SAND33P Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Hey guys, was just curious as to the benefits i have with / without hardware accelerated rendering. I would generally assume it would be beneficial but im not 100% so i thought id ask for some opinionsI have a well cooled desktop machine with an i7-4790k clocked at 4.28ghz, 32gbs of ram and a Geforce GTX 970 graphics card. A powerful machine whichever way you look at it so im sure a huge difference wont be madeDoes anybody know whether the benefits of acceleration will apply much to me? I know utilising my GPUs CUDA processors for rendering in After Effects and Blender makes a very very large difference, i just haven't observed any difference with PDN yetI tend to work with Effects>Distort allot with canvas sizes around 8000x8000Thanks all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zagna Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 As far as I know, hardware acceleration via Direct2D only means the actual display and maybe some of the layer stuff of the image. Not the actual rendering. Rendering is all 100% CPU to my knowledge. No DirectCompute, CUDA or OpenCL. Unless some very adventurous plugin writer goes nuts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Brewster Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Paint.NET use Direct2D in hardware mode mostly for blitting tiles in the canvas, and for any UI sitting on top of the canvas. It is noticeably faster with hardware acceleration with something like a GeForce 970, although Zagna is correct that most processing is still done on the CPU. 2 Quote The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/ Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAND33P Posted January 11, 2016 Author Share Posted January 11, 2016 Thanks both for clearing that up for me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Brewster Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Put another way, if you were looking to build a new PC or to upgrade an existing PC with the goal of improving Paint.NET's performance, your GPU would probably not be a consideration unless you're using something truly abysmal. CPU, disk, and memory size are much more impactful by orders of magnitude. Quote The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/ Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Brewster Posted August 16, 2022 Share Posted August 16, 2022 BTW this changing big time for the upcoming release, 5.0, which should be out later this year. Most effects and adjustments will now be running on the GPU, and the Move Selected Pixels tool will also use the GPU when the “Bicubic (High Quality)” resampling mode is chosen (which will now be the default). Performance and quality are both making a big leap forward. In addition, plugins will be able to access the GPU as well via Direct2D, it’s imaging/effects system (“DirectImage”), and pixel shaders (via the ComputeSharp.D2D1 nuget package). I’ve been testing on a variety of GPUs and the performance ranges from “acceptable” on a GeForce GT 1030 or GeForce 560 (the 1030 really is quite slow!), “surprisingly good” on 6th gen Intel Iris iGPU, all the way up to “insane” on a GeForce 3090. (“Acceptable” meaning “no worse than the same effect on the old version of the app running on the CPU”). This will be a fun release (Yes, I’m replying to this post 6 years later, to make sure the top hit on Google for “paint.net GPU” isn’t stale 🙂) 1 Quote The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/ Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.