# Please help me choose my machine



## Alexander Fischer (Apr 30, 2016)

Hello!

I'm new to this forum, please kindly redirect me if this were the wrong place to ask.

Basically, I am about to buy myself a new machine to primarily run Lightroom on. It's for private purposes (with advanced desires though) only, and it needs to be portable. I'd love Lightroom to run fast, when browsing through collections, choosing/discarding images, and using the development module.

Until now, I have, more or less satisfyingly, used my employer's laptop. Windows 7, i5 CPU, 64 bit, 8GB RAM. For various reasons I will now take on me the hassle of carrying two computers (one work, one private), so the new machine needs to be small, yet perform well.

My primary choice is a Windows-based computer, looking at the Lenovo Thinkpad X1 Carbon. Benefits: I can re-use the charger of the business machine, and I know Windows well; finally I already have a Lightroom for Windows license.

As an alternative, of course the Mac world is always tempting.

Now my question to the forum: given that I am willing to spend a bunch of money, but would like to invest wisely, what is "worth it" in your opinion:

* Windows machine with i5 or i7 core (my current assumption: go for i7)
* 8 GB or 16 GB RAM (currently probably going for 16, but 8 may be just sufficient as well. Heck: is it worth it?)

Would there be any performance-related observations which might guide me towards a Mac, after all? However, I think that a Macbook Pro is already quite heavy (1.6 kg for the 13", whereas the Lenovo X1 features 14" at only 1.2kg), so would be most tempted by a Macbook Air or the new Macbook. But these again are light but not too well-performing, I assume...

Thank you for reading this far, and for inspiring my decision with any of your views.

Al


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Apr 30, 2016)

Alexander Fischer said:


> finally I already have a Lightroom for Windows license.



Your LR license is good for both Windows and Macs, so that, at least, won't be an issue.


----------



## tspear (Apr 30, 2016)

You will see a nice performance boost with 16GB over 8GB. But going beyond 16GB will not get much if anything in regards to Lr. Now if you use Photoshop, that is a memory hog.
If you get the same hardware; Mac and Windows are close enough in performance that you will not be able to tell.
I personally think that the stability has flipped between Mac and Windows; and my Windows is now more stable.

More important then the i5 vs i7 is getting an SSD for the catalog, OS and other core parts. Ideally the images should also be on SSD, but that gets pricey.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Apr 30, 2016)

tspear said:


> Ideally the images should also be on SSD, but that gets pricey.



Personally, I wouldn't waste money on an SSD just for images. You might get some small benefit when importing (though the speed of the import device/interface is likely more influential), but after import I doubt you'd see much benefit at all, if any.


----------



## clee01l (Apr 30, 2016)

A quad core machines  with a LR compatible GPU is essential for heavy duty processing and high mp images. I don't think an SSD is useful for image storage since most of the I/O takes place with the catalog and the Preview files.  A Fusion drive offers the best solution but it is not essential. 
I think a laptop makes an adequate LR machine for travel. However, it and the screens built into them fall short.  I would recommend my setup.  A desktop machine with a large screen (~27") two if possible for the master computer.  A small laptop for essential travel needing a LR travel catalog.

If you insist on a portable, you'll still need a separate large screen and probably an external disk drive.


----------



## tspear (Apr 30, 2016)

Jim Wilde said:


> Personally, I wouldn't waste money on an SSD just for images. You might get some small benefit when importing (though the speed of the import device/interface is likely more influential), but after import I doubt you'd see much benefit at all, if any.



I see a benefit. But that is more due to me deleting the preview cache on a regular basis; and I also have meta-data auto write enabled.
By accident, I found Lr to be more stable with a small preview cache when I am going to perform facial tagging for a couple hours or longer session. Not sure why. If I do not delete the cache before I start doing that kind of session tagging Lr crashes.


----------



## Dave Miller (May 1, 2016)

I believe Mac's are quieter than PC's, use less power and don't take up as much room, but that's just me. Oh! and they look much nicer.


----------



## Alexander Fischer (May 1, 2016)

Thank you all for your comments so far!
Basically you are supporting my view... Windows, i7, 16GB... most expensive solution, unfortunately


----------



## clee01l (May 1, 2016)

Alexander Fischer said:


> Thank you all for your comments so far!
> Basically you are supporting my view... Windows, i7, 16GB... most expensive solution, unfortunately


No, the most expensive solution would be a similarly equipped Mac. 

Some one pointed out that Macs are quieter. This is true, mostly because there are no noisy cooling fans.


----------



## PhilBurton (May 1, 2016)

Alexander Fischer said:


> Thank you all for your comments so far!
> Basically you are supporting my view... Windows, i7, 16GB... most expensive solution, unfortunately



Don't forget that you will need a "good" monitor, for either system.  For that, you would need to research panel types, in terms of color gamut, etc., and then size and build quality of course.

And a printer, if you are so inclined.

Phil


----------



## davidedric (May 2, 2016)

A high end machine performance comparison.

Lightroom Mac vs PC Speed Test | $4k iMac vs $4k Custom PC Performance Test

Whether it means very much, I don't know 

Dave


----------



## tspear (May 2, 2016)

Very interesting.


----------



## Jim Wilde (May 2, 2016)

A little bit depressing that they don't seem to understand the difference between Standard and Smart Previews (nor the difference between "fair" and "fare"!). Doesn't inspire confidence that they know what they're doing....


----------



## tspear (May 2, 2016)

Jim Wilde said:


> A little bit depressing that they don't seem to understand the difference between Standard and Smart Previews (nor the difference between "fair" and "fare"!). Doesn't inspire confidence that they know what they're doing....



Lol, I had to search on the fair/fare. That was changed before I read the article (it is down in the comments).
I also missed the smart previews; but I knew immediately what settings the author was using.
Overall, an interesting article I think.


----------



## Jim Wilde (May 2, 2016)

The point is....did he actually render Smart Previews (the settings of which the user cannot set/alter), or did he actually render Standard Previews? The latter would be a far more useful benchmark, not everybody uses Smart Previews.


----------



## Replytoken (May 2, 2016)

I would consider a quad core processor if you are willing to accept a larger laptop.  There are not many out there, but you should see a difference in performance if that is important to you.  Also, if you decide not to get 16GB of RAM on ordering, make sure that you can upgrade later if you wish.  The same goes for your storage.  A sealed laptop is a take it or leave it affair.  That may be fine, but know before you buy.  Also, you may want to consider a machine with the newest version of USB.  Ports are not easy to upgrade, and the new standard is quite fast, and is expected to be the new standard going forward.  Granted, that could change, but from the NAB reports that I have read, it sounds like the industry is accepting and adopting it.

Good luck,

--Ken


----------

