Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test

slrlounge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test

#51

Post by tracker1 »

musesum wrote: post #38

Final Thoughts > "... Apple is simply adding new products and updating product lines often times without much thought it seems. This can be seen in the horrid pen solution found in the iPad Pro where charging it requires you to have a spear sticking out of your iPad." The above seem like a non-sequitur, but seems apt. I switched from Windows to OSX in 2007 to work exclusively on iOS. In the past year: I abandoned Wat…

I bought my current rMBP in late 2014, and it may well be my last Apple product... I've mainly been a fan because of the ootb unix support, and the touchpad (that's a huge deal for me). The screens are nice too, but others have caught up, and I can't see detail that well anymore.

The SMB/CIFS change from samba is what caught me, that was kind of painful. I finally upgraded to El Capitan, and not sure I like it much better. For the most part, OSX is the one that stands out in terms of how I use my computer... Ubuntu and Windows are closer to each other (with bash) than OSX, and once windows has native Linux subsystem in general availability, I may wind up using it more.

Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test

#52

Post by tracker1 »

juandazapata wrote: post #29

I wonder what would be the test results if they used a 4k display in Windows as well. Moving those many pixels has an extra cost. Other than that, I find the review centered around their use case and well explained. Well done.

The video card in question should handle it without issue...

Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test

#54

Post by dbcooper »

p1esk wrote: post #43
dbcooper wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That $480 gaming motherboard does seem rather excessive too ...

If you want to have a stable system when overclocking 3GHz --> 4.5Ghz, it's a good choice.

Wow, you need to spend that much for decent voltage regulators?

Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test

#56

Post by HillaryBriss »

kylec wrote: post #44

Of course a purpose-built PC will outperform an iMac, dollar for dollar. That's not exactly news. The iMac also has a severe price-to-performance disadvantage here by including an expensive 5K panel, while the PC is tested with a much cheaper 2560x1440 monitor. However, the disappointing thing to me here is that you can't reach performance parity with the iMac by throwing more money at it. The iMac tested here is a c…

Yes!

The Skylake processor in the iMac is something the end user cannot overclock (without doing something extreme). And none of the Mac Pro cores are as fast. And Apple doesn't water cool their machines. They simply don't offer robust overclocking options to us. So, for a single-core, the 4.0 GHz Skylake in the iMac is the fastest thing Apple offers.

If there is an underlying, valid core criticism in this article, it's the same one everybody already knows about: Apple doesn't offer their end users a truly competitive array of system configurations. Instead, they force their users into carefully defined and limited product tiers, each one costing significantly more than the last.

Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test

#57

Post by vancan1ty »

danfinlay wrote: post #6

A 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.

You can definitely buy a 4k IPS monitor for less than $1000, the amount they spent on a monitor. Source:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&Is...

Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test

#58

Post by r-w »

Surprise, surprise. A custom-built, overclocked machine with more of its cost invested in its CPU was faster than one that wasn’t overclocked and is sold for looks and stability over raw performance. It’s not like the choice of almost all the components had absolutely no impact on the final result.

Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test

#59

Post by r-w »

soared wrote: post #22
danfinlay wrote: post #6

A 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.

Why would speed be silly? That is a business, who saves money with every speed increase. Also, the end of the article shows the next text is a Mac Pro. I thought commenting without reading was a reddit thing, not hn.

These kinds of posts attract the Reddit-ier crowd of commenters that already exists within HN, if you know what I mean. The title gave me that feeling; the article confirmed it; and the fact that there were enough comments to require scrolling, on an article about “Which computer is faster, Mac or PC???”, hit the nail on the head and sealed the coffin.

Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test

#60

Post by hhandoko »

stegosaurus wrote: post #12
OneOneOneOne wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sure. Are Xeon systems just super expensive, though? Is 8 cores the best you can do for 4K?

The CPU gets progressively expensive; and yes, more than 8 cores will probably blow the $4k budget. However, two things to note:

1) High-end i7 and Xeon with the same core count hover around the same price. However, Xeon are not made for overclocking whereas the i7 can be overclocked (easily).

2) The application they used for benchmarking relies on high CPU speed. Normally what you find is the more cores a CPU has, the lower their clock speed (I assume to keep it within the TDP).

Also, CPU is all but one price component in a Xeon system:

- The base motherboard would cost the same to a high-end consumer motherboard. If you're looking for dual-CPU motherboard it will cost almost twice as much.

- (Most) Xeon systems will require ECC RAM, which is more expensive than the regular RAM.

Post reply on HN