Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi, I just bought the DAUB Kraken set and am loving the options. I noticed on my desktop, with some of the larger brushes (>100px) I notice I have to paint fairly slowly to get them to render correctly. I just picked up Affinity Photo, so I'm used to Photoshop where I could brush the engine further.

Is there anything I can push hardware wise to get more out of the engine? I really love this set, but seems they are quite taxing on the engine itself? I have two screens, one is 4K and the other is 1080p. I tried painting on both and the result is the same. Changing the document size doesn't seem to make a difference.

Here are my specs:

Intel i5-4670K CPU @ 3.40 Ghz
16GB of RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 (2x displays; 4K & 1080p respectively)
Program is installed on an SSD
Wacom Intuos4 Large
Windows 10 (Fall Creator's Edition)

My laptop doesn't seem to have as much of an issue for whatever reason and it is similarly speced. Though I think I am painting on an Intuos3 and iirc, it's on an older driver set than the Intuos4.

 


Microsoft Windows 10 Home (Build 17763)
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X @ 3600Ghz; Mobo: Asus X470-PRO
16GB DDR4 (2400Mhz)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
Monitor 1: 4K @ 150%
Monitor 2: 1080p @ 100%

WACOM Intuos4 Large; X-rite i1Display Pro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did want to mention that I did run GPU-Z to see if and how GPU was being taxed. It was generally running on idle (or close to it). Normally in Photoshop, if I were working really fast, my fans would speed up to indicate I was taxing CPU, but this doesn't happen when I am pushing brush engine from within AP. My CPU would top out at 79% for a split second, but for the most part, moderate ranges like 40-70 percentiles.


Microsoft Windows 10 Home (Build 17763)
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X @ 3600Ghz; Mobo: Asus X470-PRO
16GB DDR4 (2400Mhz)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
Monitor 1: 4K @ 150%
Monitor 2: 1080p @ 100%

WACOM Intuos4 Large; X-rite i1Display Pro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am not sure if despite not seeing the CPU/GPU taxed to 100% is a proof that you can't get better performance. I mean, despite those values, I'd be almost sure that a newer CPU/main board (as all has an influence, the bus, ram speed, etc, not just the cpu alone or the video card alone) you would notice improvements, you could get more out of it, so to speak. That the card or cpu is not at the limit, imo does not necessarily means it wouldn't run smoother in certain tasks with more power. 

 

I don't have a clue about how the brush engine and/or graphic engine works, I don't work at Serif, and I'm not even a programmer, but in games handling bigger textures gets direct benefit from bigger video card vram (I say, in case the brush texture is being somehow stored in the card memory, or some operation is related to it). Yours is a bit old card, its replacement I believe is the 1050, and indeed, a considerable difference between this and a 1050ti 4gb. And not just because of the 4gb versus 2gb, though in some applications is crucial. But with 2gb only models, the difference in performance bteween 950 and 1050 is not remarkable (unless the code is using some newer hardware feature! That'd change everything). It'd still be a low end card. Of course, speaking of gaming. But in applications, if the app uses the card intensively, it could affect (for apps only, what I'd look would be the memory size, cuda cores, speed and it being quite modern. If possible, get to know what hardware features use more my favorite application, go for a card supporting that !). A 1060 is much more powerful, but for image editing -other than video editing- I wouldn't go farther than that, a 1060 has plenty of capability. The handling of larger resolutions in screen is also getting benefit from video card memory. Also, is probably not something one could apply here, but in current games, gamers wanting to play at large resolutions typically opt for the 1070 or 1080 cards, which are crazily expensive now. We're speaking around 160 bucks for the 1050 ti 4gb, and around 300 or below for a 1060, it seems the lack of stock for the 1060 from the miners has recovered from a horrid situation. A 1070 o specially a 1080 can cost as a full rig themselves. Not justified unless one is 100% certain there's going to be a 2x or 3x time better performance in an specific usage.

