2017 iMac. Did I expect too much?

[01ds650]

Hello,
Until last month I had still been using an early 2011 MacBook Pro. I had upgraded it a couple times. Years ago with 16GB of RAM up from the factory 4GB. Then a bit over a year ago I went to a SSD. This computer was still pretty fast using Lightroom, Photoshop etc. However about 2 years ago the logic board went out. Apple covered it but it did suck being without my work computer for 8 days.

About 5 weeks ago it acted up again just like the replacement logic board went out. I ended up just buying a 2017 iMac. 27 inch, 1TB SSD, 580, 8GB RAM.
I installed the 32GB Crucial brand Apple specific RAM the first day after migration from Time Machine.

So let me say, this computer isn't slow, but in somethings it's slower than my 6 year old MBP. I'm wondering how that can be?
For example. In PS, if I add a color layer or maybe a few through one action and then I click that action on and off the old MPB reacts right away. Where the new iMac will load the change in blocks top down across the picture. Almost like an old dialup picture downloading. Except this happens in just a second. Yes a second isn't long but it isn't the instant change my MBP was. The same thing happens with Lightroom presets. The change on the 2011 MBP is instant, with the 2017 iMac it takes a second to happen. I understand the iMac screen in much better and richer but does that sound acceptable especially considering the specs of my machine?

I've noticed this with the factory 8 GB RAM, 32GB of just Crucial and 40GB of them combined. I did those different amounts to check if it was a RAM issue.

Thanks

 

[mortenjensen]

highly interesting, I am on MBP 2011 as well (upgraded) considering such a move. I my mind, I am also expecting a somewhat night and day difference. At least a noticeable speed jump in every respect.

Can this be explained?

 

[rlodina]

I ended up just buying a 2017 iMac. 27 inch, 1TB SSD, 580, 8GB RAM.

What proc ? i5 3.4Gz, i5 3.5Ghz, i5 3.8 GHz, i7 4.2 GHz ?
I'm in the same situation (MBPro 15” Early 2011 Hi-Res, I7 2.3 GHz , 8GB RAM, 128 GB SSD) - waiting for iMac 2017 i5 3.5 Ghz, Radeon 575, 512 SSD (estimated time devilery ~2 week).

 

[01ds650]

Sorry, I have the i7 4.2

 

[Chancha]

A 5k screen has literally 16 times as much pixels as a 2011 MBP 13". Real time actions in those apps need to work that much more when drawing the screen. Granted, Adobe also suffers a pretty intense lack of optimization across its CC apps when Retina screens are involved.

 

[chrono1081]

A 5k screen has literally 16 times as much pixels as a 2011 MBP 13". Real time actions in those apps need to work that much more when drawing the screen. Granted, Adobe also suffers a pretty intense lack of optimization across its CC apps when Retina screens are involved.

This right here is your answer OP.

Not only is it very system intensive to draw on high DPI screens, but if you compare Adobe apps to Apps like Affinity (which were written with Mac OS in mind) you'll see how badly Adobe lags in the optimization area. (Pun not intended.)

 

[alien3dx]

A 5k screen has literally 16 times as much pixels as a 2011 MBP 13". Real time actions in those apps need to work that much more when drawing the screen. Granted, Adobe also suffers a pretty intense lack of optimization across its CC apps when Retina screens are involved.

most gaming folks knew this.. bigger resolution need more higher graphic card capibility

 

[Trebuin]

So the options are to get a more powerful video card to drive higher resolution, or to temporarily drop the resolution while you do your work...that will make things speed back up. Same with games...I ran 50% resolution to get awesome frame rates.

 

[Spudlicious]

A 5k screen has literally 16 times as much pixels as a 2011 MBP 13". Real time actions in those apps need to work that much more when drawing the screen. Granted, Adobe also suffers a pretty intense lack of optimization across its CC apps when Retina screens are involved.

I love it when someone goes straightaway to the heart of an issue.

 

[Luxtrau]

Did you turn on gpu acceleration?

