Participant

Question

for Photoshop (and Lightroom) which computer component is most important for performance?

Forum|Forum|1 year ago
April 2, 2024
4 replies
1788 views

For cost reasons, I am always way behind on Mac models, currently using a 2012 MacPro tower which has been "hot-rodded" about as far as it will go. It's maxed out at Mojave, which is not compatible with supported versions of Photoshop.

So I am now in the desperate condition of needing to replace it with a machine that can – at least – support Catalina.

Used versions of the "Cheese Grater" MacPro 2019 (a tower, like my current machine) are way way out of reach financially. If I had a pile of money, I’d buy one. But I don’t, so I can’t.

So I'm left with the truly dismal alternative: the imfamous MacPro "Trash Can”(sigh). (If you've seen one, you know how it got this "affectionate" name. Then again, just considering the concept of this machine (not user servicable), you don't need to see it to grasp another reason for the Trash Can name.

It's that, or entirely give up using Photoshop and Lightroom for my professional photography work.

There are two (maybe three) crippling problems with the Trash Can: (1) Only one internal storage drive, and that is soldered in – can't be upgraded; (2) no multiple internal drives like in a tower; (3) I'm not sure I've got this right but I believe RAM is also soldered in, so can't be upgraded. In other words....hot rodding prohibited. They come in any color you want, as long as it's black.

For comparison, my current 2012 MacPro tower has four internal hard drives for four specific purposes: boot drive; all image files; backup for the images drive; time machine backup.

With a Trash Can, I’d need at least three external storage drives.

Here’s the key question:

Which of the internal component specs below is most important for optimizing PHOTOSHOP and LIGHTROOM, especially when it comes to "adjustments" in both programs?

• number of cores

• processor speed

• RAM

• storage

My work requires many slight adjustments for each image to achieve the results I'm known for. With my current machine, each brush stroke in PS adjustment layers (like burn or dodge) or with LR adjustment brush, is followed by a 2-3 second delay in response, which cripples me for processing lots of images needing lots of precise adjustments.

An online dealer of used computers has several Trash Cans available, each with varying specs, at roughly 1/10th the price of a used Cheese Grater.

If I understand correctly – and please correct me if I'm wrong – I believe the Trash Can will support Monterey, but for now, I'll be happy with Catalina. My current 2012 MacPro "hot rod" tops out at Mojave.

What I want to ask the community is this:

Which computer component spec is most critical to optimize, for using PS and LR?

For example, here are the key specs for a few of the Late 2013 Trash Can MacPros available from the vendor selling these used machines. (I've bought from them previously, and quite pleased with products, service, and integrity).

• Six core, 3.5GHZ, 64GB, 1TB SSD; $375.

.• Eight core, 3.0GHZ, 64GB, 1TB flash, $395.

• Twelve core, 2.7GHZ, 32GB, 512 SSD; $385.

• Twelve core, 2.7GHZ, 64GB, 1TB SSD, $595.

I'd definitely prefer a 1TB drive, based on what I have on my current boot drive (about 700mb).

Thanks very much for any and all responses, advice, and commiserations.

macOS

This topic has been closed for replies.

Lumigraphics

Legend

Forget every bit of what you wrote above. You are seeking a false economy.

Get a used or refurb Apple Silicon computer, even an M1 Mac mini will be considerably faster than an old Intel machine. Catalina is out of support with Apple and just barely in support with Adobe, current PS versions won't install. Apple is aggressively cutting off support for older machines.

Its true that the Trash Can Mac Pro will run Monterey but that will be dropped from support by Apple next year. I have a 2015 MacBook Pro 15" that is right on the edge for support the same way.

A Mac mini with 16GB of RAM is under US$1000 as a refurb and they are readily available on the used market.

Gary MoonAuthor

Participant

@lumigraphics

"a mac mini with 16gb RAM is under US$1000...."

For now, that's beyond what I can justify spending, as I mentioned in my post.

Instead, I'm looking a way to upgrade for the smallest possible investment. And since the terminology used to describe computer specs is a bit above my pay grade, I lack the knowledge to make an educated choice. So I asked some questions.

