Faster GPU or CPU for photo editing

In today's world, 25% is not a huge jump. It's basically one year's generational improvement, if that.

My answer is, neither, wait until you can afford at least 2x. For photo editing, CPU is more important than GPU, with one exception, which is AI-based filters (like Topaz Blah AI). Those use the biggest GPU you can afford, and then some.

For example, right now I am running an AMD 5700XT GPU, and the latest generation cards are about 3x faster at the same power consumption (about). I am running a 5-series Ryzen 9 processor; the seven-series chips are about 2x faster. This is the least gap I find worth upgrading to.

Regards,
Dan
Thanks. Yeah this is my plan... wait until I can get one of the laptops designed for photo editing (like the Asus ProArt I tried a while back) and just buy something like that and use it for a handful of years, rather than being cheap and having to upgrade again 2 years down the road.

My current desktop processor is actually ranked quite good, it's just the iGPu that's built into it is lacking for photo editing (Photoshop). For the time being, I'm just picking up a cheaper modern GPU and going with that for the next year or two.
 
Depends on what photo software you are running. Much higher improvements with AI/neural software.
 
Depends on what photo software you are running. Much higher improvements with AI/neural software.
For +25% GPU - not something I've observed.
I'll be using mostly LR Classic, Photoshop and a few other programs (DXO PhotoLab and Luminar Neo). Photoshop was the big one, and even Adobe says that a high-speed/high-end graphics card or one that gets a high ranking score (presumably from PassMark) doesn't guarantee a higher level of performance than say a lower-end RX 6000-series card from AMD or RTX 3050 (the budget tier of the RTX 3000 line).

For me, I think I just need more dedicated video memory and a bit more processing power for some things that will utilize the GPU (such as the AI masks in LR Classic, and some of the tools in PS). Probably will help with Neo as well as I think that's also Gpu accelerated for some or most tasks (although I don't use it that much).

But that being said, a 25% increase for photo editing may not be all that noticeable. Video encoding, would be a different story or perhaps batch exporting or editing (which I don't do).

--
NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread/article..
 
Last edited:
Depends on what photo software you are running. Much higher improvements with AI/neural software.
For +25% GPU - not something I've observed.
I'll be using mostly LR Classic, Photoshop and a few other programs (DXO PhotoLab and Luminar Neo). Photoshop was the big one, and even Adobe says that a high-speed/high-end graphics card or one that gets a high ranking score (presumably from PassMark) doesn't guarantee a higher level of performance than say a lower-end RX 6000-series card from AMD or RTX 3050 (the budget tier of the RTX 3000 line).
Adobe applications outsource relatively little to GPU. GPU compatible with OpenCL v1.1 or later opens GPU to be used for more filters (ones I know of are Blur Gallery filters, Smart Sharpen, Select Focus Area, and Image Size with Preserve Details).
For me, I think I just need more dedicated video memory and a bit more processing power for some things that will utilize the GPU (such as the AI masks in LR Classic, and some of the tools in PS). Probably will help with Neo as well as I think that's also Gpu accelerated for some or most tasks (although I don't use it that much).

But that being said, a 25% increase for photo editing may not be all that noticeable. Video encoding, would be a different story or perhaps batch exporting or editing (which I don't do).
--
http://www.libraw.org/
 
Last edited:
RAM is very important to photo editing, more is very beneficial.

https://www.signatureedits.com/how-much-ram-for-photo-editing-lightroom-test/

M
Then I disagree, RAM is never the bottleneck for editing speed, I have never had more than 16GB and I have no speed issues whatsoever.
I personally never had much issue with the speed of Lightroom or Photoshop with my six year old PC with 16GB of RAM and a modest GPU. We I started testing other RAW tools and photo editors I found 16GB and my old GPU not sufficient for my needs. I now have a new PC with 32 GB and a good GPU and I find it makes all the difference with DXO and Topaz. I still use PS and it performs great on my new machine and still works fine on my older machine. I am considering adding adding another 32 GB of RAM to my new machine.
 