 

[294307]

A 5k screen has literally 16 times as much pixels as a 2011 MBP 13". Real time actions in those apps need to work that much more when drawing the screen. Granted, Adobe also suffers a pretty intense lack of optimization across its CC apps when Retina screens are involved.

Unfortunately 01ds650 (OP), the post above is your answer. Even Apple has trouble optimising operating system animations on Retina displays, like in Mission Control, due to the high pixel density. They are only finally coming around to addressing that in macOS High Sierra with Metal 2. If Apple has trouble, good luck with Adobe.

The only thing that might help is lowering the resolution in System Preferences. Unless you select the checkbox to show low resolution modes (which are hidden by default), the operating system simply alters the UI scaling level when you change the resolution on a Retina or other HiDPI display, so you shouldn't notice any difference in sharpness or clarity by doing this.

 

[joema2]

Unfortunately 01ds650 (OP), the post above is your answer. Even Apple has trouble optimising operating system animations on Retina displays, like in Mission Control, due to the high pixel density. They are only finally coming around to addressing that in macOS High Sierra with Metal 2. If Apple has trouble, good luck with Adobe....

The OP experienced slower screen update performance on a top-spec 2017 iMac 27 than a 2011 MBP when clicking Photoshop layers on and off. This is probably due more to Adobe's poor code than the 5k display. Adobe's code is so poor that Lightroom actually slows down when I enable GPU support on my 2015 or 2017 iMac 27. The Adobe Lightroom product manager has publicly apologized about the poor quality of their software.

I imported the same set of 42 megapixel raw stills from my A7RII into both Apple Photos 1.5 and Lightroom CC. With LR using previously-built 1:1 previews, the full-screen browsing rate in the Library module is about 0.81 photos per second, IOW 1.2 sec per photo.

In Apple Photos, the full-screen browsing rate was 6.4 photos per second, or about 7.9 times faster. This was on the exact same machine, a 2015 top-spec iMac 27 with 1TB SSD and M395X. This is roughly in line with some performance differences between Premiere CC and FCPX. The FCPX frame update rate when scrubbing a H264 4K timeline is much faster, and FCPX exports H264 about 4 to 5 times faster than Premiere. That is on the same hardware using the same retina screen.

I don't use Aperture but it would be interesting to see if (as old as that code is) whether a similar operation on a top-spec 2017 iMac 27 exhibits the same slow screen redraw as Photoshop. I tend to doubt it would.

I don't think "even Apple" has problems optimizing OS animations on Retina displays on a top-spec 2017 iMac 27 (as owned by the OP). Has anyone ever seen this reported with current versions of macOS on such a machine?

 

[Jack Burton]

What version of photoshop? And another vote for Adobe being turds and not optimizing their software. Affinity Photo was a good suggestion. I also hear good things about Pixelmator.

I'd be interested to see what happens when resolution is dropped to 2560x1440.

This is one of my fears with the iMac. The new GPUs are a great step up from previous models, but that 5k screen is still a BEAST for hardware to drive. I don't know if I would mind running in 1440p so much when needed, as that's what my current 2011 iMac is at. This old workhorse of an iMac still gets work done with only an AMD Radeon HD 6970M with 1GB of vram!

 

[Ledgem]

So let me say, this computer isn't slow, but in somethings it's slower than my 6 year old MBP. I'm wondering how that can be?
For example. In PS, if I add a color layer or maybe a few through one action and then I click that action on and off the old MPB reacts right away. Where the new iMac will load the change in blocks top down across the picture. Almost like an old dialup picture downloading. Except this happens in just a second. Yes a second isn't long but it isn't the instant change my MBP was. The same thing happens with Lightroom presets. The change on the 2011 MBP is instant, with the 2017 iMac it takes a second to happen. I understand the iMac screen in much better and richer but does that sound acceptable especially considering the specs of my machine?

I think people are being too quick to blame the larger resolution.

