Windows 10 Pro, I7, O/C 5820, 32gb memory, Samsung 860 SSD image storage, AMD 5700 XT 8GB GPU.
2.4.1 is EXTREMELY slow processing an image. So was 2.4.0, so going back to that is pointless.
In case you only read this far before replying - IT’S HAD CALIBRATE RUN, REPEATEDLY!
For reference, when I was running 2.3.6 it randomly, after some amount of use would stop updating the previews and the only fix was a completely removal of all topaz and reinstall. BUT WHEN IT RAN, it wasn’t wretchedly slow:
Start Denoise AI 2.3.6 STANDALONE. Go into prefs, have GPU on, usage HIGH, press Calibrate, open a small Nikon D500 (20 megapixel) image. Let it calibrate as it created previews (it got re-installed so often I got good at this). Change zoom and let it recreate previews. Process a Nikon .NEF using Denoise, generating a .dng output. Processing time from 0 – 100% approximately 12 seconds. Time from when it reached 100% to when it returned to the preview screen approximately 15-18 seconds. Total time from hitting the button to back in preview, around 33 seconds.
Do EXACTLY the same thing with Denoise 2.4.1. GPU on, usage HIGH, press Calibrate, previews, zoom, previews, process .NEF. EIGHTY SECONDS to get from 0 to 100% and STILL another 15 seconds to get back to the preview screen.
Back in Preview, go BACK into prefs and press Calibrate. EXIT from Denoise in case the calibrate doesn’t actually work in previews even though it SAYS IT’S CALIBRATING. Restart Denoise, repeat process – previews, process .NEF to .dng output. ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGE. Still takes 90 seconds to process a small image. It’s now been “CALIBRATED” IN Denoise and after a restart.
Repeat 8 or 10 more times, trying to calibrate IN Denoise and by restarting. NOTHING changes.
This morning I had a friend who uses the same software do a comparison with his far less capable system. Using Denoise AI 2.4.1 on his system - an i3 (yes, that’s a 3) processor, 16GB of memory and an AMD 5500XT, processing an image from a Nikon D810 (36 megapixel, so LARGER than what I’m processing). With Denoise running standalone he loaded a Nikon .NEF file, selected Denoise, and processed, saving as a .dng file. We both timed the process. Processing time from 0 - 100% was around 14 seconds and time from hitting 100% to displaying back on the preview screen was 11-12, so the WHOLE process cycle was 25 seconds. We did this several times, restarting in between and it was consistent. A THIRD FASTER than the 30-33 seconds I got with 2.3.6 and astronomically faster than I’m getting with 2.4.1.
I restarted Denoise on my system, opened the preferences and TURNED OFF the graphics processor, and EXITED from Denoise. I restarted it standalone with the GPU off, Vino grayed out, NO CALIBRATION (if I Calibrate it turns the GPU back on - doesn’t WORK, but it turns it on), opened an image, and processed the image. This time it took approximately 65 seconds (down from 80) to process from 0 - 100% and approximately FIVE seconds one it reached 100% before it returned to the preview screen.
It appears to me that Denoise 2.4.1 is NOT making use of my AMD 5700XT GPU (which has significantly sped up other processing), and that “Saving” the OUTPUT is SIGNIFICANTLY faster with the GPU turned off…
ALL my processing was done on a newly rebooted system, with NO other significant processing happening. Nothing from Adobe or anything else to compete except tools like Outlook at a normal browser. ALL images are stored on a Samsung 860 SSD. To VERIFY there was no problem with the storage, I copied a subset of images to a SEPARATE SSD on a DIFFERENT I/O controller and reran the tests. NO DIFFERENCE. Total processing in 2.4.1 is extremely slow, and the time from 100% back to the preview screen is equally slow.
I would suspect a problem with Denoise recognizing my GPU, but it DOESN’T have that problem with 2.3.4 or 2.3.6, so I can’t imagine that 2.4.? would.
Calibration not working? I can only THINK of 2 ways to do the calibration - inside Denoise using the previews, or by selecting Calibrate, shutting DOWN Denoise and restarting it. Anybody know of some other method? Something else? Cosmic rays? Anybody have any useful ideas?