On 12/11/2014 20:29, Cousin Ricky wrote:

> I sure as hell will not use SSLT when I am dealing with dispersion through
> multiple glass surfaces.
>
>

That last sentence made me laugh.
But for me rules are made to be bent to the point of breaking. If you 
can do it with panache.
So do two versions. One for the competition and one for yourself (and us).

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Cousin Ricky" <rickysttATyahooDOTcom> wrote:

> The first three stages (radiosity pass, spectral render, and spectral composer)
> took 35 hours and 9 minutes, which is 23% less time (or 31% faster) than my
> estimate of 45 hours and 55 minutes.  Here's hoping that the remaining stages
> (42 hours and 2 minutes estimated) will also surprise me.

I'm wondering what your system specs are. (and everyone else's)
I seem to recall there was someone looking to use this cloud stuff to render
images...  that would be cool.
There was also some sort of astronomical project where you could donate cpu time
- that would be sweet to do with POV-ray.  I know a guy who'd give me old
laptops for 15 FRN's apiece.  Get them all on the wireless network and
distribute the render across them...   yeah...  :)

Post a reply to this message

Soft-shadow render, soft-shadow compose, and final assembly took 15 hours and 39
minutes, for a total render time of 50 hours and 48 minutes.  Sneak preview is
attached.

My hardware is a Dell Inspiron 17R with Intel Core i7 (8 cores).

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'cgs-convex_stack.jpg' (123 KB)

Preview of image 'cgs-convex_stack.jpg'

On 13/11/2014 21:21, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> My hardware is a Dell Inspiron 17R with Intel Core i7 (8 cores).

Isn't that 4 cores with HT ? (for povray, it would be worth 5 cores, YMMV)

-- 
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> On 13/11/2014 21:21, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> > My hardware is a Dell Inspiron 17R with Intel Core i7 (8 cores).
>
> Isn't that 4 cores with HT ? (for povray, it would be worth 5 cores, YMMV)

I've seen "quad core" in literature not attached to this particular model, but
in the POV-Ray statistics, there is a clear 8-to-1 ratio between CPU times and
elapsed times.  Does this mean that there are 2 CPUs in each core?

Post a reply to this message

Le 14/11/2014 00:36, Cousin Ricky a écrit :
> Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
>> On 13/11/2014 21:21, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>> My hardware is a Dell Inspiron 17R with Intel Core i7 (8 cores).
>>
>> Isn't that 4 cores with HT ? (for povray, it would be worth 5 cores, YMMV)
> 
> I've seen "quad core" in literature not attached to this particular model, but
> in the POV-Ray statistics, there is a clear 8-to-1 ratio between CPU times and
> elapsed times.  Does this mean that there are 2 CPUs in each core?
> 
> 
Sort of... there is two full set of registers in each core, allowing to
run two code in parallel... as long as they do not need the same
resources from the core.

at 100% cpu like povray, yes there is a 8:1 ratio between cpu times and
wall-clock time. Yet, if the scheduler of the operating system is not
too bad, if you force povray to run on less threads (with -WT<number>
option), you can get some surprise like -WT8 is not twice faster that -WT4.

With good schedulers, povray -WT4 would run one thread per core, leaving
the other set of registers idle or used by something else.


-- 
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.