I moved from LR to DXO PL 18 months ago for most of my R5 RAW work. I had used LR since the first version. I had to go from 16GB to 32 GB to even get PL 4 (now on PL6) to work smoothly. My GPU was old and took over 2 minutes to develop each image, but I love the results. I recently updated my machine with a good GPU (nothing crazy) and my development time is now around 10 seconds (was faster before PL 6). I have also added Topaz and Radiant to my tools and both perform great on my new machine.

I personally think you need to have a decent system with balanced triangle with decent CPU/RAM/GPU to get the most out of your photography Digital Darkroom.
 
UPDATE: So after looking around a bit, the newer of the two laptops has a somewhat poor support for sRGB which is of concern for the sake of photo editing (at least, for when I travel -- when at home, which will amount to be about 2/3 of the time in reality, it won't be an issue as it will be plugged into a calibrated monitor with good sRGB and Adobe RGB Support, but my concern is for the times when I travel (which in some cases, is a few weeks at a time so I likely will need to edit while traveling). The SP7 is also one of the loaded-up models so it has plenty of memory and storage space as well, so I did at least opt for that option when I bought it (although part of me wishes now I had given up portability for power but at the time, two years ago, it seemed fine for LR Classic -- but this was prior to advanced AI tools being added to LR /PS).

Second thing is that the newer laptop has a newer style secondary storage connector, but I'm finding that it's so new that viable options to fill the storage slot at this time is rather rare, and the ones that are available are generally not brands that I recognize (and seem to be limitied to 1TB or less, which poses a second problem of storage, as I would probably eat through the remaining storage within 1-2 years after I load my current photo library).

SO... I've decided to check out a video card for my desktop instead as a cheaper alternative ($150 for an AMD RX 6400 which is a budget gaming Gpu but should help out with some of the issues -- mainly using a lot of AI masks in LR I found, as I had two crashes yesterday simply because the CPU graphics was not good enough).

As to the first point about the sRGB Workspace, I found my Surface Pro 7 has over 90% of SRGB coverage so for travel, I will likely stick with that. I just have to be careful about using AI masks and keep in mind that the tablet will be slower than my desktop (the issue is more how the iGPU uses memory more so than the processing -- it's still slow, but in comparison the SP7 seems to have fewer issues with LR despite being a bit slower. But considering this whole thing came about because the experience on the desktop with the iGPU was pretty bad, it's still an upgrade, but perhaps the video card will be all I need for the next 2 years or so (in the end, I'd like to get something like an Asus ProArt laptop but those are about $2,000 USD so rather than spend $800 on a "temporary fix" for a laptop, I'd rather spend the $150 on the video card and put the remaining $650 into a laptop found (which would be about 1/3 of the way there already, so maybe tax time 2024 I can pull the trigger on a photo editing laptop). The SP7 is slow, but tolerable I guess. (Importing and when using a lot of AI masks seems to be the biggest hurdles for it, but it does "work"). Looking at some benchmarks, the Intel graphics is not that far behind the Ryzen graphics in reality (20% slower, but I think the way it's implemented with Ryzen processors and shared memory, it can be a problem and is likely a wash when it comes to LR in terms of performance between the two). The RX 6400 should make editing on my desktop much more tolerable and useable since the iGPU will pretty much not be doing anything, and thus all of the system RAM can then be allocated to programs.

Thanks for the suggestions. I will definitely get a newer processor with whatever I get, whenever I decide to pull the trigger on a new laptop (a laptop intended for media creation, not a gaming laptop as I'm finding while they have the technical specs and speed, the displays are not very good in comparison to what my SP7 offers).
Interesting thread - this question is admittedly slightly off topic: Does integrated Intel Iris X graphics get faster with each new CPU generation, or does it stay the same? Would there be a (noticeable) difference in graphics performance between Intel Iris X graphics on an 11th, 12th, or 13th gen CPU?

