Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Tried this on my recently Apple “obsoleted” mid 2009 MBP, so those of a nervous disposition, look away.

 

MBP 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8 GB, EL Capitan, 9600M GT 512 MB: HDD 1TB ST1000LM014-1EJ164 fushionish drive

 

16 seconds to complete, sort of……

 

The first time i ran MBd’s macro the cpu maxed out, as anticipated MBd’s 46 steps macro chokes it up and Activity Monitor dutifully reports that AP is not responding. From experience if left alone AP eventually grinds out a result despite the warning. In this case it took 25mins approx. with increased fan noise and no pressure on memory or sign of spooling.

 

Obviously not usable on a day to day basis but the process does illustrate that as David and others have pointed out; when you click on the macro in the library, there is often no visible response and that is extremely frustrating.  While playing around with it occasionally AP displays a progress bar but mostly not. Personally i keep Activity Monitors CPU usage indicator running in the dock to check something is going on.

 

Frustrated with the system  and examining why it hangs up i note that If you edit the macro and let it run down through all the adjustments etc but stop before the merge visible action, it takes 16 secs on this MBP.  It is the merge visible step that hangs.  Grouping layers and then merging down as a seperate step takes a further 13mins, which is a real pain. So i guess the true time would be 13mins 16secs depending on usage requirements. But that 16secs makes me smile!

 

post-6559-0-48792500-1483825207_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tried this on my recently Apple “obsoleted” mid 2009 MBP, so those of a nervous disposition, look away.

MBP 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8 GB, EL Capitan, 9600M GT 512 MB: HDD 1TB ST1000LM014-1EJ164 fushionish drive

16 seconds to complete, sort of……

The first time i ran MBd’s macro the cpu maxed out, as anticipated MBd’s 46 steps macro chokes it up and Activity Monitor dutifully reports that AP is not responding. From experience if left alone AP eventually grinds out a result despite the warning. In this case it took 25mins approx. with increased fan noise and no pressure on memory or sign of spooling.

Obviously not usable on a day to day basis but the process does illustrate that as David and others have pointed out; when you click on the macro in the library, there is often no visible response and that is extremely frustrating. While playing around with it occasionally AP displays a progress bar but mostly not. Personally i keep Activity Monitors CPU usage indicator running in the dock to check something is going on.

Frustrated with the system and examining why it hangs up i note that If you edit the macro and let it run down through all the adjustments etc but stop before the merge visible action, it takes 16 secs on this MBP. It is the merge visible step that hangs. Grouping layers and then merging down as a seperate step takes a further 13mins, which is a real pain. So i guess the true time would be 13mins 16secs depending on usage requirements. But that 16secs makes me smile!

attachicon.gifMacro edited.png

if you don´t do the merge visible you won´t be able to further process the image properly because AP is too slow

 

if you don´t uncheck the underlying live filters, AP is still slow (that is why I did those two things in the macro)

If you want to optimise the macro you can try to uncheck the two highpass layers which I don't think add much to the final image. But optimisation of the macro was not really the goal here and I think highpass is a common thing to use so it is good to include it in the macro. A longer processing time makes for a better comparison because measuring errors are smaller.

 

thanks for your data, looking forward to more :D


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I need to run this again because my results seem too good to be true: approximately 9:30 minutes to complete.

 

Specs as below in my Sig; my i5 is a quad core but in all respects this is a low end 27" iMac with just 8 GB of memory, an unremarkable GPU, & a conventional mechanical HD.

 

For what it is worth, I got the spinning beach ball & 'app not responding indicator' in Activity Monitor, although it was showing AP using 390+% of the CPU time, indicating all four cores were in use. Activity Monitor was open only for the first few minutes of the test; Safari was running but minimized to the Dock so it (presumably) was not using many resources. No other user apps were running.

 

The fan never spun up nor did the iMac get warm to the touch during the test (nor does it ever except when using a utility like TechTools Pro that tests the fan's max speed).

 

EDIT: The test above was run from the Library panel. Just for giggles, I reran the test from the Macro panel, & with Safari open & visible behind AP (but not loading anything new). This time, I got about 9:45 time to completion. The only real difference running from the Macro panel is there is a progress bar across the top, but it is useless because it shows that progress is almost complete from the moment I start the Macro.

Edited by R C-R

Affinity Photo 1.7.2, Affinity Designer 1.7.2, Affinity Publisher 1.7.2; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.7.2.153 & Affinity Designer 1.7.2.6 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iOS 12.3.1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks!

 

so what is your Mac Model (year) like? CPU/ min/ max? what graphics?

 

cheers

 

BTW

So what about the other 70 people? any results?  :D  :P 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what is your Mac Model (year) like? CPU/ min/ max? what graphics?

If you are asking me, it is as in my sig below all my posts: iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM. Full specs are shown on this EveryMac.com page.

