Now I've found that the best way to structure your project is to limit yourself to three ink layers. I used to suffer from “fear of commitment” and keep dozens of ink layers active, which ended up slowing down the software, and my creative process. One drawback of digital freedom is that you can get lost within too many layers. Sure, it takes a few seconds to apply filters, but the user interface and particularly the brushes respond instantly to inputs.Every time you fail to name a layer, God kills a kitten Even though an older device such as the Wacom Mobile Studio Pro 13 equipped with an Intel Core i7-6567U (two Skylake cores) trailed far behind newer systems with a score of 97, Affinity Photo 2 remained usable even when processing larger images. Both chips performed around 43 and 50 per cent better than the Core i7-12700H and Apple M2 respectively. Unsurprisingly, the Apple M1 Pro and M1 Max delivered around the same level of performance because they practically share the same CPU configuration. The Intel Core i7-12700H (14 cores) performed 13 per cent better than the Core i9-11900K (8 cores) – this is roughly the same margin you would expect to see in Cinebench R23 and Geekbench 5. In any case, Affinity Photo 2 benefits from higher CPU core counts. That is to say, the results do not reflect any possible performance limitations caused by inadequate cooling under sustained load. Even the power-efficient Apple M1 in the iPad Pro managed to slightly outperform the desktop processor Intel Core i9-11900K, despite the fact that the Intel CPU is ahead of the M1 in benchmarks such as Cinebench R23 and Geekbench 5 in terms of both single- and multi-core performance.Īt this point, we need to emphasise that each run of the benchmark in Affinity Photo 2 only lasts a few seconds. When it comes to processor performance, Affinity Photo 2 demonstrates a similarly high level of optimisation for Apple's platform.
CPU benchmarks: Apple M1 beats Intel Core i9-11900K
0 kommentar(er)
