 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi folks
Does Povray make use of two processors and if so does having two
processors speed things up much?
What about running under WinNT? How does this affect performance?
Cheers
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Varley wrote:
>
> Hi folks
>
> Does Povray make use of two processors and if so does having two
> processors speed things up much?
> What about running under WinNT? How does this affect performance?
>
> Cheers
>
> Mike
This is maybe a also worth an entry to the VFAQ. This question has been
asked several times before.
None of the official builds do!
For Linux (I guess this is only for Linux maybe for UNIX in general as
well (Hi Mika! ;-) )) exists a version called PVMpov which i slocated
at
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6386/pvmpov/index.html
About NT I can't say anything. Never used it.
Maybe this answer helps.
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Marc Schimmler <sch### [at] ica uni-stuttgartde> writes:
> Mike Varley wrote:
>
> None of the official builds do!
> For Linux (I guess this is only for Linux maybe for UNIX in general as
> well (Hi Mika! ;-) )) exists a version called PVMpov which i slocated
> at
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6386/pvmpov/index.html
It works perfectly with Sun/Solaris. According to
http://www.haveland.com/cgi-bin/getpovb.pl?search=&submit=Submit
it works also with Cray/UNICOS, Onyx/irix, HP/UX, IBM/Aix.
> About NT I can't say anything. Never used it.
Theoretically, it should be possible to compile PVM-Pov using cygwin
(www.cygnus.com). I never heared of a successful compilation, though...
Thomas
--
http://www.fmi.uni-konstanz.de/~willhalm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
(you can see the other posts to this thread for compat with POV-Ray)
NT is so much faster than Win 95/98 that it isn't funny!!!
It is also much more stable. Dual processor compatibility is in NT only,
95/98 can't handle it. You can also go up to 6 processors if you want as
long as they are "normal" pentiums, in other words, not Pentium II. As for
the benefits of dual processing. Well, some people say that it isn't that
great... but it is!!! If the program supports multi-threading (most new
high-end graphics and rendering programs do) then it's gonna fly!!!
NT is a good power Operating System. It's lucky that Microsoft have finally
come to their senses in dropping the 95/98 series and going to Windows 2000
(aka NT 6.0).
I've never run POV-Ray under NT, but I'm sure that it would have speed
improvements doing so.
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:39:01 +1000, "Lance Birch"
<zon### [at] satcomnetau> wrote:
>NT is so much faster than Win 95/98 that it isn't funny!!!
That is a ridiculous statement. In fact, unless you have an obscene
amount of memory, NT is much slower because it eats so much memory
just standing still. For example, my current installation of NT5
eats up 64M at boot time. Even when I upgraded to 128M, it's no
faster than 98.
>NT is a good power Operating System. It's lucky that Microsoft have finally
>come to their senses in dropping the 95/98 series and going to Windows 2000
>(aka NT 6.0).
NT 5.0. And once you've tried NT, you'll wish you had 98 back. Trust
me; I regularly use and write software for both, and 98 boots much
more quickly and uses far less memory. As for availablility of
drivers for your weird hardware, better use Linux instead.
>I've never run POV-Ray under NT, but I'm sure that it would have speed
>improvements doing so.
Nope. None. In fact, because of the swapping thing, it will run
slower on moderately large scenes unless you throw memory at it.
POV-Ray is mainly dependent on FPU speed; the operating system has
almost no effect on rendering speed (especially if you render with the
display off.)
NT really is a crappy OS. It is not suitable for desktops, and the
fact that MS is pushing it as the next desktop OS is proof of just
how much they care about money and how little they care about users.
It's also not suitable for servers, because it crashes so often and
eats so many resources when idle. So of what use IS NT? Well, it
makes MS, Intel, and Micron a whole heap of money. Isn't that enough?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Glad to hear this rebuttal in the debate.
"Ronald L. Parker" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:39:01 +1000, "Lance Birch"
> <zon### [at] satcomnetau> wrote:
>
> >NT is so much faster than Win 95/98 that it isn't funny!!!
>
> That is a ridiculous statement. In fact, unless you have an obscene
> amount of memory, NT is much slower because it eats so much memory
> just standing still. For example, my current installation of NT5
> eats up 64M at boot time. Even when I upgraded to 128M, it's no
> faster than 98.
>
> >NT is a good power Operating System. It's lucky that Microsoft have finally
> >come to their senses in dropping the 95/98 series and going to Windows 2000
> >(aka NT 6.0).
>
> NT 5.0. And once you've tried NT, you'll wish you had 98 back. Trust
> me; I regularly use and write software for both, and 98 boots much
> more quickly and uses far less memory. As for availablility of
> drivers for your weird hardware, better use Linux instead.
>
> >I've never run POV-Ray under NT, but I'm sure that it would have speed
> >improvements doing so.
>
> Nope. None. In fact, because of the swapping thing, it will run
> slower on moderately large scenes unless you throw memory at it.
> POV-Ray is mainly dependent on FPU speed; the operating system has
> almost no effect on rendering speed (especially if you render with the
> display off.)
