Lightroom CC/6 and what you're not get from GPU Acceleration

BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Saw this article today. Seems the GPU acceleration benefits may have been more than slightly overstated. Funny, but when I think back on the Kelby/Concepcion back-and-forth about it on the release webcast they really didn't say anything specific about it other than what it does for 4K monitors - the rest was all about how everything is now "much faster" (and yes, some of it is). The more I think about what those two didn't say when they were saying what they did say, the more I'm convinced that KelbyOne has just become one big shill for Adobe products.

With that said, it seems they've left room for further use and improvements down the road, but we'll have to wait and see just how far down.

Anyway, here's the info:

Adobe’s GPU Acceleration is Not That Great After All. Yet. - DIY Photography
 
M

MartinCornwall

Senior Member
Slightly overstated. The GPU acceleration doesn't even work with my AMD Radeon HD6670. Adobe's answer to update to latest driver's which are already installed. Real world fix is to back date the drivers to 2014 which I'm not willing to do. Hopefully Adobe will fix this issue with the Radeon and other cards.
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I don't know much about Kelby but having read what the official Adobe release notices had to say about GPU acceleration and so forth, it seems to me they were pretty clear in their description. I think a lot of people made assumptions about, or read into, what Adobe actually said. In typical "market speak" they use phrases like, "up to" and "on supported GPU's" that can be easy to pass over, or ignore. Technically speaking, it seems to me if LR6 was only 1% faster on one specific GPU the requirements for what they promised have been met.

It seems to me this release of LR shows a new direction that Adobe is moving in but it's a long journey and they've only taken the first couple of steps.
 
Fred Kingston

Fred Kingston

Senior Member
Horoscope Fish said:
I don't know much about Kelby but having read what the official Adobe release notices had to say about GPU acceleration and so forth, it seems to me they were pretty clear in their description. I think a lot of people made assumptions about, or read into, what Adobe actually said. In typical "market speak" they use phrases like, "up to" and "on supported GPU's" that can be easy to pass over, or ignore. Technically speaking, it seems to me if LR6 was only 1% faster on one specific GPU the requirements for what they promised have been met.

It seems to me this release of LR shows a new direction that Adobe is moving in but it's a long journey and they've only taken the first couple of steps.
Click to expand...

I agree... and I only paid my regular $9.99 for the upgrade... Reflecting on past Windows upgrades. Folks paid a lot more to get a lot less...

Think I'll go take some pictures today, and not worry about the software... :tennis:
 
K

Kaoscoder

Senior Member
Local brush adjustments and spot clone/heal are some of the controls that do not currently support GPU leveraging, but they may in the future.
Click to expand...

This is where LR truly needs acceleration. The clone/heal tool lags quite a bit on my i7 PC.
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
Pretzel said:
This is actually working just fine, with the spot heal working a bit faster for me since the update. Of course, I'm an iMac guy...
Click to expand...

Interesting. For me, the local brush adjustment tool works the same as before (very smooth), but the spot removal/healing tool lags a little more than it used to.

Of course the new "merge" function takes for ever.
 
P

Pretzel

Senior Member
Blacktop said:
Interesting. For me, the local brush adjustment tool works the same as before (very smooth), but the spot removal/healing tool lags a little more than it used to.

Of course the new "merge" function takes for ever.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I only do the simple "click this spot and it's gone" heals in LR. For anything that requires a larger spot/area, I jump to PS. The healing brush there is lightyears ahead of LR. With that in mind, I haven't tested LR's full healing limits... ;)
 
Woodyg3

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
I agree completely that the speed improvements have been quite overstated. Plus, the accelerations I'd most like to see are on things like preview generation and file import.
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
Pretzel said:
Honestly, I only do the simple "click this spot and it's gone" heals in LR. For anything that requires a larger spot/area, I jump to PS. The healing brush there is lightyears ahead of LR. With that in mind, I haven't tested LR's full healing limits... ;)
Click to expand...

I do the same, but placing the cursor/circle on the spot itself lags.
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
So far I am only using LR for tagging and cataloging which I really do like but when I start editing I go back to Bridge for viewing and then to ACR and PS to do my editing. That seems much faster for me. It could be that is just what I am used to.
 
Top