iMac 5K spec for Lightroom

B

bozwellox

Messages
171
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi people,

I'll be buying a 27" iMac 5K in the next couple of weeks, but I'm struggling to find any concrete information about what upgrades really make a difference, specifically for use as a Lightroom workhorse (with a bit of light Photoshop use from time to time).

I'll definitely opt for the 512Gb SSD option, and will upgrade to 24Gb RAM (via Amazon rather than Apple directly).

The two things I'm unsure of are the processor and graphics card. The standard options are:

Processor: 3.3Ghz quad core i5
Graphics card: AMD Radeon R9 M395 with 2Gb video memory

The upgrades available are:

Processor: 4.0Ghz quad core i7
Graphics card: AMD Radeon R9 M395X with 4GB video memory

Does anyone have any experience of using an iMac with theses specs with Lightroom CC?

I can realistically afford to buy one of those two upgrades, although my credit card might have enough flex to allow both. What I don't want to do is pay extra for something that makes very little difference to how smoothly Lightroom runs.

I guess what I'm asking in an incredibly long-winded way is: should I pay extra for the i7, or the beefier graphics card? Or both? Or neither?

So, if anyone can give any input from personal experience I'd love to hear from you. What I don't want to hear is "buy a PC, they're better and cheaper!". I've been a PC user for the last 15 years but having used a MacBook Pro for the last couple of months I've made the decision to sell my soul to the devil/Steve Jobs' rotting carcass and make the move to Apple. I like Macs, as much as it pains me to say that, and I don't want to buy a Windows PC ever again.

Any helpful input gratefully received!
 
bozwellox said:
Hi people,

I'll be buying a 27" iMac 5K in the next couple of weeks, but I'm struggling to find any concrete information about what upgrades really make a difference, specifically for use as a Lightroom workhorse (with a bit of light Photoshop use from time to time).

I'll definitely opt for the 512Gb SSD option, and will upgrade to 24Gb RAM (via Amazon rather than Apple directly). Wise decision, the Fusion drive is a dog believe me

The two things I'm unsure of are the processor and graphics card. The standard options are:

Processor: 3.3Ghz quad core i5
Graphics card: AMD Radeon R9 M395 with 2Gb video memory

The upgrades available are:

Processor: 4.0Ghz quad core i7 Deffo go for this one for PS and LR work, will be much better than an i5 when running / applying filters etc; I couldn't go back to an i5 after using the i7, its so much snappier.
Graphics card: AMD Radeon R9 M395X with 4GB video memory Hmmm, the 390 version is more than adequate for PS and LR, I haven't had a problem with either, 2Gb is ample memory for what you want to do.

Does anyone have any experience of using an iMac with theses specs with Lightroom CC?

I can realistically afford to buy one of those two upgrades, although my credit card might have enough flex to allow both. What I don't want to do is pay extra for something that makes very little difference to how smoothly Lightroom runs. see above about graphics card, save the money and get an external fast USB 3 drive for storage instead.

I guess what I'm asking in an incredibly long-winded way is: should I pay extra for the i7, or the beefier graphics card? Or both? Or neither?

So, if anyone can give any input from personal experience I'd love to hear from you. What I don't want to hear is "buy a PC, they're better and cheaper!". I've been a PC user for the last 15 years but having used a MacBook Pro for the last couple of months I've made the decision to sell my soul to the devil/Steve Jobs' rotting carcass and make the move to Apple. I like Macs, as much as it pains me to say that, and I don't want to buy a Windows PC ever again.

Any helpful input gratefully received!
Click to expand...

I sold my soul years ago and have had about ten macs over the years, still have an old G3 upstairs lying around. My go to Mac is the Macbook Pro for general stuff, the iMac does all the heavy duty stuff where the screen real estate is heaven. What version of Macbook Pro do you have then I could let you know roughly what the difference would be apart from the obvious screen size.
 
I opted for the top end graphics card, but lightroom is still faster with GPU acceleration turned off. I think adobe still have a long way to go with that.

