AI Denoise takes 4-8 minutes

[berts74084431]

I have Lightroom classic 12.3 with the AI noise reduction.  It takes a very long time 4-8 minutes to reduce the noise in a  image.  While the image is being denoised, it "flickers" every 15-20 seconds.

When I use Topaz AI Photo on the same image, it takes less than a minute to denoise and sharpen the image.

What can be the problem?  Is there a setting I have to change,? my computer is only 2 years old and has no problems farder in Lightroom or Photoshop.

I attach some screen shot of  an image and my computer info.

Thanks,

Bert

[GoldingD]

Operating system: Windows 10 Home 64-bit (10.0, Build 19042) (19041.vb_release.191206-1406)

Card name: Radeon RX 570 Series
Manufacturer: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

Display Memory: 20423 MB
Dedicated Memory: 4075 MB

Driver File Version: 27.20.14501.18003 (English)

I suspect that your GPU driver is old, and that current is (Windows Driver Store )Version 31.0.14051.1000, but not an AMD user, so could be wrong.

[johnrellis · Accepted solution]

That driver, 27.20.14501.18003, is about 2.5 years old. Download the latest driver from here:

https://www.amd.com/en/support/graphics/radeon-500-series/radeon-rx-500-series/radeon-rx-570 

That may provide some speedup. But your graphics card is six years old, and as others have noted here and in other threads, older cards are much slower than newer ones.  

[berts74084431]

John,

Thanks for the link to update my driver.  It brought the Denoise time down by half.  Still most images 1-3 minutes.  What is still more than dubbel the time of Topaz Photo AI.

Also while the image is being denoised in Adobe Photoshop, it flickers every 20-30 seconds, what other people have also said on this forum.

It seems to me that there is a Adobe software problem with Denoise.

I think I have to keep using Topaz till Adobe fixes this problem.

Giving how fast they are working on the "not starting Lightroom" problem, I don't keep my hopes up that they will give this much priority.

[TheDigitalDog]

See: https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-discussions/denoise-takes-several-minutes-to-comple...

The issue (the problem) is your GPU hardware. 

[Conrad_C]

Because AI Denoise is only about a week old, Adobe probably still has to do some optimization for older hardware. That might explain why Topaz is so much faster for the same image on the same hardware.

Until they can do that, the best AI performance is being seen by people with newer hardware.

[berts74084431]

If for Adobe, the people who have "older hardware" (and that are most of there subscribers), are not a first priority.  Than that says at lot about there attitute for there customers.

[TheDigitalDog]

What it says is Adobe codes for the bleeding edge, just as they provide functionality for that group. 

The new Denoise works for you. It's not as fast as you want. Understood. You can update your hardware. You can use the new and IMHO awesome feature but wait, you can use another product. The correct answer above is clear: your hardware needed to be updated but it still is slow in comparison to more modern GPUs. 

The time to process an R6 Mark II CR3 for me, on an M1 MBP is 12 seconds. Which is why I updated my hardware 6 months ago. I will very likely do the same in 2-3 years because when the rubber meets the road, I need high-performance computing for just these high end products, not surfing the web, Excel or email. 

[Keith Reeder · Accepted solution]

---

@berts74084431 wrote:

If for Adobe, the people who have "older hardware" (and that are most of there subscribers), are not a first priority.  Than that says at lot about there attitute for there customers.

---

That makes no sense. The simple fact is that we're talking about resource-intensive code, which Adobe will surely refine as they develop it.

There's no call to take things personally - Adobe isn't out to get you.

You mention Topaz: I know from my own experience that it runs like a dog on what constitutes "older hardware" for its requirements - the fact that it's currently faster than Lr on your machine is pretty irrelevant as a data point: it just means that its requirements more closely match your machines capabilities.

A pure fluke, really - certainly not evidence of an evil Adobe agenda...

For further context: on my machine (which has a functional, though far from cutting-edge, GPU with 8gb of  memory) files that take 15 seconds in On One Photo Raw take a minute in Lr; and ten minutes in DxO PhotoLab or PureRaw. Adobe is already far ahead of DxO in performance and code optimisation terms, and we can expect that trend to continue.

The point is that this is a simple fact of life: as software gets more and more resource intensive, we're all going to run into instances of software bogging down because it has surpassed the capabilities of the hardware it's running on.

So: we either upgrade our hardware; wait until the software is sufficiently optimised to meet our arbitrary expectations (which might never happen, of course); live with the longer processing times; or use something else.

Ascribing agendas to Adobe's imagined motivations is futile and unhealthy.

[dj_paige]

If for Adobe, the people who have "older hardware" (and that are most of there subscribers), are not a first priority.  Than that says at lot about there attitute for there customers.