 

The cpu is an i5, 4 cores and 4 threads. An i7 offers 8 threads (and an AMD Ryzen 7 or +, at least 8 cores and 16 threads ! ). The speed is not bad at all, 3.4 in base freq., 3.8 in turbo. But in applications maybe is more about cpu features, bus/ram speed, video card, etc. Software like Photoshop benefits strongly from peak single core speeds over multiple cores. Reason why you can check reviews with mere (recent) pentiums (2 cores, most of them) scoring higher than a middle machine with more cores. (but if you do launch several apps at a time, that's a different story, and the OS is always multitasking by itself, just to run....). I am not sure how AP handles it, but I'd be to think it makes better use than PS of multiple cores and multiple threads.

 

I mean : I'm almost 100% sure that with a more modern rig you'd get less lag. The type of memory you can make work with that cpu can't go over 1600 GHZ (and can't be ddr4, only ddr3), while today 2133 is almost a bare minimum, becoming very usual 2400, 2666 and a ton of gamers wont go for anything below 3k or 3.2k. For intensive cpu tests, it seems that in extreme loads it does affect quite. In this... I dunno, but imo is an orchestra, all counts, and many bits playing well together can change entirely the whole experience. Indeed, if the main board or cpu bus can't operate at that memory speed, no way. And if you buy now just a super powerful video card to improve the situation, you would improve it till certain extent, where the CPU or other component would bottleneck the real card capabilities. But surely still there could be significant improvements.

 

RAM, in quantity and speed tends to benefit largely any high res illustration work, in my experience (I work at a minimum of 5kx5k pixels canvases, and tons of layers). Also, I noticed always in PS that the more ram, the more fluid painting experience. This is often because with that one the canvas size did matter a lot. I don't seem to find which canvas size are you using. If it's around 10k x 10k pixels, it certainly would be tasking the whole thing, specially if you are doing it so with a certain number of layers. But unsure on how this really affects the brush lag in AP.

 

If someone had cash to burn...yep, an i7 of the latest gen, coffee lake, 8700k, with 16 GB  (32 if you can) of fast ram (2400, 2666. But 3k can make the price go too high), and latency is not as important, imo (ie, among CL 15 - CL18 is fine). Indeed, I'd go for 2400 if that allows you to put more ram. I love the new ryzen offers, but to play safe with this specific issue, I might go with a rig like this, intel, as has better single core capabilities, higher top speed. And then a 1050 ti 4GB, or the 1060. The ~300 bucks is the 6GB model (I only think in that one as Blender Cycles can make great use of GPU memory), but like 80 bucks cheaper you'd find the 3GB model, and it's same chip.... Again, fully dependent on if the brush lag can get benefit from memory, or instead is number of cores, or card speed, or GPU unrelated, and just RAM or CPU related...

 

Still, is a shot in the dark. I don't know how much is it -the lag- a software issue or even a bug, and how much hardware depending. My take, and is only a very personal guess, is that the brush system has probably quite some room for optimization just yet, specially in the relatively new AP Windows version, so, one of those cases where you'd definitely would see improvements with better hardware (thus the big difference already reported among different users, but then again, they're not making an identical test sample, and persons judge stuff subjectively, that's human), but probably you'd find out a bit later on, maybe months, a jump in performance for the better, with some app update. That wouldn't be terrible, as your machine would be faster in literally everything than your current (I mean WAY faster), besides AP, or besides painting inside AP, in other AP tasks. Your disk is fast, if no mechanical disk is bottle necking the windows memory/disk handling, specially if the mechanical HD disk does not have a frequent defrag.

 

Anyway, a large brush ends up lagging, no matter what software. The difference is some do that sooner, some with larger brushes. Also, an OS can be configured in many ways, this affects too, I've seen largely unoptimized systems (this is a Windows thing, mostly) or even some in very poor state, for zero or horrible maintenance. But I believe there might come optimizations to the AP and AD brush system, at some point. We'll see.

 

 


Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo licenses, Windows 7, i7  860 (2009) 2.8 GHz,  8 GB RAM, GTX 1050 2 GB, HD 7200 RPM.  Wacom Intuos 4 XL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.