Hi,

I've been testing the new Krita 2.9 in Windows but it appears to be very very slow, slower than you'd expect just because it's running in Windows.

I've read that some other users with Windows have had issues with speed, but they mostly have been referring to brush/painting speeds, my issues are mostly the overall speeds as detailed below.

It really appears like there is a bottleneck somewhere, I'm sure it's not the intention of the Krtia developers to make it so slow and unusable.

I've used Krita 2.8 in Ubuntu previously and found it to be a little slow in some areas, but nothing like it is in Windows. Some of the issues could be graphic card related, but the loading times shouldn't be.

I've installed Krita 2.9 twice also.

Test Machine:
Windows 7 64Bit
Intel Core i3
Nvidia Geforce 560Ti 1GB
7GB Memory


Krtia 1st time boot - start time = 1 Minute 47 seconds (From Fresh Boot when PC becomes idle).
Krtia 2nd time boot - start time = 58 seconds (Just after closing).

To create a new blank image of resolution 1920x1080 = 21 seconds.

To open an existing image of resolution 3456x5184 = 5 seconds.

Filter/Adjustments
Colour Adjustment Curve, has a delay of around 2 seconds for the preview.

Levels Adjustment, has a delay of around 4 seconds for the preview.

Moving a layer (1920x1080) produces tearing of the image, even if it's a simple box.

It doesn't appear to make any difference whether OpenGL is on or off.


As you can see from these issues, it's making Krita unusable, my PC isn't laggy, it's great with any other software obviously, but Krita sure is a problem, such a shame.

Anyone know what's causing this?

Jay.

You're the second person with these kind of specs that has this problem.(though the other person uses AMD) We're still investigating what is going on.

Just out of curiosity, this is all 8bit right, not using ten layers of 32 bit, right?

TheraHedwig wrote:You're the second person with these kind of specs that has this problem.(though the other person uses AMD) We're still investigating what is going on.

Just out of curiosity, this is all 8bit right, not using ten layers of 32 bit, right?

For me 32bit layers are mucht more faster than 8bit when working with them, loading times are no problem!

Have an nvidea too, maybe others can check too if nvidea has performance problems with 8bit layers and krita.

2nd person? I'm surprised!

I tried out 2.9 on my laptop last night,

Spec:
Windows 8.1
Intel core i5
8GB
Onboard Intel Graphics etc.

The same, just so slow and unmanageable. There has to be an issue somewhere I think, hope it's sorted soon.

Nothing special, just simple 8bit images, no extra layers.

The tearing wasn't as obvious on the Laptop moving the layers. I also noticed that on the Desktop, the tearing would settle down after a while of wiggling, but still sluggish.

The load times for Krita is the worst, and loading and creating images.

Well, I hope we can figure out what the issue is because, honestly, this doesn't happen for everyone. I've got two Windows 7 systems and three Windows 8 systems. On one Windows 8 system, starting Krita is on the slow side, but I don't have performance problems with painting or managing layers on any of them. I thought one Win8 system had a problem drawing gradients, until I realized I was running a build in the background. My systems are mostly intel, in various generations, with 4 to 32 gb of memory. One has an nvidia graphics card.

I know that people argue that "all other apps run fine, only Krita is slow, so Krita is broken." But it goes both ways: if Krita runs fine on Windows for the majority of users, but yours doesn't -- what's the conclusion?

In effect, Windows systems are all hugely different. Patches, graphics drivers, background software like virus scanners, builds -- it's got a huge installed base with a huge variation of configurations. Linux is more homogenous, in my experience.

When I was doing commercial Windows development for Hyves, we had about a million users. For the majority, our product ran fine. But if you've got a million users, and one in thousand has big problems, you've 1000 big problems... In one case, it turned out that a particular brand of laptop had shipped with a broken graphics driver and just before we went live, it had gone on sale in the Netherlands. Since it was so cheap, it had sold tens of thousands. And our product was broken on every single one of them.

With Krita, about a year ago we had a spate of complaints about startup performance. The common factor was that all those people were using sandboxie. Krita still has a lot of small files, like icons and brushes, and opening lots of small files is already slow on Windows, but with sandboxie, it took half an hour to load them.

