Terrible performance on iMac 5K

Report · Nov 29, 2014

Hey Adobe Forum!

I got my high end iMac 5K from Apple (4GHZ, M295X, 24gb Ram).

I planned on primarily using the Adobe Creative Cloud and especially programs such as Lightroom, Photoshop, InDesign, Edge.

With an exception for Photoshop all of the above mentioned programs run horribly.

While browsing my catalogues in Lightroom it stutters and freezes. Edge runs as if it was running under 20fps, very laggy and stuttery.

InDesign is also pretty slow while switching pages and scrolling in general.

My questions: Is this normal for Hi-DPI screens? Is anyone else experiencing this?

Thanks!

Report · Nov 29, 2014

I use the same setup (but 32GB RAM). I don't seem to have the same problems as you.

I get some stepping and even a bit of tiling in the Develop module if I whip say the "contrast" slider back and forth in some applications. If I just enter a value, or just one-click somewhere else in the slider, it seems to be perfectly snappy. If I move a photo to my second 2560x1440 monitor, it seems less pronounced. Some applications and plugins are worse than others; MacPhun's pro applications like Tonality Pro seemed to do the best in making smooth transitions.

All the copying, filtering, organizing stuff is very quick. I haven't had any issues with cropping images, although others have.

I am wondering if some of this is Yosemite. Or maybe there are caches or something that is slowing stuff down. I doubt it's the machine since some get really fast results, see http://www.tony-hart.com/blog/essays/2014/10/imac-with-retina-5k/ for an example.

Report · Nov 30, 2014

This is indeed strange. I already did a clean install of Yosemite and Adobe CC, the problems stay. Even with a new catalogue of photos.

My biggest problems are in the library view mode, I cant browse through my photos without heavy lag and wait times. Also, the cropping tool is very slow. Changing the values on brighteness etc does work 'okay' for me..

Report · Nov 30, 2014

Some things to try:

Optimize your Catalog

Performance hints

Report · Nov 30, 2014

That "performance hints" reads like an argument to try another product

What size previews are you using? I'm using high quality, 2880 pixel previews.

Report · Dec 01, 2014

I Already tried those tips - without success. Thanks though.

im also using 2880 high..

Report · Dec 15, 2014

See this thread and this one. Unfortunately, until Adobe figures out a fix, the only solution is to reduce the LR window size to about 1/4 full screen. (Yes, this entirely defeats the purpose of a 5k iMac, but there it is.)

Report · Dec 15, 2014

Try reducing preview size to 1024 pixels and medium just to see if that relives the issue…..it did for me

.....Suzanne Mathia

Report · Dec 15, 2014

As a point of reference and in addition to my comments above, I tried other applications to see if I had similar stepping/stuttering issues in using for example the exposure slider.

I tried Capture One Express, Graphic Converter and Aperture. None exhibited the problems that LR has. Even LR's slideshows are choppy, and I assume it scales to fit, so it's not 1:1 in that instance. You might wanna try these other options if that stuttering bugs you.

I tried some plugins as well, specifically Tonality Pro from MacPhun since it runs as a stand alone application as well. Within LR, it was slow to respond to an exposure slider. But it did NOT have the same problem when I used it as a stand alone.

So, Adobe, what's up?

Report · Dec 15, 2014

I have similar performance Issues in Illustrator, InDesign and Acrobat X. Not only Lightroom.

Report · Dec 15, 2014

For the record, the NIK plugins seem to have similar performance issue regardless of whether I open with Photoshop or use the standalone NIK editor.

Report · Dec 15, 2014

On the Optimizing Performance page linked to above, Adobe says this regarding preview size:

To make standard previews small, specify the appropriate the size and quality in the Catalog Settings dialog box:

Choose Edit > Catalog Settings (Windows) or Lightroom > Catalog Settings (Mac OS), and then select File Handling.

For Standard Preview Size, choose the amount that is closest to the longest edge of your screen resolution, but not shorter than it. For example, if your screen resolution is 1920 x 1200 pixels, choose Standard Preview Size > 2048 Pixels.

