news.povray.org wrote:


>> Nicolas Calimet wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Your results agree pretty well with what I got myself for
>>>the Intel Xeon @ 3.06 GHz:
>>>
>>>http://pov4grasp.free.fr/articles/fastpov1/xeon_3.06.png
>>>
>>>GCC 3.4.x gives at best 00:32:30, and ICC 8.1 about 00:28:10 in
>>>my tests -- so you may have a look at which compiler flags I used if you
>>>want to gain another two minutes  :-)
>>>
>>>- NC
>> 
>> 
>> I can't seem to close that 2 minutes gap :-), the same options
>> you used make no appreciable difference, my best time is 00:30:03.
>> I guess it's down to kernel build and/or libraries.
>> 
>> Thanks for your comments and especially for that report, very
>> informative.
>> 
> 
> As you are speaking about librairies, something noticable is that
> staticaly linked libraries offers better performances ... perhaps this
> can explain your 2 minutes ?

Hmm, maybe, but I thought dynamic linking only had a performance hit
while an executable was starting up, I wasn't aware of any penalty
once an executable is up and running.

I was thinking more about optimizations that might have been done
better while building the kernel and libc, libpng etc, though since
my whole system was gcc-compiled with switches optimised for my
hardware (Lunar builds itself from source), I would have expected
a slightly better result than the published benchmark, if anything.

-- 
Bill Hails
http://thyme.homelinux.net/

Post a reply to this message