iMac fast enough for Lightroom?

[n1as]

I'm using LR 1.4 to process raw files on my Win XP machine. It is slow. I'm often caught waiting for the machine as it is chugging away and the UI controls are unresponsive.

The machine is a Dell mid-range unit from a couple of years ago. Around 2 GHz processor, 2.5 GB ram, 7200 RPM SATA hard drives, low end graphic card.

The iMac doesn't look to be that much "better" than my current machine. Is it? Would it be faster?

[vetkrazy]

I run both Lightroom 2.0 and CS3 on a windows machine and my new iMac. My windows machine is an Athlon 64x 3800 dual core, 4gb and a Raptor for scratch drive. The iMac is 3.0, 4gb and a firewire WD for scratch drive. I can not tell a difference in speed, both programs run smooth, no delays or problems. Both machines run high end graphic cards with dual monitors.

[n1as]

I got some more info (now that I'm on my home machine). What I have is a Pentium-4 2.8 GHz with 2.5 GB RAM with 300 GB of disk space. The iMac I'm looking at is 2.8 GHz and 2 GB RAM with 350 GB disk. Boy, those numbers look just alike to me. Now, mind you the iMac is using a different processor which I suppose is faster.

I'm just not sure I want to spend $1800 on a new computer only to find it isn't really any better than what I already have.

[Tony-S]

What is the model number of the p4 that you have? The iMac will have a penryn with 6 mb cache. Also, what's your current bus speed and SATA controller speed?

[Moppie]

If it is a NEW iMac, then it will be dual core, with faster FSB etc, and will be faster than your old Dell PC.

If the iMac is an older model, then it might be any faster.

[Tony-S]

2.8 gHz has to be the current iMac. Previous gen was 2.4 gHz max. I'm pretty sure the current iMac will perform better than his 2 year old Dell, too.

[Moppie]

2.8 gHz has to be the current iMac. Previous gen was 2.4 gHz max. I'm pretty sure the current iMac will perform better than his 2 year old Dell, too.


Then the only thing he has to worry about is that damn glossy screen.

[Tony-S]

Yeah, and the reason why I didn't buy an iMac (or should I say real Mac :) ).

[Dan-]

The p4 was a very poor performer. According to independent benchmarks, each core of the Penryn chip will be about 2.5-3x faster than the entire processor it's replacing. So with dual core, you'll see a 5x-6x increase in performance with lower power consumption.

Yeah, and the reason why I didn't buy an iMac (or should I say real Mac :) ).
A poor choice of words perhaps. :D

[klinz]

i have to agree with dan. i have a p4 2.6 with 2 gigs of ram and my imac with the dual core 2.4 and 2 gigs of ram is at least 3 times as fast at running lightroom.

[mson]

You will definitely see an improvement with the iMac. The Core 2 Duo is a noticeable improvement over the P4. I would increase the RAM to 4GB if you can, just don't buy it from Apple. They over charge for RAM, you can buy the same thing much cheaper elsewhere.

[n1as]

Good info guys. Yes, my P4 Dell (maybe 3 yrs old?) is underwhelming me when it comes to Lightroom and Photoshop Elements.

What about the glossy screen on the iMac? I live in the country and have no good way to demo a machine so I'll be buying sight unseen. I'm currently using a Dell Trinitron CRT and it seems OK. The LCD on my work laptop isn't as good IMHO for photo editing. I'm wondering if the LDC on the new iMacs is a good thing for photo editing or a bad thing.

[Tony-S]

Glossy was a deal-killer for me. You might consider the 20" iMac and then buy a second display that has a matte finish and nice panel (e.g., S-IPS). Or you could forego the iMac and go with a Mac Mini.

[Moppie]

Good info guys. Yes, my P4 Dell (maybe 3 yrs old?) is underwhelming me when it comes to Lightroom and Photoshop Elements.

What about the glossy screen on the iMac? I live in the country and have no good way to demo a machine so I'll be buying sight unseen. I'm currently using a Dell Trinitron CRT and it seems OK.


I have a 19 inch Dell Trinitron, the latest glossy iMac screen is a bad joke in comparison.
The older, matt screens are pretty good though (not as good as the Sony Trinitron, but not far off either).

Does the iMac have a proper video out on it? So a second screen can be added?
If you have room you can then use Trinitron with the iMac.

The other option would be to just buy or build a new quad core PC. Since you have a good screen, etc, you would only need the box which could be sourced for a lot less than an iMac, and would perform a lot better.

[vetkrazy]

To each their own. I am running a iMac glossy next to my windows machine and have no problems at all. Have been running them side by side for about two months. Prints from both machines are identical. My windows machine has a calibrated Dell 24" and a 19" Dell as second monitor while I have a 20" widescreen as second on the iMac. Both machines are quad core with Lightroom/CS3. All I can say is it works for me.

[Tony-S]

Both machines are quad core with Lightroom/CS3.

There are no quad-core iMacs.

[n1as]

What is it about the glossy iMac screens that is bad? The reflections?

I can't use my existing Trinitron because it needs to stay with the Windows machine. If I get a Mac, I'll need a monitor with it as well.

Mini mac? I thought it was a toy compared to the iMac. Is the little baby thing enough HP to run Lightroom / Photoshop and process raw files?

And if I get a mini Mac then I'd need a separate display. Sheesh, I'd need to do a bunch (more) research and learn what displays are good & bad. This whole thing is turning into a pile of work in a hurry LOL!

[Moppie]

What is it about the glossy iMac screens that is bad? The reflections?


Reflections, brightness, saturation, it all looks wrong. Well actually it looks really pretty (except for the really bad reflections), but edit a photo on the glossy screen, then print or display it somewhere else, and it just looks wrong.

[vetkrazy]

My bad....Dual Core

[Tony-S]

What is it about the glossy iMac screens that is bad? The reflections?

They're difficult to calibrate, even with a colorimeter. Oh, and the reflections (but those can be controlled).

Mini mac? I thought it was a toy compared to the iMac. Is the little baby thing enough HP to run Lightroom / Photoshop and process raw files?

I did it for two years (see link in my sig :) ). The Mini has integrated Intel GMA 950 gpu (which is great for 2D work, but no so much for 3D work). All photo (and video) apps for Macs use the cpu and not the gpu for manipulations. The exceptions to this rule are Aperture and Pixelmator. A 2 gHz dual core Mini will perform equally to any other 2 gHz Mac (with 32-bit operations).

And if I get a mini Mac then I'd need a separate display. Sheesh, I'd need to do a bunch (more) research and learn what displays are good & bad. This whole thing is turning into a pile of work in a hurry LOL!

The 20" iMac has a TN panel (6-bit). The 24" iMac has an H-IPS panel (8-bit). With a mini you can buy any DVI or VGA display and connect it to it. The limitation is you only get one display and it will only provide up to 1920 x 1200 resolution (24" native).