If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Graphics processing
I am now getting ready to do a substantial amount of photo editing this
year and have been using an AMD-dual core 2.6ghz cpu It works very well but since I also have a quad core machine I decided to give it a try. Both machines have 8 gigs of DDR2 and identical nvidia graphics ...the quad core CPU is AMD but only 1.8 ghz Bottom line: the dual core machine processes images /considerably/ faster. Correct me if I'm wrong , but it sure appears CPU speed is critical and not the number of cores. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Graphics processing
On 1/11/2016 9:37 AM, philo wrote:
I am now getting ready to do a substantial amount of photo editing this year and have been using an AMD-dual core 2.6ghz cpu It works very well but since I also have a quad core machine I decided to give it a try. Both machines have 8 gigs of DDR2 and identical nvidia graphics ...the quad core CPU is AMD but only 1.8 ghz Bottom line: the dual core machine processes images /considerably/ faster. Correct me if I'm wrong , but it sure appears CPU speed is critical and not the number of cores. Using what sort of graphics software? Some, especially older stuff, is not known for being adept at parallel processing and some IIRC is strictly single-thread and is limited almost entirely by clock speed. The nvidia hardware should make no difference but RAM will if you are working with really large images. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Graphics processing
On 1/11/2016 11:32 AM, John McGaw wrote:
On 1/11/2016 9:37 AM, philo wrote: I am now getting ready to do a substantial amount of photo editing this year and have been using an AMD-dual core 2.6ghz cpu It works very well but since I also have a quad core machine I decided to give it a try. Both machines have 8 gigs of DDR2 and identical nvidia graphics ...the quad core CPU is AMD but only 1.8 ghz Bottom line: the dual core machine processes images /considerably/ faster. Correct me if I'm wrong , but it sure appears CPU speed is critical and not the number of cores. Using what sort of graphics software? Some, especially older stuff, is not known for being adept at parallel processing and some IIRC is strictly single-thread and is limited almost entirely by clock speed. The nvidia hardware should make no difference but RAM will if you are working with really large images. Using Photoshop both machines worked about the same since Task Manager showed each core working at approx 30 - 40 % The software that was /much/ slower is Silver Efex I did not check Task Manager on the quad core machine (which I should have) but on the dual core machine it has both cores in use up near 100% |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Graphics processing
philo wrote:
On 1/11/2016 11:32 AM, John McGaw wrote: On 1/11/2016 9:37 AM, philo wrote: I am now getting ready to do a substantial amount of photo editing this year and have been using an AMD-dual core 2.6ghz cpu It works very well but since I also have a quad core machine I decided to give it a try. Both machines have 8 gigs of DDR2 and identical nvidia graphics ...the quad core CPU is AMD but only 1.8 ghz Bottom line: the dual core machine processes images /considerably/ faster. Correct me if I'm wrong , but it sure appears CPU speed is critical and not the number of cores. Using what sort of graphics software? Some, especially older stuff, is not known for being adept at parallel processing and some IIRC is strictly single-thread and is limited almost entirely by clock speed. The nvidia hardware should make no difference but RAM will if you are working with really large images. Using Photoshop both machines worked about the same since Task Manager showed each core working at approx 30 - 40 % The software that was /much/ slower is Silver Efex I did not check Task Manager on the quad core machine (which I should have) but on the dual core machine it has both cores in use up near 100% http://www.lightroomforums.net/showt...stment-is-made "You could try enabling GPU processing in SEP's settings." "It is automatically set to GPU with a comment that graphics card was insufficient or something to that effect." Maybe one of your computers has a better video card than the other. Paul |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Graphics processing
On 1/11/2016 4:24 PM, Paul wrote:
Using Photoshop both machines worked about the same since Task Manager showed each core working at approx 30 - 40 % The software that was /much/ slower is Silver Efex I did not check Task Manager on the quad core machine (which I should have) but on the dual core machine it has both cores in use up near 100% http://www.lightroomforums.net/showt...stment-is-made "You could try enabling GPU processing in SEP's settings." "It is automatically set to GPU with a comment that graphics card was insufficient or something to that effect." Maybe one of your computers has a better video card than the other. Paul Although I mentioned that both machines have the identical video card in them, the one with poor performance was using on-board video when I installed the program and more than likely GPU stayed disabled when I put the new card in. Since I simply borrowed the good card to test this...and don't want to pull my present machine apart again...I think it's time to go out an buy a better video card...my spare parts boxes are only full of lower end cards thank you! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Follow up
