Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Just installed 5.3, and it has very very slow performance  (Read 3457 times)
jljonathan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« on: December 17, 2013, 05:05:58 PM »
ReplyReply

LR 5.3 not only hasn't sped things up here, but it actually seems much slower. I opened a dng, added a few basic tone adjustments and then a single brush adjustment to the eyes. Each time I made a brushstroke, or changed a setting, it took the LR several seconds to recover. Once or twice I thought it had frozen, but eventually it came back. What is happening here? I thought by now LR5 would have licked this performance problem, but it seems to be permanent. Does anyone have any kind of suggestions? It really makes working past the limited basic controls very frustrating.
I'm on a Mac Pro 2.93 Quad-Core Xeon with 8 GB of ram. running Mountain Lion 10.8.5, Nvidia Geforce GT 120 with 512 MB.
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1925


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 18, 2013, 03:03:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Not seeing any new problems here on W7 i7, all works pretty smoothly still.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3630


« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2013, 03:24:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Not seeing any new problems here on W7 i7, all works pretty smoothly still.

Same situation here, W7 i7, runs smoothly with all 8 CPU cores kept busy, although with a different NVIDIA graphics card. I've read elsewhere that switching off Graphics card GPU acceleration solves some issues on some affected systems.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Dr Tone
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2013, 07:47:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Same situation here, W7 i7, runs smoothly with all 8 CPU cores kept busy, although with a different NVIDIA graphics card. I've read elsewhere that switching off Graphics card GPU acceleration solves some issues on some affected systems.

Cheers,
Bart

LR doesn't use any GPU acceleration, so there is no way to switch it off.
Logged
Dr Tone
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2013, 08:07:58 AM »
ReplyReply

LR 5.3 not only hasn't sped things up here, but it actually seems much slower. I opened a dng, added a few basic tone adjustments and then a single brush adjustment to the eyes. Each time I made a brushstroke, or changed a setting, it took the LR several seconds to recover. Once or twice I thought it had frozen, but eventually it came back. What is happening here? I thought by now LR5 would have licked this performance problem, but it seems to be permanent. Does anyone have any kind of suggestions? It really makes working past the limited basic controls very frustrating.
I'm on a Mac Pro 2.93 Quad-Core Xeon with 8 GB of ram. running Mountain Lion 10.8.5, Nvidia Geforce GT 120 with 512 MB.

Lightroom never uses more than 30-40% of my 6 core i7 CPU when doing anything in the development module and will stall out often especially when doing localized adjustments.  It get's worst as you fill the cue up with more and and more changes.  I do all my work on a workstation grade Revo 3 x2 Drive PCI-x based SSD that never hits 5% utilization.

It's just the way it is.  I recently picked up a CC subscription, so I'm going to start learning how to use photo shop for images that need more work than Lightroom can handle.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2013, 08:12:44 AM by Dr Tone » Logged
PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 611



« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2013, 08:28:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Like others above, I have had no speed (or other) problems with LR5.3 on an i7 machine with 16Gb RAM.

I can simultaneously run LR5, CS6 and a plethora of Nik and Topaz plug-ins without any discernible performance compromise.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2013, 03:43:44 AM by PhotoEcosse » Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 697



WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2013, 09:04:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I haven't seen any slowdown that I can determine with certainty. I'm using a MacBook Pro 2012 with i7 quad core 2.6Ghz, 16GB RAM, 1,5TB SSD and using a 30" external monitor. Almost anything happens instant except sometimes comparing to images one of the them will wait for quit a while until shown in 1:1 when I zoom in to check some details. But the latter is not new in LR5.
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3630


« Reply #7 on: December 18, 2013, 09:07:42 AM »
ReplyReply

LR doesn't use any GPU acceleration, so there is no way to switch it off.

Apparently. Not even OpenCL or dual processors are supported.

I can't find where I read that it did matter just now, so no links to share (except for this). There are some older references to graphic driver settings e.g. the handling of anti-aliasing and texture acceleration, but I'm not sure how relevant that is for LR5.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 715



WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2013, 09:14:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Like others above, I have had no speed (or other) problems with LR5.3 on am i& machine with 16Gb RAM.

I can simultaneously run LR5, CS6 and a plethora of Nik and Topaz plug-ins without any discernible performance compromise.

What computer?
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2777



WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2013, 09:51:49 AM »
ReplyReply

See http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/400/kb400808.html and http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/performance-hints.html

Make sure you optimise your catalogue, that any display and tablet drives are up to date, that you have plenty of disc space on drive containing the Adobe Camera Raw cache folder (find it via Preferences), and perhaps delete the previews folders.

John
Logged

Dr Tone
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2013, 10:30:55 AM »
ReplyReply

See http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/400/kb400808.html and http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/performance-hints.html

Make sure you optimise your catalogue, that any display and tablet drives are up to date, that you have plenty of disc space on drive containing the Adobe Camera Raw cache folder (find it via Preferences), and perhaps delete the previews folders.

John

The second article is very informative.  Basically it says 1) don't use a large resolution monitor and  2) don't do 100s of adjustments in lightroom use photoshop for these particular photos instead.

1) Shame on you Adobe.
2) I had figured out already.

