Le 24/05/2010 15:17, Warp nous fit lire :
> Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>> My Intel Core2 Duo 2.20GHz 3 Gig ram, laptop rendered the benchmark in 
>> 39m 40s with benchmark_Display.ini and 17m 56s with benchmark.ini.
> 
>   Displaying the image while rendering slows down rendering speed to half?
> I can't believe that. There must be an error somewhere.
> 
There might be a bottleneck on display thread/display data ?

Post a reply to this message

On 24/05/2010 2:17 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> My Intel Core2 Duo 2.20GHz 3 Gig ram, laptop rendered the benchmark in
>> 39m 40s with benchmark_Display.ini and 17m 56s with benchmark.ini.
>
>    Displaying the image while rendering slows down rendering speed to half?
> I can't believe that. There must be an error somewhere.
>


benchmark_Display.ini. This time it took 58. 08s. Of course the render 
priority is low and other programs are running (but not actively being 
used). So it is not much of a proper test.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> Le 24/05/2010 15:17, Warp nous fit lire :
> > Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> >> My Intel Core2 Duo 2.20GHz 3 Gig ram, laptop rendered the benchmark in 
> >> 39m 40s with benchmark_Display.ini and 17m 56s with benchmark.ini.
> > 
> >   Displaying the image while rendering slows down rendering speed to half?
> > I can't believe that. There must be an error somewhere.
> > 
> There might be a bottleneck on display thread/display data ?

  Displaying an image takes 22 minutes? I don't think so. There must be an
error somewhere.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 24/05/2010 18:38, Warp nous fit lire :
> Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
>> Le 24/05/2010 15:17, Warp nous fit lire :
>>> Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>>>> My Intel Core2 Duo 2.20GHz 3 Gig ram, laptop rendered the benchmark in 
>>>> 39m 40s with benchmark_Display.ini and 17m 56s with benchmark.ini.
>>>   Displaying the image while rendering slows down rendering speed to half?
>>> I can't believe that. There must be an error somewhere.
>>>
>> There might be a bottleneck on display thread/display data ?
> 
>   Displaying an image takes 22 minutes? I don't think so. There must be an
> error somewhere.
> 
Conflict/slowdown to get a mutex... to update the data... (just an idea,
untested)

Post a reply to this message

On 24/05/2010 5:38 PM, Warp wrote:
> Le_Forgeron<jgr### [at] freefr>  wrote:
>> Le 24/05/2010 15:17, Warp nous fit lire :
>>> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom>  wrote:
>>>> My Intel Core2 Duo 2.20GHz 3 Gig ram, laptop rendered the benchmark in
>>>> 39m 40s with benchmark_Display.ini and 17m 56s with benchmark.ini.
>>>
>>>    Displaying the image while rendering slows down rendering speed to half?
>>> I can't believe that. There must be an error somewhere.
>>>
>> There might be a bottleneck on display thread/display data ?
>
>    Displaying an image takes 22 minutes? I don't think so. There must be an
> error somewhere.
>


priority set to High and all other applications shut down. The timings I 
got were:
With display: 17m 31s
Without display: 17m 31s
Without display and Task Manager running: 17m 40s


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 25/05/2010 09:02, Stephen a écrit :
> On 24/05/2010 5:38 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Le_Forgeron<jgr### [at] freefr>  wrote:
>>> Le 24/05/2010 15:17, Warp nous fit lire :
>>>> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom>  wrote:
>>>>> My Intel Core2 Duo 2.20GHz 3 Gig ram, laptop rendered the benchmark in
>>>>> 39m 40s with benchmark_Display.ini and 17m 56s with benchmark.ini.
>>>>
>>>>    Displaying the image while rendering slows down rendering speed
>>>> to half?
>>>> I can't believe that. There must be an error somewhere.
>>>>
>>> There might be a bottleneck on display thread/display data ?
>>
>>    Displaying an image takes 22 minutes? I don't think so. There must
>> be an
>> error somewhere.
>>
> 
> I thought so too, so I ran a more controlled test. With PovRay’s
> priority set to High and all other applications shut down. The timings I
> got were:
> With display: 17m 31s
> Without display: 17m 31s
> Without display and Task Manager running: 17m 40s
> 
> 
Now that's even stranger if the last is "without Task Manager running"!
If it is "With Task Manager running", looks normal: more charge, more time!

Good news seems to be that display does not change the time with High
Priority.
Now, the question would be: does it (with display or without display)
change the time when the priority is Low (as the default) ?
Might suggest to have a different default priority on Windows... at
least when more than one core is detected. (for 1 core only, it is
better to have Low Priority for the povray-thread, otherwise povray
would be killing the GUI)
On 2+ core, a normal priority might just be fine (unless constant render
time really need a High priority, in which case... well... the OS
scheduler sucks if we still get a 2:1 ratio!)

-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.<br/>
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?<br/>
A: Top-posting.<br/>
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Post a reply to this message

Le 23/05/2010 21:52, clipka a écrit :
> Am 23.05.2010 20:33, schrieb Alain:
> 
>> It would be good to remove at least one of those lines from
>> benchmark.ini:
>> Display=Off
>> This disable the preview.
>>
>> Output_To_File=Off
>> This disable saving the resulting image.
>>
>> As it is now, there is NO preview and the image is NOT saved anywhere.
> 
> This is by design. The benchmark is /only/ a benchmark of the render
> engine, and any output activity is /not/ part of what it should measure.

But, without calling it benchmark, it might be "interesting" to be able
to render the benchmark on screen and in a file (at the same resolution
as benchmark, same AA, same ...)
Maybe an additional offer ? (with some warning about timing being not
from benchmark)

-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.<br/>
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?<br/>
A: Top-posting.<br/>
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron wrote:
> the OS scheduler sucks if we still get a 2:1 ratio!)

It's well known that the Windows scheduler sucks if you mix interactive with 
compute-bound jobs. Especially at the same priority level. Almost as badly 
as it sucks with interactive vs I/O-bound jobs, but not quite.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
    you literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Post a reply to this message

On 25/05/2010 2:29 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Now that's even stranger if the last is "without Task Manager running"!
> If it is "With Task Manager running", looks normal: more charge, more time!
>

Sorry for the confusion, it was 17m 31s without display and without the 
Task Manager running. 17m 40s without display and with the Task Manager 
running.

> Good news seems to be that display does not change the time with High
> Priority.
> Now, the question would be: does it (with display or without display)
> change the time when the priority is Low (as the default) ?

Do I see a volunteer? ;-)


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolDOTcom> wrote:
> On 25/05/2010 2:29 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
Hello,

I tried 3.7 beta version, after serious problems with glass texture, media and
gamma, now I see that for several povray files the 3.7 SMP version is slower
than older 3.6 version (using only one core).
Hardware processor is core I7 870.

For core I7, the frequence is increased if you use only one core.

Did you saw something like this with the last POVRAY 3.7 SMP version.
With one povray file including glass texture, rendering time was 3 minutes using
3.6 single core and 12 minutes using 3.7 SMP.

Best regards,

JJ

Post a reply to this message