Zum Hauptinhalt gehen

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

4k monitor: slow

Permanently deleted user
Here’s my configuration:
Mac Pro 5,1 Mid 2010
NVIDIA GTX980Ti (flashed)
macOS High Sierra 10.13.1
Monitor: BenQ SW32

Everything is running from a SSD.

I have recently upgraded to a 4k monitor and now things feel much slower in Capture One. I have the previews setting at 3840 pixels (C1 uses GPU acceleration with my configuration).

Changing values (like Exposure) or cropping, rotating, zooming etc. feel way more sluggish than I'm used to. So far, with my old monitor resolution of 2560 x 1440 things were extremely fluent.

I do acknowledge that the higher resolution will talke a toll on performance, but the NVIDIA GTX980Ti should be easily handling that.

I don't know if it's the higher resolution or if it's C1 v11 causing this.

Do you run a 4k monitor? What is your experience?
0

Kommentare

14 Kommentare

Datum Stimmen
  • photo by FA
    You might need to regenerate the previews.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    [quote="fatihayoglu" wrote:
    You might need to regenerate the previews.


    I did. All the way to 3840 px.

    I also took the RAW files offline to see how C1 does without reading the full res files.
    I also scales C1's window down to a smaller size which sped things up.

    So this does look like the high resolution is bogging things down. I am just surprised that the GTX980Ti can't pull this without problems.
    0
  • Christian Gruner
    4k/5k monitors does indeed have a performance-penalty, as a lot more pixels need to shifted around. In the order of 4-5x the amount of pixels, compared to a FHD resolution, or the typical MBP resolution.

    I would recommend you outfit your MacPro with one more GPU.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    [quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
    4k/5k monitors does indeed have a performance-penalty, as a lot more pixels need to shifted around. In the order of 4-5x the amount of pixels, compared to a FHD resolution, or the typical MBP resolution.

    I would recommend you outfit your MacPro with one more GPU.


    I am currently only running one monitor. Getting another GPU I not going to happen for this old machine. I will be looking what Apple's 2018 Mac Pro offers will be (and probably faint when I see the price tag ...).
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    try to turn GPU off for display, this helped smooth things little bit on my 5k imac.
    Next thing is run in low res mode 😊 well for colors and look of the image, you don't need critical sharpness anyway 😊
    Or decrease the viewing size of the picture...try to make it smaller on the monitor...
    To get the idea of it, check the performance on landscape oriented pictures vs portrait oriented...
    Do performance sensitive adjustments as a last...denoise, grain, HDR...all those things eat performance...

    hope it helps 😊
    0
  • Christian Gruner
    [quote="NNN636372919529824193" wrote:
    try to turn GPU off for display, this helped smooth things little bit on my 5k imac.
    Next thing is run in low res mode 😊 well for colors and look of the image, you don't need critical sharpness anyway 😊
    Or decrease the viewing size of the picture...try to make it smaller on the monitor...
    To get the idea of it, check the performance on landscape oriented pictures vs portrait oriented...
    Do performance sensitive adjustments as a last...denoise, grain, HDR...all those things eat performance...

    hope it helps 😊


    Turning off the GPU will make things worse, when doing adjustments and so on. This is even more so with CO 11, where masking speed has been improved dramatically.

    I'd say that if you have to lower the resolution of your HighDPI monitor, it does defeat the purpose of getting the monitor a good bit.
    On a underspec'ed imac 5k, it might make more sense, but on a system where you decide the components, reducing resolution is not the way to go. Getting more powerful processing units are.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    Well, look at my video where I tested the c11 performance on "underpowered imac" 😊.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n65Pz53jFzo&t=203s turning off GPU significantly boosted performance for basic sliders adjustment.

    P
    0
  • Christian Gruner
    [quote="NNN636372919529824193" wrote:
    Well, look at my video where I tested the c11 performance on "underpowered imac" 😊.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n65Pz53jFzo&t=203s turning off GPU significantly boosted performance for basic sliders adjustment.

    P


    I have seen it some days ago.
    It's a classic example of what happens when you have the fact that GPU would probably need 4x-6x the processing-power to provide 25 fps or better, and it's when the GPU-ram is almost full from just running the screen resolution (running 5k resolution requires ~1.5 gb of video-ram pr monitor).
    The release notes states that for running 4k/5k setups, the amount of ram should be at least 4 gb for a good experience.

