I don't know if Nuke's Grain has any GPU acceleration, but it seems that Fusion's tool does TheBloke So it seems that Nuke's Grain scales better to higher resolutions - or that Fusion's FilmGrain scales quite poorly. I don't know if Nuke's Grain has any GPU acceleration, but it seems that Fusion's tool does not. In both cases the CPU usage was the same as in the 1080p test. So in those tests, Fusion was around the same speed, or slightly faster.īut then I tested at UHD, and the opposite was true: with a UHD Constant node, Nuke ran at 5.8 FPS with a UHD Background node, Fusion ran at 1.8 FPS. My system has 6 cores, so it's possible Nuke limits itself to 100% of the real cores, rather than treating threads the same as physical cores? However it only used half as much CPU - around 600% in Activity Monitor. Testing Nuke's Grain node on a Constant 1920x1080 background gave me 6.7 - 8 FPS, depending on the preset used. In both cases it used nearly 100% of every core (macOS Activity Monitor showed 1050% CPU on my 6-core/12-thread system 1200% is the theoretical maximum.)

Changing the background to float16 reduced the speed to 7.5 FPS. With Background depth = int8, it ran at 8.7 FPS.

I tested Fusion's FilmGrain on a white Background at 1080p. I see the same on my system (specs in signature), and based on my quick test, Fusion's FilmGrain is much slower at UHD resolution than Nuke's Grain.

Juha wrote: ↑ Thu 1:57 amNuke does 6 frames per seconds and Fusion Studio 16 can get only 1.8 frames per second.

Film grain davinci resolve free