Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MP 7,1 2019 Mac Pro 7,1 Lightroom and Photoshop configuration and Test [UPDATE: Radeon VII, 2013 MAC PRO TEST]
- Thread starter zhpenn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Keep us posted, this is pretty interesting! I am using a ProDisplay XDR and an LG UltraFine on my Mac Pro 7,1. The UI has a little lag on the XDR, but no more than it did on the LG or on my old 15" MBP on the UltraFine. If I turn on low-resolution mode on Lightroom, it's lightning fast.
The latest Lightroom update has made editing even better, but the UI is still a big laggy. It's good to see that Adobe has continued to add more performance enhancements in the last two LR releases, but they have a long way to go.
Tested my buddies LG 24" 4k and it worked really well then decided to try 32" ones again and they too seem to be working like they used to. Idk what it was, maybe the latest update? but it finally seems to be useable again. It didn't look like it made a difference right way. I wonder if I hadn't restarted. When I started checking all these different monitors I started with the 1080p and worked my way back up to my benQ 32" 4k displays and they all seem to be functioning about the same way. I don't run the 32" at full 4k I run them at 3360x1890.
It must have been a fix in the last update, my last call with adobe they kept referring to my eGPU even though its internal. They must consider this graphics card and eGPU and when you look at the update notes on the last update there was a bunch of fixes for eGPUs.
Hopefully this is a sign that adobe really is working on performance in the background and looking to take full advantage of these new Mac Pros in the future. I can finally get back to work with a fast work flow again and get accurate color. ?
Now ill have a debate on my hands after the Eizo shows up. If mine are back to working well im not sure there is a need to drop the extra money right now but im sure ill be blow away with how good it is. I sure with the XDR and it would show up at the same time and I could test both side by side.
Adult80HD how are you liking the XDR? that much better than the 5k?
It must have been a fix in the last update, my last call with adobe they kept referring to my eGPU even though its internal. They must consider this graphics card and eGPU and when you look at the update notes on the last update there was a bunch of fixes for eGPUs.
Hopefully this is a sign that adobe really is working on performance in the background and looking to take full advantage of these new Mac Pros in the future. I can finally get back to work with a fast work flow again and get accurate color. ?
Now ill have a debate on my hands after the Eizo shows up. If mine are back to working well im not sure there is a need to drop the extra money right now but im sure ill be blow away with how good it is. I sure with the XDR and it would show up at the same time and I could test both side by side.
Adult80HD how are you liking the XDR? that much better than the 5k?
Last edited:
I love it. Worth the price? For the monitor I'd say yes--especially since there's nothing else out there to compete with it. For me, 4k is not high enough resolution at 32", and the 32" 4K displays are already very expensive. The stand could have been sold for cheaper. It's amazingly well-engineered and a chunk of aluminum like that isn't cheap, but it would have been nice at half the price.
Contrary to the crap all over the Internet designed as clickbait or just from the haters, the monitor in daily use is amazing. The blooming is highly overrated and I've only seen it a handful of times in worst-case scenarios--I've literally had to create conditions to see it, it's not showed up at all in daily use. On top of that, photos of the blooming make it look about 10x worse than it actually looks to the naked eye. The colors are outstanding, contrast is excellent. Blacks are really black, unlike regular backlit LCD displays--compared to my 5K LG Ultrafine, it's a huge improvement in contrast and color. The huge amount of real estate is fabulous when editing photos.
I have the nano version as I hate reflections. On a pure white screen it has a different look that some have called "mottled" but I wouldn't go that far. It bothered me for about 30 minutes and then I quickly adapted and I don't even think about it any more. It absolutely KILLS reflections, which makes it great for photo editing IMO.
As for how much I like it? So much that I've ordered a second one, the first time in probably 10 years I've decided to go with a dual screen setup. Right now I'm using it next to my 5K UltraFine and I actually go to efforts to not use the 5K as I love how everything appears on the XDR much more than the UltraFine.
Have you ever used the Eizo display before? I really am curious in the difference in the two and which is better. I just got my Eizo and so far its really good. Native resolution is 4k. Def seems to also work better with the Mac Pro. Colors def are better and match what im getting for prints. I really wish my apple display would get here to test side by side but I don't think that is gonna happen.
