 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Here are some results on the new AMD Opteron for those who are
interested in rendering times.
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=55000263
Fabien H
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabien HENON <fab### [at] free fr> wrote:
> http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=55000263
It would be quite awesome if a 1GHz Itanium II can render about three
times faster than a 1.8GHz Opteron or a 2.8GHz Xeon.
Since that one was not made by them, I wonder if there's some other
explanation (eg. the one who made the test used no antialiasing or the
wrong resolution).
--
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 01 May 2003 23:23:40 +0000, Fabien HENON wrote:
> Here are some results on the new AMD Opteron for those who are
> interested in rendering times.
>
>
> http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=55000263
>
> Fabien H
Was the Opteron running on a optimized self-compile, or was it the stock
download from povray.org? I didn't notice any mention of it on the page
and there wasn't any mention in the link.
-->Jeff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Program ended abnormally on 5/1/03 7:05 PM, Due to a catastrophic
earthdog error:
> On Thu, 01 May 2003 23:23:40 +0000, Fabien HENON wrote:
>
>
>>Here are some results on the new AMD Opteron for those who are
>>interested in rendering times.
>>
>>
>>http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=55000263
>>
>>Fabien H
>
>
> Was the Opteron running on a optimized self-compile, or was it the stock
> download from povray.org? I didn't notice any mention of it on the page
> and there wasn't any mention in the link.
>
"The standard binary distribution from the POV-Ray site was used (running Linux)."
Second line of the paragraph below the results.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* videotron.ca */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 01 May 2003 20:58:46 -0400, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> Was the Opteron running on a optimized self-compile, or was it the stock
>> download from povray.org? I didn't notice any mention of it on the page
>> and there wasn't any mention in the link.
>>
>
> "The standard binary distribution from the POV-Ray site
> was used (running Linux)."
>
>
> Second line of the paragraph below the results.
Oops. Missed that, didn't I? But that would explain some of the problem?
-->Jeff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
earthdog wrote:
>
> Oops. Missed that, didn't I? But that would explain some of the
> problem?
Using different compiles would indeed invalidate the results (unless
both compiles were done by the same compiler, and optimized for each
CPU, which was not the case here).
I suspect that an Opteron-optimized compile would do considerably
better.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> earthdog wrote:
>
>>Oops. Missed that, didn't I? But that would explain some of the
>>problem?
>
>
> Using different compiles would indeed invalidate the results (unless
> both compiles were done by the same compiler, and optimized for each
> CPU, which was not the case here).
>
Depends on what you want to test.
For the test they show, if they wanted to see the relative speed
of the processor running old-code application, using the same binary
distribution for all would have been mandatory, which should have
rules out the Itanium2 measurement (which I do not trust either, yet).
If they wanted to see the relative speed of the processor doing
something serious and real (and ray-tracing IS a real thing, not
like the classical benchmarks doing loop in the CPU cache), they might
have include the Itanium2 results, but to be fair they should have done
a custom compile (if available) of each system and application.
> I suspect that an Opteron-optimized compile would do considerably
> better.
I hope so, but it may take more time for it than for the Itanium2: Intel
make the optimising compiler for that one (but will it be available
at the same price as the Gnu/Linux for everybody, I really doubt that).
I believe an opteron-compile would perform better, and it might
even be 'interesting' to rewrite Povray as multithreaded rendering
engine (I know the FAQ about that, just dreaming, with a 3 or 4 Opterons
system, just to keep the memory latency low).
I also believe the Itanium2-version will be out-of-reach for the
mundane like me, and the performance with the Gnu suite are still
unknown (better or worst than the Opteron, who know ?).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> and the performance with the Gnu suite are still
> unknown (better or worst than the Opteron, who know ?).
But we know exactly what to expect from GCC :P
--
Rick
Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.co.uk
POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
