Skip to main content

โš ๏ธ Please note that this topic or post has been archived.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

Exporting benchmarks v2

Comments

135 comments

  • WPNL
    garrison wrote:

    What do you think about adding 'format type' column - tiff or jpeg (see my post above)?

    Done! (I hope I didn't mess it up, of to sleep now!)
    0
  • Chad Dahlquist
    maybe should have put out for a 1080ti over my 1080 ๐Ÿ˜Š but interesting to see the gains in the tiff times

    gnwooding wrote:
    In light of what everyone else has posted on TIFF results being more accurate for testing GPU's I decided to run a couple of additional tests.
    I left my i7 5820k OC at 4.4GHz and I used a 12GB RAM disk to do the tests on (to ensure no disk bottleneck).

    Single GTX 1080ti : 24s
    2 x GTX 1080ti : 16.5s

    What I observed is that when doing TIFF files at least my CPU usage is 100% across all cores so I am definitely CPU limited.
    With a single GTX1080ti GPU usage peaked at 75%.
    When using both cards GPU usage only peaked at about 45% on each card and it was less constant. I also notice that the cards only bother running at 1.5GHz since they only see a light load (in games and other GPU computational applications the GPU core runs at 2GHz on my cards).

    So clearly even when exporting TIFF files you need a very powerful CPU to take advantage of a powerful GPU.
    0
  • Christian Gruner
    gnwooding wrote:
    So clearly even when exporting TIFF files you need a very powerful CPU to take advantage of a powerful GPU.

    Well, that depends. It this case with a lot fairly small files, the CPU is very busy indeed feeding the GPU(s). If processing say 100 mp IQ3 files, you would not see the same load on CPU, as the number of files per second are less. The bottleneck also moves around depending on MP, you could say.
    0
  • Oka Morikawa
    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.
    0
  • Thomas D.
    NNN636355020530937144 wrote:
    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.


    Nvme and Sata SSD are the same? Was thinking of getting a 1TB samsung 960 Pro for my Hot Files cause of higher performance, using a 960GB SSD right now.

    I'm testing PrimoCache right now for my HDDs that i use now and then, with a SSD as a cache drive.

    Was also using a Ram Disk for Read and Write but the Performance does only go up by 1%.

    Will post my System Today, with a P5000 Quadro GPU, < as fast as 1080. (ECC enabled).
    0
  • WPNL
    Tom, did you consider adding an identical SSD in RAID0?
    You'll get twice the speed and storage space.
    (I'd backup the important files to another location in case of a failure, which I never had but just in case)
    0
  • Thomas D.
    WPNL wrote:
    Tom, did you consider adding an identical SSD in RAID0?
    You'll get twice the speed and storage space.
    (I'd backup the important files to another location in case of a failure, which I never had but just in case)


    For me, SSD raids are outdated, a Samsung Nvme M.2 SSD in a PCI-E slot gives me up to 3500 MB Read and 2100 MB Write.

    Two Sandisk 960GB will give me 1000 MB Read an Write.

    And Nvme's SSDs are made for Paralell Workload, Sata SSDs are not.
    0
  • Thomas D.
    ____

    Win 10, 64Bit, 1709

    Capture One 11.0.1

    CPU: 7820X / GPU: Quadro P5000

    CPU+GPU: 43 Sec. (Jpeg) (GPU ECC on)
    CPU: 78 sec. (1:18 Min)(Jpeg)

    CPU+GPU: 24 Sec. (Tiff 8 bit) (GPU ECC on)
    CPU: 60 Sec. (Tiff 8 bit)
    CPU: 63 sec. (Tiff 16 bit)

    Time Measured with Adobe Bride, Input Time last image minus Input time first image.

