# PC vs Mac



## Kath M (Jul 9, 2022)

Greetings. This is my first post to the forum, even though I've been around for years.
I've used Macs since my little SE with the talking moose in 1988, until now.
I love my old MacPro; it's got a lot of power. But High Sierra is the last OS it will run, so the Creative Cloud apps can't be updated.
I helped a small, low-budget newspaper production team switch from Mac to PC a few years ago. 
Macs are nice, *but not by a magnitude of 4 or 5 times*.
I am going to have to go to the Dark Side. I have two Macs and lots of software, and I don't look forward to the changeover.
Thanks for listening to my whine. 
I'm looking for recommendations on PCs. Beefy, overbuilt, and sleek, like my Mac.
Anyone?
Best,
KathM


----------



## Replytoken (Jul 9, 2022)

Kath M said:


> Greetings. This is my first post to the forum, even though I've been around for years.
> I've used Macs since my little SE with the talking moose in 1988, until now.
> I love my old MacPro; it's got a lot of power. But High Sierra is the last OS it will run, so the Creative Cloud apps can't be updated.
> I helped a small, low-budget newspaper production team switch from Mac to PC a few years ago.
> ...


What is your budget, and do you need a monitor as well?  Generally, 32GB of RAM is recommended, with some installing more (64GB) and some less (16GB).  I would recommend a current multi-core CPU, like a 12th generation i7 as a base level for a processor.  Get an SSD for your primary drive and pick a size you can afford.  GPU is up to you, but is generally recommended, especially if you plan on doing any reasonable amount of video.  You can buy up or down depending on budget and needs, but these specs. would get you something that would give you decent performance for a few years.

Good luck,

--Ken


----------



## LRList001 (Jul 9, 2022)

Replytoken said:


> What is your budget, and do you need a monitor as well?  Generally, 32GB of RAM is recommended, with some installing more (64GB) and some less (16GB).  I would recommend a current multi-core CPU, like a 12th generation i7 as a base level for a processor.  Get an SSD for your primary drive and pick a size you can afford.  GPU is up to you, but is generally recommended, especially if you plan on doing any reasonable amount of video.  You can buy up or down depending on budget and needs, but these specs. would get you something that would give you decent performance for a few years.
> 
> Good luck,
> 
> --Ken



I'm sure the different use profiles of different users matters.  For me, the choice of cpu is becoming a lesser matter compared to RAM and the GPU fitted (ie, lots of cores do not result in better performance compared to a good GPU).  I'm running the old legacy LR 6.14 and even that old version does much of its heavy lift on the GPU.  I have fitted a modern (released in last 12 months) mid to high performance GPU (it cost around £400 IIRC) and that trounces the CPU in terms of performance.  What this amounts to is depending on your budget, you want a fast (and decent sized) SSD system disk, 32GB of RAM is becoming standard (by all means fit 64GB but LR won't use it, however you can do more other 'stuff' in parallel with more memory), a big spinny HDD (for keeping your image files on), though if the budget will stretch to it, big SSDs are now becoming 'affordable', then fast external communications - ie fast USB ports to connect an external drive for backup purposes (unless you can use a fast network), a fast card reader.  Something like that.  I like the extra features of Windows Pro too.

I don't do video at all.  The GPU still blasts through exports.  It is quick compared the the highly over-clocked, heavily cooled CPU I have (4.6GHz).

My thoughts; all the best with your decision.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jul 9, 2022)

tineketover said:


> Reply to Johan Elzenga


I’m not sure why you felt it was necessary to duplicate your message in this totally unrelated thread, so I’ll ignore it.


----------



## Replytoken (Jul 9, 2022)

LRList001 said:


> I'm sure the different use profiles of different users matters.  For me, the choice of cpu is becoming a lesser matter compared to RAM and the GPU fitted (ie, lots of cores do not result in better performance compared to a good GPU).  I'm running the old legacy LR 6.14 and even that old version does much of its heavy lift on the GPU.  I have fitted a modern (released in last 12 months) mid to high performance GPU (it cost around £400 IIRC) and that trounces the CPU in terms of performance.  What this amounts to is depending on your budget, you want a fast (and decent sized) SSD system disk, 32GB of RAM is becoming standard (by all means fit 64GB but LR won't use it, however you can do more other 'stuff' in parallel with more memory), a big spinny HDD (for keeping your image files on), though if the budget will stretch to it, big SSDs are now becoming 'affordable', then fast external communications - ie fast USB ports to connect an external drive for backup purposes (unless you can use a fast network), a fast card reader.  Something like that.  I like the extra features of Windows Pro too.
> 
> I don't do video at all.  The GPU still blasts through exports.  It is quick compared the the highly over-clocked, heavily cooled CPU I have (4.6GHz).
> 
> My thoughts; all the best with your decision.


