What 2016 MacBook Pro Will Run Lightroom Best?

[jhweld]

Hello everyone,

I bought the new 2016 MacBook Pro 13 inch baseline model without the touchbar, and with 8g of ram, 2.0GHz processor and 3.1GHz turbo boost. Unfortunately this configuration does not seem to do Lightroom justice as it is laggy and slow to make adjustments. So, I'll be returning my Mac in a couple of days in order to purchase a new Mac with better specs.

As I am a college student, I am on a budget. There are two upgrades that are within my price range, but I do not have the money for both.

Which upgrade would you recommend for a faster Lightroom experience?

• 2.4GHz Dual Core with 3.4GHz TurboBoost | + $300
• 16g Ram Upgrade | + $200

Which one would you choose? I'm not the most technical with computers, so I'm not quite sure of what to make of all of this.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

[dj_paige]

CPU speed makes a difference in a lot of Lightroom functions.

Memory amount, once you have 8GB of RAM, adding more doesn't make that much of a difference (yes it makes a small difference, but not as much as the CPU speed)

[phototocanvaspdx]

Thats interesting because Ive always read the opposite. That video needs cpu and Lightroom and photoshop need ram. I just got the 3.1ghz touchbar with 16gb but the battery life is bumming me out. Im contemplating returning it for the non touchbar, but don't want to pay for both upgrades. Was planning on going entry level until I saw this thread. I use the laptop for occasional edits, while most of my work is done on my iMac.

[dj_paige]

Once you have 8GB of memory, additional memory will not make much of a difference to Lightroom. Relatively speaking, a faster CPU will make much more of a difference to LR. Editing is a CPU intensive task, not a memory intensive task. Library module is usually a disk intensive task, not a memory intensive task.

I can't comment about Photoshop.

[phototocanvaspdx]

Thanks for the info. The thing that seems odd about this is I've seen videos of 12" MacBooks editing in Lightroom with next to no lag. I'm really surprised the 2016 2.0ghz is giving trouble.

[dj_paige]

jdecker1978 wrote:

Thanks for the info. The thing that seems odd about this is I've seen videos of 12" MacBooks editing in Lightroom with next to no lag. I'm really surprised the 2016 2.0ghz is giving trouble.

Perhaps you are doing more CPU intensive tasks on your photos than the video? Without details about what was being done in the video (detail about hardware and other factors), there's really no way to make such a comparison.

[phototocanvaspdx]

Just basic tasks. The video I watched is a guy just scrolling through pics on a 2016 MacBook. new 12" retina macbook running adobe lightroom insanely fast. - YouTube.

I decided to return the $2300 Touchbar MacBook Pro because the battery life wasn't great and the Touchbar while cool wasn't something I really needed. While they were still on sale I grabbed the entry level 2016 MacBook Pro. 2.0ghz, 8 gigs ram. I just loaded Lightroom on it and it works great. Theres a little lag scrolling in the develop mode, but theres lag in that mode on my 4 ghz iMac with 32 gb ram. No lag at all in editing.

[Conrad C]

This is a tough question. CPU is important for Lightroom, but RAM is also important on a 13" MacBook Pro because it has integrated graphics instead of a separate graphics chipset. When a Mac has integrated graphics, the memory for graphics comes from system RAM. If the programs you run are using up enough RAM that not a lot is left over for graphics, the ability for Lightroom to use graphics acceleration in the Develop module might be limited, causing delays in adjustments. (But you should also see if your current Mac is faster in Develop if you turn off graphics acceleration. In that case, the CPU speed might make more difference than graphics RAM.)

I would spring for the 16GB RAM. That would help ensure that after providing enough RAM for the applications that are running, the operating system can use the rest to try and allocate the maximum 1.5GB RAM to graphics. This is also important if you plan to keep the laptop for several years, because over time, the difference between 8GB and 16GB is probably going to have a bigger effect on performance and compatibility with future photo applications than the difference between 2 and 2.4GHz on the CPU.

[dj_paige]

Lightroom doesn't do the graphics acceleration with integrated graphics, so this is irrelevant.

If there is less than 8GB of memory for Lightroom to use because of the integrated graphics, this may (or may not) cause slowdowns, it depends on what the user is doing.

I'd still get the faster CPU

[Conrad C]

dj_paige wrote:

Lightroom doesn't do the graphics acceleration with integrated graphics

Are we sure about this? The reason I ask is that in the Lightroom GPU FAQ, under Suggested System Requirements and Graphics Cards, it lists "For Intel cards, Intel HD Graphics 4400+, 5000+, 510+, P530, Iris Pro Graphics 5200, 6100+, P6300, P580 or later are required." Intel HD and Iris Pro Graphics are integrated graphics.

I've been under the impression that the list above specifically applies to GPU acceleration, because they are listed in the GPU FAQ and not in the general system requirements for Lightroom, which only mention requiring an "OpenGL 3.3–capable video adapter for GPU-related functionality."

[phototocanvaspdx]

What did you end up going with? Were you editing smart previews or originals when it was laggy?