    SSD Sandisk Extreme Pro 960GB (Input & Output)
    Mainboard MSI Gaming Pro Carbon
    64GB Ram, Gskill 2666 (15.15.15.35-Latency)
    Samsung 960 Pro 512GB, OS PCI-E NVMe SSD.
    I7 7820X, 4.6/4.3/4.3/4.3/4.3/4.3/4.3/4.6 (Ghz Cores Boost)
    (Max 150 Watt Max Pull alowed (Short and Long Duration)(2.5 Ghz Mesh)
    Max Temp during Bench (72ร‚ยฐC , Core 7 <- Hottest/ 55ร‚ยฐC, Core 0 <-Coldest)
    Cooler: Prolimatech Genesis (Liquid Ultra, as Thermal Compound)

    GPU Max 54ร‚ยฐC, Max Load 82%, did hit Performance Limit.

    Measured with HWinfo.

    Switched From Vega FE to P5000 last week, the Vega was the most Buggy GPU i've ever had, did have Problems also with my Two Firepro W8100, after 4 Years of Trying Radeon i will never go back to it.

    The P5000 is Rock Stable and i did not hear it.
    0
  • craig stodola
    NNN636355020530937144 wrote:
    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.



    Definitely seeing a line of diminishing returns here. Wonder if it's at 10 or 12 cores. The kid spending on a 16 core Threadripper for C1P11 might be a little disappointed. Still interested in seeing what happens with his build.
    0
  • craig stodola
    7820x
    8GB Sapphire Radeon RX 580 Nitro+

    Tiff CPU+GPU = 25.8s
    0
  • Igor Dmitriev
    Windows PC (Win7)
    C1 version - 11.0
    CPU - Intel Core i7 4770 (4-core, 8-threads, 3.40 GHz)
    GPU - NVidia GTX 660

    JPEG
    CPU+GPU - 1:24 (84s)
    CPU only - 2:33 (153s)
    The GPU speed up factor is about 1.82x.

    TIFF
    CPU+GPU - 1:05 (65s)
    CPU only - 1:56 (116s)
    The GPU speed up factor is about 1.78x.
    0
  • Oka Morikawa
    CraigJohn wrote:

    Definitely seeing a line of diminishing returns here. Wonder if it's at 10 or 12 cores. The kid spending on a 16 core Threadripper for C1P11 might be a little disappointed. Still interested in seeing what happens with his build.


    It seems that currently, i9-7900x with 1080ti is best combination for C1. It's interesting that even all cores are at 100% still the difference between 7900x and 7980xe is so small (in CPU only benchmarks). Maybe with CPU+GPU tests multiple GPU's on 7980xe will give better results...
    0
  • Oka Morikawa
    Tom-D wrote:

    Switched From Vega FE to P5000 last week, the Vega was the most Buggy GPU i've ever had, did have Problems also with my Two Firepro W8100, after 4 Years of Trying Radeon i will never go back to it.

    The P5000 is Rock Stable and i did not hear it.


    I did have exactly opposite experience, moving from Quadro (last 10-15 years on Quadro) to Vega FE (with past FirePro cards I did also have lot of problems). What kind of problems you had?
    0
  • WPNL
    Tom-D wrote:
    For me, SSD raids are outdated, a Samsung Nvme M.2 SSD in a PCI-E slot gives me up to 3500 MB Read and 2100 MB Write.

    Two Sandisk 960GB will give me 1000 MB Read an Write.

    And Nvme's SSDs are made for Paralell Workload, Sata SSDs are not.

    I see, thanks for the explanation! ๐Ÿ˜Š
    0
  • WPNL
    Did anybody try what the effect is when disabling the integrated graphics on their Core-iX ... ?
    I went from 50 (ON) seconds to 40(,2ish) (OFF) seconds.
    I had it turned of and figured letting the IG help it might be faster but the opposite seems to be the case.
    Tested several times and it was no one-time-event.

    Edit: Of course I mean only the CPU's with integrated graphics.
    0
  • Chad Dahlquist
    StephanR wrote:

    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 ๐Ÿ˜Š
    0
  • Thomas D.
    NNN636355020530937144 wrote:
    Tom-D wrote:

    Switched From Vega FE to P5000 last week, the Vega was the most Buggy GPU i've ever had, did have Problems also with my Two Firepro W8100, after 4 Years of Trying Radeon i will never go back to it.

