Page 1 of 1
6.03 LTS beta 5 - ResizeImage(...#PB_Image_Smooth) 4 times slower than before
Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2023 6:57 pm
by 868Mhz
Hi,
in the new beta5 on m1 Mac + C compiler, ResizeImage in Smooth mode is about 4 times slower
than in the previous versions.
Small testcode:
Code: Select all
CreateImage(0, 2304, 1152)
t1 = ElapsedMilliseconds()
ResizeImage(0, 768, 393, #PB_Image_Smooth)
t1 = ElapsedMilliseconds() - T1
MessageRequester("", Str(t1))
With debugger disabled, this takes around 27ms on my computer with 6.03 beta 4 and previous versions,
6.03 beta 5 needs about 105ms.
Any chance to get the "old" speed back?
Re: 6.03 LTS beta 5 - ResizeImage(...#PB_Image_Smooth) 4 times slower than before
Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2023 8:28 pm
by Fred
I just checked, we didn't changed anything about ResizeImage(), can anybody else confirm the slowness ?
Re: 6.03 LTS beta 5 - ResizeImage(...#PB_Image_Smooth) 4 times slower than before
Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2023 8:03 am
by jamirokwai
Hi,
tried with PB 6.02 ARM with and without debugger on my M2 Max MacBook with 32 GB Ram on macOS Ventura 13.5 and cannot confirm.
PB 6.02 53 ms
PB 6.03b5 55 ms
Just for fun... the snippet is about 20% faster on x64 under M2 :-O
PB 6.02 Intel 43 ms
Re: 6.03 LTS beta 5 - ResizeImage(...#PB_Image_Smooth) 4 times slower than before
Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2023 8:12 am
by mk-soft
No Problem here ...
Mac MIni 2018 (Intel)
Re: 6.03 LTS beta 5 - ResizeImage(...#PB_Image_Smooth) 4 times slower than before
Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2023 9:25 am
by 868Mhz
Thanks for testing.
Hm, so I have no idea why it is so slow on my computer.
It is a Mackbook Pro with 16GB Ram + M1 Pro processor. I have tried it with and without threadsave, with and without optimize,
from within the IDE and as executable and it is always the same on my system.
If anyone got an idea what else to test, I am all ears.
Re: 6.03 LTS beta 5 - ResizeImage(...#PB_Image_Smooth) 4 times slower than before
Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2023 11:33 am
by 868Mhz
Hi, just checked again with different PB versions.
My statement about versions before 603B5 was wrong. The slowdown started after version 601LTS.
602B2 was a little bit slower than the versions before, since 602LTS it is the same for all following versions ->
~4 x slower than 601LTS.
Sorry for the confusion.