rvst

Ok, well THAT theory is soundly debunked then, since you're also on a x570, so it's not the PCIe bus slowing things down. I thought you were on a B550 for some reason - probably was someone else who replied in the thread, as I didn't go back and reread it

I'd definitely be curious to compare a Geekbench OpenCL compute benchmark with the one posted earlier in the thread. Your 3080 should blow my 3070 out of the water. Hard to tell what else it would be - your machine is overclocked pretty heavily as well and it's the major significant difference between your x470 chipset and my x570 chipset. The only other big difference is I have a lot more RAM, but that's more likely to slow things down, since I have all 4 banks populated (not sure what your memory config is - I see it's the same speed, but whether or not you have 2 or 4 banks populated I don't know). One other difference I note is I'm using Windows Pro and you're on Home, but I've never heard of any performance difference between the two.

Affinity v1 benches about 2x higher on the single GPU raster test. It's because of the difference in versions. The results are not directly comparable with v2. Here's a v1 benchmark on my system - almost 20k

My rig is not stock configuration, so you should take that result with a pinch of salt. It's overclocked and heavily optimised. It can do ~5.1ghz on the best core, although I throttle the maximum CPU temperature to 80 celsius, so practically speaking it tops out at about 4975Mhz as higher tends to push it over 80 celsius. It can reach an all-core clock of close to 4800Mhz. If you look at the Geekbench results I posted earlier in the thread and compare them to others' results on the Geekbench website, you'll see that it's on a par with overclocked systems running at 5Ghz. The 3070 is a Gigabyte Auros Master - Its core clock is 1845Mhz vs the reference card of 1725Mhz, so a bit faster than the reference card. That said, it's running stock, so I have not attempted to OC it. It's not faster than anyone else's 3070 on the Geekbench OpenCL compute benchmark, so the performance difference is not down to the GPU, it's probably due to my system - your 3080 benches much faster than my 3070 in Geekbench. I'd be interested to see what your compute benchmark is if you run Geekbench on your system. The key difference is that I have a more capable motherboard, an ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero (x570). All PCIe lanes, unlike yours and Debra's are PCIe 4.0. So it's going to have generally better performance when throwing around large amounts of data over the PCI bus. The RAM is running at 3600MHz and I have Resizeable BAR configured, although it didn't actually make any noticeable difference in performance with Affinity benchmarks, as I tested it on and off.

Yes we know. This was just to test the performance difference between a sandboxed and unsandboxed variant, not an exhortation to other forum users to run Affinity in this way. I suspect it is generic, since two of us just got the same results - we both see a massive hit

Your results are not better. I have a 3070 and I got 30% better performance than your 3080 on the test results I reported above. That said, I ran that benchmark above on an unsandboxed version of Affinity 2. When running in the sandbox, the GPU performance indeed takes a big hit. 454/4667/950/10858/-/1184/6263/- Those two benchmarks are directly comparable since they're the same version on the same machine, just sandboxed vs unsandboxed I knew there was a performance hit for UWP apps, but not of that magnitude. Easy to test yourself - just use 7zip to unzip the MSIX installer and run the photo.exe directly from the unpacked folder.

I have an x570. @debraspicherhas x470. The B550 has a x16 PCIe 4.0 lane for the GPU and PCIe 4.0 lanes for the storage, but does not have any general purpose PCIe 4.0 lanes or a PCIe 4.0 chipset uplink - they're PCIe 3.0, compared to the x570 which has PCIe 4.0 general purpose lanes and chipset uplink. This would clearly make a difference, but as much as 30%?!!

What motherboard / chipset do you have?

This is the second person with a RTX 3080 I've noticed ( @debraspicheris the other person) who has a benchmark raster single GPU score 30% lower than the score I get on my RTX 3070. Curious result this - yours is 10,300 compared to mine 13,688. Clearly one would expect the opposite. I see you have slower RAM which might account for some of the difference but @debraspicherhas RAM running at 3,600MHz, the same as mine, so it doesn't explain the delta in that case.

