Very very slow performance

I have just ran the FF beta on my computer with PS CS2 as host app. I would apply the default 'ceramic tile' preset on to image 1024*768 pix. But it took approx 11 minutes to calculatin result.

Which system requirements is needed there? Now I have follow configuration:

Adobe Photoshop Version: 9.0.1 (9.0.1x294)
Operating System: Windows XP
Version: 5.1 Service Pack 2
System architecture: Intel CPU Family:15, Model:3, Stepping:4 with MMX, SSE Integer, SSE FP, SSE2, HyperThreading
Physical processor count: 1
Processor speed: 2992 MHz
Built-in memory: 1023 MB
Free memory: 329 MB
Memory available to Photoshop: 907 MB
Memory used by Photoshop: 60 %
Image cache levels: 8
Application folder: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CS2\
Temporary file path: c:\Temp\
Photoshop scratch has async I/O enabled
Scratch volume(s):
C:\, 149,0G, 98,2G free
H:\, 90,4G, 29,4G free
D:\, 74,5G, 23,3G free
G:\, 95,7G, 42,1G free
Primary Plug-ins folder: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CS2\Plug-Ins\
Additional Plug-ins folder: not set
Installed plug-ins:
...
Plug-ins that failed to load: NONE

Installed TWAIN devices: NONE

Videographic adapter: ATI Radeon 9600 Series AGP

C:\Temp ?

I've noticed in a couple of graphics handling and twain programs, that they fail/dysfunction if the default XP temp location is changed from being inside \documents & settings\user???\...

Amongst other things, the memory handling of large files/actions either freezes or gets extremely slow.

It actually has something to do with Windows internal (kernal) memory multipliers and limits set there-in.

In the days of 98SE and the dreaded ME, Win actually would only use/handle a maximum of 127Mb of RAM. While going back several years earlier, amongst Gate's more infamous utterances was allegedly: "No one needs more than 640k of memory..."

I'd thought MS had got away from the 'control-freak' disposition with XP, but it turns out they did it again at somewhere around the 750Mb mark. I was told the actual figure, but cannot remember exactly what it is. One prays their next offering will not have another maximum ram setting based on their forcasts (which are historically wrong).

Anyway - I think you'll find the restoration of the default User temp will help the system/fix the fault ... although you go back to having all the problems/junk files building-up through that user-temp set-up, instead of the superior/refined C:\temp

Apparently MS have made a new better JPEG Like the "temp", etc., its got a few bugs (rofl) ... and they haven't actually even released it yet.

I wonder if Gates is actually the patron-saint of comedians?

Cheers,

Rixx

Kostyanet -- have you tried the speed fix I posted earlier? The current beta has a bug in SSE2 detection which blocks it from running a SSE2-optimized executable. Simply put, this fix can significantly improve the speed.

Here's the fix:
http://www.filterforge.com/forum/read...=5&TID=116

Quote
kostyanet wrote: Rixx, do you think I came here to listen your nonsenses?

Kostyanet, please be polite -- attitudes like this are not welcome here.

Are your render times comparable to what I've posted above? Your CPU is 3GHz, mine is 3.4 so our render times should be similar.

Excellent -- glad to hear that the speed fix worked for you!

Quote
kostyanet wrote: I think that it need to create a small window for previewing or modify math for enlarge sampling

Yep, we'll probably solve this by implementing a multi-pass preview with progressive refinement -- that was on our plans but it didn't make it into this beta due to time constraints.

Also, we've tweaked the priority for the thread that renders thumbnails, and hopefully this will also make things a bit faster. You can expect this in the nearest update.

Quote
kostyanet wrote: But for me it is very slowly render anyway

Not only for you, I'm certain. Procedural texture generation has never been a fast process -- just look at how long does it take to render a checkerboard texture in DarkTree. Of course, comparing Filter Forge and DarkTree isn't fair because DarkTree is a fully 3D package that produces "volumetric" procedurals, and Filter Forge is optimized for 2D, but you'll get the idea.

I can also suggest to experiment on smaller sizes (~100 ppi or so), saving presets, and then applying them on a large input images. Filter Forge is resolution-independent, you just have to make sure that both small-ppi and large-ppi images have a matching aspect ratio.

"to experiment on smaller sizes (~100 ppi or so), "

Ok, it's good idea, thanks.