    The P5000 is Rock Stable and i did not hear it.


    I did have exactly opposite experience, moving from Quadro (last 10-15 years on Quadro) to Vega FE (with past FirePro cards I did also have lot of problems). What kind of problems you had?


    Thats funny.

    Im working in 10bit (Photoshop), after turing 10 bit on a color in Bridge (Loading Bar), HWInfo (selected data) and Photoshop (Menu) turned to orange instead of blue.

    After installing Adrenalin driver 17.12.1(2) i could not install other drivers without this failure.
    Even my FirePros were affected.

    And my second monitor does flicker with the Vega Fe, then after switching to Quadro and using the Vega FE @ home the flickering was also present on my gaming PC.

    It went to RMA and now i've my money back.

    Now with the P5000 all is working fine, and i'm able to reinstall the drivers without turning 10 bit off, @ Radeon this caused often the failure of colors but i could fix this by reinstall the driver turn it off and then turn it on after install.
    0
  • Oka Morikawa
    Tom-D wrote:

    Thats funny.

    Im working in 10bit (Photoshop), after turing 10 bit on a color in Bridge (Loading Bar), HWInfo (selected data) and Photoshop (Menu) turned to orange instead of blue.

    After installing Adrenalin driver 17.12.1(2) i could not install other drivers without this failure.
    Even my FirePros were affected.

    And my second monitor does flicker with the Vega Fe, then after switching to Quadro and using the Vega FE @ home the flickering was also present on my gaming PC.


    Just to clarify, did you have this problem with the Enterprise drivers also?

    I tested same thing on my workstation and did not have any problems with the Enterprise drivers. I have not tried Adrenalin drivers.

    I've got only one hiccup on my 2-3months of use, once after update Photoshop was unable to use GPU acceleration and disabled it during startup. I restarted photoshop and activated GPU acceleration and then it worked fine.

    I have not used dual monitors as C1 slowed down noticeably when I tested briefly (now running single 4k screen)
    0
  • Grant Hodgeon
    WPNL wrote:
    Did anybody try what the effect is when disabling the integrated graphics on their Core i7/i9 ... ?
    I went from 50 (ON) seconds to 40(,2ish) (OFF) seconds.
    I had it turned of and figured letting the IG help it might be faster but the opposite seems to be the case.
    Tested several times and it was no one-time-event.


    Somewhat grounded theory that the bottleneck in your system is the CPU and throttling it with its iGPU enabled is what's bringing your numbers up.
    0
  • Thomas D.
    NNN636355020530937144 wrote:
    Tom-D wrote:

    Thats funny.

    Im working in 10bit (Photoshop), after turing 10 bit on a color in Bridge (Loading Bar), HWInfo (selected data) and Photoshop (Menu) turned to orange instead of blue.

    After installing Adrenalin driver 17.12.1(2) i could not install other drivers without this failure.
    Even my FirePros were affected.

    And my second monitor does flicker with the Vega Fe, then after switching to Quadro and using the Vega FE @ home the flickering was also present on my gaming PC.


    Just to clarify, did you have this problem with the Enterprise drivers also?

    I tested same thing on my workstation and did not have any problems with the Enterprise drivers. I have not tried Adrenalin drivers.

    I've got only one hiccup on my 2-3months of use, once after update Photoshop was unable to use GPU acceleration and disabled it during startup. I restarted photoshop and activated GPU acceleration and then it worked fine.

    I have not used dual monitors as C1 slowed down noticeably when I tested briefly (now running single 4k screen)


    I didn't use the Gaming drivers, they don't have a Deep Color Option for OpenGL, Gaming Drivers do offer Deep Color for Direct X.

    Never Never install Adrenalin Pro driver, bevore all was fine.

    Our Second Workstation, same as mine but with FirePro W8100, does also deactivate the GPU now and then in Photoshop, Lightroom makes also now and then Problems (Freeze up, hanging).