The underlying question is of course whether integrated graphics are sufficient for PS and/or LR.
 
Interesting thread - this question is admittedly slightly off topic: Does integrated Intel Iris X graphics get faster with each new CPU generation, or does it stay the same? Would there be a (noticeable) difference in graphics performance between Intel Iris X graphics on an 11th, 12th, or 13th gen CPU?
I wonder too.
The underlying question is of course whether integrated graphics are sufficient for PS and/or LR.
This thread that may help.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65786476
 
Last edited:
Interesting thread - this question is admittedly slightly off topic: Does integrated Intel Iris X graphics get faster with each new CPU generation, or does it stay the same? Would there be a (noticeable) difference in graphics performance between Intel Iris X graphics on an 11th, 12th, or 13th gen CPU?
I wonder too.
The underlying question is of course whether integrated graphics are sufficient for PS and/or LR.
This thread that may help.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65786476
Thanks a bunch - very interesting and helpful! That thread is huge, and in one of the comments someone referenced this video:


Interesting analysis how GPU and CPU performance matter for photography. The benefit of a dedicated GPU seems almost zero for digital photography.
 
Interesting thread - this question is admittedly slightly off topic: Does integrated Intel Iris X graphics get faster with each new CPU generation, or does it stay the same? Would there be a (noticeable) difference in graphics performance between Intel Iris X graphics on an 11th, 12th, or 13th gen CPU?
I wonder too.
The underlying question is of course whether integrated graphics are sufficient for PS and/or LR.
This thread that may help.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65786476
Thanks a bunch - very interesting and helpful! That thread is huge, and in one of the comments someone referenced this video:


Interesting analysis how GPU and CPU performance matter for photography. The benefit of a dedicated GPU seems almost zero for digital photography.
Quite the opposite. There's new software in the wings that loads the input raw directly into the GPU, does all the operations there as GPU kernels, and (naturally) does the display there too. The final image isn't pulled out of the GPU until export to the file.

https://github.com/hanatos/vkdt

Speedy-quick, even for intensive operations like denoise. Written by the original darktable author. Not yet packaged up for use by 'normal' people, but I don't think it'll be long before it's deployed similarly to darktable and RawTherapee...
 
Interesting analysis how GPU and CPU performance matter for photography. The benefit of a dedicated GPU seems almost zero for digital photography.
Quite the opposite. There's new software in the wings that loads the input raw directly into the GPU, does all the operations there as GPU kernels, and (naturally) does the display there too. The final image isn't pulled out of the GPU until export to the file.
The load placed on the GPU is entirely dependent on the software used. Apart from what's in the development pipeline, Topaz and DxO (and others) make heavy use of the GPU's capabilities.
 
Interesting thread - this question is admittedly slightly off topic: Does integrated Intel Iris X graphics get faster with each new CPU generation, or does it stay the same? Would there be a (noticeable) difference in graphics performance between Intel Iris X graphics on an 11th, 12th, or 13th gen CPU?
I wonder too.
The underlying question is of course whether integrated graphics are sufficient for PS and/or LR.
This thread that may help.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65786476
Thanks a bunch - very interesting and helpful! That thread is huge, and in one of the comments someone referenced this video:


Interesting analysis how GPU and CPU performance matter for photography. The benefit of a dedicated GPU seems almost zero for digital photography.
Nope, all depends on the software and even within a product, which features are being used. Just try running the neural filters in PS without a good dedicated GPU or any of the Topaz AI products.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I am specifically referring to PS neural filters and Topaz AI software. I recently upgraded my PC because processing in the above use cases was too slow. Subjectively, running the PS neural Photo Restoration filter is significantly faster. I turned off GPU use in PS and ran the filter on a small photo and it took 58 seconds. I turned on GPU use and the filter completed in 14 seconds.

PS general and PS with neural filters is not the same with respect to hardware requirements.