    Even though the GPU should technically be faster than rendering through the CPU in this setup, it is not given these circumstances.

    We have an identical machine to yours in-house, and it was bought for the purpose of being marginal, so we could do testing on that type of setup.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    Dear Christian, first, let me really thank you that you are responding here so we get it from first hand from devs.
    This I really appreciate, this kind of devs feedback is rare nowadays 😊.

    regarding your technical data, I believe you are right and if I know this I would be purchasing the 395X card..
    but is there any way how we can explain technically, why LR is blazing and I say really BLAZING fast with the same setup?

    There is one item which I need to test today: LR is in default having smaller picture rendering area vs C1..so maybe if I will change the layout to LR similar, I will experience the same performance...
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    ok, i did the test...LR is unfortunately much more snappy and responsive, its blazing fast.. even if the picture area is bigger as i have in C1. GPU was ON in LR.. This test i did on LR default settings, no smart previews..
    So if adobe can use the hardware for that performance ... i hope and pray, you can achieve it as well 😄

    EDIT: interesting finding..C1 runs on Guest account faster on the same image i did compare default setting default workspace..i cannot explain that

    thx
    0
  • Robert Davis
    I can concur with your findings and I would hope Phase can squeeze more performance out of these GPUs. Lightroom 7 (ok, Classic CC!) absolutely flies on my late 2015 5k iMac. It's so fast that I can't see it's possible to be any faster. Slider changes are rendered instantly. Absolutely no lag. Adobe, to their credit, have done a fantastic job in maximising the performance out of these integrated GPUs.

    But I didn't find turning off the GPU setting helped. It made things far slower.

    I've always found Capture One quite disappointing in terms of performance compared to Lightroom.

    iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2015)
    4 GHz Intel Core i7
    16 GB 1867 MHz DDR3
    AMD Radeon R9 M395 2048 MB
    1TB SSD

    [quote="NNN636372919529824193" wrote:
    ok, i did the test...LR is unfortunately much more snappy and responsive, its blazing fast.. even if the picture area is bigger as i have in C1. GPU was ON in LR.. This test i did on LR default settings, no smart previews..
    So if adobe can use the hardware for that performance ... i hope and pray, you can achieve it as well 😄

    EDIT: interesting finding..C1 runs on Guest account faster on the same image i did compare default setting default workspace..i cannot explain that

    thx
    0
  • Robert Davis
    You appear to have the same spec as me. I set my preview image size to 2560. 5120 made things too slow when moving sliders. I didn't see the point in setting it to 5k as most of us don't run these 5k monitors in true 5k mode. Unless I'm missing something. Anyway, my performance with GPU on, 2560px preview and low res unticked is pretty decent. Lag isn't too bad when moving sliders. Though no where near as blazingly fast as Lightroom in this respect. I also make sure to have the Focus tool minimised as that really hits performance.

    [quote="NNN636372919529824193" wrote:
    Well, look at my video where I tested the c11 performance on "underpowered imac" 😊.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n65Pz53jFzo&t=203s turning off GPU significantly boosted performance for basic sliders adjustment.

    P
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    This all just shows how hard it is to draw a clear conclusion.

    On my system LR totally sucks. It runs awfully and with every version it got worse. The latest “hardware acceleration†in LR doesn’t do much better.
    C1 is way, way, way faster. Outputting file’s on LR is a torture where C1 churns out several 36 MP JPEGs per second.

    And mind you, my graphic card while not the latest is a beast (NVIDIA GTX980Ti). It’s still considered somewhere in the higher end.

    So while Adobe might do a good job with current hardware, they do an awful job with older hardware. C1 on the other hand while not superb at least take advantage of older hardware acceleration too.
    0
  • SFA
    Thomas, ,thank you for that comment.

    As a Windows users who follows the Mac side of this forum as well I have recently been very puzzled by the very comments you have highlighted.

    How LR can be Blazing Fast for some people and terribly slow for others has puzzled me a lot.

    That said the observations may well be for different types of function and, of course, we see in here exactly the same comments from time to time about C1.

    Also about Windows but perhaps less frequently.

    I suspect hardware configuration, not so much the headline items - memory, disk, cpu, gpu - but the boards, bus and ancillaries plus firmware/software. But that is pure speculation of course.


    Grant
    0

Post ist für Kommentare geschlossen.