It's been years since I've used one, but they were always great displays. I couldn't really go back to lower resolution after using "retina" displays for years now. That's the main reason I stuck with the LG UltraFine and the primary reason I wanted a ProDisplay--big and very high resolution.
Quick update here as I finally have both the XDR and the Eizo side by side.
I have had some time to test the XDR Nano against the Eizo Coloredge 32" and from a design stand point the apple display wins hands down. Form a video stand point and working with and watching the XDR again wins here no questions. Now from a photo editing stand point and getting color its pretty close but I think the Eizo has the edge here. Hardware calibration the Eizo wins seeing as its built in and you can program it to do its thing once a week or whatever you need to make sure you colors stay accurate. Apple says you won't need this with the XDR and they also say user customizable settings are coming soon. From a sharpness stand point the Eizo is sharper than the XDR with nano coating and I am assume this is because of the nano coating but I can't be sure with out having one of those to test. The eizo default display option is true 4k and it looks really great, things don't seem to small for my eyes and this is the one really annoying thing with the XDR is that it doesn't even have a 4k option. 6K on the XDR is absolutely way too small to function on unless you're inside a specific app and need that resolution which none of the non apple apps really work well at that resolution anyway. I have a couple test prints coming tomorrow which I will look at and compare to both displays and see which one I can get to look the closest since this is the reason I am buying one of these. I want to know that when I send an image off to print or for clients to work with that when they go to print the colors will be spot on to start. Helps me look better with clients and from a print stand point it will speed the process up. If I can get both to look very close to the prints there is a chance I return both of these and go with a regular XDR to get that added sharpness as I can control the lighting enough where glare isn't as much of an issue.
I have had some time to test the XDR Nano against the Eizo Coloredge 32" and from a design stand point the apple display wins hands down. Form a video stand point and working with and watching the XDR again wins here no questions. Now from a photo editing stand point and getting color its pretty close but I think the Eizo has the edge here. Hardware calibration the Eizo wins seeing as its built in and you can program it to do its thing once a week or whatever you need to make sure you colors stay accurate. Apple says you won't need this with the XDR and they also say user customizable settings are coming soon. From a sharpness stand point the Eizo is sharper than the XDR with nano coating and I am assume this is because of the nano coating but I can't be sure with out having one of those to test. The eizo default display option is true 4k and it looks really great, things don't seem to small for my eyes and this is the one really annoying thing with the XDR is that it doesn't even have a 4k option. 6K on the XDR is absolutely way too small to function on unless you're inside a specific app and need that resolution which none of the non apple apps really work well at that resolution anyway. I have a couple test prints coming tomorrow which I will look at and compare to both displays and see which one I can get to look the closest since this is the reason I am buying one of these. I want to know that when I send an image off to print or for clients to work with that when they go to print the colors will be spot on to start. Helps me look better with clients and from a print stand point it will speed the process up. If I can get both to look very close to the prints there is a chance I return both of these and go with a regular XDR to get that added sharpness as I can control the lighting enough where glare isn't as much of an issue.
I'm curious on his thoughts, but I can weigh in with my own experiences. I loved my first XDR so much that I bought a second one--the first time I've done a dual-monitor setup in a long time. I use them for photography, mostly for web production but I also do prints. I've made prints up to 96" now and the output is spectacular. I have had no trouble with the prints matching the screen, and the colors are also very accurate to the actual objects, which is crucial for the work I do.
Thank you, I've been on Eizo's for the past 15 years. I'm torn between the 32 4k Eizo and the XDR.
Does LR see an increase (none, minor or significant) in performance (speed) if something beyond the stock card (Radeon Pro 580X) is installed?
Based on what I've read in this post, it appears the answer is no. This is assuming that only one XDR monitor is attached. If someone has data for this, please share.
I am preparing to purchase the 7.1 (and XDR monitor) and if there's no significant increase then I don't see a reason to spend extra money on the graphics card at this time.
Based on what I've read in this post, it appears the answer is no. This is assuming that only one XDR monitor is attached. If someone has data for this, please share.
I am preparing to purchase the 7.1 (and XDR monitor) and if there's no significant increase then I don't see a reason to spend extra money on the graphics card at this time.
It definitely does see increased performance, especially with the high-dpi displays like the XDR. I'd personally recommend you get the W5700X.