Part of this might be because of the work that Nvidia is doing together with Adobe:

"Adobe and NVIDIA are closely collaborating on AI technology to improve creative tools in Creative Cloud and Photoshop. This collaboration includes the new Smart Portrait Filter, which is powered by NVIDIA StyleGAN2 technology and runs best on NVIDIA RTX GPUs.

With Smart Portrait in Photoshop, artists can easily experiment, making edits to facial characteristics, such as gaze direction and lighting angles, simply by dragging a slider. These types of complex corrections and adjustments would typically entail multiple manual steps. But Smart Portrait uses AI — based on a deep neural network developed by NVIDIA Research and trained on numerous portrait images — to achieve breathtaking results in seconds."
 
Last edited:
I am specifically referring to PS neural filters and Topaz AI software. I recently upgraded my PC because processing in the above use cases was too slow. Subjectively, running the PS neural Photo Restoration filter is significantly faster. I turned off GPU use in PS and ran the filter on a small photo and it took 58 seconds. I turned on GPU use and the filter completed in 14 seconds.

PS general and PS with neural filters is not the same with respect to hardware requirements.

Part of this might be because of the work that Nvidia is doing together with Adobe:

"Adobe and NVIDIA are closely collaborating on AI technology to improve creative tools in Creative Cloud and Photoshop. This collaboration includes the new Smart Portrait Filter, which is powered by NVIDIA StyleGAN2 technology and runs best on NVIDIA RTX GPUs.

With Smart Portrait in Photoshop, artists can easily experiment, making edits to facial characteristics, such as gaze direction and lighting angles, simply by dragging a slider. These types of complex corrections and adjustments would typically entail multiple manual steps. But Smart Portrait uses AI — based on a deep neural network developed by
NVIDIA Research and trained on numerous portrait images — to achieve breathtaking results in seconds."
I think Adobe says things like Neural Filters and some of the warping tools (Liquify for example) require a certain level of graphics processing power (dedicated is recommended) whereas other features not so much. I also believe the same is true for Topaz, DXO and a few others (where a dedicated graphics card is strongly recommended).
 
Here's Nvidia's take on GPUs for Photo editing and other purposes

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/studio/software/
Well, at least from an overall performance standpoint, the RX 6400 I got is similar to the GTX 1650 they recommend for Photoshop, which was my biggest concern (although also for LR, but only certain things in LR are GpU-accelerated but I think PS can make more use of a GPU than LR).

The 1650 is 23% faster according to some tests but likely not that noticeable for PS/LR uses and any difference may be a mere difference of a few seconds of processing. I would have gotten an RTX or GTX video card but I needed a single-slot solution due to how my computer is configured (I only have the single slot open as the slot below the video card slot is taken with a small USB add-in card) so my options were limited (and I didn't want to spend that much on this since the system is 4 years old).
 
Hardware Recommendations for Adobe Photoshop with Benchmarks


Hardware Recommendations for Adobe Lightroom Classic with Benchmarks

 
Interesting that the Intel UHD 630 scores failrly well, even when compared to the higher-end cards like the 3080 and the 2080. It's obviously still behind those cards but not by far, which maybe tells us that for LR, the GPu is not used as much as people (including myself) think.

And as far as CPU goes, I used the Ryzen 5600H as the closest benchmark as my 5600G is marginally (maybe 15%) faster. Either way, this chart sort of tells me what I need in regards to LR, at least. Obviously PS will use more GPU processing but at the same time, I'm not likely going to rebuild the desktop either as it would basically require a complete rebuild, and my goal was to use a mobile device (laptop). I just need to get the computer to be tolerable for short term (the next 12-18 months) use until I decide to purchase a replacement (laptop).

Although looking at the two charts, they don't show any processors below a Ryzen 9 so it's hard to gauge the CPU in regards to PS (and I'm not really going to instal ltheir benchmarking tools as it doesn't really matter that much -- the score won't persuade me to upgrade any more components than is necessary to make photoshop work in a reasonable manner).
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top