Optimizing a build for Lightroom/Photoshop vs. Video

[macphotophile]

Apologies in advance for a broad question but I need to get my bearings, as I go through the various Golden Builds.

I'm a photographer who works mainly in Lightroom and Photoshop. I'm upgrading my equipment (individual raw files are going from 12MB to 35MB) and likely will start to work with video, as well. I don't really understand this (https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1361775?tstart=0) but it sounds as if Lightroom isn't all that efficient at taking advantage of multiple core processors. If I build a Hackintosh that is optimized for video could I actually be compromising my Lightroom/Photoshop performance or is it more likely to be simple overkill?

Thanks for your help.

 

[Going Bald]

Apologies in advance for a broad question but I need to get my bearings, as I go through the various Golden Builds.

I'm a photographer who works mainly in Lightroom and Photoshop. I'm upgrading my equipment (individual raw files are going from 12MB to 35MB) and likely will start to work with video, as well. I don't really understand this (https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1361775?tstart=0) but it sounds as if Lightroom isn't all that efficient at taking advantage of multiple core processors. If I build a Hackintosh that is optimized for video could I actually be compromising my Lightroom/Photoshop performance or is it more likely to be simple overkill?

Thanks for your help.

Depends on the video apps you use - some use more CPU for processing, some take advantage of GPU ram for processing. If you use apps that favor CPU processing, then 6 or 8 core CPU with highest clock speed you can get will be benefit and slightly overkill for LR and PS.

 

[macphotophile]

Thanks, GB, this is helpful. I'm inclined toward overkill. I'd rather have it and not need it than the opposite.

Everyone is excited about the x99 motherboards and I get the impression that I'd be missing out by not having one. I'm hesitant to commit to six months (or more) of using Windows, particularly, because of my Mac software investment. Would it be crazy to try to run my current software setup as a virtual machine on Windows? My thinking is that while there's bound to be a performance hit, the hardware will be so much faster than what I have now, that I could still end up better off. Or does the virtualization software impose its own limitations, with respect to how effectively the CPU and GPU are exploited?

 

[Going Bald]

Thanks, GB, this is helpful. I'm inclined toward overkill. I'd rather have it and not need it than the opposite.

Everyone is excited about the x99 motherboards and I get the impression that I'd be missing out by not having one. I'm hesitant to commit to six months (or more) of using Windows, particularly, because of my Mac software investment. Would it be crazy to try to run my current software setup as a virtual machine on Windows? My thinking is that while there's bound to be a performance hit, the hardware will be so much faster than what I have now, that I could still end up better off. Or does the virtualization software impose its own limitations, with respect to how effectively the CPU and GPU are exploited?

VM will effectively throttle speed back to what the VM engine will allow, as some resources are required to run the host OS.

You might want to take another look at the X99 boards and the build threads appearing for them. I would already have one myself, but am waiting on the Asus Rampage V Extreme Gene mATX board to be released. Want to compare it to the AsRock mATX boards as it is the only other OEM that has released mATX so far. The AsRock boards seem to have the M.2 socket passed thru the PCH instead of straight thru to the CPU on the PCIe lanes, but I can't find a board map for them. Wanted to check because it says in the manual that it is shared with the SATA express port - not what I want.

 

[macphotophile]

So you're looking at the mATX version of this [http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/asus-x99-rampage-v-extreme-review,1.html] one? Do mATX motherboards have room for dual GPU's?

How about the following the combination?

http://www.amazon.com/RAMPAGE-EXTREME-Extended-Motherboard-2011-V3/dp/B00N1QKUQO/
http://www.amazon.com/Intel-i7-5930K-Haswell-E-Processor-BX80648I75930K/dp/B00MMLXMM8/

I'm not sure what an appropriate GPU would be but my idea would be to start with one and then supplement it with another, if I find myself using video apps that benefit from it.

 

[Going Bald]

So you're looking at the mATX version of this [http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/asus-x99-rampage-v-extreme-review,1.html] one? Do mATX motherboards have room for dual GPU's?

Yes. If the RVE / RV Gene are similar to the RIV models, then only difference will be 4 RAM slots, 2 PCIe slots and come USB3 ports. Not something I would miss.