 

From that source:

It also supports Turbo Boost 2.0 (up to 3.6 GHz) -- which "automatically boosts the processor speed based on workload" (so if an application is only using one of the four cores it will automatically increase the speed of the core in use and turn off the unused cores).

 

Because Activity Monitor was showing all four cores were in use during the test, I doubt the CPU ever entered "turbo" mode. As I understand it, Intel's Turbo Boost 2 can only be used for very brief periods at a time (less than a second) because the limiting factor is the heat generated in the CPU core, which is also why the other cores must be powered down if one is running at peak turbo speed. Even with exotic cooling systems the core(s) would produce so much heat concentrated into such a small area of the chip that it could not be removed quickly enough to prevent literally melting part of the core.

 

In fact, heat dissipation is so problematic in modern high speed CPU's that they will automatically throttle clock speeds to below the rated spec if the chip gets too hot, & may temporarily turn off subsystems like parallel execution pipelines until it cools down.


Affinity Photo 1.7.2, Affinity Designer 1.7.2, Affinity Publisher 1.7.2; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.7.2.153 & Affinity Designer 1.7.2.6 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iOS 12.3.1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
test on the PC;
 
Mac - 0
Laptop-0
Model - custom build
CPU - i7-3770

Cores - 4

GHz (min) - 3.40GHz
GHz (max) - 3.90 GHz
3,65 GHz(res)
discrete Graphics - GTX 970 4GB 
RAM - 16
time 07:59
 
the IGPU is disabled.
 
Sadly I wasn´t able to figure out on how to calculate the rest like
time_deci, performance, capacity and efficiency.
 

gumroad.com/myclay | timurariman.com
Windows 10 Pro - 1903 | Ryzen 2700 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080ti 11GB  | 64GB |
Samsung SSD 860 EVO 500GB | Crucial MX500 1TB | WD Black PCIe SSD 256GB (configured as Scratch disk) |

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure that GHz (res) means much, assuming it is calculated as indicated (GHz min + ½ the difference between min & max) because as I mentioned above, it is unlikely a single CPU system will run at above 'min' for more than a fraction of a second if it is using more than one core. If the system has more than one discrete CPU chip, that might be a little more significant, but probably not by much. Overall, it is probably more realistic to base everything on the minimum (non-turbo) clock speed.

 

I also don't quite understand how the other numbers are calculated, & MBd did say to take those numbers with a grain of salt; but regardless, it seems clear that the CPU type (i3, i5, i7, whatever), number of cores, & clock speed are by far the most important performance factors. GPU type & RAM do not seem to matter very much.

 

Of course, it would be nice if a lot more people reported their results. The sample so far is too small to do much with.


Affinity Photo 1.7.2, Affinity Designer 1.7.2, Affinity Publisher 1.7.2; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.7.2.153 & Affinity Designer 1.7.2.6 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iOS 12.3.1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure that GHz (res) means much, assuming it is calculated as indicated (GHz min + ½ the difference between min & max) because as I mentioned above, it is unlikely a single CPU system will run at above 'min' for more than a fraction of a second if it is using more than one core. If the system has more than one discrete CPU chip, that might be a little more significant, but probably not by much. Overall, it is probably more realistic to base everything on the minimum (non-turbo) clock speed.

 

I also don't quite understand how the other numbers are calculated, & MBd did say to take those numbers with a grain of salt; but regardless, it seems clear that the CPU type (i3, i5, i7, whatever), number of cores, & clock speed are by far the most important performance factors. GPU type & RAM do not seem to matter very much.

 

Of course, it would be nice if a lot more people reported their results. The sample so far is too small to do much with.

I´m definitely not saying my approximation is absolutely fair but I wanted a compromise 

 

if you have got a m7 processor that scales between 1,3 and 3,7 GHz or something similar, I don´t think it runs at 1,3 GHz most of the time.

so this is why I chose +0,7 and now corrected it to +0,5 times the difference 

 

the efficiency number is calculated by the assumption that 

- a PC that as a processing power of 10 and takes 10 minutes is

equally efficient compared to a PC that takes 20 minutes with a processing power of 5

 

so I calculate 100/ (processing power*time)

(100 to make the numbers easier to read)

 

100/ (5*20) = 100/(10*10)

hope this makes some sense for an approximation 

 

 

myclay, you don´t have to calculate the other numbers, my sheet has the formula and calculates it automatically 

 

I also added a second page to the sheet which gives overview of times compared to cores and win/mac if anyone want´s to take a look at them

 

would be definitely good to get more data from windows users (with higher end machines like at least quad core i5) so that we can compare them to the macs that typically have better specs as well.

 

 

thanks for your contribution and understanding

 

at some point I would also like to have a second set of times with a 1.6 version of AP e.g. so if you´re still here at that point I think we might get some more interesting data going on here.

