Speed up Adobe Camera Raw?

[Mark_Seng]

With the large files of the sony a7r, adobe camera raw got a bit slow on my mac - especially when zooming in the photo. (photoshop cc, acr 9)
Today I opened an a7r file with photoshop cs5, acr 6.6. Surprisingly it worked way faster, especially zooming...

Is acr 6 really faster than 9? Is there something I can do to make acr 9 as fast (change presets in photoshop?)

[AlterEgo]

Is acr 6 really faster than 9? Is there something I can do to make acr 9 as fast (change presets in photoshop?)

wait for ACR9.5/LR6.5, it will take a lot of time for Adobe to fix the code to use GPU in a proper manner... I wonder what was the feedback from beta-testers and what arguments marketing plankton had with developers when the decision to release was made.

[Mark_Seng]

Yes, it seems like there is a problem with the graphic card.
I just checked the preferences in acr and found this: "Graphic Processor- Currently disabled due to an error (Unsupported hardware/driver version)."

[stamper]

How many cards are on the market? It must be difficult for Adobe to test for all especially if someone doesn't use use the latest driver.

[AlterEgo]

Yes, it seems like there is a problem with the graphic card.
I just checked the preferences in acr and found this: "Graphic Processor- Currently disabled due to an error (Unsupported hardware/driver version)."

no, that is not the core problem - the core problem that even with supported GPU/drivers the performance is horrible vs what it should be, based on how some other GPU enabled applications are doing...

[jrsforums]

no, that is not the core problem - the core problem that even with supported GPU/drivers the performance is horrible vs what it should be, based on how some other GPU enabled applications are doing...

That is not my observation.  I am using a 2560x1660 screen, with 2560x1440 second screen.

Develop slider w/o GPU has the sliders slightly herky jerky.  With the GPU the sliders are smooth as silk.  Second screen does not seem to add a noticeable difference to there is a slight delay on image change...first screen has no delay at all.

I am using an EVGA GTX 760 Superclocked video card, with i7-4770 and Win7.

Eric gives some guidance on GPU needs in this thread.  http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/about-lr-cc-and-gpu

[Mark_Seng]

Hmm....still don`t know why my CS5 ACR 6.6 runs faster than CC ACR 9.
I`m using a Intel HD Graphics 3000 512 MB. As far as i know it should work with Photoshop CC.
But even when GPU "turned off" it should be as fast as CS5 ACR 6.6. Or am I wrong?

[AlterEgo]

Hmm....still don`t know why my CS5 ACR 6.6 runs faster than CC ACR 9.
I`m using a Intel HD Graphics 3000 512 MB. As far as i know it should work with Photoshop CC.
But even when GPU "turned off" it should be as fast as CS5 ACR 6.6. Or am I wrong?

because Adobe managed to make things worse speedwise without GPU too  ... and your GPU really quite old, might not see any gains even in proper code (try software like fastrawviewer - an example of the code done right)

[AlterEgo]

That is not my observation.  I am using a 2560x1660 screen, with 2560x1440 second screen.

Develop slider w/o GPU has the sliders slightly herky jerky.  With the GPU the sliders are smooth as silk.  Second screen does not seem to add a noticeable difference to there is a slight delay on image change...first screen has no delay at all.

I am using an EVGA GTX 760 Superclocked video card, with i7-4770 and Win7.

Eric gives some guidance on GPU needs in this thread.  http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/about-lr-cc-and-gpu

been there... do a simple exercise - open raw with GPU on, zoom in, zoom out, zoom in, zoom out (no sliders)... you see the delay and image being blurred during those steps... now get fastrawviewer - do the same... compare the speed of a simple operation.

as for Eric - he is doing damage control because the mgmt pushed the release before it's ready codewise, so we shall feel sorry for his situation, I bet he was not the one rallying to release it

[jrsforums]

been there... do a simple exercise - open raw with GPU on, zoom in, zoom out, zoom in, zoom out (no sliders)... you see the delay and image being blurred during those steps... now get fastrawviewer - do the same... compare the speed of a simple operation.

Split second response

as for Eric - he is doing damage control because the mgmt pushed the release before it's ready codewise, so we shall feel sorry for his situation, I bet he was not the one rallying to release it

I doubt Eric would release code that was not working properly.  He did leave out support for some items, which he clearly stated were the result of time/resource constraints.  This is normal in any development management/scheduling operation....it is the reason you do not preannounce because things happen and you don't want to promise a feature which may have to be temporarily dropped as it is either incomplete or not fully tested.

[AlterEgo]

I doubt Eric would release code that was not working properly. 

it is simply not his call - he is a developer, sr one, but not a manager...

[AlterEgo]

Split second response

and on my PC (GTX870m GPU) that "split" second is way, way longer than FRV ;-) and that is with one 2560x1440 screen...

so are you going to argue that GPU code works as it should  ? or that GPU in my notebook is obsolete ?