Post a reply to this message

On 14-11-2014 12:59, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 14/11/2014 00:36, Cousin Ricky a écrit :
>> Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
>>> On 13/11/2014 21:21, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>>> My hardware is a Dell Inspiron 17R with Intel Core i7 (8 cores).
>>>
>>> Isn't that 4 cores with HT ? (for povray, it would be worth 5 cores, YMMV)
>>
>> I've seen "quad core" in literature not attached to this particular model, but
>> in the POV-Ray statistics, there is a clear 8-to-1 ratio between CPU times and
>> elapsed times.  Does this mean that there are 2 CPUs in each core?
>>
>>
> Sort of... there is two full set of registers in each core, allowing to
> run two code in parallel... as long as they do not need the same
> resources from the core.
>
> at 100% cpu like povray, yes there is a 8:1 ratio between cpu times and
> wall-clock time. Yet, if the scheduler of the operating system is not
> too bad, if you force povray to run on less threads (with -WT<number>
> option), you can get some surprise like -WT8 is not twice faster that -WT4.
>
> With good schedulers, povray -WT4 would run one thread per core, leaving
> the other set of registers idle or used by something else.
>
>
Talking of which, is there a difference between -WT and +WT? I get the 
impression that both are used indiscriminately.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 11/14/2014 5:59 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 14/11/2014 00:36, Cousin Ricky a écrit :
>> Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
>>> On 13/11/2014 21:21, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>>> My hardware is a Dell Inspiron 17R with Intel Core i7 (8 cores).
>>>
>>> Isn't that 4 cores with HT ? (for povray, it would be worth 5 cores, YMMV)
>>
>> I've seen "quad core" in literature not attached to this particular model, but
>> in the POV-Ray statistics, there is a clear 8-to-1 ratio between CPU times and
>> elapsed times.  Does this mean that there are 2 CPUs in each core?
>>
>>
> Sort of... there is two full set of registers in each core, allowing to
> run two code in parallel... as long as they do not need the same
> resources from the core.
>
> at 100% cpu like povray, yes there is a 8:1 ratio between cpu times and
> wall-clock time. Yet, if the scheduler of the operating system is not
> too bad, if you force povray to run on less threads (with -WT<number>
> option), you can get some surprise like -WT8 is not twice faster that -WT4.
>
> With good schedulers, povray -WT4 would run one thread per core, leaving
> the other set of registers idle or used by something else.
>
>

Yep. Pretty much that. I've noticed that my work computer (core i3, dual 
core) isn't quite as fast as my desktop PC (a Core2 Quad), even though 
it appears to have 4 cores to applications.

I forget exactly what hyperthreading does, but it does give a bit of a 
boost to multi-threaded applications.

Post a reply to this message

On 14/11/2014 13:06, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 14-11-2014 12:59, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> Le 14/11/2014 00:36, Cousin Ricky a écrit :
>>> Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
>>>> On 13/11/2014 21:21, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>>>> My hardware is a Dell Inspiron 17R with Intel Core i7 (8 cores).
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that 4 cores with HT ? (for povray, it would be worth 5 cores,
>>>> YMMV)
>>>
>>> I've seen "quad core" in literature not attached to this particular
>>> model, but
>>> in the POV-Ray statistics, there is a clear 8-to-1 ratio between CPU
>>> times and
>>> elapsed times.  Does this mean that there are 2 CPUs in each core?
>>>
>>>
>> Sort of... there is two full set of registers in each core, allowing to
>> run two code in parallel... as long as they do not need the same
>> resources from the core.
>>
>> at 100% cpu like povray, yes there is a 8:1 ratio between cpu times and
>> wall-clock time. Yet, if the scheduler of the operating system is not
>> too bad, if you force povray to run on less threads (with -WT<number>
>> option), you can get some surprise like -WT8 is not twice faster that
>> -WT4.
>>
>> With good schedulers, povray -WT4 would run one thread per core, leaving
>> the other set of registers idle or used by something else.
>>
>>
> Talking of which, is there a difference between -WT and +WT? I get the
> impression that both are used indiscriminately.
> 
> Thomas

Actually, for some option there is a difference between + and -
(usually one form disable the option, and the other enable it, with some
value).

For instance +KC and -KC are opposite of each other.

But +H and -H are happily setting both the height of the output.

Now, if I could find a mnemonic to remember which one is enable and
which one is disable... that would be a great year.



-- 
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:

> Talking of which, is there a difference between -WT and +WT? I get the
> impression that both are used indiscriminately.
>
> Thomas

"Inflammable means flammable? What a country!"

Post a reply to this message