Hiwever saying that, i dont really have any speed issues or editing issues. I have the i7 wirh 32gb ram. I got the 256gb SSD and have added another 256gb external SSD.
 
Last edited:
I've been doing a bit of testing recently with a chap on a different forum, between us we have found that exporting 5 raw files (16mp Olympus files) takes:

2011 MBA - 2:20
2015 rMB - 1:20
2015 iMac 3.3ghz - 1:10 (fusion drive)
Mac mini i7 - 45s (pimped up 2012 quad core)

Dunno if that helps but for me it shows i7 is more important for outright speed than graphics in LR but equally a fast HD is important too, this is shown from the laptops which benchmark similarly on CPU tests and also that my brand new iMac isn't that much faster than the rMB for this task.

If I had to pick between the two upgrades I would go i7 over graphics card (unless you are planning on lots of gaming). All that said, the rMB seems more than capable at running LR at a decent lick so super-maxing an iMac just for LR seems a bit of a waste, they more for pro video usage. Don't let that stop you but have realistic expectations about the performance boost from your MBP.
 
.. Desperately trying not to say buy a PC;)

Ok in terms of Lightroom it's all about the cpu compared to the gpu. The 5k iMac takes a different approach to other iMacs and actually uses a desktop cpu rather than a lower powered laptop version of the cpu. That said it gets very hot inside that case and won't turbo boost to the extent of a regular desktop PC with adequate cooling.

The i7 will be faster than the i5 for tasks like exporting and doing mass batches of 1:1 previews where the hyper threading will come into play. From direct experience there is no discernible benefit from the i7 for the majority of Lightroom non batch tasks e.g applying a radial filter or increasing the exposure slider i.e 95% of what what you'll be doing.

Personally and going back to my first sentence I would buy the stock version and stick the upgrade money into a pot for your next imac and add to it regularly as eventually you will be stuck with a gorgeous screen attached to some outdated components.
 
Brazo said:
Personally and going back to my first sentence I would buy the stock version and stick the upgrade money into a pot for your next imac and add to it regularly as eventually you will be stuck with a gorgeous screen attached to some outdated components.
Click to expand...

Which is how I ended up buying my current iMac...

Also, unless you are planning on working on stitching 100 images into one or something equally as massive (4k video encoding maybe), more RAM won't improve speed. I stuck an extra 8gb in mine (so 16 in total) and it hasn't made it quicker, you can just have more stuff open and I can have quite a few large pano 16bit Tiff files open with no problems.

I got the fusion drive as it was a bit of an impulse purchase and I didn't want to wait for a configured machine, I was a little hesitant but in reality the machine does HDD stuff pretty much instantly (rebooting is miiiiiiiiiiiles faster than my old but perfectly good for most things, including LR, 2011 model) and I have a lot of onboard storage which is handy for backup redundancy. Sure, a 1TB SSD would have been nice but that is silly expensive and in everyday use there isn't much difference (unless you habitually copy 10's of GB around your drives).

One thing though, if you do get a Fusion drive make sure it is the 2TB model which has a 128GB SSD in it, the smaller Fusion drives only have 32GB which isn't really enough (and a bit naughty as they used to also be 128gb).
 
My upgrade options - so far for potential purchase in future, are the SSD and memory. Personally, I can't see the difference I'm going to get upgrading the graphics card, so potentially might go to the i7, but it depends on money and I'm yet to be convinced the i7 is worth the upgrade for most of my tasks.
 
Nawty said:
2015 rMB - 1:20
2015 iMac 3.3ghz - 1:10 (fusion drive)
.
Click to expand...


What are the specs of the rMB and iMac - do they differ in processor / memory ???

Presume the rMB is running an SSD and the fusion drive is the larger fusion drive (with 128gb SSD) - interesting that the fusion drive is fractionally quicker - wonder if an SSD in the iMac would be any quicker still ?
 