    We will change to P4000 on our Second Workstation.
    0
  • craig stodola
    WPNL wrote:
    Did anybody try what the effect is when disabling the integrated graphics on their Core i7/i9 ... ?
    I went from 50 (ON) seconds to 40(,2ish) (OFF) seconds.
    I had it turned of and figured letting the IG help it might be faster but the opposite seems to be the case.
    Tested several times and it was no one-time-event.



    I don't believe the Skylake X CPUs have integrated graphics.
    0
  • 6BQ5
    Sorry to sound like a goofball here ... but how are people collecting these very precise times? Are you just using a simple stop watch or is there something in C1 that reports this?
    0
  • Chad Dahlquist
    6BQ5 wrote:
    Sorry to sound like a goofball here ... but how are people collecting these very precise times? Are you just using a simple stop watch or is there something in C1 that reports this?


    I just use my phone timer and click together and when I see it stop click again ๐Ÿ˜Š why I joked about finger lag ๐Ÿ˜Š but reality is should not be more than a second and if you do it 3x you get a good avg idea and mine I just round to the second for good enough

    way back in the day I did a bunch of LR tests to compare the sliders being useable and I did video capture and used the time code ๐Ÿ˜Š which is a solid way of doing things

    on say 100 files I can always look at the create time on the first and last file and do the math again close enough

    at least me I am looking at this knowing their will be a second or so error and its a good ballpark idea of how hardware is working etc..
    0
  • Thomas D.
    6BQ5 wrote:
    Sorry to sound like a goofball here ... but how are people collecting these very precise times? Are you just using a simple stop watch or is there something in C1 that reports this?


    I use Adobe Bride, i collecting the Time when the File was created, I take them off from each other.

    Totay i tested a NVMe SSD for Bench & Testing, Read 3000 MB Write 2400 MB, there wasn't a single benefit from running the Benchmark and using the Software, i got exact the same Times for Jpeg and Tiff, so safe your money.

    Drive: Corsair MP500 120GB.
    0
  • craig stodola
    WOW! I'm wildly shocked an NVMe wouldn't offer writing speed benefit.

    You have the 7820x as well, don't you?
    0
  • Thomas D.
    CraigJohn wrote:
    WOW! I'm wildly shocked an NVMe wouldn't offer writing speed benefit.

    You have the 7820x as well, don't you?


    Yes i have, two cores 4.5ghz, 6 Cores 4.3ghz.

    Limited to 150watts, 140watts is stock.
    0
  • WPNL
    CraigJohn wrote:
    WPNL wrote:
    Did anybody try what the effect is when disabling the integrated graphics on their Core i7/i9 ... ?
    I went from 50 (ON) seconds to 40(,2ish) (OFF) seconds.
    I had it turned of and figured letting the IG help it might be faster but the opposite seems to be the case.
    Tested several times and it was no one-time-event.



    I don't believe the Skylake X CPUs have integrated graphics.

    Excuse me. I've rephrased my post to prevent further confusion ๐Ÿ˜‰
    0
  • 6BQ5
    Chad Dahlquist wrote:
    6BQ5 wrote:
    Sorry to sound like a goofball here ... but how are people collecting these very precise times? Are you just using a simple stop watch or is there something in C1 that reports this?


    I just use my phone timer and click together and when I see it stop click again ๐Ÿ˜Š why I joked about finger lag ๐Ÿ˜Š but reality is should not be more than a second and if you do it 3x you get a good avg idea and mine I just round to the second for good enough

    way back in the day I did a bunch of LR tests to compare the sliders being useable and I did video capture and used the time code ๐Ÿ˜Š which is a solid way of doing things

    on say 100 files I can always look at the create time on the first and last file and do the math again close enough

    at least me I am looking at this knowing their will be a second or so error and its a good ballpark idea of how hardware is working etc..


    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.
    0
  • craig stodola
    6BQ5 wrote:
    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...
    0
  • 6BQ5
    CraigJohn wrote:
    6BQ5 wrote:
    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.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.