Jump to content
rubs

About the performance improvements

Recommended Posts

Quote

Significant performance improvements

  • Hopefully fixes issues related to performance degradation over time

Looks like a much needed fix for the Windows version! @Mark Ingram, I've not used v. 1.7 much yet -- could you please elaborate on this a little bit? Have you improved hardware acceleration? Other users may have some reports on this, I'd love to hear about it. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, rubs said:

Looks like a much needed fix for the Windows version! @Mark Ingram, I've not used v. 1.7 much yet -- could you please elaborate on this a little bit? Have you improved hardware acceleration? Other users may have some reports on this, I'd love to hear about it. Thanks!

No, we still don't have hardware acceleration on the Windows version. This is purely a software solution. What would you like to know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

20 hours ago, Mark Ingram said:

No, we still don't have hardware acceleration on the Windows version. This is purely a software solution. What would you like to know?

Specifically, where these performance improvements will be best noticed? There are several areas where AD need performance improvements. From the top of my mind: zooming, rendering (screen tiles / big pixels are visible), selecting and deleting objects, searching assets, startup, typing text, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some feedback on this matter. I'm working on a new artwork this afternoon. My document is pretty small (80 kB) with just two artboards and some logos. The beta seems faster than 1.6 when zooming, except that, if vibrance adjustment is applied, image tiling is still quite visible.

But I saw no performance degradation yet, which is a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to achieve maximum performance improvements then start using assembler. Beside performance, you can achieve the smallest size of the apps. The size of all 3 apps, would be about 10x smaller and faster then any single Adobe apps -- PS, AI, or ID.


Best regards,

Petar Petrenko
Typesetter, Graphic Designer, Photographer
Skopje, Makedonija

Windows 10 x64 Pro
Dell Inspiron 7559 i7
Intel Core i7-6700HQ (3.50 GHz, 6M )
16GB Dual Channel DDR3L 1600MHz (8GBx2)
1TB HDD + 128 GB SSD Hard drive
UHD (3840 x 2160) Truelife LED- Backlit Touch Display
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M 4GB GDDR5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Petar Petrenko said:

If you want to achieve maximum performance improvements then start using assembler. Beside performance, you can achieve the smallest size of the apps. The size of all 3 apps, would be about 10x smaller and faster then any single Adobe apps -- PS, AI, or ID.

I don't agree with this statement at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark Ingram said:

I don't agree with this statement at all.

It's OK you don't agree, but have you seen PhotoLine?

https://www.pl32.com/pages/down.php


Best regards,

Petar Petrenko
Typesetter, Graphic Designer, Photographer
Skopje, Makedonija

Windows 10 x64 Pro
Dell Inspiron 7559 i7
Intel Core i7-6700HQ (3.50 GHz, 6M )
16GB Dual Channel DDR3L 1600MHz (8GBx2)
1TB HDD + 128 GB SSD Hard drive
UHD (3840 x 2160) Truelife LED- Backlit Touch Display
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M 4GB GDDR5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Petar Petrenko said:

If you want to achieve maximum performance improvements then start using assembler. Beside performance, you can achieve the smallest size of the apps. The size of all 3 apps, would be about 10x smaller and faster then any single Adobe apps -- PS, AI, or ID.

Yes, but they'd still be working on the 1.0 pre-alpha :). From many years of experience I can tell you that, in general, there are far more gains to be made from architecture and algorithm improvements than coding to the metal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Mark Ingram said:

I've heard of it, but not tried it. What does PhotoLine have to do with your suggestion of assembly?

You must try it to believe it. 

  1. It is written in assembler,
  2. it is complete bitmap editor plus some vector and layout features.
  3. It is less then 50 MB.and has myriad of features for it's size.
  4. It is portable.
  5. It is 32 and 64 bit.

https://www.pl32.com/

Just visit this site and the download page I gave it in the previous post. You can even download it's manual to see all the features.

 


Best regards,

Petar Petrenko
Typesetter, Graphic Designer, Photographer
Skopje, Makedonija

Windows 10 x64 Pro
Dell Inspiron 7559 i7
Intel Core i7-6700HQ (3.50 GHz, 6M )
16GB Dual Channel DDR3L 1600MHz (8GBx2)
1TB HDD + 128 GB SSD Hard drive
UHD (3840 x 2160) Truelife LED- Backlit Touch Display
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M 4GB GDDR5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, casterle said:

Yes, but they'd still be working on the 1.0 pre-alpha :). From many years of experience I can tell you that, in general, there are far more gains to be made from architecture and algorithm improvements than coding to the metal. 

It is better to start ASAP before they stuck with C++ or whatever language(s) they use. They can start with loading module and user interface first.


Best regards,

Petar Petrenko
Typesetter, Graphic Designer, Photographer
Skopje, Makedonija

Windows 10 x64 Pro
Dell Inspiron 7559 i7
Intel Core i7-6700HQ (3.50 GHz, 6M )
16GB Dual Channel DDR3L 1600MHz (8GBx2)
1TB HDD + 128 GB SSD Hard drive
UHD (3840 x 2160) Truelife LED- Backlit Touch Display
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M 4GB GDDR5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Petar Petrenko said:

You must try it to believe it. 

  1. It is written in assembler,
  2. it is complete bitmap editor plus some vector and layout features.
  3. It is less then 50 MB.and has myriad of features for it's size.
  4. It is portable.
  5. It is 32 and 64 bit.

https://www.pl32.com/

Just visit this site and the download page I gave it in the previous post. You can even download it's manual to see all the features.