Last edited:
andyred said:
Presume the rMB is running an SSD and the fusion drive is the larger fusion drive (with 128gb SSD) - interesting that the fusion drive is fractionally quicker - wonder if an SSD in the iMac would be any quicker still ?
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about how the fusion drives work in copying stuff, I kind of thought it copied to the SSD and then moved it onwards later when/where it was appropriate, but I don't know.

I suppose it is possible that the differences seen are nearly all down to the HDD, the SSD in my MBA is old and slow, the one in the rMB is new and fast, as is the Fusion drive. The Mac Mini has had a new SSD put in it and I guess that is pretty fast too, with a bit of an extra bump from the multithreading. If I still had my old iMac I could have tested that too, would have been interesting although one thing that is clear is that the new one is quicker in rendering the raws when I flip between them (haven't figured out smart previews properly yet), I don't know if this is HDD or processor or a bit of both (and of course the new machine is rendering to 5k too).
 
Buy as much RAM as you can afford - the latest 27" iMacs support up to 32GB. Get the i7 over the i5. I'd personally opt for a larger Fusion drive over a SSD but that's personal preference.

I'm looking to upgrade soon, but not quite yet. The 27" iMac I bought in Jan' 2010 is still going strong (2.8GHz i7, 16GB RAM, 1TB HDD, 512MB Radeon HD 4850). Still quite impressed as to how it performs.
 
It depends. Users that just do basic edits on 20mp-ish files do not need anywhere near the spec of someone with a 40-50mp camera that likes to mess around a bit. In LR, big files and a few local edits with dual screens have a very big impact on speed. I seem to be needing a PC upgrade every couple of years now and it's a major hassle and expense so my next machine will be as good as I can reasonably make it. I also hear that Adobe is now making more use of the graphics processor to speed things along with LR6/CC, though I can't find much conclusive evidence of how much difference it makes.

The other thing my next machine will definitely have is dual mirrored HDs in Raid-1 configuration (I think that's right!). Basically, everything you do is automatically duplicated and backed up as you go. Major advantages are obviously first line defense with a second copy and also, if you do have an HD failure, all that happens is you get a message to tell you (or so I've been told ;)). In other words, you can continue working as normal to finish the job in hand.
 
HoppyUK said:
It depends. Users that just do basic edits on 20mp-ish files do not need anywhere near the spec of someone with a 40-50mp camera that likes to mess around a bit. In LR, big files and a few local edits with dual screens have a very big impact on speed. I seem to be needing a PC upgrade every couple of years now and it's a major hassle and expense so my next machine will be as good as I can reasonably make it. I also hear that Adobe is now making more use of the graphics processor to speed things along with LR6/CC, though I can't find much conclusive evidence of how much difference it makes.

The other thing my next machine will definitely have is dual mirrored HDs in Raid-1 configuration (I think that's right!). Basically, everything you do is automatically duplicated and backed up as you go. Major advantages are obviously first line defense with a second copy and also, if you do have an HD failure, all that happens is you get a message to tell you (or so I've been told ;)). In other words, you can continue working as normal to finish the job in hand.
Click to expand...
Dont rely on raid as a back up. Having researched this extensively as I was very keen on it I can say it has benefits for certain applications but not data. Your much better off getting a second hdd to back up on.

Raid 1 simply mirrors two drives as one and so yes effectively backs up the other but if you accidentally delete a file or get a virus raid won't help you. It only helps if one drive suffers a failure. Is this business critical to you that you need to be up and running instantly? A raid solution would be good in a server or a critical machine say one running a cash machine etc.

If you really want a back up get an external hdd or if you want a more interesting (and better) alternative Google 'NAS'.
 
Thanks for all the helpful replies people. Looking like the i7 is a definite, and I'm leaning towards blowing a bit more on the graphics card. As far as I can tell it doesn't make a huge difference currently, but as someone else mentioned, Adobe are working towards utilising the graphics card more in future, so perhaps it might be a worthwhile investment (I've also heard that it helps with how snappily the sliders move, which is a big thing for me as I edit with a midi controller via the Midi2LR plugin).

This is going to get expensive, isn't it.
 
