MacBook Pro 16" for Photoshop – 2.6Ghz 6 core, or 2.4Ghz 8 core?

[Graphically]

I'm a graphics professional, upgrading from a fully-specced late 2013 MacBook Pro (4-core 2.6Ghz i7 processor + 16GB RAM). This is essentially a desktop replacement, so my decision will be based on performance with regards to Photoshop and, to a lesser degree, Lightroom - working with very large files. Other apps I use are InDesign, Illustrator and Acrobat - but no 3D packages. (I very rarely/never do video or games).

Looking at the options for the 16" MBP, and from reading elsewhere that Photoshop appears to predominantly take advantage of single-core processor functions (but I'm no expert), I'm wondering if I'm better off sticking to the 2.6Ghz 6-core model, rather than the 2.4Ghz 8-core model?

I'm planning on maxing out the RAM and the graphics options, so my main decision is the processor. So, I suppose it's the extra 0.2Ghz versus the 2 extra cores? But what about other factors between the i9 and i7 processor, such as cache, turbo boost and so on? (Also, any future-proofing issues WRT i9 8-core vs the 6-core i7?).

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[christcc2]

Couple of questions: how often are you taking your MBP from your desk? And do you have external storage that you use on a regular basis?

 

[Chompineer]

That “extra 0.2Ghz” is only base clock. The boost clocks will be about the same for all core sustained (and single core boost is higher on the i9 anyways).

I wouldn’t waste money on the 2.4 i9, I’d just go for the 2.3, as they are barely any different anyways (~5% difference on benchmarks).

I only went for the i9 base because when I run VM’s I use fairly intensive software like Civil3D and being able to give my VM it’s own personal quad core is nice. I had then i7 model prior and it wasn’t much difference though.

 

[macnmac]

That “extra 0.2Ghz” is only base clock. The boost clocks will be about the same for all core sustained (and single core boost is higher on the i9 anyways).

I wouldn’t waste money on the 2.4 i9, I’d just go for the 2.3, as they are barely any different anyways (~5% difference on benchmarks).

I only went for the i9 base because when I run VM’s I use fairly intensive software like Civil3D and being able to give my VM it’s own personal quad core is nice. I had then i7 model prior and it wasn’t much difference though.

i dont even understand why there are 2 options offered... why even bother when they are so close...

 

[Chompineer]

i dont even understand why there are 2 options offered... why even bother when they are so close...

Assuming it’s more of just “Intel makes the chip, so we should offer it”.

the k series chip is more useful on windows machines as it’s unlocked and can be further tinkered with. Especially on machines where unlocked BIOS can be flashed, like MSI.

 

[Graphically]

Couple of questions: how often are you taking your MBP from your desk?

Enough to justify a portable. (If that's why you asked?).

And do you have external storage that you use on a regular basis?

Yes.

 

[Graphically]

Thanks for all the comments so far, folks. Although I'm really keen to hear opinions on the i7 6 core versus the i9 8 core option, rather than between the two i9 options.

 

[ctjack]

Thanks for all the comments so far, folks. Although I'm really keen to hear opinions on the i7 6 core versus the i9 8 core option, rather than between the two i9 options.

Why would you want to max out RAM and GPU?
Photoshop will not benefit from you maxed GPU. Proof.
Ram also shouldn't be maxed out. 32 will be enough, if not even 16.
I7 is more than enough for Photoshop.
Why pay more if you could get the job done with less. On the same level of comfort.

 

[Graphically]

Thanks for the post.

As I said, the only aspect I'm trying to evaluate here is performance between the i7 6 core versus the i9 8 core option for heavy Photoshop work with large graphic files.

 

[Mark_EL]

I am a photographer, relying on Photoshop too. I went for the 2.3Ghz I9, the lowest I9 option. I did this because the price difference was relatively small, considering that you get 2 extra cores, but also a bit better graphics card and a 1TB SSD instead of the 512GB. I did not upgrade the graphics card to the 8GB version because I figured that would be a waste for my use case. I did upgrade the RAM to 32GB though which I believe is the sweet spot nowadays, for demanding photography work.
I know that even 16GB RAM would be sufficient (for me) in most cases even though I am working with 42MP RAW files but, every now and then I am working with those files in Photoshop, combining many of those 42MP 16 bit TIFF files into one final image, using HDR techniques for blending (interior shots for example), high end retouching with many layers, use Photo Stacking etc. In all those cases, I make use of the extra available RAM, but I am convinced that 32GB is sufficient...

