Hi,
I'm forwarding this from gimp-user for anyone who is not on that list.
There was a question regarding performance and configuration but I can't
seem to get Gimp to outperform Photoshop.
TIA for any configuration tweeks that may help me. (so far the only thing
i've done is adjust the tile cache)
--
Jon Winters http://www.obscurasite.com/
"Everybody loves the GIMP!"
http://www.gimp.org/
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 09:52:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jon Winters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Performance of Gimp vs. photoshop for large images
Hello all,
Yesturday I requested that our friend send me a copy of his image so that
I could try the test on my computer at work. (PIII 400 128MB, Matrox G400,
WinNT)
I chose to test with levels because I adjust levels or curves on almost
every image I edit.
In Photoshop (v5.0) the redraw after letting go of one of the levels
sliders was less than two seconds. (default 'out of the box' photoshop
configuration)
In the gimp I was surprised that the performance is indeed terrible. With
the tile cache set to 72MB it took 40 seconds. With the tile cache set to
96MB it took 16 seconds. Moving the tile cache to 128MB (on this 128MB
machine) knocked it down to 11 seconds.
Is there some other configuration that I am missing?
Years ago I worked as a photographer and our standard image size, in our
studio using a Leaf Digital Camera Back, was around 100MB. This kind of
performance hit would seriously hamper productivity and pretty much force
the use photoshop.
Tonight I'll run the same test on my computer at home. (Dual PIII 450,
256MB ram, 32MB G400, RedHat 6.2/Helix Gnome)
Thanks
--
Jon Winters http://www.obscurasite.com/
"Everybody loves the GIMP!"
http://www.gimp.org/