 

cheers 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried this test at it took ~6.5min on my Skylake I7-6700

 

It took longer to figure out how to load the macro than run the actual test :)

 

Thanks for putting this together.

 

 

edit: All 4 cores ran at 3700 during the test (they can be pushed to 4000 but I never saw it go that high)


Skill Level: Beginner, digital photography, digital editing, lighting.

Equipment: Consumer grade. Sony Nex5n, Nikon D5100, (16MP sony sensors)

Paid Software: Affinity Photo, Affinity Designer, Lightroom4

Free Software: NIK collection, Sony CaptureOne9, Cyberlink PhotoDirector6, Hugin, ImageJ, MS Ice, Davinci Resolve

Computer: Win10 home, CPU Skylake I7-6700, GPU Saphire HD7850 1G, Plextor SSD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried this test at it took ~6.5min on my Skylake I7-6700

 

It took longer to figure out how to load the macro than run the actual test :)

 

Thanks for putting this together.

 

 

edit: All 4 cores ran at 3700 during the test (they can be pushed to 4000 but I never saw it go that high)

so if you say it was at 3,7GHz and I calculate 3,4 + 0,3 this fits pretty well

 

what is your RAM? (does not matter much but anyway)

 

very good result btw, best windows PC so far in terms of efficiency 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if you say it was at 3,7GHz and I calculate 3,4 + 0,3 this fits pretty well

 

what is your RAM? (does not matter much but anyway)

 

very good result btw, best windows PC so far in terms of efficiency 

 

Corsair Vengance LPX DDR4 3200Mhz (my motherboard is limiting these atm)

 

From Speccy:

 
Size 16384 MBytes
Channels # Dual
DRAM Frequency 1066.5 MHz
CAS# Latency (CL) 15 clocks
RAS# to CAS# Delay (tRCD) 15 clocks
RAS# Precharge (tRP) 15 clocks
Cycle Time (tRAS) 36 clocks
Command Rate (CR) 2T

Skill Level: Beginner, digital photography, digital editing, lighting.

Equipment: Consumer grade. Sony Nex5n, Nikon D5100, (16MP sony sensors)

Paid Software: Affinity Photo, Affinity Designer, Lightroom4

Free Software: NIK collection, Sony CaptureOne9, Cyberlink PhotoDirector6, Hugin, ImageJ, MS Ice, Davinci Resolve

Computer: Win10 home, CPU Skylake I7-6700, GPU Saphire HD7850 1G, Plextor SSD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Corsair Vengance LPX DDR4 3200Mhz (my motherboard is limiting these atm)

 

From Speccy:

 
Size 16384 MBytes
Channels # Dual
DRAM Frequency 1066.5 MHz
CAS# Latency (CL) 15 clocks
RAS# to CAS# Delay (tRCD) 15 clocks
RAS# Precharge (tRP) 15 clocks
Cycle Time (tRAS) 36 clocks
Command Rate (CR) 2T

 

I only meant to say "how much RAM" not "what is your exact RAM" but thanks anyway  :D

 

cheers


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I´m definitely not saying my approximation is absolutely fair but I wanted a compromise 

 

if you have got a m7 processor that scales between 1,3 and 3,7 GHz or something similar, I don´t think it runs at 1,3 GHz most of the time.

so this is why I chose +0,7 and now corrected it to +0,5 times the difference 

The "Skylake" M7 laptop CPUs like Apple uses probably do run at fairly close to their minimum (non-turbo) clock speeds during extended tests like this one. In general, "turbo" speeds are usable only for very brief intervals when most of the chip is idle, like for single threaded processes that only use one real or logical core, when unused execution units can be switched off, & so on.

 

Basically, turbo is very short duration high power burst mode that produces a lot of heat, much more than the chip could handle on a sustained basis. Recent chips like the M7 mobile variants have higher minimum to turbo speed ratios in part because they can turn off more of the chip on the fly than older architectures but they still can't run everything at close to the max turbo speed, even briefly.

 

That's why I suggested that basing everything on the minimum, non-turbo clock speed is more realistic.


Affinity Photo 1.7.2, Affinity Designer 1.7.2, Affinity Publisher 1.7.2; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.7.2.153 & Affinity Designer 1.7.2.6 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iOS 12.3.1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Skylake" M7 laptop CPUs like Apple uses probably do run at fairly close to their minimum (non-turbo) clock speeds during extended tests like this one. In general, "turbo" speeds are usable only for very brief intervals when most of the chip is idle, like for single threaded processes that only use one real or logical core, when unused execution units can be switched off, & so on.

 

Basically, turbo is very short duration high power burst mode that produces a lot of heat, much more than the chip could handle on a sustained basis. Recent chips like the M7 mobile variants have higher minimum to turbo speed ratios in part because they can turn off more of the chip on the fly than older architectures but they still can't run everything at close to the max turbo speed, even briefly.