 

[Graphically]

Thanks Mark. Especially for sharing your workflow.

Yes, I believe that rendering RAW files is one of the processes that is helped by having more cores. But most are not. At the other end, some aspects are apparently even hindered by multi-core (I forget the details, but I doubt it's a huge deal).

As I'm hoping to use this machine for a number of years and budget isn't the key issue, as it's for my business (hence the maxed out RAM and graphics), I figured that it would be worth investigating performance issues between the processors. Especially, as CPU speed appears to be the major factor in Photoshop performance. But, of course, it's a matter of balance.

The RAM recommendations here are interesting.

 

[Mark_EL]

You’re welcome 🙂

I don’t think you will get a straight answer anywhere, as I doubt that anyone would have done do a side-by-side test for this explicit use case. So, if you want to know for sure I guess you will have to find out for yourself 😉

When I think of future proofing, I would most definitely get the I9. Especially when budget doesn’t seem to play a big factor here. You never know what the future will hold, but I am pretty sure software will only be more and more optimized for multi-core performance. And besides, the clock speed difference of the I9 and the I7 is pretty small at base clock speed, while the I9 has has higher turbo boost performance. I can’t imagine Photoshop performance would benefit a lot from that small difference in base clock speed so IRLC I don’t think you would ever notice any difference...

 

[Graphically]

Fair point about the comparrisons. And yes, I hadn't considered the turbo boost (which always seems a bit smoke and mirrors for my liking - hard to know if and when it kicks in). I suppose coming from a 7 year old machine to find that processor base clock speeds seem to have reached their limit, is a bit of a downer. The cynic in me feels like I'm paying for a very expensive RAM upgrade and some cache improvements. :/

(I wonder why my post above is awaiting moderator approval?)

 

[Mark_EL]

(I wonder why my post above is awaiting moderator approval?)

Thats weird, I have read your post and responded to it, but now I don’t see your post anymore either 🧐

Anyway, if you are coming from a 7 year old machine, I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Any new 16” model will be way faster, even if the base clock speed has not increased that much, if any at all... The cores are much better performing (partly thanks to turbo boost I guess) and you have more cores to work with. And with that I would still advise you to get the I9, which will surely be the better performer in the long run... And if your workflow is comparable to mine, I’d settle for 32GB RAM if I were you 😉

 

[Graphically]

Cheers Mark

I added a link to a site that discusses RAM recommendations for Photoshop and different file sizes. Perhaps the link addition has triggered a moderator's intervention?

 

[Graphically]

Removed.

 

[wegster]

That “extra 0.2Ghz” is only base clock. The boost clocks will be about the same for all core sustained (and single core boost is higher on the i9 anyways).

I wouldn’t waste money on the 2.4 i9, I’d just go for the 2.3, as they are barely any different anyways (~5% difference on benchmarks).

I only went for the i9 base because when I run VM’s I use fairly intensive software like Civil3D and being able to give my VM it’s own personal quad core is nice. I had then i7 model prior and it wasn’t much difference though.

Exactly. I own a 2.4 but I bought it new, once out of shrink-wrap from someone who got it as a gift...with him being a Windows developer, so - someone else had paid for it, but the .1GHz CPU 'upgrades' in almost all cases just aren't worth it, even when using some CPU hungry apps, IMO. It's always worth checking, because in a handful of cases, there is a generation jump or significantly more onboard cache, but rarely at 'top -1 compared to top/most $$' options.
Speccing my MBP16 myself, I'd have gone 8 core 2.3GHz, and might have even considered the 6 more, mainly for thermal performance.

i dont even understand why there are 2 options offered... why even bother when they are so close...

Simple. 'Some people' believe they are special and that buying the 'max everything' shows the world how, umm, 'special' they are. Anyone remember the ~$15K Apple Watch Gold Edition? Anyone feel horrible they don't have a slow, ancient relatively speaking, v1 watch dipped in gold?