I guest you havenât tried the newest DeepPRIME AI yet. 
I donât want to say too much about it here,
but once you tried it, you will be surprised 
Here is the original RAW file from Dpreview.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/download-image?s3Key=2bcee69d7ab34431bb28120b502fc950.arw
I have tested it and it isnât any better than DeNoise AI and if you use it on pics from cameras with larger pixel sizes it simply doesnât cut it. For example Canon 1D series and Sony A7S series.
This is a quote from the fstoppers review and also repeats DXO claims:
"DeepPRIME works best with raw files shot at high ISO settings and photos taken with small sensor cameras with small photosites. DxO says it is especially effective for photos taken in low light, especially those which need brightening, and images taken on older, previous generation cameras. Claiming better color details and more natural transitions, the company says DeepPRIME offers a gain of two ISO steps for the same levels of image quality.
The only downside of this high-powered processing is that the results can only be previewed in a small window and images must be processed and exported as JPEG or TIFF files."
Please, if you say something, make sure that it is correct and you can prove it so. I have seen some comments on this forum that are just unbelievable.
2.0? We are talking of 4.01!
For my Canon 7DII at ISO 800 and above works just fine.
I have had DXO studio mainly for the denoise since version 7. (yes, that long)
Now I never look at it since I have Topazâ AI version.
I only use it for perspective correction and some esoteric stuff now. The Nik tools work just fine if you invoke them from Lightroom or Exposure. I was soo disappointed when i paid for my last upgrade to DXO 2.5 , thinking it would do lovely integration of the Nik tools but it didnât, it only integrated the selection tools but it never worked as well.
Here is my friends dog just AFTER sunset on Wednesday.
Nice Picture. The Dog is cute.
I love Topaz Denoise AI too, however I always find difficult to remove âlow frequency color noiseâ in High ISO RAW image. 
I tried to adjust the remove color noise slider but it wonât remove âlow frequency color noiseâ unless I move the slider to extremely high value and it remove all color include the subject. 
May be I did something wrong. Hope someone can help me solve the problem. Thanks
Here is the original RAW file from Dpreview.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/download-image?s3Key=2bcee69d7ab34431bb28120b502fc950.arw
As comparison, I have tried to process the same raw image in the newest DXO with DeepPRIME AI and here is the result.
One question: how did you load the RAW file into DeNoise: directly or previously converted to jpg?
If direct, in my experience you will get worse results, even with the low frequency color noise.Thatâs why I have gotten into the habit of removing the color noise by developing the RAW file in another program and then denoising the JPG or TIFF file.
Thank you for your advice.
If I open the RAW file in DeNoise AI directly, it will end up a flat and desaturated photo. Like this,
So, I open the RAW file in Photoshop first and apply the Denoise AI filter.
I also tried export the RAW to TIFF first in PS, then open in Denoise AI, the result is the same.
With Photoshop I have now tested this and used the possibility to remove the color noise.
Afterwards I denoised the picture with Topaz Denoise. I would like to show you the result, but I donât have the permission to add pictures to my post, I donât understand why.
Can someone explain to me why I always get the message âSorry, you canât put images in a postâ?
Now I tested it again with my preferred workflow for underexposed Fuji Raw Photos (ISO 6400):
First development in Capture One (no sharpening, no denoising for luminance, denoising for color by default) and then denoising in Topaz DeNosie (70 remove noise, sharpen on demand).
I think the result is a bit better, because a little bit more detail or at least as good. I would also like to show this, but I canât.
Try now.
But to put the whole thing in perspective for me:
Dxo Photolabâs Deep Prime Filter does it extremely well and, above all, much faster.
But unfortunately not for Fuji RAW.
Apart from that, Iâm not a friend of DxO Photolab, many sliders donât give good results.
The only unique feature are the control points for local adjustment. This is a feature I use from time to time, but more often with Nik Collection
compare view with auto settings
here is my result directly loaded in denoise.
Here are a few observations.
Here is another test (in German) of DxO DeepPrime:
Really very impressive and decisive is that the results are available much faster than with Topaz denoise.
And if you get good results with DXO Photolab, you have an excellent all-in-one program.
Again, I think Topaz has a lot of catching up to do, Topaz Studio doesnât seem to be being developed any more, promised features and above all the seamless integration of the other Topaz programs donât seem to be a priority anymore. A real pity.
And as already written: the Raw Converter is simply useless, probably not only for Fuji X-Trans. Behind the Raw Converter is probably the LibRaw Dll, at least the result is identical to other programs, which also use the LibRaw (darktable). Here a self-development might be appropriate, now that every year money is flowing into the cashboxes to beat DeepPrime 
Of course I understand that the focus is on the cash cows, like DeNoise, SharpenAI or Video Enhance AI, but I think it would be worthwhile to start the development for other programs again.
