Thanks for the tip. As expected, the counter is advancing 1 at a time vs 7 at a time in LR5.
OK, got a bit of time to do some testing. First thing, the different counter increments aren't indicative of the CPU core activity, though there are some differences. For my testing I used 200 22mp raw files from my Canon 5DIII, and ran the tests in the two environments as per my signature. Note that the benchmark speeds have the MBP CPU at roughly twice the speed of my Windows desktop, and previous timing tests do normally have the MBP nearly twice as fast as the desktop. Results of my tests as follows:
1. LR5 on the MPB: 2m 58s. All 8 cores showing activity.
2. LRCC on the MBP: 2m 56s. 4 cores showing activity.
3. LR5 on the Windows Desktop: 2m 27s. All 8 cores almost maxed out.
4. LRCC on the Windows Desktop: 5m 15s. 7 cores showing activity, but never maxed out.
So work that out. For a start no way should the Windows LR5 test be faster than the MBP,
unless OSX "throttles" the CPU activity to prevent meltdown.
The LRCC test results would look normal in isolation, i.e. the MBP almost twice as fast as the Windows desktop. That might also explain why the LRCC test on the MBP would be the same as the LR5 test, i.e. the LR5 test should be significantly quicker than it was. Maybe that's the anomaly I'm seeing here.
But finally, looking at the difference between the two tests on the Windows Desktop, I wasn't expecting the LRCC speed to be half the speed of LR5. I'll ask a question about that, but based on my tests your Windows test result (specifically the LRCC test) looks a little out of whack?