I am a bit surprised that your GPU has made such a difference in performance,  but am happy that you have found it to be worthwhile.  For those that want to dig a bit deeper into components, this is a useful article to read:  https://www.pugetsystems.com/recomm...ightroom-Classic-141/Hardware-Recommendations .

--Ken


----------



## Conrad Chavez (Jul 10, 2022)

Kath M said:


> I've used Macs since my little SE with the talking moose in 1988, until now.
> I love my old MacPro; it's got a lot of power. But High Sierra is the last OS it will run, so the Creative Cloud apps can't be updated.
> I helped a small, low-budget newspaper production team switch from Mac to PC a few years ago.
> Macs are nice, *but not by a magnitude of 4 or 5 times*.
> I am going to have to go to the Dark Side. I have two Macs and lots of software, and I don't look forward to the changeover.


You may not need this answer, so if not, you can ignore it. But isn’t clear where “4 or 5 times” in bold comes from, especially after Apple Silicon Macs have come out with some of the best price/performnace ratios Macs have ever seen.

A $1099 Mac mini would run Lightroom Classic competently, and the base Mac Studio should do it very well at $1999. At that base price the Mac Studio already has 32GB unified memory and a beefy 10-core CPU and powerful GPU; if you don’t need to upgrade unified memory or internal storage, then there Is not a penny more to spend on that model. Any new desktop Mac should perform significantly faster than what you are using now.

The big old towers of the past just aren’t as necessary any more. If the “4 or 5 times” figure comes from looking at the price of the current Mac Pro tower, that model is way over the top for photography and graphic design; it was designed for much more intensive workloads like video editing/effects and 3D. I wouldn’t buy a Mac Pro today for primarily Lightroom Classic.

Adjusted for inflation, that Mac SE you mentioned (the first Mac I used for daily work) would cost roughly $7700 in today’s dollars.
A $2499 Mac Pro bought in 2010 would cost about $3349 in today’s dollars.
So when adjusted for inflation, today’s Macs are much better deals than what you have used before.

If you’re definitely switching to Windows, nothing wrong with that; Lightroom Classic works well on those too of course. But saving money won’t necessarily be the reason, because the Lightroom Classic PC configurations recommended at Puget Systems are not really cheaper than your Mac options today.


----------



## Replytoken (Jul 10, 2022)

Conrad Chavez said:


> If you’re definitely switching to Windows, nothing wrong with that; Lightroom Classic works well on those too of course. But saving money won’t necessarily be the reason, because the Lightroom Classic PC configurations recommended at Puget Systems are not really cheaper than your Mac options today.


Setting aside the whole Windows/Mac issue, I find it interesting the various levels of quality and options that are available when you buy a Windows machine from a custom house like Puget Systems vs. a mass produced model from a big box store.  Puget Systems is definitely near the top of the scale and I know they have a number of happy customers, so they are at providing product for their pricing.  But I suspect there are other price points on the scale that offer decent value for less money, perhaps at the expense of options to expand or upgrade.  But in either event, I concur that Apple has offered a lot more power to cost with their new M chips.

--Ken


----------



## tspear (Jul 10, 2022)

Kath M said:


> Greetings. This is my first post to the forum, even though I've been around for years.
> I've used Macs since my little SE with the talking moose in 1988, until now.
> I love my old MacPro; it's got a lot of power. But High Sierra is the last OS it will run, so the Creative Cloud apps can't be updated.
> I helped a small, low-budget newspaper production team switch from Mac to PC a few years ago.
> ...



If you want slick. Get a Microsoft Surface, pretty much any of them. In the Windows world, I have not seen anyone come close to matching them on the packaged solution. Most of my extended family has Windows Surface machines. I am cheaper, and do not mind the extra pounds (does not compare to the ones around my waist); so I end up usually with Dell Latitudes for laptops and custom desktop built by my step-son (he likes building computers as a hobby).  Dell is not as clean/slick; and the Latitude is not as tricked out as many other models. but you get a beefy version, it will last a good five years without a problem.

With all that said, latest versions of Lr are making more and more use of the GPU. I am more likely to move away from a "business" laptop like the Latitude and get one designed for graphics.

Tim


----------



## clee01l (Jul 11, 2022)

tspear said:


> If you want slick. Get a Microsoft Surface, pretty much any of them.


