Le 28/08/2010 17:27, Christian Froeschlin nous fit lire :
> Le_Forgeron wrote:
> 
>> >6[ H:E9 :f hg_)[ 36E2bg @? =:?FI ec3:EDi =6DD E92? ba D64@?5D E@
>> C6?56C[ D@ E92EVD 23@FE g`ha AAD [ 2?5 :EVD @?=J b]bbvwK[ D@ J@FC ?F>36C
>> D66>D 2 3:E =@HX
> 
> my trace time was reported as about 38 seconds using
> 12 threads. But it seems PPS was given using "elapsed time"
> of 40 seconds (it was also in message output). Maybe this
> accounts for some of the difference. Not quite sure where
> the difference comes from, though.
> 
> Also I noticed you used 15 threads, did this give you
> any benefit over using 12?

It seems to help a bit. Very little for the benchmark.

Render Time:
  Photon Time:      0 hours  0 minutes  0 seconds (0.201 seconds)
              using 15 thread(s) with 0.229 CPU-seconds total
  Radiosity Time:   No radiosity
  Trace Time:       0 hours  0 minutes 31 seconds (31.103 seconds)
              using 12 thread(s) with 366.155 CPU-seconds total

Render Time:
  Photon Time:      0 hours  0 minutes  0 seconds (0.202 seconds)
              using 18 thread(s) with 0.230 CPU-seconds total
  Radiosity Time:   No radiosity
  Trace Time:       0 hours  0 minutes 30 seconds (30.756 seconds)
              using 15 thread(s) with 363.361 CPU-seconds total
Render Time:
  Photon Time:      0 hours  0 minutes  0 seconds (0.202 seconds)
              using 18 thread(s) with 0.230 CPU-seconds total
  Radiosity Time:   No radiosity
  Trace Time:       0 hours  0 minutes 31 seconds (31.320 seconds)
              using 15 thread(s) with 366.475 CPU-seconds total



Please notice that at such small time, it might also be purely
side-effects (it's unreliable). I might run it with various threads to
make a curve if I get some energy for it.

Post a reply to this message