i downloaded the subscription to 22/23 corel graphics suite (doesn't look much different than my X8) i thought the trace feature had been improved....looks and performs the same as my X8?
The new trace engine is virtually unusable now compared to earlier versions, though. It's several orders of magnitude slower and doesn't render any better results than previous versions.
Case in point:
I had a relatively easy and simple file to trace. I started the trace in 2022 and it was taking forever, so I opened CorelDRAW 2019 loaded the file, traced it, exported the results and closed 2019...and the 2022 trace of the exact same file still had 10 mins remaining according to the countdown. I kid you not. SAME EXACT file and it took a tiny fraction of the time...and that includes starting an older version and exporting it. I ask you this: Exactly what was the supposed "upgrade" when older versions were faster and gave precisely the same bloody result? Corel upgraded NOTHING. The new trace engine is a DOWNGRADE if anything. It absolutely sucks and I don't bother using it anymore. I keep 2019 around and use that instead for traces because otherwise I would be waiting around for 20 minutes ten times a day. :FACEPALM:
That's not the case on my systems, it may be for underpowered, poorly configured systems.
Hmmm... So you're saying the 32 cores on my dual Xeon workstation with 128GB of RAM and dual Quadro's isn't fast enough for a 2D vector graphics app... RIIIGHHTTTT.... :eyeroll:
I'm not buying the bridge you're selling buddy. Try again.
I would suggest that Xeon and the quadro may be your issues. For some reason CorelDRAW and Xeon does not play well, the same thing can be said about AMD processors and the Quadro cards.
The Xeon does well for servers and some gaming but CorelDRAW has a bad history with them. I don't know why but I suspect the system BUSS. My corporate architecture clients have relegated Xeon only to their servers, they have moved to i9 for all 2d graphics and 3d rendering. They tell me it's all performance based for them.
There's some truth to what you say. When I bought this box Corel played very well with Xeons (as did every other graphics app). Now...not so much. However, I do a LOT more than just use Corel on the box. I generally have RIP software running along with my large format printing software, several graphics apps (3D and 2D), and probably 20-30 files open at once across all of them. I routinely have at least half of that 128GB of RAM used up at any given time. I do a LOT of multitasking.Point is, my Xeon workstation handles the extreme, sustained load without breaking a sweat on everything but the trace function in 2023. Xeons have more memory throughput and are better at extreme multitasking than i9's. I have a i9-9900 w/64GB of ram at home as a gaming machine. I rarely use it for graphics (it's tuned as a VR rig), but it's performance on things like Fusion and Corel are honestly, not noticeably faster than either of my Xeon workstation (I have an older (circa 2008) dual Xeon rig in my workshop at home and that one you can tell a bit in Fusion, but not Corel).
My point is that my work machine does a hell of lot more than just run CorelDRAW and the Xeons crunch through all of it with ease. Multitasking on a Xeon is a whole other level. My i9 is VERY fast on a single task and even normal multitasking... but you fill up that 64GB of RAM with 3 or 4 vehicle wrap layouts, a few Fusion models and some other background tasks and it's actually a bit slower at switching apps, etc, than my workstation is.
I wish I knew the issue with CorelDRAW and Xeon systems as well as AMD systems. There's no denying it I documented system issues in a notebook for years. The amount of reported problems on those systems surprised me. My wife uses X8 on her play HP AMD laptop and it runs fine.
Why have your RIP running on a system with your graphic application?
We use several dedicated graphic work systems and only send print ready PDF files to the RIPS, each RIP uses its own system to drive them. The Onyx, Rasterlynk and VersaWorks have very good performance processing PDF even if we use a laptop.
The i9 Intel systems are very reasonably priced and my CorelDRAW performance has been excellent. Now I do use 64 GB of RAM an SSD and true NVidia graphics cards.
If you post your settings and a link to your test file I'll test your file in TRACE.
I don't think there is an actual problem with Xeon processors David, you just notice an apparent problem and log it in your head as being down to the processor, because that was the memorable difference to all other systems.
I have had more crashes (proportionally) with my new i10 processor than I had with the dual Xeon previously. Draw has just disappeared twice, gone, no trace. And this is the same version of Draw 2018, same workspace and the bugs that I logged against 2018 when I was beta testing are mostly still there in the trial of 2023 that I downloaded, including one that crashes the program reliably every time (so that bug was demonstrably not Xeon based, but you probably have it in your memory database as being due to the Xeon)
I have not tested i10 systems. What I did was keep a log of repeated issues and system/Draw re-install and AMD and Xeon lead the pack by a wide margin. In the case of Xeon due to so few systems it was way ahead of everyone else.
When I build a system I stay a bit down from latest generation gear.
I know that my clients using Xeon servers build systems that have $1,000 main boards, I suspect that CorelDRAW users do not. I've seen Xeon main boards for under $400, they can't be much.
Yes but you put some of my problems whilst beta testing down to my dual Xeon processor, I know becuase I can remember the conversations. Hoever you were incorriect in doing so as these self same problems manifest themselves with my new iX processor and Windows 11.
If you remember correctly I state that it may be because or Xeon processors, it may also be poor quality components in the system build or a non USA Windows version.