"Richard Kline" <rkl### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:40537c14@news.povray.org...
> Manuel Kasten wrote:
> > Whoops, should have mentioned that times and memory usage is with POV
3.6b1
> > under WinXP.
> >
> > With POV 3.5 memory usage is a bit higher, but parsing times are lower.
> > (at least for "preview", I haven't tested the other two with POV 3.5)
> >
> >
> > Manuel Kasten
> >
> >
>
> My system is a Athlon XP 2400+ with a gigabyte of memory
> Using POVRay 3.5 under linux my render times were
> Quality 0 - 52 seconds (thats 19 seconds to parse 33 seconds to trace)
> Quality 1 - 629 seconds (420 seconds to parse 209 seconds to trace)
>
> Memory use was higher as you noted for POVRay 3.5
> Quality 0 - about 32 MBytes
> Quality 1 - about 500 MBytes
>
> I don't understand why my render times were that much lower than yours.
>   It shouldn't have been over twice as fast even when allowing for
> POVRay being CPU bound and counting the 20% speed difference directly (I
> usually use sqrt(CPU speed) as a rule of thumb).  I wouldn't think
> Windows XP versus Linux would be that big a difference either (I would
> have guessed no more than 10%).  When you said parsing times were lower
> in POVRay 3.5, how much lower were they.
>
> I suspect the memory usage may be due to the space used in the internal
> data representation used by POVRay.  For the quality 1 case, you are
> representing 2 million spheres so if it takes over a hundred bytes per
> object to store a sphere internally in POVRay, thats where your memory
went.
>
> Richard Kline
>
>

Unfamiliar with pov internals, but having heard something like meshes can be
copied without an increase in memory usage, would it ease memory consumption
to use a small mesh sphere instead of a sphere primitive?

just curious,
ross

Post a reply to this message