Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test
slrlounge.com
Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test
1–10 of 71 posts
Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test
#2I'm not a Apple fan, but I find most of these tests are counting seconds and then extrapolating that to actual work time, which I don't think actually maps as well as the author thinks.
The exception to this is 'smart previews' test which shows a 6.5 minute difference.
I've asked the creator of fileloupe (http://www.fileloupe.com/) if his app would improve the performance of this one test. I know nothing about photos, so I don't even know what this 'smart preview' thing is...
Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test
#3I'm not a Apple fan, but I find most of these tests are counting seconds and then extrapolating that to actual work time, which I don't think actually maps as well as the author thinks. The exception to this is 'smart previews' test which shows a 6.5 minute difference. I've asked the creator of fileloupe ( http://www.fileloupe.com/ ) if his app would improve the performance of this one test. I know nothing about phot…
Right. His mapping it 1-to-1 implies that most of the time is bound by computer tasks. So there would be almost no viewing/decision/input task time, just some rapid input, then walking away from the computer.
Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test
#4These comparisons are silly. Now imagine it's a BMW vs someone's project car both with the same $$$ invested.
Yeah, the project car will probably smoke it. But not everyone wants a project car.
Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test
#54000USD is a lot of money. That seems like an odd setup.
Not having ever wanted to buy a machine for that amount of cash, I'd expect to do better with multi-socket systems.
Anyone care to chime in? I struggled to spend over 1K GBP with my latest machine. (I think 'Extreme Edition' is basically like buying the S version of a car, mind). i7-5820K, 64GB ram.
One thing that does stick out is an odd monitor comparison. There's an expensive color repro "low" (in comparison) res monitor for the PC, against the standard iMac retina. Aren't there cheaper 4K monitors/TV's about?
Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test
#6A lot of that iMac's cost is its retina display, and you didn't bother buying a retina display for the PC. Running a speed test is silly, there are already major differences in the build.
To make this remotely more scientific, you'd either need to buy a 4k monitor for the PC, or use a Mac Pro and just take the monitor out of the equation.
Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test
#7These comparisons are silly. Now imagine it's a BMW vs someone's project car both with the same $$$ invested. Yeah, the project car will probably smoke it. But not everyone wants a project car.
They should be doing this test against a Mac Pro if they want a fair comparison. And yes, the Mac Pro would likely be more expensive, but I don't think it's a surprise to anyone that building your own overclocked PC is cheaper.
Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test
#8[deleted]
Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test
#94000USD is a lot of money. That seems like an odd setup. Not having ever wanted to buy a machine for that amount of cash, I'd expect to do better with multi-socket systems. Anyone care to chime in? I struggled to spend over 1K GBP with my latest machine. (I think 'Extreme Edition' is basically like buying the S version of a car, mind). i7-5820K, 64GB ram. One thing that does stick out is an odd monitor comparison. Th…
In their situation I think processing time is the bottleneck or at least a major factor. They probably see every penny back in productivity gains.
Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test
#10They could have saved some money on the iMacs by simply buying and installing the RAM themselves. If they opted for the 8GB Apple RAM they'd take $600 off the iMac price.
And the 1TB flash storage option they chose can also be questioned. I mean, 1TB of the iMac's internal flash storage is super expensive, but it's also WAY WAY faster than the Samsung 850 EVO in terms of read/write times. (Samsung 850 EVO has the SATA bottleneck.) My point is that if you know your process is constrained by CPU speed, don't put so much of your budget into fast storage. If they had opted for the 256 GB flash storage option in the iMac they'd take $700 off the price.
OTOH, I don't see a way around the inability to overclock the iMac's cpu. Stuck with 4.0 GHz (or 4.2 in Turbo boost).