Graphics processing

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
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.

Re: Graphics processing

On 1/11/2016 9:37 AM, philo wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Re: Graphics processing

On 1/11/2016 11:32 AM, John McGaw wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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%

Re: Graphics processing

philo wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

    "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.


Re: Graphics processing

On 1/11/2016 4:24 PM, Paul wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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 spare parts boxes are only full of lower end cards

thank you!

Follow up

On 1/11/2016 4:50 PM, philo wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Decided ...what the 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.

Re: 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

Re: Follow up

philo wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

What's your driver situation ?

Does Silver Efex use OpenCL, CUDA, or something ?

   "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.

    "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.

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.

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.


Re: Follow up

On 01/11/2016 06:23 PM, Paul wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I am going to try to stop fooling with it until I get a new higher-end should be here in a few days

Re: Graphics processing >>> Conclusion

On 01/11/2016 08:37 AM, philo wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Got a new lower end nVidia card today and it works fine  , was able to  
enable the GPU function

Site Timeline