# Speed Issues - Lightroom Hardware Mac



## DaveV (Apr 21, 2008)

I have previously posted some questions regarding to speed, but I need some more in depth answers. Heres the thing.

I now know that LR does not use the Graphics Accelerator Card that much, but CS3 does. When having both open, will the extra Graphic Memory say from 128mb - 256mb or even 512mb make a major difference in performance?

Also where  would be the best place to keep my catalog and where is the best spot to keep the files I work with. I have a 3rd generation MBP 2.16ghzC2D with 2GB of ram and I have a Lacie FireWire  8'' 25'gb external drive. Would it be better to keep my files on the Lacie and the catalog on the main drive ?

Also would an upgrade from 2gb - 3gb ram make a major difference?

And lastly, I'm buying a second Macbook for my assistent and I'm between a normal Macbook running at 2.4ghz with 4gb of Ram or the MBPro 2.4ghz with 4gb of ram and the 256mb graphic card. If the Graphics card is not going to speed things up why would I buy the MBPro? The only reason I can see is the Firewire 8''. Anything else anyone knows about? This specifically relates to using CS3 and LR together.

Any insight would be highly appreciated.

Regards

Dawie


----------



## Brad Snyder (Apr 22, 2008)

I'm from a Windows background, so take what I say with a grain of salt, while we're waiting for some of the Mac gurus to show up. 

In other forums where I participate, I've seen Mac based photo pros say that their maximum performance comes from dual Firewire 8'' drives with the catalog (database and preview cache) on one drive and the source files on the other drive. They don't specifically speak to LR/PS performance, but I know that PS is frequently part of their workflow. (At least prior to LR2).

Can't comment on Video card memory. As you said, I don't think it does anything for LR, don't know about the LR/PS combination. (Speaking speculatively and absolutely lacking empirical evidence, graphics cards are principally about motion and 3D, I can't see it helping much. But as I say, I'm just thinking out loud, don't actually know.)

Victoria has a killer Mac rig, I'm sure she'll have some cogent input, when the sun comes up in her time zone.


----------



## DaveV (Apr 24, 2008)

*Speed Issues*

I posted this thread in the wrong area. Hope you guys might be able to help...

I now know that LR does not use the Graphics Accelerator Card that much, but CS3 does. When having both open, will the extra Graphic Memory say from 128mb - 256mb or even 512mb make a major difference in performance?

Also where  would be the best place to keep my catalog and where is the best spot to keep the files I work with. I have a 3rd generation MBP 2.16ghzC2D with 2GB of ram and I have a Lacie FireWire  8'' 25'gb external drive. Would it be better to keep my files on the Lacie and the catalog on the main drive ?

Also would an upgrade from 2gb - 3gb ram make a major difference?

And lastly, I'm buying a second Macbook for my assistent and I'm between a normal Macbook running at 2.4ghz with 4gb of Ram or the MBPro 2.4ghz with 4gb of ram and the 256mb graphic card. If the Graphics card is not going to speed things up why would I buy the MBPro? The only reason I can see is the Firewire 8''. Anything else anyone knows about? This specifically relates to using CS3 and LR together.

Any insight would be highly appreciated.

Regards

Dawie


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Apr 24, 2008)

I found it worked best to keep my catalogs on the internal drive, and files on the FW external.  Files on the internal is possibly better still, but I ran out of HD space!

Keep an eye on Activity Monitor while you're using Lightroom and see how much of that RAM you're using - I certainly would have put 3gb in my MBP to run Lightroom, except the early ones had a 2gb max.

The MacBook vs. MacBook Pro debate - well, I like the shiny silver.....   Isn't there a difference in number of USB ports, external monitor hookup and so forth as well?  I've never looked carefully at the MB range so I'm not entirely sure on that one.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Apr 24, 2008)

Threads merged.


----------



## JohnnyV (Apr 25, 2008)

Read this OWC newsletter about the MacBook Pro performace: 

http://www.macsales.com/newsletter/'3-31-2''8OWCTipsnDeals.html 

Here's a few clips..

Regarding video ram:

"First, the entry level Macbook Pro 15" remains $1999 and is now equipped with a 2.4GHz Processor (was 2.2GHz), 2''GB Hard Drive (was 12'GB), and Superdrive. The video remains Nvidia 86''M GT, but is now with 256MB vs. the prior model's 128MB. Although you don't need the additional VRAM to support the built in or built in + even a 3'" display, the additional VRAM does improve the performance of the video processor. In addition to just raw display, the video processor also gets used for 3D rendering, rotations, etc - since Apple OS X 1'.4.x, Core Video acceleration actually utilizes the the video processor to perform/share task load that used to be done by only the processor. You get benefit for not just games, but also for the heavy lifting in Photoshop and other applications too." 

Processor speed: 

"The best (speed) spread is with our Photoshop CS3 process test, where 4.'GB installed memory configs still show where the faster 2.6GHz processor does shine bright beating the 2.4GHz version by a solid 13%. Now, in this spread test, I'd expect part of the gain comes also from the larger L2 Cache and the higher amount of VRAM the 2.6GHz model has compared to the 2.4GHz, in addition to processor speeds... As the 2.5GHz shares same amount of L2 and VRAM, it's going to be interesting to see just how much difference there really is with just raw processor speed being the difference. One thing for sure, spending $9' to go to 4.GB of memory is a slam dunk performance booster bargain for any Core 2 Duo Mac." 