For Preview Quality, choose Low or Medium, which equates to the low- or mid-range of the quality scale for JPEG files.

Note: The larger the monitor you use (and the higher resolution), the more work Lightroom does to calculate previews and update pixels when you make adjustments. If you experience performance slowdowns with large monitors, try reducing resolution of the display using the Display Control Panel (Windows) or Displays System Preferences (Mac OS).

Seems to me what it's saying is "don't make previews larger than they have to be". But I don't understand how making previews smaller than they should be would increase performance? If anything, seems it would decrease it.

Report · Dec 26, 2014

I was just about to order a 5K iMac but after reading this thread I think I'm going to go for a standard unit and upgrade the processor and RAM instead.

Earlier this year, I was doing all my editing on a Windows laptop and was considering upgrading to a Dell XPS laptop which boasts a display on par with the MBP retina. After lengthy research I decided against the XPS due to problems I read that owners were experiencing with Adobe applications displaying correctly on the ultra-high resolution display. To date, I am unaware that this issue has been resolved.

Shortly after this, I acquired a 2009 iMac 27" and have been a converted Mac user ever since. I'm so glad I've researched all that I have today because I could've wasted a lot of money and not had the gains in performance I am looking with upgrading to a new machine.

Report · Dec 26, 2014

I don't know if this helps but I have the base retina iMac (ie i5 and R290 GPU) made up to 16 gig RAM.

I'm currently trialling Lightroom and love it. I've experienced the occasional jerkiness when say using the graduated filter but nothing horrendous. This on full screen using RAW files.

I also trialled Corels Aftershot Pro 2 which , unlike LR, makes full use of the GPU. Aftershot was instant in response with the same images - everything was smooth, no delays and no shuddering or jerks.

That suggested to me that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the riMac but the problem lies with LR. I much prefer LR as a program and am considering taking it via the CC, but I hope Adobe improve its use of GPU with version 6.

Report · Dec 26, 2014

I run the usual Adobe CC photography apps along with Indesign, Illustrator and Bridge. I would be gutted if I invested £2k to discover it isn't a massive step up from my current setup. I'd pretty much made up my mind to go with the 5K i5 model and up the RAM like you have but now I'm not so sure.

Report · Dec 27, 2014

Indesign is "okay" to use, but illustrator is horror on the retina iMac. I wouldn't get one if I were you..

Report · Dec 27, 2014

This is Apple's stance on the Retina iMac and Adobe application problems.

In this case, I would recommend considering postponing this purchase until more information about the issue and solution appear. I completely understand your satiation and am very sorry for this inconvenience, but I honestly cannot do much here when it comes to 3rd party program compatibility, as it depends on two parties rather than just the iMac

Report · Jan 12, 2015

This totally sucks! I guess I have to start at square one and return the machine - hope b&H will take it back!

Report · Jan 13, 2015

Tell me about it. I was really looking forward to having a 5K display. I couldn't believe it when Apple's own support teams advised me to avoid the Retina iMac until the problems are resolved by Adobe. More amazing is that Apple’s newest desktop is marketed as being designed for photographers :-S

After lots of reading & researching over the Christmas period, I opted for a new NON-Retina iMac with all the trimmings. It's a big step up from what I had before so I am happy.

Fingers crossed that Adobe gets this fixed soon for the existing riMac owners.

Report · Jan 13, 2015

I don't know if I would return the machine as Marion49 says but the problem with the 5K iMac is the display, to be specific the resolution. At full resolution you are dealing with 5120x2880, 14.7 million pixels (8.8 million pixels if you run it at 4K, and 2 million pixels if you run it on HD). Just think for a minute what you are asking the computer and LR to do. My secondary display attached to a humble MacBook Pro has a resolution of 2560 x 1440 3.6 million pixels (and a pixel depth of 32-Bit Color (ARGB8888)).

You could of course reduce the resolution to 4K or HD and see what happens.

Report · Jan 13, 2015

I tried some of the things mentioned, but left my resolution set high, and I ended up reducing the window size of LR by about 1/4 and now everything runs a lot smoother.

