@pbernery It seems to work for me and the images from my Lumix G9 with an ISO of 6400, processed on a Win 10 machine.
No special settings used for either DP or DPXD.
FastRawViewer RAW versus DP(JPG) versus DPXD(JPG) @150%
With FastRAWViewer showing Focus Peaking edges (which is highlighting noise)
With FastRAWViewer showing Focus Peaking Fine Details (which is highlighting noise)
I downloaded a Pentax K3 iii ISO 12.800 raw file from the dpreview website. DPxD almost does nothing except some artefacts in the background.
With my Nikon Z6 files it works fine. So it depends on the camera.
@wosse That would seem to be the case and hopefully DxO will respond @sgospodarenko.
I only included my images because I was pleasantly surprised by the impact of DP XD on my slightly OTT adjustment (to a slightly out of focus image) had on the noise and possibly on the clarity (these are from Virtual Copies that had the same basic settings copied from one to the other but excluding the ‘Denoising’ settings)!
I was not particularly impressed with the DP XD during beta testing because it never seemed to do much for my images at a considerable expense to time (I have a low powered graphics card - 1050 2GB on my main machine and a 1050Ti 4GB on my test machine), but for this particular image, taken yesterday in shadow in the front garden as the sun set (of an Aralia with some Autumn colour), I feel it offers something worth having!
this is quite strange … the difference between DPXD and DP was visible at least with files from my panasonic gf7 (7 years old sensor, smaller m43 format).
i prefer during day DPXD and for noisy night photos on high iso DP. DPXD on noisy photos creates kind of oversharing effect as mobile phones with night mode.
Comparing exports done with DP and DPXD, I often prefer the DP versions. I prefer some images with some luminance noise to absolutely clean images. I’ve experimented with high levels of NR and adding some grain back into the images. While it worked nicely, I’ve fallen back to reducing luminance NR levels instead.
@misophx and @platypus I went looking for a real challenge and remembered a visit to Hastings with our grandchildren on our youngest (of two sons) 40th. Birthday lunch! The picture is downstairs at the Hastings Museum and shows part of the Durbar rooms. Taken on the G9 with the zoom closed down, the ISO was 25,600, ridiculous for a 4/3rds camera!
Yes I should have reduced the shutter speed at the very least, DP on the left and DPXD on the right!
Typically I use FastRawViewer to identify the sharpest of a group of photos but with these noisy images it is showing the noise as “sharp” points, RAW versus DP on top, Raw versus DPXD underneath.
Sadly, none of this helps @pbernery, sorry!
As @Wosse said, it looks like there is issues with raw files from Pentax, at least the ones from the K-3 III.
PL 6.0.1 just went out, and the issue is the same.
I tried with raw files from a Pentax K-5, still in DNG, and it works. Also tried with CR3 files from a Canon G5X II, and it works as well.
So it looks like DNG from the Pentax K-3 III are not supported, yet.
Looking at some ISO 2500 exported JPEGs from my K-3 Mk III DNG files I can see an almost imperceptible difference between DeepPrime and DeepPrimeXD at 200% zoom. The K-3 Mk III’s Accelerator chip is probably accounting for the lack of improvement because the files are very clean in DNG format to begin with. I’ll post some crops as soon as I can.
Here are the 200% crops of HQ, Prime, Deep Prime and Deep Prime XD as can be seen there are differences between Deep Prime and Deep Prime XD. From the top HQ, Prime, Deep Prime and Deep Prime XD
Would you mind to press enter between the single pics to put each in a new row, so they are loaded separately and we can flic between them?
OK, thank you. Unfortunaletly, the files don’t seem to be big enough to appear separate.
Is that working for you??
I can load each one in a separate post will that help?
Thank you, they are separate now, but dont’t load as separate files …
These differences are so small, that it is easier to recognize them when switching from one pic to the other. To judge ‘side by side’ I find difficult.
And yes, I remember some time ago, I noticed some disturbing ‘artifacts’ (or call it roughness …) in portraits with the early XD. But then DxO had changed the values for the settings. And I suppose, one still has to try out with this kind of subject. – Usually one doesn’t want a strange looking face.
There are no details in the hair.
@Wosse
In neither of them and as it is a 200% crop this probably is a very small part of the photo so lack of detail on this pixel level can be expected.
So, what’s your point with your statement?
Yeah that hair is missing a bit of detail! 
This series of images displays the great aspect of this DxO V6. Noise removal, which any company can do, combined with a retention of detail and dynamic range. It’s the retention of detail and dynamic range that separates the good and not-so-good. DxO XD, while it’s not an “OH MY GOD!” improvement, still advances the technology.
One thing I HAVE to ask; I’m seeing JPGs being used here; you’re not starting with JPGs are you? Because if you are, I’m now banging my head on the desk. This is a RAW converter. Only process RAW images. Then show me your comparisons. These test shots have been excellent, but all are JPGs. I see lots of tutorials on-line with people using JPGs to demonstrate noise reduction. Excuse my paranoia…
@PhilHawkins I am not sure what you are saying!?
In the case of my images they are JPGs that are being compared because I am comparing the exports from PL6 after a RAW has been processed with the noise reduction technologies on offer for RAW images, i.e. the originals are RAW because you can only apply Prime and DeepPrime and DeepPrime XD to RAW images.
RAW is the starting point for all cases with Prime or DP or DPXD with DxPL and only HQ is available for JPG images, sorry if I have misunderstood your comment!?
It sounds like all the images posted here are output JPG images after conversion from raw… I’m sure you don’t expect raw ‘images’ to be posted 
(although perhaps posted as attachments…).
@jch2103, the original RAW images will never be available from me because of the “lamentable” upload speed of my broadband which makes its completely, totally, absolutely and utterly impossible, other than that everything is fine!