By @berts74084431

You seem to be suggesting that Adobe NOT release these great new features, which would be more "fair" to people with older hardware. I point out that this is "unfair" to people with newer hardware, and this would say a lot about "there attitute for there customers". (Except I don't believe it indicates an "attitute" by Adobe towards you or me or anyone). As for me, I am glad Adobe keeps adding features to LrC, and I hope they keep doing it as rapidly as is possible — and I believe they will continue to add features to LrC, even if it makes some customers unhappy.

[berts74084431]

We disagree on this one. In my view when Adobe comes out with a new feature that only can be used as it should by 15% of their subscribers they should wait and work on the product till a majority of their subscribers can use this feature to its fullest before they release it.It is ridicules that only subscribers who have bought computers in the last 1.5 year can get the  full benefit of Adobe Denoise.  While Topaz Photo AI can be  used by older computers.

[TheDigitalDog]

We disagree on this one. In my view when Adobe comes out with a new feature that only can be used as it should by 15% of their subscribers they should wait and work on the product till a majority of their subscribers can use this feature to its fullest before they release it.I
By @berts74084431

15% cannot use the feature? That figure comes from what data? And, of course, not use means it doesn't work whatsoever. Not; it takes more time than people (with old hardware) wish to wait. 

So again, the X% of users can't use the feature means what happens; crash, the product doesn't apply NR, results are totally wrong? Please be specific; this will help the team short of the 15% actually posting bug reports:

Photoshop:
https://community.adobe.com/t5/photoshop-ecosystem-bugs/how-do-i-write-a-bug-report/idi-p/12373403

Lightroom:
https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-bugs/how-do-i-write-a-bug-report/idi-p/12386373

[Keith Reeder]

---

@berts74084431 wrote:
We disagree on this one. In my view when Adobe comes out with a new feature that only can be used as it should by 15% of their subscribers they should wait and work on the product till a majority of their subscribers can use this feature to its fullest before they release it.It is ridicules that only subscribers who have bought computers in the last 1.5 year can get the  full benefit of Adobe Denoise.  While Topaz Photo AI can be  used by older computers.

---

Yeah...

Making up statistics doesn't really add to the credibility of your opinion. You have no idea - none - whether or not this affects "a majority" of users: it may well be that only 15% of subscribers are unable to get the benefit of the new denoising.

My point being that you're probably best served by not automatically assuming that your experience and opinion somehow reflects the reality experienced by most Lr users. I know it's how the internet works, but it is misguided to conclude that because you think a thing, everybody else obviously must feel the same way.

[berts74084431]

With computers having an average lifespan of 3-8 years, the average computer buyer would be replace his computer every 5.5 years.  That means every year 18.18% of computer owners buy a new (maybe latest model) computer. 


I give you the 3.18 % more than the 15% I mentioned.





Why computers age?

Like the car in your garage, a computer will degrade from everyday wear and tear. Delicate hardware such as the motherboard and RAM take a beating from prolonged exposure to intensive heat. Components with moving parts like the hard disk drive (HDD) inevitably grind away.

Then there’s the risk of human-induced mishaps, such as dropped laptops and water-damaged keyboards.

Even if you take meticulous care of your prized machine, it’ll eventually become obsolete. Despite the hardware running flawlessly, it’ll struggle to keep up with the latest, resource-intensive operating systems, applications, and games.  

Should your immaculately maintained, albeit ageing, computer still handle essential tasks, you’ll eventually stop receiving updates and support. Developers cease providing security updates for outdated operating systems, which leaves you vulnerable to nasty viruses and hacks.

While a seldom-used and well-maintained computer could, theoretically, continue working for decades, its practical lifespan is usually between three to eight years.

The average lifespan of a desktop computer
So how long do computers last? Every situation is different, but you can expect the average desktop PC to last between three and eight years.

[TheDigitalDog]

With computers having an average lifespan of 3-8 years, the average computer buyer would be replace his computer every 5.5 years.  
By @berts74084431

More made-up stats, or can you supply some actual data? Doesn't matter anyway. Even if accurate, the 'average' computer user (whatever anyone assumes that is), isn't using high-end digital imaging software that costs hundreds of dollars a year to subscribe to. Adobe has an answer for others if they need lesser high-end products: Photoshop Elements. 

This discussion has stopped serving any useful purpose. You, the OP asked about two questions, and both were answered (What can be the problem?  Is there a setting I have to change?) The "problem" is your old hardware, which you can change—end of the story. 

• Again, you can stop using the feature. 
• Again, you can use it and wait 4-8 minutes using your old hardware. Others will wait a lot longer, while others will wait a lot less (like 12 seconds for me). 
• Again, you can use a different product for NR that's faster. 

Those are your options today. Questions answered. 

Start a new thread if you have another technical question or support need about the product. 

If you want to ask for a feature request, you do that by following these instructions:

https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-ideas/how-do-i-write-a-feature-request/idi-p/123863...