 

I just tried it. I loaded a 20MP JPEG, and performed a radial blur in both PhotoLine and Affinity Photo (and also a Zoom Blur in Affinity Photo, as that appears to be what PhotoLine calls a Radial Blur). Here are the videos. First is PhotoLine, then Affinity Photo. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mark Ingram said:

I just tried it. I loaded a 20MP JPEG, and performed a radial blur in both PhotoLine and Affinity Photo (and also a Zoom Blur in Affinity Photo, as that appears to be what PhotoLine calls a Radial Blur). Here are the videos. First is PhotoLine, then Affinity Photo.

While APhoto will still be quicker, try using about 40% on a 20MP image in PL as that is about equal to APhoto's 100px. Also, both types of radial blur are available in PL. Which is controlled via the radio buttons in that dialog.

I don't know whether the brothers who do PL will be adding radial blur to the live adjustment layers. Most filters have been added over time and those that have been were re-written and are quicker than their former counterparts. You just happened to choose a filter that has not been re-written at this time. That said, some things are quicker in PL, others in APhoto.

The assembly language part is mostly a red herring as regards speed of things that use libraries that are not themselves written in assembly. Where it does/can make a difference is both in size of the executable, etc., and in any process making use of the assembly language. But you know that already.

PL's startup is certainly faster. Certain other functions are as well. I only use PL as an actual image editor. All the other stuff added over the years doesn't interest me. If I had to use it for drawing (as in AD, CD, XDP or AI), I would probably quit this business...or have to charge less due to the time it takes. But as an image editor, I do prefer it to APhoto.

Mike


My computer is a nothing-special Toshiba laptop with unremarkable specs running Windows 10 64-bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing photo editors and discussing about assembly are very interesting subjects, but I suggest moving these posts to another topic (if possible) because they deviate so much from the original question. Speaking of which, would you please let us know a bit more on the latest performance improvements? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MikeW - I just picked a random filter and filmed it. I also tested brushing, and couldn't any difference between the apps. Startup may well be different, as the apps will be doing different things. We load fonts, PL may not do.

@rubs - I'm not sure what information I can give you with regards to the performance improvements. Things are generally faster, but you'll probably notice the most benefit within Photo. Saving, rendering, applying filters, tone mapping etc. Designer will benefit too, but perhaps less so. Just experiment and see what you think!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mark Ingram said:

 - I'm not sure what information I can give you with regards to the performance improvements. Things are generally faster, but you'll probably notice the most benefit within Photo. Saving, rendering, applying filters, tone mapping etc. Designer will benefit too, but perhaps less so. Just experiment and see what you think!

Makes sense. I don't use  Photo, so maybe that's why I didn't notice any dramatic improvements. Thanks for the info!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rubs said:

Makes sense. I don't use  Photo, so maybe that's why I didn't notice any dramatic improvements. Thanks for the info!

The most important thing is, you probably won't see any degradation in performance as you use the application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2019 at 7:34 PM, Mark Ingram said:

The most important thing is, you probably won't see any degradation in performance as you use the application.

I feel it's better than v. 1.6 and that may be true for a single file, but unfortunately this is not my experience with the beta so far. I felt it was slower than when I started the session so I closed and reopened AD. It's a lot faster now. Perhaps it would be useful to know that the memory footprint decreased from 1.7 GB in the previous session to 580 MB now, with the same two files opened. In the previous session I had opened a series of other files (mainly .ai and .eps) and copied and pasted the contents in another file. Maybe AD still has problems with garbage collection.

Edited by rubs
Accidentaly posted before finishing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, rubs said:

... Maybe AD still has problems with garbage collection.

The problem of leaking memory when switching workspaces or closing documents has now been fixed and will be available in the next beta (thanks to your original post). You'll probably find with the memory leak resolved the performance will be better again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mark Ingram said:

 The problem of leaking memory when switching workspaces or closing documents has now been fixed and will be available in the next beta (thanks to your original post). You'll probably find with the memory leak resolved the performance will be better again.

That's great, Mark. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mark,

I'd like you to see the screenshot below. Performance seems better, but still degrades over time.

2019-03-01_18-31-47.png.cc911ff8314ec0c1c698732c76bb46c7.png

P.S. Just saw there is a new beta, I'll try it out, great hopes on this one :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rubs said:

Hi Mark,

I'd like you to see the screenshot below. Performance seems better, but still degrades over time.

P.S. Just saw there is a new beta, I'll try it out, great hopes on this one :D

If you find any performance issues with the new (251) beta, please record a video so I can investigate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2019 at 6:38 PM, Mark Ingram said:

If you find any performance issues with the new (251) beta, please record a video so I can investigate.

Looking good so far!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed it was getting slow again, then I noticed AD still doesn't release RAM after documents were closed. This ends up degrading performance over time. This is a sample after many hours work:

image.png.04ac7722eefc30ba85d01a1f7eb3dbc4.png

Then I've closed and reopened it with the same two opened documents:

image.png.5cc39905bb34a5fff431f0cc56489d73.png

Anyways there is significant improvement over previous versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rubs said:

I noticed it was getting slow again, then I noticed AD still doesn't release RAM after documents were closed. This ends up degrading performance over time. This is a sample after many hours work:

image.png.04ac7722eefc30ba85d01a1f7eb3dbc4.png

Then I've closed and reopened it with the same two opened documents:

image.png.5cc39905bb34a5fff431f0cc56489d73.png

Anyways there is significant improvement over previous versions.

Yep, that is to be expected with the latest performance changes. You will see a higher residual memory usage, even after closing documents.

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

×