Lightroom on Apple's M1 Max Mac: Holy mackerel, this is fast

Lightroom on Apple's M1 Max Mac: Holy mackerel, this is fast

I didn't really need to upgrade to an M1 Max-powered MacBook Pro. After spending hours using Adobe's Lightroom photo editing and cataloging software, boy, am I glad I did. 

The speed of the new MacBook Pro knocked my socks off. The battery life was similarly impressive. And it's great having an SD card reader back for importing photos and videos from my cameras.

The improvements, validated with by testing some common Lightroom chores that caused my older Intel-powered Mac to crawl, are thanks to Apple's new chip and Adobe optimization to take advantage of it. Apple is halfway through a two-year process of replacing Intel processors with its own M-series designs. The chips are beefier cousins to the A-series chips in Apple's iPhones and iPads.

If you're leery about the switch, come on in. The water's fine.

Among the advantages the M1 Max and its similar but less graphically powerful M1 Pro sibling deliver: built-in circuitry for artificial intelligence tasks, a unified memory architecture, and a beefy built-in graphics processing unit. The chips balance power with battery life by combining high-speed and high-efficiency cores, resulting in more hours of use per charge. The chips are made for Apple by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC).

My photography labor of love

For the record, my new MacBook Pro sports 32GB of memory, a midrange configuration for the 16-inch models and twice what's in my two-year-old MacBook Pro using a six-core Intel Core i7 processor. The extra memory is a $400 addition, but I judged it worthwhile to accommodate photo and video editing plus my usual burden of a few dozen browser tabs. (Lightroom is happy to grab as much of that memory as it can.)

To be clear: I was trying to decide whether my upgrade was justified, not evaluate how the latest Intel-based machines measure up. So the speed tests are relevant to me and likely anyone else wondering whether to shell out $3,000 or more. But they aren't meant to be definitive.

From the moment I set up the machine, the performance boost was obvious. Loading websites, scrolling and unlocking with Touch ID were all noticeably faster. Everything was refreshingly snappy.

And for a collection of Lightroom tests I ran, clocking common operations by stopwatch, the speedup factor on a collection of tests I ran is between 2x and 5x.

My new MacBook Pro with Apple's M1 Max processor handily outpaced the two-year-old Intel-based machine on a variety of common computing chores in my Lightroom photo editing. Each result is the average of three tests I clocked with a stopwatch.

Stephen Shankland/CNET

The main reason I justified buying a $3,500 laptop, which came to $2,150 with a $1,350 rebate for trading in my previous Intel-powered machine, was because glowing reviews indicated the new MacBook Pro would be better at heavy-duty tasks like photo editing.

I take a lot of photos. My Lightroom catalog has more than 129,000 shots and my Flickr archive has upwards of 30,000. I use photography as a creative outlet, a journal of my family's life and a tool that encourages me to learn about everything from insects to architecture. I take a lot of photos for work: I've documented refugees, nudibranchs and close-up details of processors.

It's a labor of love, and I do mean labor. I usually take 30-megapixel photos in raw image formats with my Canon 5D Mark IV. I also shoot hundreds of raw photos with a Google Pixel and an Apple iPhone. I also try out new camera products like the 45-megapixel Canon R5 and the 151-megapixel Phase One IQ4. That means I have a lot of photos to manage, many of them in processor-taxing sizes.

Processing photos is a lot of work for computers. Turning raw photo data into a shot I can see on my screen is a constant computational bottleneck as the computer renders new photos or rerenders them with editing changes. I quickly max out my memory with editing tasks such as exposure adjustments and tonal changes. I often sit impatiently watching progress bars crawl along as I merge multiple photos into a single panorama or high dynamic range (HDR) image or increase photo size with Adobe's Super Resolution feature.

Lightroom on the M1 Max MacBook

So how much faster is the new machine? Way faster. I performed five tests of routine but taxing Lightroom actions, running them three times on each machine and taking the average time. That might not be statistically rigorous for a scientific study, but it did clearly show I wasn't imagining the speedup.

