A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Graphics processing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 11th 16, 03:37 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,309
Default 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  
Old January 11th 16, 06:32 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware
John McGaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 732
Default 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  
Old January 11th 16, 06:41 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,309
Default 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  
Old January 11th 16, 11:24 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,364
Default 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  
Old January 11th 16, 11:50 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,309
Default 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  
Old January 12th 16, 12:28 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,309
Default 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  
Old January 12th 16, 12:38 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,309
Default 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  
Old January 12th 16, 01:23 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,364
Default 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  
Old January 12th 16, 01:34 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,309
Default 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  
Old January 16th 16, 03:10 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,309
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 04:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.