Exporting benchmarks v2

[6BQ5]

OK, here goes!

I have a mid-2011 iMac with a 21.5" screen and 20 GB of RAM.

I downloaded the benchmark images, imported them into C1 v11, and processed them almost according to instructions at the beginning of the thread. The instructions said to use the "sRGB IEC61966-2.1" ICC profile. This profile is available in my (very long) pull-down menu. I used what I always use, "sRGB Color Space Profile".

Exporting the 50 images from my managed catalog to my desktop took 3 minutes and 50 seconds. Maybe 49 seconds when counting finger lag.

C1 does not seem to support the GPU inside my computer so this sounds like 100% CPU.

Not necessarily. My 2009 Mac Pro with the Video Card took 2 minutes and 19 seconds. It took over 7 minutes with CPU only...

I'd say your integrated GPU was working...

I have a message in C1 under the Hardware Acceleration pull-down menus for Display and Processing that says, "Hardware acceleration doesn't work". That line is also a link that takes me to Phase One's tech support website explaining which GPUs are and are not supported.

Just for kicks I changed the setting from Auto to Never and I got the same time, 3 minutes 50 seconds.

[garrison]

OK, here goes!

I have a mid-2011 iMac with a 21.5" screen and 20 GB of RAM.

I downloaded the benchmark images, imported them into C1 v11, and processed them almost according to instructions at the beginning of the thread. The instructions said to use the "sRGB IEC61966-2.1" ICC profile. This profile is available in my (very long) pull-down menu. I used what I always use, "sRGB Color Space Profile".

Exporting the 50 images from my managed catalog to my desktop took 3 minutes and 50 seconds. Maybe 49 seconds when counting finger lag.

C1 does not seem to support the GPU inside my computer so this sounds like 100% CPU.

Not necessarily. My 2009 Mac Pro with the Video Card took 2 minutes and 19 seconds. It took over 7 minutes with CPU only...

I'd say your integrated GPU was working...

I have a message in C1 under the Hardware Acceleration pull-down menus for Display and Processing that says, "Hardware acceleration doesn't work". That line is also a link that takes me to Phase One's tech support website explaining which GPUs are and are not supported.

Just for kicks I changed the setting from Auto to Never and I got the same time, 3 minutes 50 seconds.

Make sure you have the latest GPU drivers installed. And then delete the files in /Users/Shared/Capture one/ImageCore/ and relaunch CO. It will take a while for CO to recompile the kernel. Wait until it is done and try converting raws again.

[6BQ5]

I have one file in that directory. It's 208 bytes big and it's called ICOCL_all.xml. It's contents are :

------
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<query>
<DeviceQueryResultCode>73</DeviceQueryResultCode>
<DeviceQueryResult>Unsupported OpenCL Device</DeviceQueryResult>
<FoundDevices>1</FoundDevices>
</query>
------

There weren't any other fancy looking files in there.

I re-ran the export just now and got a slightly faster time. 3 minutes and 45 seconds.

I'm not sure if a Mac has the ability to manually update drivers. Isn't that all built into OS X?

[WPNL]

After deleting that file, did you select 'auto' in the settings?

[6BQ5]

After deleting that file, did you select 'auto' in the settings?

Yes, I did.

[garrison]

I have one file in that directory. It's 208 bytes big and it's called ICOCL_all.xml. It's contents are :

------
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<query>
<DeviceQueryResultCode>73</DeviceQueryResultCode>
<DeviceQueryResult>Unsupported OpenCL Device</DeviceQueryResult>
<FoundDevices>1</FoundDevices>
</query>
------

There weren't any other fancy looking files in there.

I re-ran the export just now and got a slightly faster time. 3 minutes and 45 seconds.

I'm not sure if a Mac has the ability to manually update drivers. Isn't that all built into OS X?

According to that XML file you have unsupported GPU by C1 indeed

[6BQ5]

I have one file in that directory. It's 208 bytes big and it's called ICOCL_all.xml. It's contents are :

------
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<query>
<DeviceQueryResultCode>73</DeviceQueryResultCode>
<DeviceQueryResult>Unsupported OpenCL Device</DeviceQueryResult>
<FoundDevices>1</FoundDevices>
</query>
------

There weren't any other fancy looking files in there.