I know what RAM is, and what a GPU is, etc, but I don't know enough about any of these to pick one – short of making a wild guess. Except that I know that my current boot drive with about 700 GB of data, will not fit on a 512 SSD, so I need to pick a machine with a 1TB SSD. What I particularly don't know is what GPU options (ie, the maker and model) would NOT be adequate.

I also don't have a clue about "cores" and what 12 cores do compared to 6 cores. So I can't intelligently judge if my needs would be adquately served by 6 cores or eight. That's an example of where I need help.

My plan to buy a Trashcan Mac Pro is a stopgap until prices on used 2019 Cheesegraters drops, as newer machines come into the market. If I spend $1000 next week on a MacMini, that Cheesegrater is out of the picture.

The work I had been doing before Covid – s distinctive artistic approach to real estate photography – became dangerous at the start of the pandemic because it necessitated spending 4-5 hours in an occupied home. So with only a few exceptions when homes were vacant, I had no choice but to decline assignments. Now, I'm pretty much off the radar in the local real estate community.

The market is slow now, but I need to be able to take the rare assignment if it arises with one of my previous loyal clients. If work picks up again, then I can buy a newer MacPro. I'm just not going to spring for a multi-thousand dollar machine unless there is work to support that investment.

@Conrad_C

"the choices you have, the higher GHz Mac Pros in your list should generally be slightly better for Photoshop, and the models with more cores might be somewhat better for Lightroom. The reason more cores help with Lightroom is that it’s more likely that Lightroom will be processing many images in bulk, such as generating previews and bulk exports of large shoots. In Photoshop, you are more likely to be editing just one image at a time."

I'm editing one image at a time...period.

Usually, my shoots result in 30-35 images. With 30+ years of experience in all sorts of photography, I don't need to shoot similar views and send 100+ images to my client. I just study the scene, shoot the best view for the purpose, then move to another space. I get rave reviews, but I have to charge more for longer shoots.

The only issue that limits me on my 2012 MacPro is when making adjustments, both in PS and LR. Almost every image I do in a RE shoot is HDR...from 4-8 frames. I merge them in LR and do most of my adjusting there.

In start processing in Lightroom with the major adjustments to all the images, then export for fine tuning in Photoshop. I work on one image at a time, frequently at least 100 small adjustments with the Lightroom adjustment brush, mainly exposure.

The problem I'm having lately is that – with each brush stroke with my tablet – there's a short time lag....a few seconds, Each lag feels like an eternity given the huge number of adjustments I need to create my final image.

@D Fosse

"There is no such thing as "enough RAM". Photoshop's total memory requirement can be orders of magnitude bigger, certainly if you work with big files. (I don't -- see above). The heavy load is carried by the scratch disk, with RAM more as a fast access cache. The thing is - with the newest ultra-fast NVMe drives, the scratch disk is no longer a bottleneck like it used to be. With a fast scratch disk, and enough space, RAM isn't all that important."

I can accept that what you wrote here as perfectly correct and germane to my questions. I just don't have enough knowledge to work with it.

I very much appreciate the replies. Thanks to each of you for spending your time offering help.

--Tyto

Lumigraphics

Legend

Adobe makes professional graphics software and they are moving aggressively to do two things.

1. Require current hardware and operating systems. Older GPUs (graphics processors) are becoming unsupported. Where, literally, you cannot do RAW file processing. Period. It just won't work. Other features are buggy, crash, etc.

2. Make older versions of their software unavailable. Adobe is cutting off download access to non-current versions of CC applications, and cutting off the ability to activate old CS versions.

What this means in a practical sense is that you can't run Adobe apps on those older computers. Adobe simply refuses to support them. Apple is also quickly moving to render Intel Macs unsupported and obsolete.

So what will happen is that you are proposing to spend money on old computers that Apple no longer supports, and that Adobe software won't work with.

I'm someone who typically uses older machines but I have no choice, I have to remain reasonably current. Everything you are proposing is just throwing your money away.