How about the following the combination?

http://www.amazon.com/RAMPAGE-EXTREME-Extended-Motherboard-2011-V3/dp/B00N1QKUQO/
http://www.amazon.com/Intel-i7-5930K-Haswell-E-Processor-BX80648I75930K/dp/B00MMLXMM8/

I'm not sure what an appropriate GPU would be but my idea would be to start with one and then supplement it with another, if I find myself using video apps that benefit from it.

Looks like a good combination. Add a GTX 980 or a R9 280X and you should be good to go, although you will have to wait for support for the GTX - hopefully not too long a wait.

 

[macphotophile]

Thanks for your advice, GB, I really appreciate it. Since no good deed goes unpunished...

I can get an Asus R9 280X for $290 [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00FT2S4BG/ref=gno_cart_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER] or an MSI 6GB R9 280X [http://www.amazon.com/MSI-R9-280X-GAMING-6G/dp/B00IZO4CPM/] for $390. How does their performance compare to what we can expect from a GTX 980? I can almost buy two 280X's for the price of one GTX 980.

Is there a big difference between the 6GB and the 3GB versions of the 280X's? The Asus seems to be much quieter than the MSI. I only heard it compared to the 3GB model but I'm assuming that the 6GB is similar.

 

[Going Bald]

Thanks for your advice, GB, I really appreciate it. Since no good deed goes unpunished...

I can get an Asus R9 280X for $290 [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00FT2S4BG/ref=gno_cart_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER] or an MSI 6GB R9 280X [http://www.amazon.com/MSI-R9-280X-GAMING-6G/dp/B00IZO4CPM/] for $390. How does their performance compare to what we can expect from a GTX 980? I can almost buy two 280X's for the price of one GTX 980.

Is there a big difference between the 6GB and the 3GB versions of the 280X's? The Asus seems to be much quieter than the MSI. I only heard it compared to the 3GB model but I'm assuming that the 6GB is similar.

Now you are getting into unknown territory for me - suggest google is your friend. Look for anandtech.com and other bench testing sites for reviews and comparisons.
http://anandtech.com/tag/gpus

 

[tokugawamac]

So I can't speak much for video, but you are right that Lightroom isn't natively very good at taking advantage of multiple cores of a CPU. That being said, a while back Scott Kelby linked to a detailed article (much of which is still valid today in LR 5) that explains how manually splitting up your exports into multiple jobs/operations can force LR to use more cores: http://macperformanceguide.com/Optimizing-Lightroom.html

I actually tried this out myself when exporting a batch of 53 raw images from a Nikon D800 with a extensive adjustments done on each. I have a 6 core processor (i7 4930k, overlocked to 4.5ghz), and split those 53 images various ways to see how fast I could get exported jpegs out of them:
1 job: 430 seconds
2 jobs: 292 seconds
3 jobs: 258 seconds
4 jobs: 252 seconds
5 jobs: 253 seconds
6 jobs: 266 seconds

Out of curiosity, I tried this same task on my mid-2010 Macbook Pro (2.66ghz, dual core) and it took 1710 seconds (almost half an hour) to export all the files as jpegs in a single batch.

As you probably know, Lightroom doesn't use any GPU acceleration, so you will benefit from a CPU with many cores and a high clock speed.

For what it's worth, I've also been dabbling in video, and I have an R9 280x in my machine. It works splendidly in FCPX. An important question is what software you're going to be using for video editing. FCPX relies heavily on OpenCL, so AMD cards thrive there while Nvidia cards of comparable price points don't fare nearly as well. For example, on a certain rendering test (http://blog.alex4d.com/2013/10/30/brucex-a-new-fcpx-benchmark/), an R9 280x performs around twice as well as a GTX780, which, for all other purposes, is a much stronger card. So, if you were working in FCPX, getting a GTX980 probably wouldn't be worth it (but we'll see; I haven't seen anyone testing it out in FCPX yet).

On the other hand, Premiere and After Effects benefit greatly from CUDA, so a GTX980, being the strongest card out there, would probably be great. That being said, Adobe products also support OpenCl, and some cursory research seems to indicate that CUDA and OpenCL performance in Premiere are comparable: http://www.dslrfilmnoob.com/2014/04/26/opencl-vs-cuda-adobe-premiere-cc-rendering-test/