You mentioned the Adobe thing as an example, but is it just the Adobe software, or other issues? If it's just Adobe, then how did you migrate your old system over - Migration Assistant, or did you install everything fresh? Whether it's just Adobe or other software, it may be worth uninstalling and reinstalling fresh to see if it helps. If you're at your wit's end, a totally fresh install of everything (operating system included) might be worth a try.

You mentioned that you're coming from a 2011 system that used a SSD. Is the 1 TB drive you mentioned a SSD, or a Fusion drive? Fusion should be decent, if that's what you're using, but the issues you're describing don't necessarily sound like a Fusion issue...

 

[callea]

Try a full, clean istallation after reformat without migration from Time Machine.
Probably you restored some old configuration from previous machine that is not good for the new one.

Your machine has to be lightning fast with no excuses.

 

[294307]

The OP experienced slower screen update performance on a top-spec 2017 iMac 27 than a 2011 MBP when clicking Photoshop layers on and off. This is probably due more to Adobe's poor code than the 5k display. Adobe's code is so poor that Lightroom actually slows down when I enable GPU support on my 2015 or 2017 iMac 27. The Adobe Lightroom product manager has publicly apologized about the poor quality of their software.

Yes it probably is due to Adobe's poor work to optimise their creative apps - it's not the first time I've heard it, but I didn't want to mention that because I don't have first-hand experience as I don't use Adobe CC products.

I don't think "even Apple" has problems optimizing OS animations on Retina displays on a top-spec 2017 iMac 27 (as owned by the OP). Has anyone ever seen this reported with current versions of macOS on such a machine?

I have a 2017 27-inch iMac with Radeon Pro 570 which replaced a 2015 27-inch iMac with Radeon R9 M380 (Apple replaced it due to recurring image retention). I have first hand experience from both machines, and the results are the same.

They've had a serious problem optimising system animations on the 5K Retina display since they first started using them in 2014. There are numerous threads on MacRumors and Reddit about the problem (here, here, here and here).

Craig Federeghi even mentioned improvements to Mission Control performance at WWDC in June as they are finally running the Window Server on top of Metal 2 in macOS High Sierra. I've tried one of the recent betas and system animations are pretty smooth everywhere now, including Mission Control.

Nonetheless, perhaps the highest-end iMacs aren't as badly affected, as you mention.

 

[joema2]

...They've had a serious problem optimising system animations on the 5K Retina display since they first started using them in 2014. There are numerous threads on MacRumors and Reddit about the problem (here, here, here and here).

This was on lower-end machines, not a top-spec 2017 iMac 27 like the OP has. I have top-spec 2013, 2015 and 2017 iMac 27s, and I've never seen the slightest UI animation problems on any of them.

...Craig Federeghi even mentioned improvements to Mission Control performance at WWDC in June as they are finally running the Window Server on top of Metal 2 in macOS High Sierra. I've tried one of the recent betas and system animations are pretty smooth everywhere now, including Mission Control.

Adobe previously committed to adding Metal support in Photoshop, After Effects, and Premiere Pro. The demonstrated huge performance gains at WWDC in 2015, then backpedaled on this committment: https://www.macrumors.com/2015/10/05/adobe-backpedals-metal-after-effects/

After this they apparently went forward with Metal to some degree as it's a rendering option in the latest Premiere Pro CC. However even with Metal, Premiere Pro is still vastly slower than FCPX on various tasks. This cannot be blamed on the 5k display because FCPX runs just fine.

...Nonetheless, perhaps the highest-end iMacs aren't as badly affected, as you mention.

High end iMacs may not experience the slow UI animation behavior but various aspects of Photoshop, Lightroom and Premiere Pro are quite sluggish -- even on the fastest available 2017 iMac 27. This is not due to some intrinsic difficulty with 5k since the Apple apps (and similar apps from other vendors such as DaVinci Resolve 14) run just fine with superb performance. This is largely an Adobe problem.

 

[cynics]

I think people are being too quick to blame the larger resolution.

This.