On 1/11/2016 4:50 PM, philo wrote:
Since I simply borrowed the good card to test this...and don't want to pull my present machine apart again...I think it's time to go out an buy a better video card...my spare parts boxes are only full of lower end cards thank you! Decided ...what the heck...to put the known good video card back into the under-performing machine and sure enough GPU was disabled. Unfortunately the option to re-enable it is grayed out along with the message that the video card is insufficient. Since the same video card is working fine in the other machine, there is some setting that needs to be toggled but Silver Efex has no such option that I see. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Follow up
Googled, I see where the config file is stored
just ordered a new card and will fool with this more once it arrives |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Follow up
philo wrote:
On 1/11/2016 4:50 PM, philo wrote: Since I simply borrowed the good card to test this...and don't want to pull my present machine apart again...I think it's time to go out an buy a better video card...my spare parts boxes are only full of lower end cards thank you! Decided ...what the heck...to put the known good video card back into the under-performing machine and sure enough GPU was disabled. Unfortunately the option to re-enable it is grayed out along with the message that the video card is insufficient. Since the same video card is working fine in the other machine, there is some setting that needs to be toggled but Silver Efex has no such option that I see. What's your driver situation ? Does Silver Efex use OpenCL, CUDA, or something ? https://www.google.com/nikcollection...lver-efex-pro/ "GPU Compatibility: NVIDIA GeForce 8 Series, GeForce 9 Series, GeForce 100 Series, GeForce 200 Series, GeForce 300 Series, GeForce 400 Series, GeForce 500 Series ATI Radeon HD2000 Series, Radeon HD3000 Series, Radeon HD4000 Series, Radeon HD5000 Series, Radeon HD6000 Series. If no compatible card is available, GPU acceleration will be disabled and the CPU will be used." That almost sounds like OpenCL. As both brands are covered. OK, found this. http://connect.dpreview.com/post/445...ftware-plugins "For GPU acceleration, an Open GL 3.0 compatible graphics card such as the cards listed below." So in fact it's not OpenCL (shader computing), it's OpenGL, which is similar to DirectX for "rendering" things on the screen. So you would want to find a utility that can report details on OpenGL. If this gives a 404 error, try another browser. This uses an unstated version of .NET . It claims to work with WinXP through Windows 10. http://www.realtech-vr.com/glview/download.php ftp://ftp2.realtech-vr.com/realtechv/pub/glview441.exe The scan, at least one of the items may be a "packer" issue. If a strange packer is used for an executable, some AV products don't like that. https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/7...6d9c/analysis/ I tried it on the Win10 machine, with the HD6450, and it reports support for OpenGL 3 and 4. The rendering test, if you tick "All", it presents a rotating head and tries each OpenGL version for one rendering of the rotating head. The frame rate is much faster in OpenGL 3, than in OpenGL 4, implying perhaps 4 is done with software fallback, rather than some sort of fancy hardware. If you quit the program, then try the rendering test again, the results may be "cleaner" without artifacts on the screen. So I guess my card would provide some degree of acceleration for what you're trying to do. I have no idea how OpenGL is the right tool for this job. Seems a strange choice. Paul |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Follow up
On 01/11/2016 06:23 PM, Paul wrote:
philo wrote: On 1/11/2016 4:50 PM, philo wrote: snip If you quit the program, then try the rendering test again, the results may be "cleaner" without artifacts on the screen. So I guess my card would provide some degree of acceleration for what you're trying to do. I have no idea how OpenGL is the right tool for this job. Seems a strange choice. Paul I am going to try to stop fooling with it until I get a new higher-end card...it should be here in a few days |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Graphics processing Conclusion
On 01/11/2016 08:37 AM, philo wrote:
I am now getting ready to do a substantial amount of photo editing this year and have been using an AMD-dual core 2.6ghz cpu It works very well but since I also have a quad core machine I decided to give it a try. Both machines have 8 gigs of DDR2 and identical nvidia graphics ...the quad core CPU is AMD but only 1.8 ghz Bottom line: the dual core machine processes images /considerably/ faster. Correct me if I'm wrong , but it sure appears CPU speed is critical and not the number of cores. Got a new lower end nVidia card today and it works fine , was able to enable the GPU function |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"PS3's graphics processing ability is about 75-85% of the Xbox360's" | furious gibbon | Nvidia Videocards | 4 | June 20th 06 02:57 PM |
"PS3's graphics processing ability is about 75-85% of the Xbox360's" | furious gibbon | Ati Videocards | 4 | June 20th 06 02:57 PM |
"PS3's graphics processing ability is about 75-85% of the Xbox360's" | Paul Heslop | Nvidia Videocards | 1 | June 18th 06 11:30 PM |
Slow graphics processing? | XModem | General | 0 | March 26th 06 10:40 PM |
Slow graphics processing? | Gerry Cornell | General | 0 | March 19th 06 03:26 PM |