Merging six 30-megapixel shots into a panorama was 4.8x faster on the new MacBook Pro, taking an average of 14 seconds vs. 67 for the Intel machine. That was the biggest speedup in my tests. The smallest was merging three 30-megapixel shots into an HDR photo, which took 22 seconds on the Intel machine and 12 seconds on the M1 Max, a 1.9x speedup.

Lightroom still struggles to accommodate Phase One's enormous 151-megapixel raw files, but the new Mac handled it much better than my older machine. A panorama merge of two shots took an excruciating 109 seconds on the Intel Mac; it was 3.2x faster on the M1 Max MacBook Pro at 34 seconds. Interpreting the raw files to generate full-resolution previews -- the most common delay I experience in Lightroom -- was 2.5x faster on the new machine.

Adobe's Super Resolution, a machine learning tool that benefits from the M1 Max's AI accelerator module, was 2.4x faster on the M1 Max Mac, an average of 9 seconds compared with 22 on the Intel Mac.

Adobe has updated Lightroom to take advantage of the M1 chips' unified memory architecture, which offers a single pool of memory that the central processing cores and graphics processing cores both can take advantage of. That means data doesn't have to be laboriously copied back and forth to separate CPU and GPU memory regions, liberating programmers to use whichever core is fastest for a particular job. Adobe also taps into the M1's Neural Engine cores for AI acceleration, said Sharad Mangalick, Adobe's photo product manager.

Lightroom photo editors also should see "noticeable improvements" in speed and responsiveness when importing and exporting photos, scrolling through the photo library, editing, and merging shots into HDR and panorama images, Mangalick said.

Indeed, I found many tasks in Lightroom -- launching, scrolling, zooming, importing and exporting -- are snappier on the new machine. On a Thanksgiving excursion on which I shot a couple hundred photos, battery life was good enough that it wasn't until the third day that I had to plug in the new MacBook Pro.

I'm a satisfied customer.

---

Source

Tags:

• Lightroom For Mac M1 Download
• Lightroom Classic Mac M1
• Mac Mini M1 Lightroom Performance
• Mac M1 Lightroom 2022
• Lightroom Classic Mac M1
• Lightroom Performance On Apple M1
• Adobe Lightroom Apple M1
• Lightroom For Mac M1 Download
• Mac M1 Lightroom 2022
• Apple Photos Vs Lightroom
• Lightroom For Ipad
• Lightroom Online Alternative

New macbook pro teardown macbook pro 13 2016 teardown macbook air 2021 teardown macbook pro 2019 teardown macbook air 2021 teardown macbook pro 2022 teardown macbook pro 2022 macbook pro 2021 macbook pro 2020

MacBook Pro 2021 teardown shows Apple gave repair at least some thought, iFixit says

MacBook Pro 2021 teardown shows Apple gave repair at least some thought, iFixit says

Apple's new MacBook Pro , featuring the next generation of the company's in-house chips and the much-welcomed return of an HDMI port and SD card reader, makes "better use of interior space," according to a teardown by iFixit. But when it comes to repairability, there's room for improvement.

"Apple's M1 silicon is rocketing the industry forward in a bunch of ways, and it's unfortunate repairability isn't advancing as quickly," iFixit writes. "Still, this design represents a major move in the right direction." For instance, the process of replacing a battery is slightly less difficult now.

Compared to 2019's 15-inch MacBook Pro with Touch Bar, the newer models pack speakers and batteries in "every cozy cranny, without sacrificing a robust-looking cooling assembly," iFixit notes. And replacing the power button doesn't appear to be too much of a headache. 

But the rest of the keyboard is "problematic to replace," iFixit says.

"Apple stores and AASPs (Apple Authorized Service Providers) will likely continue replacing your entire top case rather than deal with the hassle of repairing their own keyboard design," the post reads. "(Thankfully it's not a butterfly affair anymore, so repairs should be far less frequent—just be sure to keep a tight grip on your latte.)"

