On 05/12/2012 10:25 AM, Partha Bagchi wrote:
I followed your suggestions and built
babl-0.1.11/gegl-0.2.1/Gimp-2.8.0 using -Ofast -ffast-math
-ftree-vectorize. Using these flags, I reran the test at the top of
the thread. The c2g rendering on my machine is now 36 seconds as
compared to 6
I am using them as default. Now the only issue with the test above is
that the original gaussian filter is still very slow. I have to
figure out the correspondence between gegl-gaussian-blur and the
gaussian blur filter.
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Patrick Horgan phorg...@yahoo.com
I followed your suggestions and built
babl-0.1.11/gegl-0.2.1/Gimp-2.8.0 using -Ofast -ffast-math
-ftree-vectorize. Using these flags, I reran the test at the top of
the thread. The c2g rendering on my machine is now 36 seconds as
compared to 6 minutes. I am impressed. :)
Now to test out gimp
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Jernej Simončič
jernej|s-gm...@eternallybored.org wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 03:31:26 +0200, Øyvind Kolås wrote:
It also turns out that babl and GEGL on win32 seem to be compiled
practically without optimization and without taking modern instruction
sets into
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Øyvind Kolås pip...@gimp.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Jernej Simončič
jernej|s-gm...@eternallybored.org wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 03:31:26 +0200, Øyvind Kolås wrote:
It also turns out that babl and GEGL on win32 seem to be compiled
practically
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Partha Bagchi parth...@gmail.com wrote:
So, what kind of timing do you get with your OS?
While some will find the information interesting, the timing others will
experience depends very little on the operating system being used. The
results will vary greatly
On 12-03-20 06:26 PM, Partha Bagchi wrote:
I clearly stated all the information in the post. I did ask what your
performance. Why don't you post that?
Were you asking me why I didn't post any performance data? If so, it is
because I see little to no value in the results you would get and I
* Derek Mortimer m...@aaa.co.uk [03-20-12 07:55]:
Although I'm just a newbie, your question intrigued me.
Looking at the image you referred to, Firefox tells me that it is
7,360px × 4,912px (scaled to 864px × 577px). If what I have been told
is correct, that 1 pixel = 1 byte ( or
Hi everybody,
I'm new on this list.
It would be a great thing to measure the performance with and without GEGL,
so with an older version of GIMP, and with the new one. But I don't really
know what things have been changed, so I'm not sure it would give a proper
answer.
Semmu
2012. március 20.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:14 PM, László Boros iamse...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everybody,
I'm new on this list.
It would be a great thing to measure the performance with and without GEGL,
so with an older version of GIMP, and with the new one. But I don't really
know what things have been
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Patrick Shanahan ptilopt...@gmail.com wrote:
* Kevin Cozens ke...@ve3syb.ca [03-20-12 11:41]:
On 12-03-19 09:46 PM, Partha Bagchi wrote:
Test Machine: HP Pavilion dv8 Notebook PC (19 display Nvidia 1G
dedicated video RAM), intel Core i7 Q720 @1.60GHz, 8GB RAM,
others think?
HTH,
Derek Mortimer
- Original Message -
From: Partha Bagchi parth...@gmail.com
To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 1:46 AM
Subject: [Gimp-user] Benchmarking Gimp/GEGL
Hi All,
Want to gauge your experience.
Test Machine: HP Pavilion dv8
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 11:44 +, Derek Mortimer wrote:
Looking at the image you referred to, Firefox tells me that it is
7,360px × 4,912px (scaled to 864px × 577px). If what I have been told
is correct, that 1 pixel = 1 byte ( or thereabouts), that is a 36mb
file, which to my mind is
13 matches
Mail list logo