I re-ran the export just now and got a slightly faster time. 3 minutes and 45 seconds.

I'm not sure if a Mac has the ability to manually update drivers. Isn't that all built into OS X?

According to that XML file you have unsupported GPU by C1 indeed

[NNN636355020530937144]

i9-7980xe overclocked to 4,2ghz
amd vega fe
c1 11.0.1
win10 1703

JPEG
45sec GPU
82sec CPU

TIFF
19sec GPU
64sec CPU

...it was interesting to see that there is very small difference compared to i9-7900x.

Storage is NVME Optane 900p and MegaRaid 9460-16i with SATA SSD and RAID10 SATA. Results were same with Optane 900p and SATA SSD.

update: if i overclock mesh from 24 to 30, tiff and jpeg cpu time drops to 77sec and 56sec.

...went to shop and bought another Vega FE. Couldn't test properly as my 1kW PSU was not able to keep up with the setup anymore.

7980xe @ 4,2 overclock dual Vega FE was able to render the pictures basically instantly without any lag on 4k screen. Tiff export times went to 13sec. 10 bit works, but couldn't get crossfire to work but anyway C1 used both GPU's. Report back when I get new PSU for futher tests...

[StephanR]

Here the results with my extra program:
TIF uncompressed 8 Bit -> open with to jpg CPU+GPU - 27s
TIF uncompressed 8 Bit -> open with to jpg CPU only - 88s
As you can see the speed with GPU is only 1s slower then only the TIF conversion.
Even the CPU only test is faster (all cores are running around 100%) as the jpg conversion in CO1
And as you can see my AMD 280x is very old in comparison to a NVidia 1080.

curious if you run your program what is the file size KB etc.. vs running the same image at %100 through C1 ?
if its smaller KB kinda curious what % on the scale out of C1 makes them the same size and then what are the times for that %

hope that makes sense what I am asking

For example the first file 0064.cr2:
CO1 JPG exports at 100% a file with 13 036 092 Bytes
My extra program uses also quality level 100 and the file has 11 116 665 Bytes
So the size is a bit smaller, must be something between 99% and 100% in CO1 as CO1 99% gives as file with 10 296 000 Bytes

[Chad Dahlquist]

interesting that the file size is quite a large drop off for small % not doubting as it could sound like
I should play with some files and compare lr and C1 % for fun and put some of the difference filters on them in PS when I get time I love this kinda stuff

I know I tend to work in just tiff files and even more so now with windows not being able to do thumbs of PSB or PSD files native

thanks

the whole timing thing is a fun puzzle for sure seeing dif hardware combos etc.. quite fun to see read

Here the results with my extra program:
TIF uncompressed 8 Bit -> open with to jpg CPU+GPU - 27s
TIF uncompressed 8 Bit -> open with to jpg CPU only - 88s
As you can see the speed with GPU is only 1s slower then only the TIF conversion.
Even the CPU only test is faster (all cores are running around 100%) as the jpg conversion in CO1
And as you can see my AMD 280x is very old in comparison to a NVidia 1080.

curious if you run your program what is the file size KB etc.. vs running the same image at %100 through C1 ?
if its smaller KB kinda curious what % on the scale out of C1 makes them the same size and then what are the times for that %

hope that makes sense what I am asking

For example the first file 0064.cr2:
CO1 JPG exports at 100% a file with 13 036 092 Bytes
My extra program uses also quality level 100 and the file has 11 116 665 Bytes
So the size is a bit smaller, must be something between 99% and 100% in CO1 as CO1 99% gives as file with 10 296 000 Bytes

[Tom-D]

curious if you run your program what is the file size KB etc.. vs running the same image at %100 through C1 ?
if its smaller KB kinda curious what % on the scale out of C1 makes them the same size and then what are the times for that %

hope that makes sense what I am asking

For example the first file 0064.cr2:
CO1 JPG exports at 100% a file with 13 036 092 Bytes
My extra program uses also quality level 100 and the file has 11 116 665 Bytes
So the size is a bit smaller, must be something between 99% and 100% in CO1 as CO1 99% gives as file with 10 296 000 Bytes

As far as i know, Nvidia cards tend to have smaller File sizes compared to Radeon, i've done a test in 2014, GTX Titan vs R9 290X and it turned out that the Files (Tiff in this case) of the Titan was smaller.

