# What's needed for fastest Lightroom exports?



## drmikeinpdx (Jan 8, 2018)

I use Lightroom Classic CC and often ask it to export hundreds of JPGs with my watermark and many processing steps that were accomplished in the develop module.

About six years ago, when I started using Lightroom, I built a fast PC based on an Intel I7-2600 (4 core) CPU, 16 G RAM and using an SSD for my OS and applications. I hoped it would last me three years and I kept it for six!

Exporting JPGs with Lightroom has always been a little slower than I'd like. I tried putting my recent Lightroom folders on an SSD to see if that would speed things up, but it didn't.

When I started using a 5D4 with ~30 megabyte files, Lightroom slowed down some more, to the point that it was annoying. So about a month ago, I built a new machine using the latest Intel I-7 8700K (6 core) CPU, liquid cooling, 32 G RAM, an SSD for the OS and apps, the latest motherboard and the latest 8 TB 7200 RPM hard drive for my Lightroom catalog.

It's my understanding that adding a compatible graphics card will speed up some activities in the Develop Module, but won't do anything for the export process, so I am currently using the on-board Intel graphics, which seem to work fine.

I was hoping that jumping forward six generations of the Intel CPU family would make a huge improvement in the file export process, but the improvement has been slight. I'm not sure what the limiting factor is. I would note that file imports from a USB-3 card reader seem pretty fast and the Develop Module is reasonably fast too. It's just that pesky export function in the Library module that won't get with the plan.

Has anyone else run into this situation? What did you do? I've read what Adobe has published about Lightroom performance and I don't see anything else I can do with either hardware or changing the settings within Lightroom.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 8, 2018)

As far aw I am aware, Lightroom will only use 1 core at a time for most operations and this is probably one of the biggest performance complaints. 
This is an interesting article about how LR allocates cores in different operations.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-CC-6-Multi-Core-Performance-649/


So for LR it seems to be all about processor speed.

There is some suggestion that rather than export 200 images, if you export 2 batches of 100 it will work quicker

https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lightroom_export_make_use_of_extra_cores_to_export_multiple_photos_in_parallel

even though the first link suggests that the efficiency of the second core plummets and it is far from 2 operations working at twice the speed.


----------



## Focus Studio (Jan 8, 2018)

When I got a new laptop (i7), I tested the export function of Lr CC (now, I have CC Classic), with 1 batch, 2 and 3 batches. For 2 batches, the total time reduced with 50%, but with 3 batches, it reduced with only 30%, total. So, the best time is for 2 bathes. However, in Task Manager I can see that all the cores are used almost 100%. I have no ideea how well CC Classic exports, though...


----------



## tomscott (Jan 8, 2018)

Lightroom will take advantage multicore CPUs. Those articles are old and since 2015 lightroom has much better multicore support. Still not great unfortunately, although improved.

I have an old 3.46 6 core mac pro. It uses all 6 cores when editing and exporting. Saying that the CPU's hyperthreading capability is almost ignored, it will slam all 6 cores but the 6 virtual ones will have maybe 10-15% use meaning its not overly efficient.

The thing is programs still arent being written for more than 4 cores really as even quad core CPUs arent that wide spread yet. Having more than 4 isnt really beneficial unless you are using specific programs like computational, video, 3d rendering.

Obviously the newer CPUs are much more efficient than the CPU in my 8 year old machine.

Saying that im a graphic designer and wedding/event photographer and I export roughly 500 of my 5DMKIII and 6DMKII files as the end product. On my machine this takes roughly 30 mins at full resolution which I think is pretty good for the age of the machine.

Do you need full resolution files with your signiture on them? I have a preset specifically for signature output whihc makes the longest side to 2048 pixels at 300 dpi which is perfect for social media and proofing to clients and is about 1/4 the size so takes no time at all. I usually export one set of SM images and one full res to the client and the SM versions take about 6-7 mins.

Its the same old same old. Buy more than you need to future proof yourself... In reality the technology is out of date before the programs are written to take advantage. For example I bought a 2008 dual quad mac pro 2.8ghz 8 core thinking it would be future proof. As a photographer it never got to the point where any of my programs could take advantage of all the cores. Mostly it would slam one core and with it having a 2.8ghz processor it wasnt terrible. At the end of the day that cost wasn't worth it. So i ended up buying a 2010 mac pro in 2012 and swapping out the 4 core 2.8 processor and putting in a 6 core 3.46 which destroys it even today benching 3000 single and 15000 multi, its not that fast today but gets the job done. 

