Lightroom - 100% CPU Usage

[Margie]

I have Windows XP with service pack 2 on a Pentium 4, 2.4' GHz, 2 GB RAM computer. I am planning on migrating to a Mac Pro and would like to ensure that it is configured to perform for Lightroom and Photoshop.

When Lightroom performs the following functions, the Task Manager on my current computer shows 1''% CPU Usage:

• Lightroom Develop, click on an image "loading" message & 1''% cpu
• Lightroom Upload
• Lightroom Export
• Lightroom Library, full screen mode: click on filmstrip to see an image

I'm thinking that if there were additional CPU resources, then the performance would be better. I am under the impression that the CPU Usage relates to the processor. Which of the following configurations on a Mac Pro do you think would be able to process Lightroom & Photoshop without being at 1''% CPU Usage (and as a result slow):
Two 2.' GHz dual core Intel Xeon
Two 2.66 GHz dual core Intel Xeon
Two 3.' GHz dual core Intel Xeon
Two 3.' Quad core Intel Xeon

Or, am I off track and there is another solution?

Thanks very much!

Margie

 

[billg71]

Margie, I wouldn't worry. I'm not a Mac user but I can't get LR to do more than spike my Core2 2.4G(OC to 2.8 )to 9'% on rare occasions. Any of the Macs you listed should be more than adequate as far as processor power is concerned.

 

[melissa]

Any of those would work. You will see processor spikes from time to time, as LR (and ACR) will use as much processor power as it can to do things like render previews.

For LR performance, a fast hard drive and a bunch of memory is just as important as processor speed.

 

[SteveF]

Hello,

Even when doing a bunch of previews or other intensive process I've not seen LR get above 6'% on my system. (dual 3.' quad core)

 

[billg71]

For LR performance, a fast hard drive and a bunch of memory is just as important as processor speed.

Good point, Melissa. My catalog sits on the RAID ' Raptors and the image files on the RAID 1 array, never thought about it before.

So, Margie, I'll go out on a limb and suggest spending more on the drive systems and less on the processor. Two 2G or 2.66G dual-core Xeons should be plenty fast for processing but you have to get the data on and off the disk as well. The problem is that Stevie J thinks well of his hard drives and prices them accordingly.

Personally(and your mileage may most definitely vary) I've been a big Apple fan since the Apple II came out, but I've never been able to justify the cost over a comparable Windoze/Intel machine as far as performance goes. In the early days of the Mac they were the most advanced machine around. But Intel and Bill Gates caught up and now, IMHO, Apple is preaching to the choir. Just an aside, and most definitely MHO.....

Anyway, HTH and good luck with your new machine!



TIA