>
> NT really is a crappy OS. It is not suitable for desktops, and the
> fact that MS is pushing it as the next desktop OS is proof of just
> how much they care about money and how little they care about users.
> It's also not suitable for servers, because it crashes so often and
> eats so many resources when idle. So of what use IS NT? Well, it
> makes MS, Intel, and Micron a whole heap of money. Isn't that enough?
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
=Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike wrote:
> I've also heard that Xwindows can be as unstable as 95/98.
Well that's at least not true for my installations. I use Linux for four
or five years now and even on my old 386 it never crashed. Don't ask how
many times WIN 3.11 or WIN 95 crashed during that period.
It's not that it's very much faster than the M$ operating systems (see
post by Jens at 11/12/98 named thanks) but I think I have prove that
LINUX makes more out of my resources.
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think that you are the one speaking rediculously...
An obscene amount of memory? You've got to be joking? Besides, NT is for
those that need and use large amounts of memory. It's also far more stable
with large amounts of memory.
>NT 5.0. And once you've tried NT, you'll wish you had 98 back. Trust
>me; I regularly use and write software for both, and 98 boots much
As do I. I'd much prefer NT over 98. You say NT takes longer to boot? The
only response I've got for that is to ask you a question... Would you
rather boot once a day and have it take a little longer than have to reboot
10 times a day? In my personal experiance, the former is better. I'm sick
to death of getting illegal operations!!!
>I've never run POV-Ray under NT, but I'm sure that it would have speed
>improvements doing so.
Hmm, that's interesting. From my benchmarks, NT renders 5 times faster than
98 in 3D Studio MAX R2.5. Now if that isn't a substantial increase I don't
know what is. Obviously POV-Ray is an exception to this as it wasn't
specifically built for NT.
>NT really is a crappy OS. It is not suitable for desktops, and the
>It's also not suitable for servers, because it crashes so often and
Well, those two statements I can't agree with either.
For the first: Why not? The rendering station at my school seems to cope
well with it. It is also only a P233 with 64Mb of RAM. It runs a
Perception DSP drive and a video output subsystem. I've NEVER had a crash
or the slightest problem. A DSP drive won't even run under 98 or 95 because
of it's useless subsystem, even if the processor is much more powerful and
you have more RAM.
And for the second statement: What else are you planning on using? Some
out-of-date operating system that is totally incompatible with all major
network standards... I don't think so. At work we run NT perfectly well.
It acts as a server for a network and also as an internet pipeline and proxy
server. It has never crashed in the time I've been there and I don't
believe it ever will. It usually has to cope with being online for several
days, even weeks at a time without restarting. It is fully compatible with
all hardware and the drivers all came with the hardware anyway. It's been a
total breeze. On the other hand, if you were to try to do that with another
operating system I think that you would find you'd have major problems.
Now back to the original subject: Multi-processing.
If Windows 98/95 DID support multi-processors I'd suppose that they could be
viable for rendering, however the lack of memory support and fixed system
resource setting is a pain and causes high-end apps like 3D Studio MAX to
crash frequently. One of the biggest problems of running MAX on 95/98 is
fixed resources. Not many people understand the way 95/98 handles system
resources. I have to make this clear, memory has nothing to do with
resources in 95/98. The resources are ultimately fixed. NT doesn't have
this problem, it has infinite resource allocation, something MAX needs to
run correctly. When using MAX on 98 I will have to restart everytime I
leave the program, simple because 98 can't handle the resource allocation,
even with 160Mb of RAM. The same setup running NT: it will never crash, I
can't even get it to. I never have to restart and it uses memory much more
efficiently (yes, in NT you generally need more than to run 95/98, but as I
said before, high-end apps need higher memory anyway). Rendeirng times are
faster, multi-processors speed up rendering to higher levels than I've ever
seen before, and the usefulness of being able to run several instances of
MAX is a bonus beyond comparison. The architecture of 95/98 means that
unfortunately it is impossible to open a second instance of MAX.
I do however agree with you on the pricing of NT, which I believe is far
overpriced (as is the way with Microsoft products unfortunately).
I'm a naturally argumentive person I think, so don't take it personally.
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I''ve tried rendering torus1.pov (file provided with povray) at 640x480
aa0.3 with the following results.
Machine dual PII 450, 128MB default settings for everything else.
Win 98 2m 5s
Win NT 2m 6s
If I watch CPU utilisation on NT it hovers around 45-50% as if its only
using one processor (even though this percentage is split between the
two processors on the chart). This is born out by the above times.
Can POV be recompiled in a dual processor environment to make better use
of the hardware. Are there any compilations of this sort available?
Cheers
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ronald L. Parker <par### [at] mailfwicom> wrote:
: That is a ridiculous statement. In fact, unless you have an obscene
: amount of memory, NT is much slower because it eats so much memory
: just standing still. For example, my current installation of NT5
: eats up 64M at boot time. Even when I upgraded to 128M, it's no
: faster than 98.
I have seen win95 working just fine in a 486 66MHz with 8M of RAM.
--
main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
