Info Upscayl CPU benchmark (much improved with recompiled DLL)

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jul 27, 2020
28,053
19,153
146
WHICH SETTINGS????
Figured it out!

The word "settings" was the clue :D

Thanks, Det0x, for helping to make the CPU mode go even faster!

So the trick is to click Settings, go down and find Tile Size and change it to 460 (higher may work but I ran out of patience after trying multiple times with values higher than this).

With Tile Size on Auto, Upscayl will consume roughly 700MB. With its value set to 460, it will consume almost 5.4GB but gets faster!

Now I'm not sure what value Det0x used (has to be the tile size I'm assuming) so if anyone wants to revise their score, you are more than welcome to do so!

Below you can see that the Xeon 6248R's time reduced from over three minutes to just 2 minutes 47 seconds.

View attachment 131063

Also, don't be afraid of trying Image Scale 16x for your needs. It's only very slightly slower but obviously the converted image size increases to over 150MB!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hail The Brain Slug

Hail The Brain Slug

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2005
3,882
3,311
146
Figured it out!

The word "settings" was the clue :D

Thanks, Det0x, for helping to make the CPU mode go even faster!

So the trick is to click Settings, go down and find Tile Size and change it to 460 (higher may work but I ran out of patience after trying multiple times with values higher than this).

With Tile Size on Auto, Upscayl will consume roughly 700MB. With its value set to 460, it will consume almost 5.4GB but gets faster!

Now I'm not sure what value Det0x used (has to be the tile size I'm assuming) so if anyone wants to revise their score, you are more than welcome to do so!
I didn't change any settings or really do anything special at all last time around. Time to beat @Det0x again.
 

Hail The Brain Slug

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2005
3,882
3,311
146
1m38s with tile size 460, might mess around with the size a little more but going much higher causes failure to allocate (512 caused it with 96GB, it probably balloons the ram quickly)upscayl 1m38s.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
27,248
16,108
136
Where do you select digital art. And I must be doing something else wrong
1758919158947.png
 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
27,248
16,108
136
Also Click "Upscayl Standard" under "Select AI Model" and scroll all the way to the bottom to choose "Digital Art"
OK, I did that, and this is the result when I click upscayl . iT CAN'T BE THIS FAST.

Edit: I forgot to add this is a 128 core EPYC 9755 with 12 channel memory.
1758925355088.png
 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
27,248
16,108
136
OK< first while it was running (after installing that package)
1758926503667.png



Then the result.
1758926693650.png
Pretty worthless bench to use 11% CPU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
27,248
16,108
136
first its RDIMMDS, registered and ECC. Second, its a QS,, not and ES,, there is a difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
27,248
16,108
136
Why not DDR5 6400?
it would not post with 6400 if I forced the bios to that. maybe this is why its a QS ? I just didn't play around

Edit, one place says 6400, but here is the user manual
1758983787426.png

Due to this, a QS may only support 4800, and if the memory is faster the bios may not allow post of the selected speed does not match the actual memory speed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 511

aaronliu0130

Junior Member
Sep 27, 2025
1
0
6
I wonder why that image lol? it seems rather unrepresentative of upscaling applications. upscaling something mostly just text + boxes wouldn't be much better than just upsampling (think mspaint stretch, changing the scale of the image...)it as opposed to, say, something photographic