Scotty Pro said:
I sold my soul years ago and have had about ten macs over the years, still have an old G3 upstairs lying around. My go to Mac is the Macbook Pro for general stuff, the iMac does all the heavy duty stuff where the screen real estate is heaven. What version of Macbook Pro do you have then I could let you know roughly what the difference would be apart from the obvious screen size.
Click to expand...

Thanks man, that would be helpful. I actually bought a used early 2013 MacBook Pro Retina i5 with 8Gb RAM and the 256Gb SSD. Snagged an eBay bargain! I'm pretty blown away by how well it handles Lightroom, and the screen is just stunning. But I'm used to working on a 24" monitor, so I've decided to pick up a new iMac for heavy duty stuff, using the MBP for initial culling/sorting whilst sat on my fat arse on the sofa, then syncing up to the iMac for the edit. I've inadvertently become a full on Apple nerd almost overnight.
 
Scotty Pro said:
I sold my soul years ago and have had about ten macs over the years, still have an old G3 upstairs lying around. My go to Mac is the Macbook Pro for general stuff, the iMac does all the heavy duty stuff where the screen real estate is heaven. What version of Macbook Pro do you have then I could let you know roughly what the difference would be apart from the obvious screen size.
Click to expand...

One question: You say the fusion drive is a dog - can you elaborate? I'm pretty much sold on the SSD anyway having upgraded to an SSD as my main drive in my old PC (which made an enormous difference) but I've got to admit, the extra on-board storage would be handy - not for photo stuff necessarily, but I dabble in music production and have a fairly hefty collection of samples. Having them stored on the iMac rather than on an external drive might (?) be preferable. I was under the impression that the fusion drives are pretty good - slower to write but on par when it comes to reading, albeit perhaps a tad more noisy.

Thanks for your input!
 
Brazo said:
Dont rely on raid as a back up. Having researched this extensively as I was very keen on it I can say it has benefits for certain applications but not data. Your much better off getting a second hdd to back up on.

Raid 1 simply mirrors two drives as one and so yes effectively backs up the other but if you accidentally delete a file or get a virus raid won't help you. It only helps if one drive suffers a failure. Is this business critical to you that you need to be up and running instantly? A raid solution would be good in a server or a critical machine say one running a cash machine etc.

If you really want a back up get an external hdd or if you want a more interesting (and better) alternative Google 'NAS'.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Like I said, first line of defense. Considering the cost of an extra HD and the benefits, including the potentially huge advantage of instant recovery (certainly to me) it's a no-brainer. But equally, it's not a total back-up solution. Sure, an external HDD as well, and also I think increasingly cloud back-up is the best answer for immunity to fire and theft.
 
HoppyUK said:
Exactly. Like I said, first line of defense. Considering the cost of an extra HD and the benefits, including the potentially huge advantage of instant recovery (certainly to me) it's a no-brainer. But equally, it's not a total back-up solution. Sure, an external HDD as well, and also I think increasingly cloud back-up is the best answer for immunity to fire and theft.
Click to expand...
Yes I think I need to look into cloud back up too!
 
bozwellox said:
One question: You say the fusion drive is a dog - can you elaborate? I'm pretty much sold on the SSD anyway having upgraded to an SSD as my main drive in my old PC (which made an enormous difference) but I've got to admit, the extra on-board storage would be handy - not for photo stuff necessarily, but I dabble in music production and have a fairly hefty collection of samples. Having them stored on the iMac rather than on an external drive might (?) be preferable. I was under the impression that the fusion drives are pretty good - slower to write but on par when it comes to reading, albeit perhaps a tad more noisy.

Thanks for your input!
Click to expand...
I might have mislead you a bit when I said "dog" I'm used to SSD's as I hate waiting for things to boot and load apps.
My Macbook Pro (late 2011) with a Samsung 840 Pro boots up in under 10 seconds and apps load instantly, whereas on the iMac it can take upto 25-30 seconds just to boot, and the apps do not load anywhere near the speed of the SSD.
Your Macbook with the PCIe SSD will boot and load quicker than the fusion drive (I think I'm right in saying that Apple still uses 5400RPM discs) If you spec the SSD as a build option it will be the newer faster bus SSD.
 