Also on a Pixel level, the images of Nvidia have less contrast, those of Radeon appear to be sharper, you only can see this on 200% (and higher), but lately i've done a Test, Vega FE vs P5000, an on the P5000 was less noise and the Cromatic abberration was removed, but i don't know if i changed the Files of this wedding (different denosing, removing of Cromatic abberation, adding noise for a more lifelike look) (1200 images), i was testing the cards for, before i got the P5000.

[Chad Dahlquist]

I know in screen draw or showing what is on the screen ATI used to be better than Nvidia but that was years ago ?

take a image and turn off your GPU and then one on and compare there is for sure a difference
for me the non gpu is more contrast not sure that might lead into a sense of sharpness ? but the file size is identical
I would think the file size would be the same but the rendering might change a bit ?

at %100 most images I could not tell some of my animal ones in the fur I could see it and not sure which one I liked better hahahahaah but for sure more contrast without the GPU on
throwing both in PS and set to difference I have to throw a pretty radical curve to see where it is and its almost all edge all leaning toward making light pixels lighter with the couple images I tested it on


so the thing is does Nvidia make less contrast? my gpu off I get more so might be

question now to me is does the AMD and no GPU look more alike in contrast ? that might be fun to play with more and find out
I only have a older R9 380 I think it is in my mac pro

also I wonder if I play with contrast settings a touch to add to the Nvidia how it ends up looking compared and for the nice smoother looking which I often prefer would I run the GPU off ever for a dif look or would say + setting on the clarity or contrast give me almost the same dif hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Tom-D]

I know in screen draw or showing what is on the screen ATI used to be better than Nvidia but that was years ago ?

take a image and turn off your GPU and then one on and compare there is for sure a difference
for me the non gpu is more contrast not sure that might lead into a sense of sharpness ? but the file size is identical
I would think the file size would be the same but the rendering might change a bit ?

at %100 most images I could not tell some of my animal ones in the fur I could see it and not sure which one I liked better hahahahaah but for sure more contrast without the GPU on
throwing both in PS and set to difference I have to throw a pretty radical curve to see where it is and its almost all edge all leaning toward making light pixels lighter with the couple images I tested it on


so the thing is does Nvidia make less contrast? my gpu off I get more so might be

question now to me is does the AMD and no GPU look more alike in contrast ? that might be fun to play with more and find out
I only have a older R9 380 I think it is in my mac pro

also I wonder if I play with contrast settings a touch to add to the Nvidia how it ends up looking compared and for the nice smoother looking which I often prefer would I run the GPU off ever for a dif look or would say + setting on the clarity or contrast give me almost the same dif hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I said "on a Pixel level", you cant see this "higher contrast" without zooming in to 100% and above.

[garrison]

MSI GS60 2PC Ghost-231 US (laptop)
Win10 b1709
C1 version - 11.0
CPU - Intel Core i7 4710HQ (4-core, 8-threads, 2.50 GHz)
GPUs - NVidia GTX860M + Intel HD Graphics 4600

JPEG
CPU+GPUs - 1:38 (98s)
CPU only - 2:52 (172s)
The GPUs speed-up factor is about 1.76x.

TIFF
CPU+GPUs - 1:16 (76s)
CPU only - 2:26 (146s)
The GPUs speed-up factor is about 1.55x.

[Chad Dahlquist]

I said "on a Pixel level", you cant see this "higher contrast" without zooming in to 100% and above.

yeah I heard ya

more interesting and curious though and would be curious about the amd still compares to Nvidia and no gpu:)