The end...



I've found that having the image files on an external drive and the LR catalog in the main drive LR runs faster for sure. My next purchase will be a MacBook Pro ( I too was debating about getting just a MacBook) Reasons for the MacBook Pro...larger screen than the regular MacBook, 8'' Firewire, non-glossy screen, Multi-Touch, ExpressCard/34 slot for external eSata hard-drive support (faster than Firewire 8'')...and other reasons that I'm forgetting as the night drags on...

Best,

John V.


----------



## salsapartyanimal (Dec 4, 2021)

I use iMac 5K (Late 2014 model) with 32gb memory and use SSD for external hard drive. I want to speed up photo editing. I heard about external graphics accelerator, but don't know if it is worth it and I don't want to spend too much on this.  

I have a new camera coming soon and it will have much higher resolution. I would like to buy new iMac with M1 Max and bigger screen than 27 but it is not available to buy yet.


----------



## clee01l (Dec 5, 2021)

salsapartyanimal said:


> I use iMac 5K (Late 2014 model) with 32gb memory and use SSD for external hard drive. I want to speed up photo editing. I heard about external graphics accelerator, but don't know if it is worth it and I don't want to spend too much on this.
> 
> I have a new camera coming soon and it will have much higher resolution. I would like to buy new iMac with M1 Max and bigger screen than 27 but it is not available to buy yet.



Not all apps can use an eGPU. I would make sure that LrC can use an eGPU before making that purchase. 

FWIW, I see the 24” M1 iMac a replacement for both the 21” & 27”. Rumors of a larger screen iMac are just that, rumors. 
I have the 24” M1 iMac and a 48mp Nikon, no special GPU. I am quite happy with the LrC performance. I was also happy with my 36GB RAM 2017 iMac performance. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Conrad Chavez (Dec 5, 2021)

Until last month I was using an eGPU with Lightroom Classic, through my 13" Intel MacBook Pro, because that Mac only has weak integrated graphics. I stopped using it because I got an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.

Having a discrete GPU in an eGPU enclosure actually works great, significantly boosting the Develop module. But nothing else, because the Develop module is the only place Lightroom Classic uses a GPU. I am not sure if would have been worth it if it was just for Lightroom Classic, but I also got it to accelerate Photoshop and video rendering in Adobe Premiere Pro and Adobe After Effects, so it helped pay for itself that way too. How much you can actually take advantage of the eGPU is an important part of the equation, especially if you say…



salsapartyanimal said:


> … I don't want to spend too much on this.



Because the economics have changed since I did it. A lot.

The eGPU enclosure could be $250–400. A 2-meter Thunderbolt cable can be $50 and up. Now we get to the graphics card. I went budget on a Radeon RX 580 card that brought me “good enough” benefits and cost $180…in 2018. That was before the big graphics card shortage, partly driven by cryptocurrency mining, which drove up prices. That was compounded later by the coronavirus supply chain crunch, which is keeping those GPU prices sky high. Today, that graphics card I bought, which is out of date, goes for $600 or more; current cards are $1000 and up.

So that is the equation now. Because of today’s exorbitant GPU prices, assuming the graphics card you want is actually in stock, the total cost of a new eGPU today will easily exceed $1000 and possibly end up being $1500–2000 (as much as a new Mac), so that is the question you have to ask yourself: Do you think an eGPU would actually add between $1000–2000 of value to performance to your work in Lightroom Classic, knowing that it only helps the Develop module?

I would not buy an eGPU today. Especially because Apple does not support them in Apple Silicon Macs.



salsapartyanimal said:


> I would like to buy new iMac with M1 Max and bigger screen than 27 but it is not available to buy yet.



That will be the right solution now: get an Apple Silicon Mac. They come with powerful graphics on board. And the unified memory does change things. The graphics card in my eGPU has 8GB graphics memory, which is decent. But fixed and limited to that 8GB. With unified memory, if you get an M1 Pro/Max with 32GB unified memory and Lightroom just needs 16GB at the moment, the rest of your free memory (16GB minus what macOS needs) can potentially be graphics memory. And, you can get an M1 Mac sooner than you can get some graphics cards.

I have found an eGPU to have some other inconveniences. For example macOS is picky about how you disconnect it, and it doesn’t always do it cleanly. Also, it seems like some companies don’t test on eGPUs much, because in some applications I sometimes see graphics issues that happen only on the eGPU. Although Lightroom Classic was pretty good with it.

If you really want to try an eGPU for your current Intel Mac, the only low-cost way to do it would be to find someone selling their used one, because the price of putting together a new one is just too difficult to justify given the limited benefits in Lightroom Classic.

Apple said their transition to Apple Silicon would take two years. They are about halfway there, so the iMac you want should be released some time in 2022…


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Dec 5, 2021)

Please note that eGPU is not (yet) supported on M1 hardware.


----------