Saying that as above hyperthreading is a huge benefit of my 6 core xeon CPU. The fact lightroom wont take advantage of this 8 year old technology just goes to show that having the latest and greatest doesnt = performance and your better off buying what it can support now rather than spending $$ on the latest and greatest. For example the new imac pro benches very impresively compared to the 5k imac but the actual performance isnt a huge amount different. The 5K is just over 3k for a decent set up the Pro is almost double. Will that cost difference in price make a difference down the line? Im not sure my example from past experience shows not... up to people whether the cost is worth it.

The big update for me was moving from 16gb to 48gbs in tripple channel that was my bottleneck I regularly get up to 35gb usage so basically frees up the machine. 

My main issue now is the graphics card its a really old 5770 and depending on what screen you use will depend on the editing performance. On my 23 ACD the performance is fine because its resolution isnt that high. On my 27 ACD its 2k so its pushing so many pixels and super laggy which is anoying. So I need to upgrade the graphics card. 

In your case buying a mid range card which has great open CL performance will aid massively something like the RX580 8gb. I love NVIDIA cards but their open CL performance isnt as good because the drivers are poor.

Its only recently that lightroom has been efficient at making use of multicore machines, but again it would seem from looking at benchmarks that more cores dont equate to faster performance. Recent benchmarks for example have shown that the 5k imac i7 has been posting better results than the 8 and 10 core iMac pros with rendering as they have quick sync over the Xeons that dont.

What is a good idea is to buy a fast GHZ processor that can turbo boost. Maybe something like a 3.4 that can boost to 4.5GHZ. Its the raw power than will produce quicker results currently. On the other hand that is specifically for editing, rendering or exporting is a different ball game and the more cores the better so you should be getting decent results.

TBH having 4-6-8 cores is the best trade off atm but ensuring the processor has a good clock speed so it will still run everyday single core processes quickly. At the end of the day technology moves faster than programming and in many cases its a good idea to buy a CPU specifically for the task at hand and tailored to what the programs you use.

For me its hard because I use the whole suite. Indesign and illustrator for my graphics work, premier, final cut and after effects of video and motion graphics, lightroom for photography with photoshop for more specific adjustments and cinema 4d for 3d work.

Im in desperate need for a new machine but waiting for the new mac pro as I like modular machines.

It is difficult building your own machine because it depends on drivers and compatibility. Simply building a machine with the best parts you can doesn't always translate into performance and buying a system that has been built and optimized can save you time and money especially as a professional. Downtime and slow downs cost money. The apple stuff is expensive but it is super well optimised and in the 15 years ive been using it ive had almost 0 downtime with my machines. But everyone is different and mac OS may not suit you.

Seems a silly example but:

2017 macbook base model in final cut will outperform a similar windows mobile i7 in premier pro because final cut has been optimised for the mac hardware and it renders in the background while you edit.

The problem is Adobe CC is all over the place. Lightroom is probably one of the worst performing programs in the suite (along with premier) even with the new speed updates... Unfortunately you are really at the hands of Adobe getting their act together.

On the other hand Capture one is super well optimised in comparison to lightroom but i prefer the workflow of lightroom.

Hopefully Adobe will get their act together.

Otherwise see if there are any driver or firmware updates and go from there.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 8, 2018)

I also built a tower with the i7-8700k. I know what you mean. My i7-7700HQ laptop seems snappier, but it really is streamlined with minimal software, whereas my tower already has a little bloat. 

And for exporting I'm going from SSD to SSD. Go figure. 

What really surprises me is that the PS CC filter processing, say for blurs and sharpening, isn't dramatically faster than it was on my pre-Sandy Bridge machine, which the new one replaces. Faster, but not like lightning by any means.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jan 8, 2018)

Thanks for the input, friends, you've given me more to think about!

I just ran an export process of 100 files, going from 5D4 RAW files to 1000 pixel jpgs. It took about two minutes before Lightroom said it was finished, but it took another two minutes before I could see all the photos in the new folder.

Note: I have Lightroom set to create small standard previews.

I watched the Windows 10 Performance Monitor while Lightroom was working. It appears that all 12 cores are heavily utilized. It was also interesting to note that my SSD scratch disk was being used.

I may explore the Turbo option or even overclocking at some point, but it appears that I've already done all the easy steps for better Lightroom performance.

Other ideas are welcome!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 8, 2018)

Image exports are slow, and have increased a little in recent years, but now dramatically. When I go to export several hundred images to say 2048 X 2048 jpeg. its a long wait.


----------

