> Todd Carnes <tod### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 7/4/2013 11:48 AM, Warp wrote:
>>> Todd Carnes <tod### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>> The general user is not going to care how much you've improved the trace
>>>> time, if your overall time to finish the scene increases. As far as
>>>> they're concerned, the program is slower.
>>>
>>> There's some kind of misunderstanding here.
>>>
>>> With POV-Ray 3.6 it took 8 seconds to get the final image.
>>>
>>> With POV-Ray 3.7 it took 5 seconds to get the final image.
>>>
>>> Where exactly is this "the user has to wait longer" you are seeing?
>>> Because I'm not seeing it. The user had to way 3 seconds longer with
>>> POV-Ray 3.6 in order to get the image than with POV-Ray 3.7.
>>>
>>
>> No, just as the OP posted more than once...
>>
>> POV-Ray 3.6 took 8.17 seconds to get to the final image.
>> POV-Ray 3.7 took 9.749 seconds to get to the final image.
>>
>> I don't understand why you can't read these numbers for yourself. I will
>> copy them from the OP's post repost them again below.
>>
>> For the record, I'm finding this whole "discussion" about a render that
>> only has a second or two difference to be pretty pointless. Whether you
>> choose open your eyes and actually read what was posted or not, I am
>> going to drop this pointless conversation.
>>
>> When I post my first question, I have worked on another scene and the time for
>   rendering was strongly increase with v3.7 (in this case the difference was more
> than one or two seconds). The scene I have posted here is just an example test.
>
>
>

The final word is that, with version 3.7, you get TWO times while 
version 3.6 only have one:

Time 1 is external, wall clock, time. It's the time you actualy have to 
wait.

Time 2 is internal, total CPU time. It's the SUM of the time taken by 
ALL cores or CPUs of your computer. This time can get significatively 
larger than the strictly single thread process of version 3.6.x while 
the external, wall clock time, get shorter.

Next, with some scenes, the IO processes can bog you down. This tend to 
affect mostly very complexe scenes or hit you when rendering at very 
large dimentions, like 32000 by 24000 or more...



Alain

Post a reply to this message