The computational power required to edit an image is based on the images resolution, not the displays.

Gaming on a PC is a good example. If you are playing a game at 1080p getting 60fps and then you plug in a 4k monitor but still game at 1080p you will still be at 60fps. The display doesn't affect the load on the GPU unless you leverage the displays high resolution. Even if you completely unplug the display the game set to 1080p will be running at 60fps.

Assuming nothing has changed on the OPs end (using higher resolution photos now that the resolution and space is available for instance) this is an optimization thing.

 

[Chancha]

The larger resolution is the near-cause, the actual root-cause is Adobe's poor optimization under HiDPI, particularly in screen drawing. OP's description in "Where the new iMac will load the change in blocks top down across the picture. Almost like an old dialup picture downloading." is an exhibit of such case.

If the iMac has a 2nd non-HiDPI, sub2K monitor attached then it can easily be verified. Just move the Adobe app in question to the 2nd screen (extended), and only run it there. You will likely get the same if not faster responsiveness as the older non-retina Macs.

 

[robeddie]

Did you turn on gpu acceleration?

This is the first thing I thought too. If the mbp has opencl acceleration enabled in premiere and the iMac does not, that right there would create a pretty major difference in performance between the two.

 

[joema2]

This is the first thing I thought too. If the mbp has opencl acceleration enabled in premiere and the iMac does not, that right there would create a pretty major difference in performance between the two.

He was using Photoshop but as I previously stated, Lightroom is so poorly written that enabling GPU acceleration often slows things down. This is not Apple's failure to provide sufficiently fast GPU but Adobe's failure to write good software.

Re the OP Photoshop task which rendered slow on a 2017 top-spec iMac 27, it would be interesting to try that same action on a Windows PC with a 4k screen and similar hardware performance and see if it's also slow. A 5k screen has a lot more pixels than 4k but it's still the same order of magnitude. This would help determine if it's a fundamental inefficiency in Photoshop or in their port to the Mac platform. Or the OP could just use Boot Camp to boot his iMac to Windows and try it on the same hardware.

 

[Luxtrau]

I use Photoshop and I think adobes software is indeed poorly optimized, but luckily turning on gpu acceleration gave me a noticeable performance boost. Anyway, Adobe has to optimize their software way better than it is now.

 

[joema2]

I use Photoshop....but luckily turning on gpu acceleration gave me a noticeable performance boost. Anyway, Adobe has to optimize their software way better than it is now.

I just re-tested the latest version of LightRoom on a top-spec 2017 iMac 27. Despite having a Radeon Pro 580, Lightroom adjustment brush performance *slows down* when GPU acceleration is *enabled*. It becomes laggy and sluggish. This is 100% reproducible and very consistent. It is actually faster when GPU acceleration *disabled*. That is not a failure of Apple to provide a sufficiently fast GPU -- it is a failure of Adobe to write decent software. The OP issue was with Photoshop but this illustrates that Adobe has serious problems writing efficient code.

 

[Fishrrman]

Joe wrote above:
"The OP issue was with Photoshop but this illustrates that Adobe has serious problems writing efficient code."

I sense that, for years with all that money rollin' in, they got lazy.
Why bother to fix it when "it" (the waves of money) was still pourin' in?

 

[Chancha]

I just re-tested the latest version of LightRoom on a top-spec 2017 iMac 27. Despite having a Radeon Pro 580, Lightroom adjustment brush performance *slows down* when GPU acceleration is *enabled*. It becomes laggy and sluggish. This is 100% reproducible and very consistent. It is actually faster when GPU acceleration *disabled*. That is not a failure of Apple to provide a sufficiently fast GPU -- it is a failure of Adobe to write decent software. The OP issue was with Photoshop but this illustrates that Adobe has serious problems writing efficient code.

Adobe's GPU acceleration seems to be CUDA oriented, regardless on Mac or Windows. Since Macs have been AMD exclusive for years now except that one time in 2014 MBP, it is fair to say the GPU acceleration option on Macs is kind of null.