Conrad_C

Community Expert

It’s kind of a trick question. The goal is not to ask which component is the most important, it’s to ask how to balance them for the application. If you prioritize any single component at the expense of others, the system is unbalanced and not well matched to anything. When buying a current new Mac you have to understand and balance CPU cores, GPU cores, Unified Memory, and storage in a way that’s consistent with the applications being used, but in your case you already have some fixed choices and fortunately, all are above the minimum requirements for CPU cores, RAM, and storage. 6 to 12 CPU cores and 64GB of RAM are above-average specs even today. However, for the 2013 Mac Pro there are looming issues with OS compatibility and GPU power, though; see below. It wasn’t mentioned what graphics hardware they have, but we can assume they have something within the range of the choices they had when sold new (which are all far weaker than the Mac GPU options today).

In short, for the choices you have, the higher GHz Mac Pros in your list should generally be slightly better for Photoshop, and the models with more cores might be somewhat better for Lightroom. The reason more cores help with Lightroom is that it’s more likely that Lightroom will be processing many images in bulk, such as generating previews and bulk exports of large shoots. In Photoshop, you are more likely to be editing just one image at a time.

That answer assumes that you’ll keep using whatever versions of Adobe software you have right now, because no current Creative Cloud apps still support macOS 10.15 Catalina. Like Apple, Adobe provides support and updates for only the last three versions of macOS, which right now are macOS 12, 13, and 14. Each year the last three supported versions ratchet up one number when Apple releases their annual upgrade in the fall, so any Mac that cannot be upgraded beyond macOS 12 Monterey is likely to lose support and updates from both Apple and Adobe this fall (2024) when Apple can be assumed to release macOS 15, and when that happens it will no longer be possible to install future new versions of Photoshop and Lightroom on a macOS 12 system.

If you are going to use old versions now but eventually upgrade to a newer Mac when funds become available so that you can run current versions, you’ll want to ask again then, because performance optimizations in later versions of Photoshop and Lightroom take better advantage of the way Apple Silicon components work together, so the answers for new Macs are different than for 2013 Macs. For example, if you were interested in using the AI features in the latest versions such as the popular AI Denoise or AI masking features, having more GPU cores and enough Unified Memory to not starve the GPU makes a huge difference in speeding up AI processing and graphics acceleration in general. But if you’re still using the old versions, that doesn’t apply yet.

D Fosse

Community Expert

You forgot the GPU. That's the critical component now, in the sense that it has to perform up to a certain level, and be able to execute a number of very advanced functions. It just can't be too old - as a rule of thumb, the horizon is about 6-8 years, but newer than that is a big advantage, especially for the newer AI-based functions.

I'm not familiar with Intel Mac history and AMD cards, but with Nvidia the breakpoint was the RTX line introduced in 2018. The older GTX cards work up to a point, but not nearly as efficiently.

Aside from that, the short answer is storage. Drive speed, and drive capacity.

There is no such thing as "enough RAM". Photoshop's total memory requirement can be orders of magnitude bigger, certainly if you work with big files. The heavy load is carried by the scratch disk, with RAM more as a fast access cache. The thing is - with the newest ultra-fast NVMe drives, the scratch disk is no longer a bottleneck like it used to be. With a fast scratch disk, and enough space, RAM isn't all that important.

Finally - an important question is how much you want your desk cluttered with external drives dangling at the end of flimsy cables.

Trevor.Dennis

Community Expert

The lads on the Premiere Pro Hardware forum are always good for that sort of information regards Adobe apps, and what they will tell you is that there is no one most important component, and balance is what counts. If I was pressed, I would say CPU clock speed, and hard drive performance.

Check out the Puget Systems hardware tests. You can also look at the specs of the workstations they sell for content creation, and base your build on that information.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/all-articles/?filter=photoshop

Gary MoonAuthor

Participant

Thank you @Trevor.Dennis. I'll follow your advice and check out the info sources you suggested.

One important nugget of information collected today about the charming Trash Can...if it's correct...is that RAM is NOT soldered in, but can be re-configured. I'd probably spend for 64GB.

I appreciate your reply.

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded