 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Cason asked me to share these early test results with you.
I have been doing some testing for Chris Cason to compare the
differences in performance of Pov v3.1b compiled using watcom and
the Pov v3.1d compiled using msvc6 a c++ compiler. Because there
was such a performance increase seen in the msvc6 version he also
sent me a copy of Pov v3.1d compiled with watcom. These are the
test results I obtained using the three different versions and
compilers used for the test.
There are some surprises ahead for you and I believe you will
be as surprised as I have been. In both compiler versions they
have been optimised for a Pentium II system but it is evident
that instructions used for the optimization also help in the
earlier Pentium I class machines like I use.
My system:
Pentium - 200 mmx 512k cache 128 megs edo ram on a Win98 platform.
Enjoy !
----------------------------------------------
First report to Chris compares Pov v3.1d.msvc vs. Pov v3.1b.watcom
Control for Tests:
1.) All global parameters were allowed to default except GUI and
Render Priority were set to highest.
2.) All background applications were terminated.
3.) Each set of tests ran sequencialy for each compiled version
and no other programs on the system were started in between
versions runs.
4.) All data reported comes from Pov-Ray message window
5.) Where the system used the hard drive to swap out memory it
has been noted as such even though the results indicate it
made little difference in the comparison of the two compiles.
Results of Tests Run
--------------------
-------------------
Test1 - Sphere Test
Purpose:
Test difference between compiles against parsing time using scaleable
quanities of simple to render but longer to parse objects. In this
case the sphere objects was choosen as it renders quickly but the
high numbers increase the parsing time.
Test Objects:
This test used a nested while loop to produce uniform numbers of 1 unit
spheres with rgb 1 pigment, default finish, 1 light source and 1 camera.
Render times will not be accurate as the majority of spheres are outside
the angle of view of the camera. The important numbers are those showing
the parsing time vs. numbers of objects generated.
Comparison Results:
parse t render t swap
test #objects Peak Memory Min Sec Min Sec file
pov 3.1 b 1 100 150,326 0 0 0 6 No
pov 3.1 d 1 100 155.430 0 1 0 4 No
pov 3.1 b 2 1000 823,778 0 2 0 6 No
pov 3.1 d 2 1000 883,550 0 2 0 5 No
pov 3.1 b 3 10000 7,737,986 0 10 0 10 No
pov 3.1 d 3 10000 7,890,322 0 12 0 8 No
pov 3.1 b 4 100000 77,600,314 2 15 0 17 No
pov 3.1 d 4 100000 79,434,254 1 59 0 15 No
---------------------
Test2 - hairball test
Purpose:
Test difference between compiles against file that contains a large number
of objects generated by several nested loops, known to require both large
amounts of memory, long parsing times, and long rendering times.
Test Objects:
A mesh of 12 triangles was created. These were used in a nested loop to
create a patch of triangle objects, This patch was used inside another
nested loop to create a hemispherical globe - looks like half a hairball.
The first loop was incrememted from the first test with 25% of it's
number of objects to 100% in the last test run.
Comparison Results:
parse t render t swap
test #objects Peak Memory Min Sec Min Sec file
pov 3.1 B 1 18631 14,139,656 0 14 3 6 No
pov 3.1 D 1 18631 14,141,544 0 13 2 44 No
pov 3.1 B 2 51751 38,559,004 0 34 7 17 No
pov 3.1 D 2 51751 38,560,892 0 30 6 30 No
pov 3.1 B 3 132481 98,081,212 1 39 16 45 Yes
pov 3.1 D 3 132481 98,083,184 1 42 14 52 Yes
pov 3.1 B 4 207001 153,024,808 8 48 29 10 Yes
pov 3.1 D 4 207001 153,026,780 6 57 27 25 Yes
Observation: Times were better for both parsing and rendering with
less that a 1% sacrifice in the amount of memory needed.
----------------------------------------
Test3: Lathe/surperellispoid Object Test
Purpose: test difference between compiles against objects
requiring higher order math funtions and textures that were both
layered and reflective.
This test used a 74 point qauadratic spline lathe with a 6 layer
crackled texture and reflective finish. Also present were a brick
floor created by placing scaled superellipsiods in place with a
nested loop - objects were given single pigment but high values
of reflecion 0.45. A gradient sky_sphere was used to add color to
the scene so the reflections would have an impact on the render time.
The slower_yet_more_accurate sturm keyword was used with the lathe object.
Comparison Results:
parse t render t swap
test #objects Peak Memory Min Sec Min Sec file
pov 3.1 B 1 43 171,303 1 37 8 No
pov 3.1 D 1 43 177,027 1 4 8 No
pov 3.1 B 2 43 171,303 1 37 7 No
pov 3.1 D 2 43 177,027 1 4 8 No
Note: Since there was such a large difference in the render times
of v3.1b and v3.1d the test was repeated. A variance of only 1 second
for four renders supports the results. Amazing !!!
-----------------------------------
Report to Chris #2
A few more render comparisons on the lathe object. What a difference !
20 point lathe object
3.1d 3.1b
cubic_spline 41 sec 9m 57s
quadratic_spline
w/sturm 38 sec 9m 6s
wo/sturm 23 sec 1m 7s
linear_spline 22 sec 46s
bezier_spline 48 sec 3m 38s
---------------------------------------------
Report to Chris #3
This last adds the v3.1d watcom compile to the comparisons to see if
the previous results were a compiler related speed up or a version
related speed up. It appears it is more version related than compiler
though the msvc6 version is fastest of the three so far.
Ken
Pov v3.1 d.msvc vs. Pov v3.1d.watcom vs. Pov v3.1b.watcom
--------------------------------------------
20 point Lathe Using Different Spline Types:
v3.1d-msvc v3.1d-watcom v3.1b.watcom
quadratic
w/sturm 38 s 47 s 9m 6 s
wo/sturm 23 s 27 s 1m 7 s
linear 22 s 25 s 46 s
cubic 41 s 53 s 9m 57 s
bezier 48 s 1m 1 s 3m 38 s
-----------------------------------------
Objects From Shapesq.inc Comparison Test.
v3.1d.msvc.win32 v3.1d.watcom.win32 v3.1b.watcom.win32.r1
wo/sturm w/sturm wo/sturm w/sturm wo/sturm w/sturm
bicorn 22s 24s 24s 27s 25s 28s
Crossed_Trough 25s 42s 29s 55s 31s 58s
Cubic_Cylinder 30s 48s 36s 1m 1s 39s 1m 6s
Cubic_Saddle_1 30s 46s 37s 57s 40s 1m 1s
Devils_Curve 31s 46s 36s 57s 40s 1m 1s
Helix_1 27s 57s 27s 1m 5s 29s 1m 11s
glob_5 1m 34s 1m 37s 1m 59s 2m 4s 2m 7s 2m 9s
total time 4m 31s 6m 0s 5m 13s 7m 43s 5m 51s 7m 9s
---------------- ---------------- -----------------
--------------------------
Traditional Sky_Vase Test:
memory memory memory
Sky_Vase.Pov 2m 16s 150,015 2m 7s 145,095 2m 19s 145,051
---------------------------------------------
Lathe/Surperellispoid Object Comparison Test:
parse t render t swap
test #objects Peak Memory Min Sec Min Sec file
pov 3.1 b.w 1 43 171,303 1 37 8 No
pov 3.1 d.w 1 43 171,383 1 4 34 No
pov 3.1 d.v 1 43 177,027 1 4 8 No
Note: Notice large difference in speed between versions.
------------------------------
Large Pov Generated Mesh Test:
parse t render t swap
test #objects Peak Memory Min Sec Min Sec file
pov 3.1 b.w 1 18631 14,139,656 0 14 3 6 No
pov 3.1 d.w 1 18631 14,139,736 0 13 3 1 No
pov 3.1 d.v 1 18631 14,141,544 0 13 2 44 No
pov 3.1 b.w 2 51751 38,559,004 0 34 7 17 No
pov 3.1 d.w 2 51751 38,559,084 33 7 3 No
pov 3.1 d.v 2 51751 38,560,892 0 30 6 30 No
pov 3.1 b.w 3 132481 98,081,212 1 39 16 45 Yes
pov 3.1 d.w 3 132481 98,081,292 1 37 16 6 Yes
pov 3.1 d.v 3 132481 98,083,184 1 42 14 52 Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see from my tests you should expect to see some signifigant
improvement in your render times with certain types of scenes. On other
types there will be little gain noticed but with raytracing it's every
little bit that counts.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Incredible!
What makes the rendering of the lathe and super'lips so much faster? Any
idea?
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Marc Schimmler wrote:
>
> Incredible!
>
> What makes the rendering of the lathe and super'lips so much faster? Any
> idea?
>
> Marc
> --
> Marc Schimmler
My role in this was to evaluate performance, check for odd behavior,
and report bugs or glaring mistakes. The magic that goes on inside
Pov the program is known to the developers and I am only a volunteer
beta tester. The answer is I don't know what they did, or how, but the
improvements are another feather in their caps to be sure.
I suggest taking a look at the list of bugs fixed for this version. It
may offer some insight as to what may have contributed to the performance
change.
Both this list and the version realted bugs fixed list is available in the
povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions group on this server.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I can only guess that this has to do with the 3d, 4d and 5d vector
thing.
They sure outdid themselves!!!
Congratulations!
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
One question : Is there any possibility to download this wonder somewhere ?
Cheers
> Chris Cason asked me to share these early test results with you.
>
> I have been doing some testing for Chris Cason to compare the
> differences in performance of Pov v3.1b compiled using watcom and
> the Pov v3.1d compiled using msvc6 a c++ compiler. Because there
> was such a performance increase seen in the msvc6 version he also
> sent me a copy of Pov v3.1d compiled with watcom. These are the
> test results I obtained using the three different versions and
> compilers used for the test.
>
> There are some surprises ahead for you and I believe you will
> be as surprised as I have been. In both compiler versions they
> have been optimised for a Pentium II system but it is evident
> that instructions used for the optimization also help in the
> earlier Pentium I class machines like I use.
>
> My system:
> Pentium - 200 mmx 512k cache 128 megs edo ram on a Win98 platform.
>
> Enjoy !
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> First report to Chris compares Pov v3.1d.msvc vs. Pov v3.1b.watcom
>
> Control for Tests:
>
> 1.) All global parameters were allowed to default except GUI and
> Render Priority were set to highest.
>
> 2.) All background applications were terminated.
>
> 3.) Each set of tests ran sequencialy for each compiled version
> and no other programs on the system were started in between
> versions runs.
>
> 4.) All data reported comes from Pov-Ray message window
>
> 5.) Where the system used the hard drive to swap out memory it
> has been noted as such even though the results indicate it
> made little difference in the comparison of the two compiles.
>
> Results of Tests Run
> --------------------
>
> -------------------
> Test1 - Sphere Test
> Purpose:
> Test difference between compiles against parsing time using scaleable
> quanities of simple to render but longer to parse objects. In this
> case the sphere objects was choosen as it renders quickly but the
> high numbers increase the parsing time.
>
> Test Objects:
> This test used a nested while loop to produce uniform numbers of 1 unit
> spheres with rgb 1 pigment, default finish, 1 light source and 1 camera.
> Render times will not be accurate as the majority of spheres are outside
> the angle of view of the camera. The important numbers are those showing
> the parsing time vs. numbers of objects generated.
>
> Comparison Results:
> parse t render t swap
> test #objects Peak Memory Min Sec Min Sec file
> pov 3.1 b 1 100 150,326 0 0 0 6 No
> pov 3.1 d 1 100 155.430 0 1 0 4 No
>
> pov 3.1 b 2 1000 823,778 0 2 0 6 No
> pov 3.1 d 2 1000 883,550 0 2 0 5 No
>
> pov 3.1 b 3 10000 7,737,986 0 10 0 10 No
> pov 3.1 d 3 10000 7,890,322 0 12 0 8 No
>
> pov 3.1 b 4 100000 77,600,314 2 15 0 17 No
> pov 3.1 d 4 100000 79,434,254 1 59 0 15 No
>
> ---------------------
> Test2 - hairball test
> Purpose:
> Test difference between compiles against file that contains a large number
> of objects generated by several nested loops, known to require both large
> amounts of memory, long parsing times, and long rendering times.
>
> Test Objects:
> A mesh of 12 triangles was created. These were used in a nested loop to
> create a patch of triangle objects, This patch was used inside another
> nested loop to create a hemispherical globe - looks like half a hairball.
> The first loop was incrememted from the first test with 25% of it's
> number of objects to 100% in the last test run.
>
> Comparison Results:
> parse t render t swap
> test #objects Peak Memory Min Sec Min Sec file
> pov 3.1 B 1 18631 14,139,656 0 14 3 6 No
> pov 3.1 D 1 18631 14,141,544 0 13 2 44 No
>
> pov 3.1 B 2 51751 38,559,004 0 34 7 17 No
> pov 3.1 D 2 51751 38,560,892 0 30 6 30 No
>
> pov 3.1 B 3 132481 98,081,212 1 39 16 45 Yes
> pov 3.1 D 3 132481 98,083,184 1 42 14 52 Yes
>
> pov 3.1 B 4 207001 153,024,808 8 48 29 10 Yes
> pov 3.1 D 4 207001 153,026,780 6 57 27 25 Yes
>
> Observation: Times were better for both parsing and rendering with
> less that a 1% sacrifice in the amount of memory needed.
>
> ----------------------------------------
> Test3: Lathe/surperellispoid Object Test
>
> Purpose: test difference between compiles against objects
> requiring higher order math funtions and textures that were both
> layered and reflective.
>
> This test used a 74 point qauadratic spline lathe with a 6 layer
> crackled texture and reflective finish. Also present were a brick
> floor created by placing scaled superellipsiods in place with a
> nested loop - objects were given single pigment but high values
> of reflecion 0.45. A gradient sky_sphere was used to add color to
> the scene so the reflections would have an impact on the render time.
> The slower_yet_more_accurate sturm keyword was used with the lathe object.
>
> Comparison Results:
> parse t render t swap
> test #objects Peak Memory Min Sec Min Sec file
> pov 3.1 B 1 43 171,303 1 37 8 No
> pov 3.1 D 1 43 177,027 1 4 8 No
>
> pov 3.1 B 2 43 171,303 1 37 7 No
> pov 3.1 D 2 43 177,027 1 4 8 No
>
> Note: Since there was such a large difference in the render times
> of v3.1b and v3.1d the test was repeated. A variance of only 1 second
> for four renders supports the results. Amazing !!!
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> Report to Chris #2
>
> A few more render comparisons on the lathe object. What a difference !
>
> 20 point lathe object
> 3.1d 3.1b
> cubic_spline 41 sec 9m 57s
>
> quadratic_spline
> w/sturm 38 sec 9m 6s
> wo/sturm 23 sec 1m 7s
>
> linear_spline 22 sec 46s
>
> bezier_spline 48 sec 3m 38s
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Report to Chris #3
>
> This last adds the v3.1d watcom compile to the comparisons to see if
> the previous results were a compiler related speed up or a version
> related speed up. It appears it is more version related than compiler
> though the msvc6 version is fastest of the three so far.
>
> Ken
>
> Pov v3.1 d.msvc vs. Pov v3.1d.watcom vs. Pov v3.1b.watcom
>
> --------------------------------------------
> 20 point Lathe Using Different Spline Types:
>
> v3.1d-msvc v3.1d-watcom v3.1b.watcom
> quadratic
> w/sturm 38 s 47 s 9m 6 s
> wo/sturm 23 s 27 s 1m 7 s
>
> linear 22 s 25 s 46 s
> cubic 41 s 53 s 9m 57 s
> bezier 48 s 1m 1 s 3m 38 s
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Objects From Shapesq.inc Comparison Test.
>
> v3.1d.msvc.win32 v3.1d.watcom.win32 v3.1b.watcom.win32.r1
> wo/sturm w/sturm wo/sturm w/sturm wo/sturm w/sturm
> bicorn 22s 24s 24s 27s 25s 28s
> Crossed_Trough 25s 42s 29s 55s 31s 58s
> Cubic_Cylinder 30s 48s 36s 1m 1s 39s 1m 6s
> Cubic_Saddle_1 30s 46s 37s 57s 40s 1m 1s
> Devils_Curve 31s 46s 36s 57s 40s 1m 1s
> Helix_1 27s 57s 27s 1m 5s 29s 1m 11s
> glob_5 1m 34s 1m 37s 1m 59s 2m 4s 2m 7s 2m 9s
>
> total time 4m 31s 6m 0s 5m 13s 7m 43s 5m 51s 7m 9s
> ---------------- ---------------- -----------------
>
> --------------------------
> Traditional Sky_Vase Test:
> memory memory memory
> Sky_Vase.Pov 2m 16s 150,015 2m 7s 145,095 2m 19s 145,051
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Lathe/Surperellispoid Object Comparison Test:
>
> parse t render t swap
> test #objects Peak Memory Min Sec Min Sec file
> pov 3.1 b.w 1 43 171,303 1 37 8 No
> pov 3.1 d.w 1 43 171,383 1 4 34 No
> pov 3.1 d.v 1 43 177,027 1 4 8 No
>
> Note: Notice large difference in speed between versions.
>
> ------------------------------
> Large Pov Generated Mesh Test:
> parse t render t swap
> test #objects Peak Memory Min Sec Min Sec file
> pov 3.1 b.w 1 18631 14,139,656 0 14 3 6 No
> pov 3.1 d.w 1 18631 14,139,736 0 13 3 1 No
> pov 3.1 d.v 1 18631 14,141,544 0 13 2 44 No
>
> pov 3.1 b.w 2 51751 38,559,004 0 34 7 17 No
> pov 3.1 d.w 2 51751 38,559,084 33 7 3 No
> pov 3.1 d.v 2 51751 38,560,892 0 30 6 30 No
>
> pov 3.1 b.w 3 132481 98,081,212 1 39 16 45 Yes
> pov 3.1 d.w 3 132481 98,081,292 1 37 16 6 Yes
> pov 3.1 d.v 3 132481 98,083,184 1 42 14 52 Yes
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As you can see from my tests you should expect to see some signifigant
> improvement in your render times with certain types of scenes. On other
> types there will be little gain noticed but with raytracing it's every
> little bit that counts.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I just have version 3.1a. I'm assuming that these versions (3.1d msvc,
etc.) are non-official releases. Where can I get these newer versions?
Are they compatible with .pov files from 3.1a? Is there a list of new
features, etc.? I hope this isn't a stupid question.
Kyle
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:46:59 -0500, Kyle <joe### [at] geocities com> wrote:
>I just have version 3.1a. I'm assuming that these versions (3.1d msvc,
>etc.) are non-official releases. Where can I get these newer versions?
>Are they compatible with .pov files from 3.1a? Is there a list of new
>features, etc.? I hope this isn't a stupid question.
They are beta-test releases, currently available only to a handful of
people, but they are (or will be) official. They are compatible with
3.1a; in fact, at least one change was made to make the language comply
with the documentation for 3.1a where it previously didn't. A list of
what was done has been posted here recently. I think you can also find
the list in povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> One question : Is there any possibility to download this wonder somewhere ?
>
> Cheers
>
I can only presume that since Chris had me post these results publicly
he is planning to release it to the public sometime soon. I don't have a
date for you. I am only one of a few working with it an he may still be
awaiting evaluations from others to ensure it is ready.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
also since they were constructs requiring higher level math functions,
modifications could have been made to the code to speed them up. Often
times compiler high level math is slower than it needs to be.
Steve
Marc Schimmler wrote:
>
> I can only guess that this has to do with the 3d, 4d and 5d vector
> thing.
>
> They sure outdid themselves!!!
>
> Congratulations!
>
> Marc
> --
> Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very interesting, but something else I've been wanting to know is, did
they fix the mosaic preview bug?
-Mike
Ken wrote:
>
> Chris Cason asked me to share these early test results with you.
>
> I have been doing some testing for Chris Cason to compare the
> differences in performance of Pov v3.1b compiled using watcom and
> the Pov v3.1d compiled using msvc6 a c++ compiler. Because there
> was such a performance increase seen in the msvc6 version he also
> sent me a copy of Pov v3.1d compiled with watcom. These are the
> test results I obtained using the three different versions and
> compilers used for the test.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