[Mark_Seng]

okay, not sure what to do now.
I can`t work this way, the delay while zooming is driving me crazy.

I`m working on a macbookpro and an eizo monitor. (2,4 i5, 10.10.3, 16gb ram, SSD, Intel HD Graphics 3000 512mb)
Apple website says that the intel hd 3000 supports opengl 3.3.
As far as i know this is the only requirement for ACR 9 in terms of GPU?!
So the problem is ACR9 not the intel hd 300. Am I right?

So do you think its worth waiting for acr 9.5?

[jrsforums]

and on my PC (GTX870m GPU) that "split" second is way, way longer than FRV ;-) and that is with one 2560x1440 screen...

so are you going to argue that GPU code works as it should  ? or that GPU in my notebook is obsolete ?

I was not making any argument, just reporting my observations.  However, it should be obvious that LR performance, w/ or w/o GPU, will be highly dependent on the hardware it is running on.

In the case of a laptop, a lot of performance trade offs are made to get the best with least heat.  CPUs are usually 2 core rather than 4 or 6and clocked conservatively.

The GTX 760 I mentioned has a Passmark benchmark number of 4965 (and this is NOT superclocked, which would be faster).  The GTX 870M is 2357.

In addition, my system has SSDs for OS, LR catalog, and raw cache.

[jrsforums]

Mark, should have quoted your post

okay, not sure what to do now.
I can`t work this way, the delay while zooming is driving me crazy.

I`m working on a macbookpro and an eizo monitor. (2,4 i5, 10.10.3, 16gb ram, SSD, Intel HD Graphics 3000 512mb)
Apple website says that the intel hd 3000 supports opengl 3.3.
As far as i know this is the only requirement for ACR 9 in terms of GPU?!
So the problem is ACR9 not the intel hd 300. Am I right?

So do you think its worth waiting for acr 9.5?

If I remember correctly, Adobe stated the minimum GPU support was 1GB on video card, with 2GB preferred.

Also, Passmark performance number for HD 3000 is 309.

[jrsforums]

it is simply not his call - he is a developer, sr one, but not a manager...

I'm not sure what "call" you mean, but I suspect you have never been involved in a large development organization. 

There is always a trade off on timing of announcements and readiness, but no shop will release a product that the know is not ready.  It will only cause them more problems down the road. The usual trade off is made to reduce those parts that are not ready...but that has to be balance against improved features.

That does not mean that products will not experience problems after release.  No matter how much one tests, one cannot possibly test all the permutations of hardware, software, and update combinations are out there.

[AlterEgo]

I was not making any argument, just reporting my observations.  However, it should be obvious that LR performance, w/ or w/o GPU, will be highly dependent on the hardware it is running on.

In the case of a laptop, a lot of performance trade offs are made to get the best with least heat.  CPUs are usually 2 core rather than 4 or 6and clocked conservatively.

The GTX 760 I mentioned has a Passmark benchmark number of 4965 (and this is NOT superclocked, which would be faster).  The GTX 870M is 2357.

In addition, my system has SSDs for OS, LR catalog, and raw cache.

I can compare ACR with FastRawViewer on the same notebook hardware (GTX870M GPU, i7-4810MQ CPU, 32GB RAM)... no contest with zoom in zoom out... if we call ACR a fraction of second (noticeable fraction btw), FRV is milliseconds - at least 10 times faster, same raw... SSD has nothing to do with that - we are operating on the same one raw file which is totally read in already we simply zooming in and out it, w/o changing anything else... you are compensating for the bad code with more hardware raw power, but that does not make release any better !

[AlterEgo]

There is always a trade off on timing of announcements and readiness, but no shop will release a product that the know is not ready. 

you are simply so naive ... the devil is the details of what you call "ready", it seems that you define "ready" as when software does not crash on you and yes it doesn't - but just read the forums and feedback about the performance on a simple operations... that is another definition of "ready"...

[jrsforums]

I can compare ACR with FastRawViewer on the same notebook hardware (GTX870M GPU, i7-4810MQ CPU, 32GB RAM)... no contest with zoom in zoom out... if we call ACR a fraction of second (noticeable fraction btw), FRV is milliseconds - at least 10 times faster, same raw... SSD has nothing to do with that - we are operating on the same one raw file which is totally read in already we simply zooming in and out it, w/o changing anything else... you are compensating for the bad code with more hardware raw power, but that does not make release any better !

You are comparing apples and oranges.  

If you like FRV, fine.  

BTW....are you comparing the image to image or zoom in/out of the develop module (which is where the new code is) or in the library module?  Isn't FRV closer to the library.....I don't think it allows raw processing, other than viewing.....if it does, $15 is a great deal for a raw converter. 😀

[jrsforums]

you are simply so naive ... the devil is the details of what you call "ready", it seems that you define "ready" as when software does not crash on you and yes it doesn't - but just read the forums and feedback about the performance on a simple operations... that is another definition of "ready"...

Are you talking about performance problems with slow GPUs?