tibberous Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 Performance wise, is imagemagick any better or worse than GD? I generally only use imagemagick through the command line, in situations that require it, but I was thinking of just using the bind as a GD replacement, since 99% of what I use GD for is making thumbnails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamez Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 so what do you need help with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tibberous Posted September 2, 2008 Author Share Posted September 2, 2008 Just want to know how imagemagick compares to GD as far as speed / overhead. I think GD fails if you make an image above a certain size, since it creates it in ram - wonder if imagemagick has the same restriction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third_Degree Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 I've always been under the impression that GD is bulkier but simpler than imagemagick. Could be wrong. Do some speed tests? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beedie Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 i heard the imagemagick is a bit buggy. Some hosts won't allow it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tibberous Posted September 2, 2008 Author Share Posted September 2, 2008 Don't have to worry about hosts, I have a dedicated server and am moving to colocation. I think I'll set them up and run some basic tests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSkyIS Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 my experience is that imagemagick is more flexible, allowing much greater control over images (e.g., transparencey, blending, etc.) but if i'm just making thumbs i'll usually use GD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowj Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 We use both on our servers. Currently I perfer to use the GD it seems to get the job done faster unless you fork out your processes within PHP. I haven't looked into how it effects the cpu but in terms of actual load times after an image upload/resize GD (on our servers) currently has the edge. The main reason we installed image magik was because GD1 was pretty dismal but since its been updated the results are alot better. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeschroeder Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 I have to side with imagemagick on this one, but have only used it in conjunction with the Imagick Extension. Imagick extension for PHP. (http://us2.php.net/manual/en/class.imagick.php). Also check out Mikko Koppanen's blog (http://valokuva.org/?cat=1) as he is one of the primary developers of the extension. I've had problems with GD exceeding memory limitations on big files before as well, but I have been able to work with files much larger using imagemagick, perhaps just a fluke. As far as speed goes from my experiences they're both comparable, but ImageMagick provides a lot more flexibility. Being able to thumbnail hundreds of formats is incredible, including Photoshop Files, Illustrator, PDF's among so many others. Those all depend upon your Ghostscript installation though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.