Lightroom export time

As a random test I selected a folder of RAW files, 68 photos, and let LR export all of them at once. The resulting jpg files total 1.75GB on the hard disk and took 1 min 35 seconds.

Anyone care to do a matching/similar LR export and throw up the numbers?

Color bit depth and compression and file type may or may not make a big difference so maybe this isn't worth the trouble.

Core i9900K, base is 3.6GHz, overclocked to 5
RAM 32GB overclocked to roughly 3533
NVMe M.2 disk


edit: 5D4, all photos shot large RAW, exported images are color, not cropped, jpg 100% quality

Core i7-8700, 3.2 GHz, 32 GB RAM
Windows, Lightroom, Lightroom catalog on NVMe M.2 SSD, Lightroom library on NAS over Gigabit Ethernet, exporting to SATA SSD.

I selected 68 R6 raw files, exported at full post-crop resolution, JPG quality 80.

2:14 export time

It would be highly useful for anyone publishing times to state the CAMERA (which correlates to how many Megapixels per photo)

Wilt wrote in post #19168782
It would be highly useful for anyone publishing times to state the CAMERA (which correlates to how many Megapixels per photo)

Most if not all the images in the OP’s gallery are from a 5DIV.

I added more details to the first post.

4 core + HT (8 logical) i7 2.70GHz (6820HK) no overclocking, 32 GB RAM, dual NVME m.2 68 RAW from 5d4... I COULD do overclocking so I wonder what difference it'd make... I've never complained about the speed of my laptop for it's age... only the shape... pointy

2:14

1:04 AMD 3900x - random mixture of 7d II raw and 6D raw.

It's pretty much all processor. The more cores, the more power, the better. I'm used to rendering 3D scenes and animations that would take multiple days, so a few minutes to export is great lol

DesolateMirror wrote in post #19170682
1:04 AMD 3900x - random mixture of 7d II raw and 6D raw.

It's pretty much all processor. The more cores, the more power, the better. I'm used to rendering 3D scenes and animations that would take multiple days, so a few minutes to export is great lol

Adobe, per its 2019 recommendations, says:

"Options that can help increase performance include:

• 64-bit, multiple-core processor (for best performance, up to six cores; the extra power is especially important if you use multiple or high-resolution monitors, which require more power)
  
• 12 GB of RAM (recommended); At least 4 GB of RAM, more if you use Photoshop at the same time
  
• Fast hard disks, especially for the catalog and previews"
  

1:08 and 1.39GB of space

68 Random photos at 100% JPG, all taken with 5D4.

Computer is a non-overclocked i7-8770K with 64 GB of RAM and dual 4TB SSDs.

Good numbers. You surpassed me by 2MB/sec.

HannahsDad wrote in post #19173153
=Hannah'sDad;19173153]​1:08 and 1.39GB of space

68 Random photos at 100% JPG, all taken with 5D4.

Computer is a non-overclocked i7-8770K with 64 GB of RAM and dual 4TB SSDs.

chuckmiller wrote in post #19173349
Good numbers. You surpassed me by 2MB/sec.

It's probably the SATA SSDs. I also have a 512 GB M.2 drive in there that I have Lightroom and Photoshop pointed to for use as a scratch disk. So, it does make a bit of difference to not have to write to a spinning drive, I think. But, I was only showing you what mine were. Not trying to out-flex anyone here.

Scott

HannahsDad wrote in post #19173423
=Hannah'sDad;19173423]​It's probably the SATA SSDs. I also have a 512 GB M.2 drive in there that I have Lightroom and Photoshop pointed to for use as a scratch disk. So, it does make a bit of difference to not have to write to a spinning drive, I think. But, I was only showing you what mine were. Not trying to out-flex anyone here.

Scott

While the drives do make a touch of difference, the exports are purely CPU + RAM speed and CPU-to-RAM interlink speed. Disk speed for write is buffered in RAM to smooth disk writes and once the images are read into memory, there's a bit of caching to prevent redundant disk reads.

Curiosity just got me as I've never paid attention to export times...so I just tried your test on my older desktop to see what the outcome of the test was for big files on a heavy ("kinda big iron") box. The results are based on 68 files from an Phase One IQ250, exported as JPG 100%, all files have some sort of minor editing, all uncropped for the test. Exported as sRGB (which reduces the color to 8-bit for output and limits the file size).

The results are: 32s @ 1.76GB with all cores tach'd out during export (LR doesn't use the graphics card for export vs C1 which does...LR completely ignored the 2x P4000 Quadros in the box). Interesting how much data is cut out in JPG conversion. The RAW (IIQ) files are ~50MB each.

The box is 2x Xeon E5-2667v4 @ 3.5GHz, 512GB DDR-4 2400 ECC, 4x NvME 1TB 960Pro (1-boot, 1-catalog, 2 for swap/temp in RAID0 on a Highpoint card), 8x Seagate Enterprise SAS12 900GB 15K in RAID 50+1 with 8GB cache (RAW files). Exported to old 7200 RPM Barracuda 1TB spinning rust in SATA3. The system has 128GB of RAM dedicated to disk caching using Primocache, so once read in (image load), the disks aren't touched for read again. The same cache also buffers out the writes to the SATA.

Note the burst on Y: at the start (that's the SAS RAID) when it reads in all the files, then no more disk activity during export. The output was written to G:, but it's still in cache pending flush "on idle":

HannahsDad wrote in post #19173423
=Hannah'sDad;19173423]​...Not trying to out-flex anyone here.

Scott

Same here.

I started this only out of interest and information.

Maybe anyone joining in will conclude that their hardware is serving them perfectly fine or discover they have an issue to deal with.

chuckmiller wrote in post #19173487
Same here.

I started this only out of interest and information.

Maybe anyone joining in will conclude that their hardware is serving them perfectly fine or discover they have an issue to deal with.

I wasn't trying to outflex anyone. Just curious if LR still had the limitations of older versions where it stopped scaling with bigger hardware, and also if cores vs ram vs disk made a difference.

My C and D drives are 1 year old ADATA 1TB NVMe M.2 mounted on the mainboard, my next internal drive is a 1 year old 4TB Samsung SSD (SATA) 860 Pro I think, and another internal is an older (SATA) 1TB SSD Samsung 840 pro I think. Today I Lightroom exported the same 68 original test files to all 4 drives with nearly identical timed results. That tells me that speed demon or not I don't have a significant bottleneck on any drive controller. I popped a screen shot showing the resource utilization for each task. All CPU 8 cores and 16 logical processors working 100%. RAM was 50% /used/available. GPU was barely touched, naturally. After all that I copied a big load of files from C to D and popped another screenshot. The CPU usage was vastly different. LR is taking full advantage of every CPU core, Windows does not, at least not my Win 10 Pro version .

So, using my original transfer as a baseline, my LR on this desktop PC will export approx 40-45 images per minute to any internal drive I have. 99% of the time I put 5D4 large RAW images into LR and export no crop full size sRGB JPG at 100% quality.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2kmX​rYd

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2kmY​1vd