Hi folks, i was wondering something today.
Looking at the current CPU development roadmaps from both AMD and Intel, what would benefit Krita the most? More cores or more clock speed?
I know loads of RAM is ideal for content creation and multi-core platforms (6/12+ cores/threads) are like standard issue, but where Krita fits exactly?
Just some chit chat, random thought sort of thing.
Cheers!!

Clock speed these days doesn't do much... Even working with the biggest brushes on large canvases, it's hard to get over 50% cpu usage. We are planning to do a project this autumn with Intel optimizing Krita for lots and lots of cores -- but that still needs to get started.

The biggest drag, though, is memory throughput. Getting pixel data to the cache and out of it again. The bigger the CPU cache, the better.

I want to mention that Windows 10 Store version of Krita is much, and much faster than the one that's available for install outside of the Store. Actually, I think I'm gonna use the Store version of Krita to avoid the pain with large canvas. I actually can work with large canvas now. From what I can see, I find it a little faster than Photoshop in some way.

I use Linux Mint, so I can't really talk much about the Windows version.. but I believe all apps available on Windows Store use UWP(Universal Windows Platform) instead of Win32 (or WinRT) API, which supposably is better and faster on Win10.

Now, about that many cores thing... I'm really down for that, since I'm planning to upgrade my rig later on this year. Hopefully a ThreadRipper if things goes well.

Just a question, this Krita optimization project is something like Google Summer Code but with Intel or a completely solo Krita initiative?

Reptorian wrote:I want to mention that Windows 10 Store version of Krita is much, and much faster than the one that's available for install outside of the Store. Actually, I think I'm gonna use the Store version of Krita to avoid the pain with large canvas. I actually can work with large canvas now. From what I can see, I find it a little faster than Photoshop in some way.

That sounds pretty strange, since, the store appx is made from the same binaries as the regular installer and portable zip file version. The only thing that could be faster is startup compared to the zip version because for the zip version, windows security has to scan all files every time, while the appx and installer are signed, so pre-trusted.