 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'd like to ask a stupid question.
I'm coming straight from v3.6.1 and have noticed that all the images rendered
about twice as slow. Is there a comparable increase in image quality that
accompanies the performance drop?
Windows XP SP3
AMD Sempron 3000+
1.5GB RAM
Thanks!
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD wrote:
> I'd like to ask a stupid question.
ROFL
> I'm coming straight from v3.6.1 and have noticed that all the images rendered
> about twice as slow. Is there a comparable increase in image quality that
> accompanies the performance drop?
*plonk*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD wrote:
> I'm coming straight from v3.6.1 and have noticed that all the images rendered
> about twice as slow. Is there a comparable increase in image quality that
> accompanies the performance drop?
I think you need to be a bit more specific than this. While performance is
still an issue in some places, it's certainly not halved across all images.
If you can give some hard examples (scene name, rendering paramaters,
render statistics including rays shot, bounds hit, etc etc) on both the
beta and 3.6, as run on your system, then it may be possible to give you
some more feedback.
regards,
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoo povrayorg> wrote:
> If you can give some hard examples (scene name, rendering paramaters,
> render statistics including rays shot, bounds hit, etc etc) on both the
> beta and 3.6, as run on your system, then it may be possible to give you
> some more feedback.
scenes/advanced/abyss.pov is an example of a scene which renders
considerably slower with the current 3.7 beta than with 3.6, but that's
probably because it heavily uses media.
Other, media-less scenes don't show such slowdowns (at least when both
versions are compiled with the same compiler using the same optimizations,
as I have done here).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> SharkD wrote:
> > I'm coming straight from v3.6.1 and have noticed that all the images rendered
> > about twice as slow. Is there a comparable increase in image quality that
> > accompanies the performance drop?
>
> I think you need to be a bit more specific than this. While performance is
> still an issue in some places, it's certainly not halved across all images.
>
> If you can give some hard examples (scene name, rendering paramaters,
> render statistics including rays shot, bounds hit, etc etc) on both the
> beta and 3.6, as run on your system, then it may be possible to give you
> some more feedback.
>
> regards,
>
> -- Chris
I made a false assumption. I must gotten confused when rendering the image and
didn't notice I was rendering another file. Also, the new block rendering
method (may be an .ini option which is behaves differently now) /seemed/ to
take twice as long.
However, there was an actual *real* speed decrease with the file I rendered. It
took 149.33 seconds in v3.6 and 176.75 seconds in v3.7. There was also an error
in the image that wasn't present when rendered in the old version.
I will post the file and messages in the scene-files group. All the dependancies
except for the image maps can be found in the Object Collection. The image maps
are 4096x4096 32bit PNG images with simple black text and symbols taking up
about 1% of the space. The remainder of each image is fully transparent.
I'll post the image with the error in it in the binaries group.
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> However, there was an actual *real* speed decrease with the file I rendered. It
> took 149.33 seconds in v3.6 and 176.75 seconds in v3.7.
I seem to remember that the current Windows beta is compiled using a
different compiler than 3.6, and this compiler uses less aggressive
optimizations.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I seem to remember that the current Windows beta is compiled using a
> different compiler than 3.6, and this compiler uses less aggressive
> optimizations.
3.6 uses the Intel compiler and additionally run-time profiled
optimizations. 3.7 is built using the Microsoft compiler and no RTPO.
At the moment (in fact for the last two years at least) it's not been
possible to successfully build with the Intel compiler due to compiler bugs
(crashes) Intel appear unable or unwilling to fix.
The result is unfortunately a slower program.
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > I seem to remember that the current Windows beta is compiled using a
> > different compiler than 3.6, and this compiler uses less aggressive
> > optimizations.
>
> 3.6 uses the Intel compiler and additionally run-time profiled
> optimizations. 3.7 is built using the Microsoft compiler and no RTPO.
>
> At the moment (in fact for the last two years at least) it's not been
> possible to successfully build with the Intel compiler due to compiler bugs
> (crashes) Intel appear unable or unwilling to fix.
>
> The result is unfortunately a slower program.
>
> -- Chris
That's too bad because 20% is a pretty big performance hit.
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
SharkD <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> That's too bad because 20% is a pretty big performance hit.
So instead of taking 1 hour, it takes 1 hour and 12 minutes? Is that
a "big" performance hit?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26 Jun 2008 02:20:05 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>SharkD <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> That's too bad because 20% is a pretty big performance hit.
>
> So instead of taking 1 hour, it takes 1 hour and 12 minutes? Is that
>a "big" performance hit?
It is when you do animations
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
