which computer data is most recommended to use while using krita for a smooth work with no crashing on heavy artwork? (for example graphic engine data)
what do you mean with data, the specs?
It depends a lot on what you plan to do.
Fast storage is a must because it reduces loading and saving times.
For big projects you need a lot of RAM, I recommend 16 GB at least and it should be fast (DDR3 at least). Because I already had projects exceeding the 16 GB and then Krita begins to swap data to drive which is painfully slow, I even have 32 GB.
A fast processor is always good because Krita does almost everything on the CPU. I have 12 cores (24 threads) but I am a power User. I had no Problems with 8 cores in the past and my laptop has even just 4. Any modern CPU will do most of the time.
Graphics card isn’t that important for Krita, because it is only used for canvas acceleration and some parts of the GUI but not for actually processing any brush strokes or filters.
My minimum recommendation would be:
CPU 4 Core 3.1 GHz
16 GB DDR3 RAM
SSD as hard drive
Graphics card: Any
If you have a fairly recent gaming PC you probably fulfill all the requirements more than enough.
Hi
Here some topics about this subject
A little bit technical for most of them 
Globally, fast memory, 16GB at least to be comfortable
And fast CPU, without too many cores ^_^’ (or ensure to have a very fast RAM otherwise performances are degraded if too many cores are used!)
For graphic card, no real need to have something very strong, GPU is (I think, no time to search in forum) only used to render canvas so a basic graphic card should be enough
Grum999
You can simply change the number of cores in the Krita settings. I remember there is a performance fall-off after 12 cores for the smudge brush engine other than that more is always better. And usually people use not just only Krita so. I also use blender and my 12 Core (24 threads) AMD renders up to five times faster than my GPU and I recently was like “Maybe I should have bought the 32 Core thread ripper.” 
Oooh! I didn’t think about this
Anyway, if usage is mainly for krita, buying a 32cores CPU to use 16cores only will be useless and expensive for nothing 
After, if computer is used for other CPU consuming tasks that can use multi-threading, having many cores might be better…
Yes, but sincerely, having many cores is really useful for:
- gamers
- users that do massive 3D rendering
- users working on huge video/photo
For most basic users (using Office, internet), a 4 or 8cores CPU is normally enough
Yes, this is my laptop configuration, the one I use to draw and it’s fluid in most case.
Grum999
It’s also useful for having a lot of programs running in parallel like rendering an animation done in Krita and do something else in the meantime without it getting unresponisve. I couldnt render a scene in Blender on my old PC and watch Youtube Videos at the same time for example.
Of course 32 Cores are Overkill for 90% of Home users, I was just joking (more or less 
) and I wanted to give an example of what “it depends” means in this context. I have seen many people here on the forum being already satisfied with their 10 year old PC with 8 GB RAM and stuff because they just don’t do huge things in Krita.
Also since the OP mentioned crashing, I have rarely heard of Krita crashing because of hardware alone.
so if I do a very heavy animation (12mp per frame, multiple layers, and hundreds of frames). so what kind of graphic engine, CPU card, and all… it is the minimum for getting it smooth?
You can estimate this easily yourself by calculating (pixels * bit depth * channels * layers * frames) / (8 * 1024 ^ 3).
so for a kra file with resolution of 1920*1080, sRGBA 8 bit (4 channels), and 1000 frames (about 40 seconsd at 25 fps) this would be (1920 * 1080 * 8 * 4 * 10 * 1000) / (8 * 1024^3) = 77.25 GiB of Memory just to open the file. This is just a back of an envelope calculation reality is probably much less thanks to compression and smart loading. The rendered result will be much smaller too since it wont have any layers and will be compressed too.
CPU and GPU have little to do with it because it mostly only changes the time it takes to render the animation to a final video.
actually each frame of ~3mp is ~30MB, so (30,000,000 * 1000 + 90) = ~30GB to active it. isn’t it?
A simple pixel is more than just one single byte though. But when one of your frames is already 30 MB than thousand of them are thousand times larger yes. But my calculation is basically based on bitmaps.
Better way to check is probably just to do a simple animation, check how much memory it takes to open. How busy your current system is and than compare it to what your goal in animation is.
When your PC already has problems with a ten second animation and you want to do one that is hundred times that long, then you have to look for a PC that can handle this.
Generally there is no upper limit for hardware except for how much money you have. So even if you find out you need a powerful workstation you maybe cant even afford it. I simply just buy the best I can get for the money I have but that is probably completely different from what you can afford (better or worse).
However most Animation projects are usually not done completely in Krita, except for short ones. Only single scenes get drawn and rendered in Krita and then later get assembled to the final movie in a cutting program where sound gets added too, maybe some post production. That’s the way it is done so you don’t need a computer that can handle minute or hour long animations in Krita. Just one good enough to tackle single scenes.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.