Photoshop, on the other hand, experienced a massive performance uplift when it was optimized for Apple Silicon, blowing us away with its GPU, Filter, and especially its Photo Merge scores in Puget Systems’ PugetBench benchmark.įor Adobe, the stakes are particularly high with Lightroom Classic. When Lightroom for M1 was released in December 2020, we found meager performance gains above and beyond what M1 could already do via Rosetta 2 emulation of the Intel version. Our experience with Apple Silicon-optimized apps from Adobe has been 50/50 so far.
The latest version of Lightroom Classic was up to 25 percent faster on the M1 than on our more expensive Intel-based Mac. Could Apple’s M1 processor deliver a hefty performance boost for photographers? In short: yes. Our hopes were high for a program so famously sluggish. It’s simply not true.This morning, Adobe unveiled the long-awaited version of Lightroom Classic that is fully optimized for Apple Silicon devices, and we had a chance to test it out before release. The nonsense YouTube kids that post clickbait around this need to stop. This concept that we all should micromanage our swap, or that using it is bad, needs to die. It turns out that loading an entire program / an entire program’s dataset into memory, all at once, can sometimes be incredibly inefficient, and it’s far smarter to page it out to disk when you don’t need to access all of it. In a machine with an MMU (almost every machine since the 386DX) that’s exactly what you want to happen - so you can run stuff that can page parts of itself out of memory when required, all controlled by the OS, and all protected by the OS into a kernel layer and a userland layer. Every modern OS (looking at Linux & Friends, Windows NT+, and modern MacOS) all have swap files and use them routinely. VM, swap, page files, page activity, and using the machine as Apple designed it is not a bad thing. Oh, and MacOS until OSX was limiting too, with swap, but no real protected memory + preemptive multitasking. The last OS that I can remember that simply couldn’t do this was AmigaOS from 1986 or so, and while it was incredible in some things (fast multitasking, for what little fit in memory) it had massive limitations (memory limits, no memory protection being key items) that go part and parcel with swap. If your argument is “If my OS didn’t swap, I’d have less wear and tear on my drives!”, well, I suppose in some conceptual way that’s true, but you’d have a far weaker OS, unable to flex as memory demands ebb and flow, which would be incredibly limiting in many common situations. We don’t buy it to let it sit on a shelf. I feel like you are really, really throwing a word salad around here.Īn OS can’t “abuse” swap, any more than booting up a drive (or using a HDD to write data) “abuses” it.
0 kommentar(er)