So, there must be something common to the systems where Krita crawls that is not present on my test systems. I only use my test systems to build and test Krita, so they're relatively clean -- firefox git, cmake, visual studio and gvim is pretty the sum of apps installed on those systems. Virus scanners and so on are disabled because they slow down building. Maybe I should try loading up more software on them .

I'm the guy with an AMD processor, tested Krita on two configurations one with an Nvidia card an 8gigs of ram and
one on an AMD APU with 4gigs.
Both worked very similarly as I wrote on BA.org, very close to what the OP wrote.
There isn't much overlap between the two in terms of software,
different antivirus, diferent browser etc.


Also I read some comments on a local software news site
eg. a guy with a Xeon and 6gb of ram expressed that Krita was too slow for him to use it.

I've just bought a new Xeon so I'll be installing a clean Windows, I'll let you know how Krita works then.

windows 7 home premium 64 bit - latest updates, service pack 1
Intel i3-2370 2.4 GHz
6 GB RAM
Nvidia Geforce 520 MX ( optimus technology) - latest drivers
wacom intuos 5

Since last few updates Krita is extremely slow. Can't even sketch:/ I was hoping that stable build 2.9 is going to be better. But today i did install 2.9.01 and it is even worse.
I did try with 64 bit and 32 bit versions, there is no difference.
I have noticed that even creating new blank document takes more time than before.

Maybe it is something with compatibility krita and nvidia geforce?

I agree that many PCs can differ in software installed, spec, customisation etc.
For me though, I run a tight ship when it comes to my machines, I like the most performance, so I avoid having junk from running in the background, all software then for me runs fast. I don't even have a permanent internet connection, when I do, I have a tight firewall setup.

Both my PCs differ greatly, my desktop (Windows 7 SP1)with an Nvidia graphics card, and the other just a plain vanilla motherboard laptop (Windows 8.1) intel GPU. Both perform the same with Krita.

But regarding the problems for me, the main issue is speed of loading Krita, starting a new project (creating a blank document) and loading a previous image. The slight chuggy moving of the layers I can live with and the brush engine is fine in terms of speed.

I understand that a lot of little files loading, such as brush icons etc take time to load, but on my laptop it took Krita 1 minute 50 seconds to get up and running! that's crazy time.

Then what about the time it takes to create a new blank file - other software takes about a second or two, Krita took 21 seconds. I could have boiled the kettle nearly!

I applaud the development of Krita, we all need decent open source tools such as this, but something is definitely wrong in Windows builds just now. I hope the devs take this seriously.

Good luck

Of course I'm taking this seriously! But you have to keep in mind that when it comes to Windows, everyone's experience is idiosyncratic. So, on my brand-new broadwell based Intel SDP laptop, krita starts up frighteningly slowly. On my Windows 7 desktop, it's totally fine.

Then, the next problem is that all my licenses for Intel's vtune performance analyzer have expired, and Intel hasn't been able to send me a new license. And the software itself is _really_ expensive. There isn't much right now that I can do!

We had someone come in on the IRC with a NVidea geforce GT 530 who said that he had a similar problem, but that it was solved with updating the graphics drivers: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... 536&type=1 (see his comment below)

We'll still be looking at the performance, but this might be something to try out in the meantime? (Though I see that one of you has updated his graphics drivers :/ pity.)

Hi everyone,

Since I have two Windows 64 bit systems I have run myself some "benchmark" with Krita 2.9 (.exe version)

1)
Windows 7 - 64 bit (updated today before this test)
CPU: Intel Core I7 2630 QM
RAM: 8 GB DDR
GPU: Nvidia GeForce GT 540M - Cuda 1 GB (Nvidia driver 344.75 version)

On this system I have ALL sort of softwares installed: Microsoft Office 2007, LibreOffice 4.4.1, Kaspersky Internet security (*always* running in background etc), Firefox 36, Picasa 3.9.137, QGis 2.6., Da Vinci Resolve 11 lite etc etc

Start-up time on this system W7 is:
10-13 seconds

I have even recorded a video with this start-up test:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/309 ... -64BIT.avi

BB Flash back 5 Express recorder was the software used to record my desktop for this video test and it has slightly slowed down a bit Krita start-up (Kaskpersky Internet security was running in the background as usual)

2)
Windows 8.1 - 64 bit (updated today with the latest Microsoft drivers)
CPU: Intel I7 3537U,
RAM: 8 GB DDR
GPU: Nvidia Geforce GT 740M 2GB RAM (Nvidia driver: 331.65 version)

On this system I have a little software installed (It is very "clean") : just running LibreOffice 4.4.1, Kaspersky Internet security (*always* running in background etc), Firefox 36 and Krita 2.9.

