Hi, Nividia GT 610? - What do you expect from a low budget graphic card?
https://compubench.com/result.jsp?benchmark=clb11 provides OpenCL benchmarks. However I don't how this will tranlate to darktable performance, but you will notice that nvidia cards are slow compared to amd. That nvidia is slow on "profiled denoise" is known - at least for those who are following this list. I have a GT 640 card (~100€) and it outperforms my i7-2600k expect for profiled denoise. Christian > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. April 2014 um 12:33 Uhr > Von: "Ulrich Pegelow" <[email protected]> > An: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: [Darktable-users] Screen resolution and Darktable > > There is no guarantee that any given graphics card performs faster than > a CPU. The opposite may be true if you have a rather fast rig and a low > performing GPU. > > I do not know the Geforce 610, however judging from my experience with a > 660Ti I expect the 6xx Nvidia series to be relatively weak when it comes > to OpenCL - relative to its price. I suggest you have a look at the > various GPU benchmarking figures you may find in the web. Pay close > attention to the benchmark that deals with "compute GPU" rather than > gaming aspects. One possible source might be > http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/ > > That said: be assured that darktable does no double processing CPU+GPU. > It's in the nature of how the profiling data are collected that you see > figures for the OpenCL kernels as well as for the time spent in the > modules. The most reliable figure is the total time spent in the pixelpipe. > > In your case it seems that your GPU heavily underperforms in profiled > denoise, namely the non-local means processing. Interesting but probably > linked to your graphics card. Knowing the used algorithm I assume that > the card has a really low memory bandwidth. > > Best wishes > > Ulrich > > > Am 10.04.2014 11:16, schrieb Hans Petter Birkeland: > > I have now got a new graphics card, a Nvidia GeForce 610 with 2 GB > > memory. It is capable of using OpenCL, so I thought I would get a real > > performance boost. But the fact is that I see no improvement at all. > > Instead it seems to slow things down. I started Darktable with > > "darktable -d opencl -d perf" and then I opened an image with certain > > things done to it, among them Profiled Denoise. Simply zooming the > > image to 100% (middle click) takes around 6.5 seconds with OpenCL, and > > 2.5 seconds without! This looks very weird to me. I also had a look in > > the manual, in the section about optimizing OpenCL. Most things there > > seem to be about AMD cards, and the things I tried did not have any effect. > > > > Here is the terminal output for the zoom with OpenCL enabled: > > > > --- > > [dev] took 0,000 secs (0,000 CPU) to load the image. > > [pixelpipe_process] [full] using device 0 > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0,003 secs (0,004 CPU) initing base buffer [full] > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0,005 secs (0,000 CPU) processing `white balance' > > [full] > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0,004 secs (0,000 CPU) processing `highlight > > reconstruction' [full] > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0,032 secs (0,020 CPU) processing `demosaic' [full] > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 6,114 secs (2,636 CPU) processing `denoise > > (profiled)' [full] > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0,256 secs (0,152 CPU) processing `lens correction' > > [full] > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0,018 secs (0,004 CPU) processing `base curve' [full] > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0,010 secs (0,008 CPU) processing `input color > > profile' [full] > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0,033 secs (0,004 CPU) processing `sharpen' [full] > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0,027 secs (0,016 CPU) processing `output color > > profile' [full] > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0,005 secs (0,000 CPU) processing `overexposed' [full] > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0,013 secs (0,016 CPU) processing `gamma' [full] > > [opencl_profiling] spent 0,0004 seconds in [Write Image (from host to > > device)] > > [opencl_profiling] spent 0,0024 seconds in whitebalance_1ui > > [opencl_profiling] spent 0,0027 seconds in highlights_1f > > [opencl_profiling] spent 0,0075 seconds in ppg_demosaic_green > > [opencl_profiling] spent 0,0177 seconds in ppg_demosaic_redblue > > [opencl_profiling] spent 0,0057 seconds in border_interpolate > > [opencl_profiling] spent 0,0081 seconds in denoiseprofile_precondition > > [opencl_profiling] spent 0,0032 seconds in denoiseprofile_init > > [opencl_profiling] spent 0,9002 seconds in denoiseprofile_dist > > [opencl_profiling] spent 0,3109 seconds in denoiseprofile_horiz > > [opencl_profiling] spent 3,3197 seconds in denoiseprofile_vert > > [opencl_profiling] spent 1,4256 seconds in denoiseprofile_accu > > [opencl_profiling] spent 0,0108 seconds in denoiseprofile_finish > > [opencl_profiling] spent 0,0075 seconds in [Copy Image (on device)] > > [opencl_profiling] spent 0,0120 seconds in [Write Buffer (from host to > > device)] > > [opencl_profiling] spent 0,1920 seconds in lens_distort_lanczos3 > > [opencl_profiling] spent 0,0160 seconds in basecurve > > [opencl_profiling] spent 0,0075 seconds in colorin > > [opencl_profiling] spent 0,0107 seconds in sharpen_hblur > > [opencl_profiling] spent 0,0082 seconds in sharpen_vblur > > [opencl_profiling] spent 0,0118 seconds in sharpen_mix > > [opencl_profiling] spent 0,0247 seconds in colorout > > [opencl_profiling] spent 0,0081 seconds in [Read Image (from device to > > host)] > > [opencl_profiling] spent 6,3135 seconds totally in command queue (with > > 0 events missing) > > [dev_process_image] pixel pipeline processing took 6,621 secs (2,972 CPU) > > --- > > > > And here is the same without OpenCL: > > > > --- > > [dev] took 0,000 secs (0,000 CPU) to load the image. > > [pixelpipe_process] [full] using device -1 > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0,004 secs (0,008 CPU) initing base buffer [full] > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0,001 secs (0,000 CPU) processing `white balance' > > [full] > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0,001 secs (0,000 CPU) processing `highlight > > reconstruction' [full] > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0,018 secs (0,036 CPU) processing `demosaic' [full] > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 2,312 secs (4,556 CPU) processing `denoise > > (profiled)' [full] > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0,222 secs (0,420 CPU) processing `lens correction' > > [full] > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0,008 secs (0,016 CPU) processing `base curve' [full] > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0,013 secs (0,016 CPU) processing `input color > > profile' [full] > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0,028 secs (0,040 CPU) processing `sharpen' [full] > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0,023 secs (0,028 CPU) processing `output color > > profile' [full] > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0,004 secs (0,004 CPU) processing `overexposed' [full] > > [dev_pixelpipe] took 0,004 secs (0,008 CPU) processing `gamma' [full] > > [dev_process_image] pixel pipeline processing took 2,741 secs (5,236 CPU) > > --- > > > > To me it looks like when using OpenCL, everything is first done in the > > CPU, then redone in the GPU? That can't be very effective. Any ideas, Am > > I doing something wrong? > > > > Hans Petter > > > > http://hpbirkeland.com > > > > > > 2014-04-07 10:52 GMT+02:00 Hans Petter Birkeland <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > > > > Ok, thank you. Then I'll probably go for this, and I might also > > consider getting a better graphics card. > > > > Den 7. apr. 2014 10:49 skrev "Rob Z. Smith" <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> følgende: > > > > I used to run a 1920x1200 screen on dt on Core 2 Duo and it was > > absolutely fine for speed. I did have a mid level graphics card > > in the box though which would have speeded things up. I’ve > > since swapped the processor out for a quad core which ran > > marginally but not noticeably faster and a modern graphics card > > which made a larger difference but it was plenty quick enough in > > its original state at the larger resolution. > > > > Rgds, > > > > Rob. > > > > *From:*Hans Petter Birkeland [mailto:[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>] > > *Sent:* 06 April 2014 10:05 > > *To:* [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> > > *Cc:* darktable-users > > *Subject:* Re: [Darktable-users] Screen resolution and Darktable > > > > But then there is no point in a bigger screen anyway... > > > > Den 6. apr. 2014 01:26 skrev <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> følgende: > > > > You can limit the maximum displayed (and processed, as far as I > > know) pixel dimensions in the global options, so no need to > > limit your screen size for that reason. :) > > > > On 2014-04-05 [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > just a quick question. When working in Darktable, how much of > > a picture is > > > processed every time one adjusts something? Is it the whole > > file or just > > > the visible pixels? I mean, will it be slower on a bigger > > screen with > > > higher resolution? > > > > > > I use a somewhat old computer, with a Intel Core 2 Duo > > processor and > > > 1366x768 screen resolution. Darktable is working all right on > > it, but I > > > can't risk it to be slower. I am thinking about getting a > > 1920x1080 screen, > > > but if that means more data is being processed and things are > > going slower > > > then maybe I shouldn't. Whart do you think? > > > > > > Hans Petter > > > > > > http://hpbirkeland.com > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Put Bad Developers to Shame > Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration > Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment > Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees > _______________________________________________ > Darktable-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-users > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees _______________________________________________ Darktable-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-users