 

That's why I suggested that basing everything on the minimum, non-turbo clock speed is more realistic.

https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/32907-affinity-photo-performance-comparison-data-sheet/?p=164657

don´t think I have to agree on this, probably not as short as you say


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Morning, all. My results...

 

Time: 6 minutes, 56 seconds

iMac Retina 5K, 27 inch, Late 2015
Processor: 3.3 GHz Core i5 (4 cores)
Memory: 24GB
Graphics Card: AMD Radeon R9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For rmar's Skylake I7-6700, a desktop class CPU with a 65 watt TDP, your min + ½ (max-min) effective clock speed number is probably very realistic. However, that is probably not as realistic for mobile class CPUs like the M7 Apple uses because they are optimized for lower power operation & are not usually paired with the high capacity cooling systems typically used in desktop tower style computers.

 

I know you are just using this as a rough estimate of computing power, but I suspect ½ (max-min) will overstate the power of laptop & all-in-one systems vs. desktop tower style ones.


Affinity Photo 1.7.2, Affinity Designer 1.7.2, Affinity Publisher 1.7.2; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.7.2.153 & Affinity Designer 1.7.2.6 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iOS 12.3.1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For rmar's Skylake I7-6700, a desktop class CPU with a 65 watt TDP, your min + ½ (max-min) effective clock speed number is probably very realistic. However, that is probably not as realistic for mobile class CPUs like the M7 Apple uses because they are optimized for lower power operation & are not usually paired with the high capacity cooling systems typically used in desktop tower style computers.

 

I know you are just using this as a rough estimate of computing power, but I suspect ½ (max-min) will overstate the power of laptop & all-in-one systems vs. desktop tower style ones.

Yeah maybe I should make that faktor dependant on the laptop 0/1 field

But first and foremost it's best to get more data from different mac users as well as windows users IMO


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But first and foremost it's best to get more data from different mac users as well as windows users IMO

Absolutely! In particular, I would like to see more than one Mac Pro represented & how they compare to the high end iMacs & to desktop class PCs.


Affinity Photo 1.7.2, Affinity Designer 1.7.2, Affinity Publisher 1.7.2; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.7.2.153 & Affinity Designer 1.7.2.6 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iOS 12.3.1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Pro-Retina 15 (Mid 2015) 2,2 GB i7 16 GB RAM (graphics Intel Iris Pro 1536 MB), 15 minutes and seconds

any chance that your macbook is actually 13 inch?

because 15min for quad core i7 would be very unusual 

my dual core i7 in my macbook is slightly faster and has 2,9GHz so if your macbook was 13 inch it would make a lot more sense

 

otherwise I´d suggest to fill a bug report and see what the affinity people tell you

 

cheers


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not looked into this for a week or so however this forum reads to me like a Mac fanboy justification for 'overpriced' and 'underpowered' hardware compared to current Windows computers!

 

Initially, I dismissed the macro as not pertaining to Mac only (refer to my early post), however I've not seen postings, as yet, from current high end Windows machines users to their times for resolving the macro...

 

Above, I read an i5 mac with much lower specs than mine resolves the macro in just under 7 minutes while my computer crashes!

 

Bullshit!

 

Sorry MBd and Mac folk, I don't buy this... I'd like to see this same macro issued by the Affinity devs on both Windows and Mac!

 

MBd - this is IMO your game to justify (in your mind) ...the superiority of Mac computers!  


https://www.peterdinnan.com/     photography with elements of mood, abstraction, pareidolia, gestalt and the morphics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not looked into this for a week or so however this forum reads to me like this a Mac fanboy justification for their 'overpriced' and 'underpowered' hardware compared to current Windows computers!

 

Initially, I dismissed the macro as not pertaining to Mac only (refer to my early post), however I've not seen postings, as yet, from current high end Windows machines users to their times for resolving the macro...

 

Above, I read an i5 mac with much lower specs than mine resolves the macro in just under 7 minutes while my computer crashes!

 

Bullshit!

 

Sorry MBd and Mac folk, I don't buy this... I'd like to see this same macro issued by the Affinity Devs on both Windows and Mac!

 

MBd - this is IMO your game to justify (in your mind) ...the superiority of Mac computers!  

in my first post I added a link to a google sheet that summarizes the data and it has current windows i7 processors as well as a 6 core i7

 

an old Mac Pro is currently among the worst performers in comparison to it´s amount of cores and GHz

 

as you say yourself, your PC is crashing while an i5 on an iMac produces a good performance

- I suggested to you to post a bug report because of this but you said that would not bother anymore....so now, why accuse me? I just summarize the data and try to give an interpretation but your opinion about the data is solely up to you of course  :D

 

cheers 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×