Start-up time on this system Windows 8.1 - 64 bit system is:
26-28 seconds (that is, slower than Windows 7 - 64 bit)

Silvio Grosso wrote:Hi everyone,

Since I have two Windows 64 bit systems I have run myself some "benchmark" with Krita 2.9 (.exe version)

1)
Windows 7 - 64 bit (updated today before this test)
CPU: Intel Core I7 2630 QM
RAM: 8 GB DDR
GPU: Nvidia GeForce GT 540M - Cuda 1 GB (Nvidia driver 344.75 version)

On this system I have ALL sort of softwares installed: Microsoft Office 2007, LibreOffice 4.4.1, Kaspersky Internet security (*always* running in background etc), Firefox 36, Picasa 3.9.137, QGis 2.6., Da Vinci Resolve 11 lite etc etc

Start-up time on this system W7 is:
10-13 seconds

I have even recorded a video with this start-up test:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/309 ... -64BIT.avi

BB Flash back 5 Express recorder was the software used to record my desktop for this video test and it has slightly slowed down a bit Krita start-up (Kaskpersky Internet security was running in the background as usual)

2)
Windows 8.1 - 64 bit (updated today with the latest Microsoft drivers)
CPU: Intel I7 3537U,
RAM: 8 GB DDR
GPU: Nvidia Geforce GT 740M 2GB RAM (Nvidia driver: 331.65 version)

On this system I have a little software installed (It is very "clean") : just running LibreOffice 4.4.1, Kaspersky Internet security (*always* running in background etc), Firefox 36 and Krita 2.9.

Start-up time on this system Windows 8.1 - 64 bit system is:
26-28 seconds (that is, slower than Windows 7 - 64 bit)

Did the systems use a hard disk or SSD?

Hi Sven,

1)
My Windows 7 - 64 bit system runs on Hard Disk 250 GB.
I have installed ALL sort of softwares on this notebook in these past years.

Start-up time for Krita 2.9 (with Kaspersky Internet suite running in the background ) is:
10-13 seconds

2)
My Windows 8.1 - 64 bit system runs on a SSD disk (24 GB) and has a further Hard Disk (750 GB) for my data.
It is a brand-new ultrabook (ASUS S56C).
I never work on it (it should act in the future as a "back-up" solution).
Therefore, thus far, I have only installed a few softwares: LibreOffice 4.4.1, Krita 2.9, Firefox 36 and the Kaspersky Internet suite (always running in the back-ground).

Start-up time for Krita 2.9 (with Kaspersky Internet suite running in the background) is:
26-28 seconds

Before doing this start-up benchmark for Krita 2.9 (stable version) I was pretty *SURE* that Windows 8.1 - 64 bit was going to easily win this contest (Microsoft claims that Windows 8.1 is faster than Windows 7 and my W. 8.1 even runs on a SSD 24 GB and it has better hardware).
Needless to say, I was wrong: since my Windows 7 - 64 bit notebook is blazing fast compared to Windows 8.1 as regards Krita 2.9 start-up

Ok, I updated my hardware, I don't feel like reinstalling Windows, but I tested Krita on the same installation (of course with proper drivers).

Now I have a Xeon 1231v3, Intel H97 motherboard, same 8gb of ram, Nvidia card and all the rest.

Krita starts way faster than previously (even from an HDD),
creating files and switching layers is much faster ( similar to what I experienced with the previous processor on Linux).

Generally Krita is closer to the realms of usability,
though e.g filling a layer with color takes a bit too much time.

Still I don't know whether to credit the speedup to the processor being faster of another factor.

Just another datapoint: we finally got a heavily discounted Surface Pro 3 to test Krita with, the lowest-end model, i3 with 64 gb ssd and 4gb ram. It flies. Krita starts faster than on the i7 broadwell ultrabook and painting is absolutely smooth... Of course , I had to install about 70 patches to Windows before the pen worked properly, which initially failed because Windows didn't set the time correctly. On my 3 year old T430 with Windows 7 and a Yiynova tablet monitor, no problems either.