The i7-6700k will blow the i5-6600 away. But as Brazo said, you'll probably only notice that during batch work (process/import/export).

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2565&cmp[]=2570

Again as already said, GPU acceleration in LR isn't really there yet. The M395/X are both mobile GPU anyway so aren't going to set the world alight (benches slightly faster than ATi desktop card from 2012).
 
Last edited:
Further reading on the M395/X seems to suggest that they're the [pretty much] same bar the extra VRAM. which isn't going to matter too much on 2D work, but the X roughly benches 10-15% faster on 3D.
 
I've said this before: get the standard RAM, CPU and GPU with an SSD or Fusion Drive. Buy extra RAM from Crucial.
 
Its a cruel joke of Apple sticking a k series processor into such a tightly packed case. Its like having the latest and best dslr but only being allowed to open half the case!

The GPU's are both mobile (laptop) GPU's and neither offer great power now or in the future. The i7 6700k actually has a very good integrated GPU Iris pro iirc.

@neil_g I don't know about blow away. My 4.8ghz 4790k will 'blow away' a stock 6700k but I don't find it any faster for day to day light room tasks than my old i5 4670k which had an overclock to at least match the i5-6600.
 
Brazo said:
.. Desperately trying not to say buy a PC;)
Click to expand...

just to play devils advocate on this point for a little..

just spec'd one of OcUK "Z170 Silent Audio Workstation" (i7-6700k, 8Gb DDR4-2400 (I imagine they'd stick an extra 8 in if you asked), 120Gb Samsung Evo SSD, Windows 10) and you'd get £12 change from £900. Leaves money (and change depending you REALLY need 4/5k) for a nice Dell panel on the iMac price range.

But all personal preference :p
 
Brazo said:
@neil_gMy 4.8ghz 4790k will 'blow away' a stock 6700k but I don't find it any faster for day to day light room tasks than my old i5 4670k which had an overclock to at least match the i5-6600.
Click to expand...
the 4790k is a better CPU clock for clock yes. my old 2nd gen i7 benches faster than the i5-6600 (i know, more cores).

but the 6600 is nearly 3000 passmarks slower than the 6700k. but like i said, you would only notice that during batch work and not really during normal image processing.

agreed on the cruel use of a K CPU though :D
 
Last edited:
I've a late 2009 2.6GHz iMac and a late 2015 4GHz iMac. Both handle Lightroom well. In fact if it wasn't for demands now for video I'd still only have the 2009 iMac as its a quad core . You don't need a super machine for Lightroom. so the standard 3.3 GHz would do fine,go for the i7 every time extra cores make a difference Upgrade to the 4 GHz f you want to future proof somewhat your machine. it all depends on when you think you might want to replace it. OK the old iMac was starting to creak a bit but it still handled Lightroom and Photoshop without having to make a cup of tea whilst it did something.

Do you need 5K for Lightroom No you don't. However in a year or so most displays will probably be 4/5K as standard so you'll be ahead of the curve
 
This is what I'm using

spec.jpg


It works fine - I have the 1TB fusion and most of the time it seems like I have an SSD in there. I bet either of the upgrades you specify would be better than what I use. Personally I wouldn't pay for an Apple SSD unless they have dropped in price a lot. Last time I checked they were stupidly expensive and real world I can't see that they make a huge difference over the fusion.
 
Lightroom behaves terrible on the 5K, i would do some proper digging before blowing all your money on one, or wait until Adobe at least get their act together.
 
New, updated, models are scheduled for release in September, so it way be worth hanging on for a few weeks.
 
Holy thread resurrection! I posted this in April and bought one shortly afterwards. Went for the i7 with the standard graphics card, SSD and upgraded to 24Gb of RAM. No idea what you determine to be "terrible" Lightroom performance, but it's working like a charm for me and I couldn't be happier with it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top