Another factor complicating repairability is the laptop's "soldered-down, non-removable storage." iFixit adds, "Forget about removing the drive to protect your data during repair or when you sell it; you've gotta shred the whole logic board if you want failproof security."

Nearly $20 for a cloth, you say?

iFixit

And what about that $19 Polishing Cloth from Apple? iFixit took a look at that, too (in jest, really), calling it an "object of beauty worthy of being cleaneditself," before coming to its senses and asking, "Where did our twenty dollars go?"

Ending on a sarcastic note, iFixit says, "The new Apple Polishing Cloth earns a 0 out of 10 on our repairability scale, for distracting us from a very important MacBook Pro teardown and not going back together after we cut it into pieces with scissors."

§

Apple on Monday revealed its M1 Pro and M1 Max processors, giving us a look at its highest-end chips so far and the brains inside its redesigned MacBook Pro, which comes in 14-inch and 16-inch models. The chips present a new threat to Intel's decades of PC processor dominance, thanks to more computing cores compared to older M1 chips.

Apple debuted its M1 in 2020 with new MacBook Air and 13-inch MacBook Pro laptops and added the chip to new iPad Pro tablets and iMac all-in-one PCs in 2021. The M1 chip offered a winning combination of performance and battery life, but Apple now is making the case that its processors also are suited for customers like photographers, video editors and developers who need a lot more horsepower.

The new chips are behemoths in the processor world. The M1 Pro has 33.7 billion transistors, the core circuitry element fundamental to all chips, and the M1 Max has 57 billion. They both employ a beefier version of the M1's unified memory architecture, with the M1 Pro reaching 32GB and the M1 Pro Max reaching 64GB.

The M1 Pro has 10 central processing unit cores and 16 graphics processing unit cores, though lower-end MacBook Pros come only with eight CPU cores and 14 GPU cores. The M1 Max has 10 CPU cores and 32 GPU cores. The chips have eight high-performance cores for important jobs and two efficiency cores for background tasks.

The 14-inch MacBook Pro, which starts at $1,999 (£1,899, AU$2,999), comes with the M1 Pro chip. The 16-inch model, which starts at $2,499 (£2,399, AU$3,749), is available with either chip.

It's relatively easy to make a powerful processor, but it's hard to make one that's efficient in energy consumption. Apple touted its new M1 Pro and Max as strong here, too, with 17- and 21-hour battery life, respectively, for watching video. Using Adobe's Lightroom Classic photo editing software, battery life is twice as long compared with Intel-based MacBook Pros.

The M1 Pro and M1 Max enable Apple to leave Intel behind for a broader swath of Macs. Apple's first Intel-powered Macs shipped in 2006. When Apple announced the M1 in 2020, it said it would take two years to push Intel chips out of its Macs. To smooth the transition, the M-series chips can translate software written for Intel chips, and Apple promised five years of software updates for Intel-based Macs.

Apple revealed the chips at an online MacBook Pro launch event. Although iPhones have eclipsed Macs as Apple's most profitable products, the computers remain an important part of the company's business. MacBook Pro models in particular are geared for customers willing to spend thousands of dollars for a premium laptop.

Compared with its 16-inch MacBook Pro with a high-end Intel Core i9 processor, Apple's 16-inch MacBook Pros with M1 Pro or M1 Max chips are twice as fast in CPU performance, Apple said. In graphics speed, the M1 Pro laptops are two and a half times faster and the M1 Max laptops are four times faster, Apple said.

And in AI tasks, which use machine learning techniques for jobs like recognizing faces in photos or converting speech to text, the M1 chips are five times faster than the Intel i9 machine. Apple didn't disclose which benchmarks it used for the tests.

Apple for several years has steadily improved AI accelerators it's built into its A-series chips for iPhones and iPads and brought that to its M-series chips, too. Intel, which has suffered from years of difficulties improving its manufacturing processes, has been slower to add AI accelerators.