I'd second that endorsement.  
The biggest problem with Windows machines is that there are so many permutations of hardware components.  Because of that, keeping a PC running smoothly requires lots of "under the hood" knowledge.   Unless you are a hardware expert and like spending lots of time tuning the performance of the machine, PC's are a PIA to maintain.   I worked exclusively within the Microsoft environment for over 20 years until 2008 when I retired from a full-time IT career.  In that time I never resorted to the cheat to wipe the HD and reinstall OS and everything else.  When I retired I no longer need windows centric application development apps  And since All I required  was a browser, Email, a word processor and Lightroom,  It was an easy switch to the Mac.  An advantage I found with the Mac was that the office suite was free and all OS upgrades were free. 
The reason the Macs are the least 'buggy" is because IMO Apple controls the Hardware and the Software components to their machines.   In the Microsoft world there are many, many hardware manufacturers each developing drivers unique to talk to the OS and many  not well tested and perhaps just as many that don't play well with other hardware manufacturers components.  
I think  Microsoft took a page from Apple when they developed their own Surface Line of computers.   For the first time they were able to control the components that went into the hardware that comprised the PC.   The Microsoft Surface products are about the same price as their Mac equivalent.   So, if you must switch away from the MacOS, you won't go wrong with a PC from the Surface line. 

A new consideration in the PC/Mac battle is Apple's introduction of the M1 chipset to replace the Intel chips.  The new models are fast and run more efficiently with less RAM than their intel equivalents.   I'm guessing that Intel and AMD must be hard at work developing a different chipset that can compete with the M1 on the PC.


----------



## michaelp (Jul 19, 2022)

It's real shame you are shifting to Windows just after Apple has introduced the stunning M series high efficiency processors.
I have always found the HP desktops built for business to be rock solid reliable. I am a Mac user but I also use Windows PCs and have been impressed by HP's EliteDesk mini desktops that are slightly small than a Mac mini.  Here's the latest 9th generation version. Maybe a top spec one would be an elegant solution for you? 
https://www.hp.com/au-en/shop/desktops/hp-elite-mini-800-g9-desktop-pc-6d757pa.html


----------



## Conrad Chavez (Jul 19, 2022)

michaelp said:


> It's real shame you are shifting to Windows just after Apple has introduced the stunning M series high efficiency processors.





clee01l said:


> A new consideration in the PC/Mac battle is Apple's introduction of the M1 chipset to replace the Intel chips.  The new models are fast and run more efficiently with less RAM than their intel equivalents.   I'm guessing that Intel and AMD must be hard at work developing a different chipset that can compete with the M1 on the PC.


Yes, Intel and AMD are already on it. Traditionally, all cores on a CPU were the same. Apple Silicon deviated from that by splitting the CPU into “performance cores” and “efficiency cores” optimized for low power use. That’s one reason Apple Silicon achieves higher performance per watt than Intel, for cooler, quieter operation and longer battery life.

Intel decided that was a great idea, and adopted the same performance/efficiency split in their new 12th generation Intel Core design called “Alder Lake” which is now available. (Puget Systems specifies one for their recommended Lightroom Classic build.) It  uses performance and efficiency cores too. Other aspects of these redesigned chips have eroded a lot of the initial Apple Silicon performance advantage. From what I am reading, for those interested in raw power, some of these 12th gen Intel chips do beat comparable Apple Silicon chips at maximum performance. Intel achieves that through higher clock speeds, but that results in higher costs in terms of power consumption (battery life) and heat (cooling fan noise), compared to the M1/M2 Mac portables.

The original post is more about desktops, where the penalties for high power consumption and cooling requirements are less of a consideration, so a 12th gen Intel Core CPU (or AMD equivalent) and a powerful graphics card should be a great Lightroom Classic desktop. The current desktop comparison the original poster should do is Lightroom Classic performance on the new Mac Studio desktop vs whatever Intel 12th gen PC tower they want to try. Then they can decide whether it’s worth dumping all their existing Mac software for what might or might not be an actual improvement.


----------



## raniokoye (Aug 3, 2022)

Go for the maximum that your budget will allow. I'm an AMD owner myself, so I'd recommend an AMD system, as they tend to be more cost effective than Intel (despite not always being the most powerful option). 16MB is standard for Windows 10/11 operating systems, but I'd recommend 32GB. An SSD as standard, preferably an M.2 and a decent GPU, possibly a RTX3060, you don't want to go with an integrated solution, as they oftentimes share RAM for VRAM.


----------



## PhilBurton (Aug 5, 2022)

raniokoye said:


> Go for the maximum that your budget will allow. I'm an AMD owner myself, so I'd recommend an AMD system, as they tend to be more cost effective than Intel (despite not always being the most powerful option). 16MB is standard for Windows 10/11 operating systems, but I'd recommend 32GB. An SSD as standard, preferably an M.2 and a decent GPU, possibly a RTX3060, you don't want to go with an integrated solution, as they oftentimes share RAM for VRAM.


+1

And be sure to get either an Intel or AMD system with PCIE-*4* and USB 3.2 support.  Thunderbolt support would be a nice extra.


----------