« Last Edit: December 18, 2013, 11:28:54 AM by Dr Tone » Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2777



WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2013, 11:00:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Maybe it only says anything of that kind if you don't read with an open mind? To some degree you can read them as Adobe (unlike a lot of companies) giving users a frank idea where they think potential weaknesses may lie. Of course, the vast majority of users have no need of those notes.
Logged

Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 697



WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2013, 11:24:55 AM »
ReplyReply

The second article is very informative.  Basically it says 1) don't use a large resolution monitor and  2) don't do 100s of adjustments, use photoshop instead.

1) Shame on you Adobe.
2) I had figured out already.



Well, these performance hints are not that useful in my opinion as they do not relate performance to any specific hardware. The suggestion about a high resolution monitor is of course correct, but mainly if you use an old and slow machine. The hint to hundreds or thousands of adjustments like dust removals and in THIS case Photoshop is suggested as a better tool does not mean use Photoshop in general instead of Lightroom. So I do not agree at all on your comment number 1).

What would be better would be if Adobe suggested a more powerful machine as the minimum and e.g. not 2GB of RAM. Especially 2GB would be found on older machines with a slow proccessor. And Lightroom does not run well on such minimum hardware. And of course, if your machine does not have much RAM like e.g. 4GB close all other applications when doing Lightroom work.

I have used Lightroom with my 30" 2560x1600 display on a MacBook Pro 2009 model (core2 duo) wth 8GB RAM and it worked fine, but of course not like the new 2012 model. But not only RAM matters, cpus matter a lot and I would say that a i7 processor quad core is where you will find that Lightroom just flows and you are not waiting, except for batch or background operations.
Logged

Dr Tone
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2013, 11:28:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, these performance hints are not that useful in my opinion as they do not relate performance to any specific hardware. The suggestion about a high resolution monitor is of course correct, but mainly if you use an old and slow machine. The hint to hundreds or thousands of adjustments like dust removals and in THIS case Photoshop is suggested as a better tool does not mean use Photoshop in general instead of Lightroom. So I do not agree at all on your comment number 1).

What would be better would be if Adobe suggested a more powerful machine as the minimum and e.g. not 2GB of RAM. Especially 2GB would be found on older machines with a slow proccessor. And Lightroom does not run well on such minimum hardware. And of course, if your machine does not have much RAM like e.g. 4GB close all other applications when doing Lightroom work.

I have used Lightroom with my 30" 2560x1600 display on a MacBook Pro 2009 model (core2 duo) wth 8GB RAM and it worked fine, but of course not like the new 2012 model. But not only RAM matters, cpus matter a lot and I would say that a i7 processor quad core is where you will find that Lightroom just flows and you are not waiting, except for batch or background operations.

Sorry, I meant use photoshop instead particular to point 2, when doing allot of adjustments.  Not in general.  I updated my original post to be more clear.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2013, 11:31:34 AM by Dr Tone » Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2777



WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2013, 11:46:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, these performance hints are not that useful in my opinion as they do not relate performance to any specific hardware.
I'm not sure they could be expected to maintain the kind of continually-changing matrix that would achieve that. I think these notes are mistitled - they are more helpful if you see them as troubleshooting tips for those who haven't been helped by the optimisation page.
Logged

Rand47
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 562


« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2013, 11:52:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Not seeing any new problems here on W7 i7, all works pretty smoothly still.
 

+1   W7, i7, 32 gigs RAM
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1925


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 18, 2013, 12:04:35 PM »
ReplyReply

What would be better would be if Adobe suggested a more powerful machine as the minimum and e.g. not 2GB of RAM. Especially 2GB would be found on older machines with a slow proccessor. And Lightroom does not run well on such minimum hardware. And of course, if your machine does not have much RAM like e.g. 4GB close all other applications when doing Lightroom work.
Sometimes it's more important that it works at all, rather than 'well'.
The ability to run LR on, say a netbook, even if very slowly, can be important to some of us.
Logged
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 697



WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2013, 12:20:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Sometimes it's more important that it works at all, rather than 'well'.
The ability to run LR on, say a netbook, even if very slowly, can be important to some of us.

The problem is that ability run will means something very different to different people. For this to really make sense there should be some characterization of that kind of performance you would get on different hardware. I don't think Adobe would try to say this. Personally I don't understand why anybody would run LR on a netbook. But again in the performance discussion would also need to be a mention of what RAW files to be processed! Needless to say that there is a huge difference between a m43 RAW file from say an Oly OMD and a Phase One 80MP file.

I think what I was trying to say in the previous post that performance is pretty meaningless unless there is some more characterization of hardware and requirements and what you can expect.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1925


WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2013, 12:36:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Personally I don't understand why anybody would run LR on a netbook.
Because they're small enough to travel with easily, dirt cheap and do enough to be useful.
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2838



WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 18, 2013, 02:27:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I have seen no speed issues at all, running on Retina MacBook Pro, 16g, with attached USB 3 drive, as well as 2010 MacPro 12 core with internal raid.  Bother are running OS X 10.9.

I would suspect your problem lies elsewhere, a corrupt LR database, failing hard drive, faulty ram are a few things that come to mind.  Or something else in you system is hogging resources ... a peak at activity monitor could check that.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad