't what you had in mind

    POS (Point Of Sale) terminals as in cash register systems. Actually some of the customer units I saw also fit the Urban definition.....and they were Intel processor based!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 22, 2013 1:35 PM   in reply to Todd-Russell

    Todd-Russell wrote:

     

    The bottom-line is that for processor intensive or mission-critical applications Intel should be your first choice.

    Sounds to me like you've been sipping that Intel kool-aid again . AMD makes reliable processors - whether they outperform Intel or not depends on which model you buy .

     

    To be clear: for Lightroom - AMD rocks! (but buy Intel if you want - I have no stock in AMD either).

     

    ,

    ~R.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 22, 2013 3:34 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob, much like "embedded computing" applications LR can be very finicky about what platform it likes to run on. I never said AMD doesn't make reliable or high-performance processors. All I'm saying is that Intel has much deeper Development & Testing pockets than AMD, which translates that there may be less issues with Intel processors. Intel also has a larger market share, which means software developers will most likely focus testing efforts on Intel platforms. In addition Apple only uses Intel processors.

     

    I'm all for recommending any platform (MB + Processor) that someone is currently running LR on with good performance. Unfortunately this kind of information becomes dated very quickly, since manufacturers roll-out new MB and processor models about every 6-months. Lacking specific end-user testing information I'm much more inclined to recommend Intel over AMD.

     

    BTW - I've been in system design engineering for 45-years and worked directly with both AMD's and Intel's Engineering teams on numerous projects since 1970.

     

    Peace Brother

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 22, 2013 4:24 PM   in reply to Todd-Russell

    Fair enough Todd - I was partly playing for sport . But also I've had very good experience with AMD, as have millions of other users, developers, ...

     

    PS - There have been tons of performance issues on Intel-based Macs too, and I doubt it's true that Windows users with AMD processors have a significantly higher degree of problems (running Lightroom) than Windows users with Intel processors (considering relative number of users and everything), although I don't know that for a fact..

     

    FWIW, a few years back, I installed Aperture 3 on a virgin Mac mini and it performed like hell (several seconds to minutes to make adjustments...). All Apple/Intel-based hardware, all Apple software, lean and mean - go figure: computers are finnicky - not just Lightroom... - all other apps including Lightroom (v3, installed afterward for comparison) worked fine. To be fair, it only had 2GB of ram, which was the minimum sys-req, still... (the raw files were "only" 12MP, not 18, not 24...).

     

    PS - I also doubt any of the info on these forums about it comes from any real study worth salt - most of us, including you, myself, Adobe-chosen MVP's, and even Adobe employees themselves, if any have ventured to comment (they have their biases too), are just wetting our fingers and sticking them in the air, so to speak... - no disrespect - I understand you have vast experience under your belt, and I get that Intel is the biggest and (arguably) the best chip maker of all time, so hard not to recommend...

     

    It's all good ,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 23, 2013 7:51 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Regardless whether AMD or Intel there's no question that processors with more than four cores do not produce the expected performance increase with LR. Until Adobe corrects this issue the best recommendation  is to use the highest performance  quad-core processor you can afford.

     

    I'm not saying some users aren't getting good performance with six and eight core processors, but they probably aren't getting the expected performance increase with LR based on a metrics like the PassMark score. Based on the posts with performance issues here in the LR forum it's a crap-shoot using anything beyond four-cores as the OP discovered.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 23, 2013 3:58 PM   in reply to Todd-Russell

    Todd,

     

    Todd-Russell wrote:

     

    ... use the highest performance quad-core processor you can afford.

    It wouldn't surprise me if this is true (with same money spent, higher performance 4-core will outperform lower performance 8-core - Lr performance I mean), but I don't know that it is - I'd be interested in links to more (definitive) info if you can provide. Note: I'm more interested in tests than theory, although theory is good too if it comes from somebody who really knows what they're talking about. (there's a lot of armchair speculation on the internet ).

     

    Todd-Russell wrote:

     

    ... as the OP discovered.

    To be clear: OP's original problem was due to a system peculiarity - he was not getting anywhere near the performance he should have from that 8-core CPU. Had he purchased another 8-core which performed properly, he may have discovered the same thing: when Lr not running smoothly, it runs poorly... - I mean, you could be right about the perf/core-count thing - I'm not saying you aren't, I'm just saying I don't know.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points