Iâm trying a trial version of DXO Photolab 4 and have used a very underexposed sony RAW file as a test of Deep Prime noise reduction. In the DXO case I applied phot corrections for the exposure and color sat as well as Deep Prime NR. I also used the same RAW file and developed in Affinity Photo then used the Topaz Denoise AI plugin. I used AI Clear for that. Here are my thought and the photo results below. First, I think DXO should allow a larger preview option for those who have faster machines so that advantage goes to Topaz. DXO does have three NR processes with Deep Prime being the strongest but may not always be necessary. There are some adjustments as well but it is not complicated. For that both are tied.
For the results I brought both jpg files into Affinity photo. I realized that DXO had applied a optical correction so there is a bit of difference in the two. Overall, the results were good for both but I think DXO has a small edge. The carpet is more blurred in Topaz and some light working on the stands almost disappears. See the circled areas on the Topaz results.
The DXO Deep Prime version shows more texture on the carpet and the light wording on the stands is more readable. The wording on the upper sign is bolder on the Topaz version.
I donât know if it is worth buying DXO Photolab just for the Denoise, even though it is certainly excellent. If you want a pretty good photo program it does have a lot of features that can be worth it. While I did test Denoise AI and the Low Light models in Topaz they didnât fare better than AI Clear in this case.
Topaz AI clear in Denoise 3:
DXO Deep Prime in Photolab 4:
Here is a screen clip of the undeveloped RAW file to show what I started with: This room was at Biosphere 2 near Tucson, AZ and was too large for my flash plus it had bright light coming through windows.
FWIW. I never paid for software to process photos until this past winter. At work, I must use some Adobe products, and am not particularly a fan, but I began to realize that as I moved beyond the capability of my camera to take a great jpg shot, and needed to be able to process the RAW to tweak a little more detail out of an otherwise good shot to make it better (hummingbird wing at high iso/fast shutter speed, or a shot of the Milky Way from southwestern desert skies), then I needed to at least do denoise. I read a lot of reviews last fall, and downloaded 30 day trials of various products, not limited to Topaz Denoise and DXO Photolab 4. By black Friday I had purchased a new laptop with 6gb nVidia graphics (the 10 year old Quattro did not do these softwares any justice), and had settled on Topaz Denoise as a must have, and then also stumbled upon DxO as an option. Both fit my style in different ways. Denoise generally is a very powerful option - but I noticed that when Iâd export as DNG, the embedded JPG was tiny and even organizers like FastStone Viewer had trouble. When exporting from RAW to JPG, colors were a bit washed out, too, I thought, but I gradually figured out how to handle that.
As for DxO, I found that I could create a preset for my camera(s), and the lens corrections actually worked well, the horizon correction was good. So I bought the Elite that included the Prime options of Denoise (I did not buy into their Viewpoint add-on, and when the trial expired I missed it - for correcting wonky angles, etc). And as for Topaz, I bought the Black Friday bundle excluding Video Enhance AI (performance was bad, even on a new gaming laptop with 16GB of ram and 6gb GPU) - and I might not use it anyway, so no sense spending the extra money.
My goto for browsing a new dayâs folder of images is DXO. I can do a quick cleanup of images, to include denoise if needed, and apply the settings to multiple photos quickly, and I like it for what it does. Itâs certainly not the best organizer, may not be the best editor, but it does the basics. However, there are some tough images, that Denoise AI still handles better. And surprisingly, I find GigaPixel very useful for older images from 2-4MP cameras, and it keeps getting better for my purposes. And I like Studio, because it fulfills a niche that neither DXO nor the standalone AI products deliver, which has to do with textures, etc. I donât use it that often but I do like to use it for certain images.
I guess my point is here that for certain images, one does seem to work better than the other. I like PhotoLab - it fits my style better than many of the other products I trialed, and I can browse, edit, export quickly through several photos. But I also like TL products, including DeNoise, because they can do things PhotoLab cannot do. I spent a lot, a LOT, of time, editing both hummingbird wings and milky way via both products, and in the end, with the images I really wanted to shine, that were on the verge of too blurry, too grainy, or too ⊠something⊠a combination of Topaz gave me a result I liked.
Hereâs one that I processed through TL to get a final result I liked. I used denoise/clear and sharpen/stabilize for this.
Hereâs the version I processed through DXO only.
Both are fine, I guess. The colors of DXO look better, but I suppose thatâs a reflection on my technique - not quite sure how to get that out of TL. Zoomed in, the detail is better in TL, maybe.