It is possible to configure Windows to install all new UWP apps to a different location. This link has details on how to do it https://www.windowscentral.com/how-install-apps-separate-drive-windows-10

There could be many reasons - for example, perhaps the layer opacity is set to less than 100%. Hard to tell without the file - could you upload a version of the file you're working with that has the problem?

Not released yet unfortunately. Serif staff say they hope to release it before Christmas

Faster. 3,600Mhz

Could I suggest you edit your post and remove your name, address and other personal details. This is a public forum and indexed by major search engines.

I rest my case. That's pretty much what I said. And I read their justification. As a developer myself, it still feels half-baked, especially since a technical packaging decision like this would have been made by an engineering manager who should have been aware of the consequences.

I have wondered several times what was going through the Affinity devs heads when they made the decision to move to the UWP architecture. That there would be these interoperability issues with external editors should have been glaringly obvious given that the entire design ethos of a UWP app is to isolate it from other apps and from the system. It's almost like someone made a spur-of-the-moment call without stopping to consider how users actually use Affinity products in their workflow.

Quite eye-opening seeing these benchmarks together. To add mine: Ryzen 5950x with PBO capable of ~5Ghz on the best core + Gigabyte Auros Master RTX 3070: 476/4782/982/13688/-/1266/7206/- The M1 has good single core performance, so it's not surprising seeing it scoring as well as AMD and Intel desktop processors I did some benchmarks using Geekbench 5, which is a great benchmark application for testing as the CPU tests contain a lot image manipulation routines - image compression, PDF rendering, gaussian blur, ray tracing etc. I then compared it to uploaded benchmarks for the M1 Mac Mini On single core tests, Geekbench shows the Mac Mini is 5% faster. Affinity sees a 20% deficit for the 5950x (comparing @Tia Lapisresults posted above with mine) On multicore tests, Geekbench shows the 5950x to be 219% faster than the Mac Mini. Affinity sees a smaller 208% difference So - single core performance for Affinity on Windows looks pretty unoptimized, which also affects the multicore performance to some extent. OpenCL performance is a whole other ballgame. The RTX 3070 literally blows the Mac Mini out of the water on Geekbench, being 639% faster on the compute benchmark. By comparison, Affinity on Windows shows the RTX 3070 to be only 146% faster than the M1 Mac Mini single GPU raster test (13688 vs 9348) I'm assuming for this purpose that the OpenCL benchmark is somewhat comparable to the GPU benchmark being done by Affinity (not the numeric results per se, just the workload it uses). This isn't definitive data, but it sure seems to point to a significant performance delta between Apple and Windows platforms, both on CPU and even more markedly on GPU

That's curious. I could duplicate the OP's observed difference between V1 and V2 with no issue. We're both on Windows. Did you test Mac or Windows?

See the latest post in that thread from Patrick

Bug report duly made

See this report for details. The problem can be replicated easily. It affects both Publisher and Designer.

Seems very buggy. Changing the fill colour to white in the Guides dialog box seems to do nothing. It still looks like it has the same grey overlay. @nucleardirk changing from filled to outline style (View-->Guides) removes the grey and restores the original look of the image placed in the picture frame as does switching off "Show Column Guides" in the View menu. Not sure whether that will work for you.

Well, I can reproduce the problem. It looks the same to me. Initially I thought maybe the problem comes if you embed a file with a non-CYMK colorspace, but it does the same regardless of colorspace of the placed image. I tried converting the template to sRGB and then dropping a sRGB image onto the image field, but it yields the same result too. Everything I place there is de-contrasted quite heavily. Like you, preview mode shows it properly. I tried it in Designer too with the same behaviour, except for the first time - I placed a sRGB image and it looked even worse, as if viewing an untagged ProPhoto image. I deleted all the content as well and placed the image on a blank background, but still the same behaviour. I think there might be something weird with the template, although I could not find anything obvious causing the issue.

Can you post a copy of the .afpub file?

Use the app linked in the post below to connect your image browser to Affinity Photo. It's intentional Windows system design that you cannot access this folder and attempting to give yourself access will break the Windows UWP sandbox. The correct way to do it is to use the helper app below. @Patrick Connor suggest making sticky of the post below or make the app available for download in the downloads section of the Affinity website - it's quite hard to find unless you know exactly what you're looking for.