Report · Jan 13, 2015

I'm not sure which window you speak of, but try scaling the image itself, say 1:2. And leave the Display prefs at "best for display." The image redraw is where the power is required; at 2:1 you are getting 4 pixels for each pixel in your image. Since the retina is so sharp, unlike previous monitors, you don't lose much by doing that. Took me a while to realize that scaling, especially integer scaling, looks great on the retina, unlike my previous Mac.

And consider the comparison with a regular iMac. My RAWs at 1:2 overflow the working area in LR on my iMac 2560x1440 display; at that same 1:2 on my riMac they are well within the area. I'm looking at doubled up pixels on both. And from 32" on the iMac it's the same resolution as 16" on the riMac. In short, you can duplicate the 2560x1440 display on the retina, and probably improve performance when editing, but you can't go the other way, and produce the riMac performance on the regular iMac, unless you're willing to sit 32" back to view your photos. You can just lean in on the riMac to see detail, so you really don't lose anything by using LR on an riMac over a regular iMac. So why ditch it unless you're going to say 4k on a nMP or something?

Also, I wonder if you use 1:1 previews when importing. That should speed things up, but since I use that by default I can't say. If LR has to generate one for a photo you wanna edit from a RAW that's a big slowdown.

Report · Jan 13, 2015

robgendreau wrote:

I'm not sure which window you speak of, but try scaling the image itself, say 1:2. And leave the Display prefs at "best for display." The image redraw is where the power is required; at 2:1 you are getting 4 pixels for each pixel in your image. Since the retina is so sharp, unlike previous monitors, you don't lose much by doing that. Took me a while to realize that scaling, especially integer scaling, looks great on the retina, unlike my previous Mac.

And consider the comparison with a regular iMac. My RAWs at 1:2 overflow the working area in LR on my iMac 2560x1440 display; at that same 1:2 on my riMac they are well within the area. I'm looking at doubled up pixels on both. And from 32" on the iMac it's the same resolution as 16" on the riMac. In short, you can duplicate the 2560x1440 display on the retina, and probably improve performance when editing, but you can't go the other way, and produce the riMac performance on the regular iMac, unless you're willing to sit 32" back to view your photos. You can just lean in on the riMac to see detail, so you really don't lose anything by using LR on an riMac over a regular iMac. So why ditch it unless you're going to say 4k on a nMP or something?

Also, I wonder if you use 1:1 previews when importing. That should speed things up, but since I use that by default I can't say. If LR has to generate one for a photo you wanna edit from a RAW that's a big slowdown.

I think Rob is absolutely right, a 2560x1440 working area or even smaller needs to be reproduced.

Let's do some maths, I have a camera with a 24 megapixel sensor (and a little bit), it generates 6014 by 4016 images, on 2560 by 1440 I would need approximately 2.4 screen widths and almost 2.8 screen heights to see a photograph 1:1 (100% zoom). Now on a 5K screen (5120X2880) you need just over 1 screen width and 1.4 screen heights to see the photograph 1:1 (100% zoom). If you have a smaller sensor, about 16 megapixels, taking 4272 x 2848 photos, on a 5K you are making edits to your photos at 1:1 resolution (100% zoom) with the whole image visible on the screen; each time you make a global adjustment LR has to recalculate and the render the whole photo, every single pixel, and this could also apply to local adjustments. I do make some adjustments at 1:1 but only on my primary display which has a much smaller working area.

To view photos and videos at full 5K resolution is one thing, probably a great experience, to edit at full 5K resolution is a different matter and likely to require significant computer power (for calculating and rendering).

Report · Jan 13, 2015

indeed a lot of math ...also not one of my strong suits

I have the D750, so I think I also have 24 megapixels, right? Anyway, I will try to wrap my head around what you said a little later. I have another issue that I need to research...LR will not open my file into PS - I will see if there is one already open on this. That issue did not go away by changing the cache and the size of the actual LR window.

Report · Jan 13, 2015

D750 is 24 megapixels, full frame.

Re LR not opening your file into PS. What version of PS are you using?