It makes a big difference. On Adobe's Super Resolution feature, which uses AI to double photo sizes in Photoshop and Lightroom, Apple's AI hardware doubles speed and power efficiency on M1-based Macs, spokesman Roman Skuratovsky said. And with MacOS Monterey, new AI support makes Photoshop's Neural Filter features 10 times faster.

Compared to the M1, the M1 Pro's CPU performance is 70% faster and GPU performance is 100% faster. The M1 Max, which has a faster internal data transfer system and memory interface, 

Like its M1 processor, the M1 Pro and M1 Max are built using a 5-nanometer manufacturing process. They're members of the Arm family of chips used to power every smartphone and many other devices. Apple uses Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. to build its chips.

Other changes coming to the MacBook Pro include camera enhancements, the death of the Touch Bar, the return of MagSafe charging and an HDMI port, and the addition of a notch. Along with the new laptops and chips, Apple announced the AirPods 3 (here's how to buy them), a new Apple Music "Voice" Plan and new HomePod Mini colors.

---

Source

https://ramodale.kian.my.id/

.

How to edit photo using laptop cheap laptop for photo editing how to edit a photo on laptop how to buy a laptop computer for dummies how to buy stocks how to buy bitcoin how to draw

How to Buy a Laptop to Edit Photos, Videos or for Other Creative Tasks

How to Buy a Laptop to Edit Photos, Videos or for Other Creative Tasks

Are you baffled by the multitude of laptop, desktop and tablet options being hurled at you as a generic "creative" or "creator"? Marketing materials rarely distinguish among the widely varying needs for different pursuits; marketers basically consider anything with a discrete GPU (a graphics processor that's not integrated into the CPU), no matter how low power, suitable for all sorts of creative endeavors. That can get really frustrating when you're trying to wade through a mountain of choices.

On one hand, the wealth of options means there's something for every type of work, suitable for any creative tool and at a multitude of prices. On the other, it means you run the risk of overspending for a model you don't really need. Or more likely underspending, and ending up with a system that just can't keep up, because you haven't judged the trade-offs of different components properly. 

One thing hasn't changed over time: The most important components to worry about are the CPU, which generally handles most of the final quality and AI acceleration for a growing number of smart features; GPU, which determines how fluidly your screen interactions are along with some AI acceleration as well; the screen; and the amount of memory. Other considerations can be your network speed and stability, since so much is moving up and down from the cloud, and storage speed and capacity if you're dealing with large video or render files.

You still won't find anything particularly budget-worthy for a decent experience. Even a basic model worth buying will cost at least $1,000; like a gaming laptop, the extras that make it worth the name are what differentiates it from a general-purpose competitor, and those always cost at least a bit extra.

Andrew Hoyle/CNET

Should I get a MacBook Pro or a Windows laptop?

If what you're really wondering is whether the Mac is generally better than Windows for graphics, that hasn't been true for a while. Windows' graphics programming interface has gotten a lot better over time, which allows for broader support and better performance in the applications. But performing display calibration on both platforms can feel like walking barefoot over broken glass. Windows, because its color profile management seems like it hasn't changed since it originally launched in Windows NT, and MacOS because interface changes made in Monterey combined with ambiguity about supported calibrators, software and the new MacBook Pro screens has some folks gnashing their collective teeth.

MacBook Pros now have native M1 processor support for most of the important applications, which includes software written to use Metal (Apple's graphics application programming interface). But a lot of software still doesn't have both Windows and MacOS versions, which means you have to pick the platform that supports any critical utilities or specific software packages. If you need both and aren't seriously budget-constrained, consider buying a fully kitted-out MacBook Pro and running a Windows virtual machine on it. That's an imperfect solution, though, since VMs tend to be fairly bad ab out being able to access the full capabilities of the GPU.

Dan Ackerman/CNET

How do I know what specs are important?

The first decision you need to make is whether you'll need a workstation-class system or can get away with a normal laptop; the latter is generally cheaper. In order to use some advanced features, accelerate some operations or adhere to certain security constraints, some professional applications require workstation-class components: Nvidia A- or T-series or AMD W-series GPUs rather than their GeForce or Radeon equivalents, Intel Xeon or AMD Threadripper CPUs and ECC (error correction code) memory.

