in warm weather, the fans go off almost immediately and after 20 min, it can be intolerable. Really the only times it'll matter is when doing maxed out stuff like exporting a ton of raw files from lightroom, and at that point you're looking at something taking 3:41 to export vs 3:59. If you are hitting peak CPU utilization, that is actually good from a performance perspective, but I totally understand how it can cause issue with multitasking. Between the Intel 10th Gen and AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen CPUs, most users are likely going to want an AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen processor due to their significantly better performance in tasks like exporting. On the architecture level, a 8700k core is exactly the same as a 9700k core (edit: with the exception of hyperthreading), so there is no objective reason why the 9700k should be 400mhz faster out of the box. And when you overclock the Core i9, it outputs 21,204, which is a 16.8 percent increase over the Core i7. It's definitely not the 32 vs 64 GB, since my export time before the RAM upgrade was consistently about 4:45 with my 4 x 8 = 32GB setup (4x8Gb Adata XPG Z1 2800 C17). Might be a problem with the latest Lightroom Classic version. Intel Core i7-9700K 3.6GHz / 4.9GHz Turbo, Eight Core –> 132% Intel Core i9-9900K 3.6GHz / 5.0GHz Turbo, Eight Core –> 135% Adobe Creative Cloud Photography Plan Any less, like 6 cores (12 threads) or 4 cores (8 threads) yields slower results. XMP profiles don't always properly set from what I've experienced. Also during export 5 cores loaded fully, 6th apr. In real world use, the 8700k can be clocked 100-200mhz faster for the same temperatures, so a fair comparison might be a 8700k @ 5.0ghz and a 9700k/9900k @ 4.8ghz. If there is a specific task that is a hindrance to your workflow, examining the raw results for that task is going to be much more applicable than the scores that our benchmark calculated. We just already had a bunch of results already on Z370 before that board came in so we stuck with it rather than having to re-run a bunch of testing. Then after the RAM upgrade it slowed down to about 6:45 with the 2 x 16 = 32GB setup (2x16Gb T-Force Vulcan Z 3200 C16). with 2 or 4 memory sticks. https://www.newegg.com/Prod... : The 8086k is the exact same chip as the 8700k, so I would not buy it unless it is the same price or cheaper than the 8700k. To thoroughly test each processor, we will be using two sets of images: one set of 22MP.CR2 RAW images taken on a Canon EOS 5D Mark III and a set of 45MB .NEF RAW images taken on a Nikon D850. Both brands worked and work properly at the correct D.O.C.P. I even temporarily reinstalled 2 sticks of the old RAM (not 4 sticks because I had managed to damage one stick during a heatsink removal). Or the Adobe update screwed up something (sometimes they're 2 steps froward, 1 step back)? If Intel hadn't decided to launch the even faster Core i9 9900K, this would have been the fastest CPU we have ever tested for Photoshop. It’s i3 vs i5 vs i7 vs i9! I'm an event photographer and I'm primarily interested in the fastest export time within sensible price range of course. Lightroom CC disgustingly slow - old issue, NEED ANSWERS. Feel free to skip to the next section for our analysis of these results. Dropping in another 2 to fill all 4 slots made a huge difference, and reduced the times roughly back to the old, pre-upgrade 4-stick setup (actually a few seconds faster due to the faster RAM speed I guess). Any thoughts on whether the 2.3 ghz 9th generation i9 8 core processors will be worth the extra money over the 2.6 ghz 9th gen i7 6 core processors? By reading on this sub about undervolting I thought I'd give it a try and oh my, what a difference it makes! The graphs below compare the most important i9-9900K and Intel i7-8700 features. I'd recommend going for an 8th gen i3 or i5 paired with a dedicated graphics card and 16gb of ram. Lightroom and Photoshop are the only things that I do that really tax my old PC, but it is sadly dying from old age and needs replaced. Lightroom: Slow performance on Xeon CPUs | Photoshop Family Customer Community . Passant à des tests réels, nous n'avons constaté aucune différence dans Lightroom d'Adobe. When running an export (or "Save Images" in ACR) with all 16 cores working (default scenario), the 3950x just doesn't seem to work hard enough. These are the four tiers of Intel’s main “Core” processors and are targeted at most desktop PC users, especially builders. 4-core CPUs are becoming hard to find (but not yet impossible), and I would certainly like to upgrade my computer to take advantage of the i9 or Ryzen power in all my applications, not just LR. And I've just tested the same batch now with SMT OFF. This is likely to be what the majority of readers are going to be interested in, so we decided to pull these results out from the full slew of results that are in the next section. That said, I would expect your system to export the same images/settings we used in somewhere around 70-80 seconds. I did try two earlier versions of ACR (12.1 and 11.4), one earlier version of Photoshop (which was utilizing the aforementioned earlier versions of ACR for the roll-back test), still the same slow speed. Have you watched memory usage during the benchmark at all? Are these 24 files we can see on the LR screenshot? However, unlike Photoshop, there is probably no reason to upgrade if you already have an 8700K since you are unlikely to notice a difference unless you are actively benchmarking Lightroom. System:Ryzen 3950x CPUAsus x570 TUF Gaming Plus motherboardNoctua NH-D15 cooler,Adata XPG8200 pro 512GB NVMEHP EX950 1 TB NVMERAM: initially 4x8Gb ADATA XPG Z1 2800 (CL17) then replaced with 2x16Gb Teamgroup Vulcan Z 3200 CL16 2 days ago (due to the lower physical profile for a better cooler fit). You might also try setting the RAM timings/frequency/voltage manually if you aren't already. For most users, this makes the AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen processors a much better overall choice for a Lightroom Classic workstation. The scores shown in the chart above are relative to the best possible performance for each task with a Core i7 8700K CPU and a NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti 8GB GPU. Wow, 3:30. Interesting, Jayz2cents