Nvidia loosened the reigns on its division between its consumer GPUs and its workstation GPUs with a middle-ground Nvidia Studio. The Studio drivers, as opposed to GeForce's Game Ready ones, add optimizations for more creation-focused applications rather than games, which means you don't necessarily have to fork over as much cash.

Companies which develop professional applications usually provide guidance on what some recommended specs are for running their software. If your budget demands that you make performance trade-offs, you need to know where to throw more money. Since every application is different, you can't generalize to the level of "video-editing uses CPU cores more than GPU acceleration" (though a big, fast SSD is almost always a good idea). The requirements for photo editing are generally lower than those for video, so those systems will probably be cheaper and more tempting. But if you spend 90% of your time editing video, it might not be worth the savings.

There are a few generalizations I can make to help narrow down your options:  

• More and faster CPU cores -- more P-Cores if we're talking about Intel's new 12th-gen processors -- directly translate into shorter final-quality rendering times for both video and 3D and faster ingestion and thumbnail generation of high-resolution photos and video. Intel's new P-series processors are specifically biased for creative (and other CPU-intensive) work.
• More and faster GPU cores plus more graphics memory (VRAM) improves the fluidity of much real-time work, such as using the secondary display option in Lightroom, scrubbing through complex timelines for video editing, working on complex 3D models and so on.
• Always get 16GB or more memory. Frankly, that's my general recommendation for Windows systems (MacOS runs better on less memory than Windows). But a lot of graphics applications will use as much memory as they can get their grubby little bits on; for instance, I've never seen Lightroom use less than all the available memory in my system (or CPU cores) when importing photos. 
• Stick with SSD storage and at least 1TB of it. Budget laptops may have a slow, secondary spinning disk drive to cheaply pad about the amount of storage. And while you could get away with 512GB, you'll probably find yourself having to clear files off onto external storage a little too frequently.
• Get the fastest Wi-Fi possible, which at the moment is Wi-Fi 6E. Much has become split between the cloud and local storage, and even if you don't intend to use the cloud much your software may force it on you. For instance, Adobe really, really wants you to use its clouds and is moving an increasing amount of your files to cloud-only. And if you accidentally save that 256MB Photoshop file in the ether, you're in for a rude awakening when you try to open it next.

Do I need a 4K or 100% Adobe RGB screen?

Not necessarily. For highly detailed work  -- think a CAD wireframe or illustration -- you might benefit from the higher pixel density of a 4K display, but for the most part, you can get away with something lower (and you'll be rewarded with slightly better battery life, too). 

Color is more important, but your needs depend on what you're doing and at what level. A lot of manufacturers will cut corners with a 100% sRGB display, but it won't be able to reproduce a lot of saturated colors; it really is a least-common-denominator space, and you can always buy a cheap external monitor to preview or proof images the way they'll appear on cheaper displays. 

For graphics that will only be appearing online, a screen with at least 95% P3 (aka DCI-P3) coverage is my general choice, and they're becoming quite common and less expensive than they used to be. If you're trying to match colors between print and screen, then 99% Adobe RGB makes more sense. Either one will display lovely saturated colors and the broad tonal range you might need for photo editing, but Adobe RGB skews more toward reproducing cyan and magenta, which are important for printing.

A display that supports color profiles stored in hardware, like HP's Dreamcolor, Calman Ready, Dell PremierColor and so on, will allow for more consistent color when you use multiple calibrated monitors. They also tend to be better, as calibration requires a tighter color error tolerance than typical screens. Of course, they also tend to be more expensive. And you frequently need to step up to a mobile workstation for this type of capability; you can use hardware calibrators such as the Calibrite ColorChecker Display  (formerly the X-Rite i1Display Pro) to generate software profiles, but they're more difficult to work with when matching colors across multiple connected monitors. 

---

Source