had much better results oc'ing the 9900K compared to the 8700K: https://youtu.be/9yQRmbe2QPU. the image yielded the same times (between 5 to 7 seconds for the various tasks I threw at it. (roughly 6:50 vs 4:20).I thought this issue was largely remedied in the 2020 Lightroom but maybe the problem got worse again with the latest update.Anyway, I might have to use SMT off if and when I do a lot of work in Camera Raw (I hardly ever use Lightroom, I work in Camera Raw, opened via Photoshop normally. On average, the Core i7 9700K is about 4% faster that the Core i7 8700K in Lightroom Classic. Listed below are the specifications of the systems we will be using for our testing: AMD Ryzen 9 3950X ($749) I'm looking to upgrade my system and am looking at the i7-8700K, i7-9700K, or i7-8086K. This is nowhere near some of the top of the line graphics cards that we had discussed here. Overall, this will likely make the AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen processors a more attractive option for most Lightroom Classic users, although if exporting is not at all a problem in your workflow, the Intel 10th Gen processors can be a great choice as well. The TIM is definitely better on the 9th gen, but the thicker silicon with the extra two cores result in overall worse performance. That may take the fun out of things for some people who enjoy overclocking, but the best case situation to me is one in which everyone can get the maximum performance without having to fiddle with motherboard settings :). Why is the i9 9900k slower at creating previews than the 9700k? Benchmark Analysis: Intel Core 10th Gen vs AMD Ryzen 3rd Gen. How does Intel 10th Gen stack up overall? They certainly compare favorably against the more expensive i7 7820X, but if exporting is a major consideration at this price point than you may be better off with the AMD Threadripper 1920X. HOWEVER, to complicate things more, there was also an Adobe update right after I installed the new RAM. That is why we keep it on for our testing - most people will likely be willing to take the hit in export times in order to make the active tasks a bit faster. In real world use, the limiting factor will be thermals for all of these chips, so that will be the most valid comparison. If your software benefits from Hyperthreading, the 8700K / 8068K might still be faster than the 9700K - but if not, that is what I'd go for (out of those three options). As this article states, the "the Core i7 9700K is about 4% faster that the Core i7 8700K" so the 8086 would be even less of a difference, but cost $30 more than the 8700. I've just put another 32Gb RAM into my computer, making the total 64Gb, but more importantly, filling all 4 RAM slots again. Open to suggestions. For reasons, I prefer to buy a Mac over a Windows PC (advertising ID, rest of family on Apple, iMessage, etc) Where the current top-end consumer Core i7 CPU (the Core i7 8700K) has only 6 cores and a max Turbo of 4.7 GHz, the Core i7 9700K and i9 9900K both have 8 cores and a 4.9-5.0 GHz max Turbo frequency. If you're using software that doesn't utilize hyper-threading well then the 9700K's extra cores and clock speed will make it a better value. The all-core and single-core turbo speeds on these 9000 series processors match or exceed the 8000 series, while having two more physical cores. I did some tests importing RAW files and generating smart previews in Lightroom, which maxed out the i7 pretty well. Close to that results is the 8 cores and 16 threads setup (SMT ON but manually turning half the cores off). Money/quality wise, of course the most expensive one would be the best. So apparently, it does matter, at least on my computer, whether I use Lightroom, ACR, etc. Thanks Matt. Exporting is always an excuse to take a break anyway ;). But any more, like 12 cores and 24 threads also yields slower than ideal results. Our Labs team is available to provide in-depth hardware recommendations based on your workflow. AND it was in ACR via Photoshop and not in Lightroom. Until Lightroom Classic makes changes to their code that allows Intel to catch up in performance, AMD is simply the better choice for these kinds of tasks. Because it's very, very important - In the time, when Lightroom 5.7.1 utilize I7-2600K on 70-80% during export, Lightroom 7-8 utilize it on 99%. If you are interested in how the 9th Gen Intel Core Processors perform in other applications, be sure to check out our recent Processor articles as we have a number of other articles for looking at the i7 9700K and i9 9900K. Esp. In my case there seems to be a sweet spot; running 16 cores and no SMT. With it, you can set the affinity (how many cores it can use), but it also has the option to make it permanent. @Reid: yes, that would be my personal opinion. For example: Ryzen 3700X and Ryzen 3800X - the exactly same processors, but difference in the frequency - 3800X have additional 300 MHz. I NEVER delete anything. Temperatures are about 8 degrees lower than when running only 8 cores. The 8700k has a stock all-core turbo of 4.3ghz, which means that it actually has significant overclocking headroom. Keep an eye out in the coming weeks (or months)! Now equipped with a quad-core CPU, the 2-in-1 can run Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom without breaking a sweat. If your software does use hyper-threading effectively, it'll be a more even match. So 2 things changed: new Ram, and new versions of Adobe applications. Be sure to check our list of Hardware Articles to keep up to date on how all of these software packages (and more) perform with the latest CPUs. Next time I will be upgrading is in 5-7 years. Keep in mind that the benchmark results in this article are strictly for Lightroom Classic and that performance will vary widely in different applications. For a few weeks my batch of 64 heavily edited test images (from Sony A7RIII, 42mp .ARW files) consistently took 4 min 45 seconds to save. But this was only one quick test, and only some geometry adjustments. Esp. I turned SMT off and my test export/save time set a new shortest time record. If you would like to skip over our test setup and benchmark sections, feel free to jump right to the Conclusion. We're hoping to get our benchmark polished up for public download at some point, at which point you could more closely replicate our testing.