 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've done informal testing using the benchmark scene before and after I
upgraded. Here are my results. Your results may vary:
1.6 GHz Duron
Time For Parse: 0 hours 0 minutes 3.0 seconds (3 seconds)
Time For Photon: 0 hours 0 minutes 60.0 seconds (60 seconds)
Time For Trace: 0 hours 39 minutes 43.0 seconds (2383 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 40 minutes 46.0 seconds (2446 seconds)
1.6 Ghz Sempron 64, 32-bit
Time For Parse: 0 hours 0 minutes 3.0 seconds (3 seconds)
Time For Photon: 0 hours 0 minutes 53.0 seconds (53 seconds)
Time For Trace: 0 hours 33 minutes 45.0 seconds (2025 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 34 minutes 41.0 seconds (2081 seconds)
1.6 GHz Sempron 64, 64-bit
Parse Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 1 seconds (1 seconds)
Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 41 seconds (41 seconds)
Render Time: 0 hours 28 minutes 45 seconds (1725 seconds)
Total Time: 0 hours 29 minutes 27 seconds (1767 seconds)
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbrain com> wrote:
> Okay, google doesn't seem to be able to give me any clear advice on this
> one, so I'll ask you guys:
>
> I just bought an 64-bit AMD Turion based laptop, which irritatingly has
> 32-bit windows installed, so I'm thinking about doing a dual-boot with linux
> and using the 64-bit version of pov. I've already run a 32-bit test and my
> laptop's almost as fast as my desktop machine, so I assume it will be faster
> in 64-bit. Anyway what I want to know is this:
>
> 1/ what version of linux should I get?
> 2/ how much better is 64-bit pov compared to 32-bit on the same system?
> (i.e. is it worth the effort?)
>
> Now I realise there's no straight answer to question 1 but I'm getting SO
> annoyed with linux users! Whenever I ask one of the guys at work they always
> name about a dozen versions of linux I should try. It's an OS! I don't want
> to try it, I just want to install one and use it! I'm not scared of having
> to use a command prompt (I use linux remotely from a windows PC at work
> sometimes so I know my way around), I just want someone to tell me what the
> difference is between them.
>
> Can all versions of linux run povray? Can they all run the same programs,
> and if not why not? Do different ones run pov at different speeds? Are there
> special 64-bit versions of linux (like windows) or is it just exposed in a
> more implicit way?
>
> BTW, I've just started using emacs at work, so don't worry about suggesting
> a version of linux that's friendly for windows users, I can handle a steep
> learning curve (I'm going to regret saying that!).
>
> Please help me!
>
> Thanks
> --
> Tek
> http://evilsuperbrain.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ooh that's less of an improvement than I was expecting. Still it could be
enough to make my 64 bit laptop very slightly quicker than my desktop
machine, rather than very slightly slower.
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"jhu" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
news:web.43958a33869045be94173ef0@news.povray.org...
> I've done informal testing using the benchmark scene before and after I
> upgraded. Here are my results. Your results may vary:
>
> 1.6 GHz Duron
> Time For Parse: 0 hours 0 minutes 3.0 seconds (3 seconds)
> Time For Photon: 0 hours 0 minutes 60.0 seconds (60 seconds)
> Time For Trace: 0 hours 39 minutes 43.0 seconds (2383 seconds)
> Total Time: 0 hours 40 minutes 46.0 seconds (2446 seconds)
>
> 1.6 Ghz Sempron 64, 32-bit
> Time For Parse: 0 hours 0 minutes 3.0 seconds (3 seconds)
> Time For Photon: 0 hours 0 minutes 53.0 seconds (53 seconds)
> Time For Trace: 0 hours 33 minutes 45.0 seconds (2025 seconds)
> Total Time: 0 hours 34 minutes 41.0 seconds (2081 seconds)
>
> 1.6 GHz Sempron 64, 64-bit
> Parse Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 1 seconds (1 seconds)
> Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 41 seconds (41 seconds)
> Render Time: 0 hours 28 minutes 45 seconds (1725 seconds)
> Total Time: 0 hours 29 minutes 27 seconds (1767 seconds)
>
> "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
>> Okay, google doesn't seem to be able to give me any clear advice on this
>> one, so I'll ask you guys:
>>
>> I just bought an 64-bit AMD Turion based laptop, which irritatingly has
>> 32-bit windows installed, so I'm thinking about doing a dual-boot with
>> linux
>> and using the 64-bit version of pov. I've already run a 32-bit test and
>> my
>> laptop's almost as fast as my desktop machine, so I assume it will be
>> faster
>> in 64-bit. Anyway what I want to know is this:
>>
>> 1/ what version of linux should I get?
>> 2/ how much better is 64-bit pov compared to 32-bit on the same system?
>> (i.e. is it worth the effort?)
>>
>> Now I realise there's no straight answer to question 1 but I'm getting SO
>> annoyed with linux users! Whenever I ask one of the guys at work they
>> always
>> name about a dozen versions of linux I should try. It's an OS! I don't
>> want
>> to try it, I just want to install one and use it! I'm not scared of
>> having
>> to use a command prompt (I use linux remotely from a windows PC at work
>> sometimes so I know my way around), I just want someone to tell me what
>> the
>> difference is between them.
>>
>> Can all versions of linux run povray? Can they all run the same programs,
>> and if not why not? Do different ones run pov at different speeds? Are
>> there
>> special 64-bit versions of linux (like windows) or is it just exposed in
>> a
>> more implicit way?
>>
>> BTW, I've just started using emacs at work, so don't worry about
>> suggesting
>> a version of linux that's friendly for windows users, I can handle a
>> steep
>> learning curve (I'm going to regret saying that!).
>>
>> Please help me!
>>
>> Thanks
>> --
>> Tek
>> http://evilsuperbrain.com
>
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A quick update: I downloaded Gentoo, booted from the CD, it gave me a
command prompt and from looking at the website and messages it gave me I
still didn't have a clue what I was supposed to do next! Okay to be honest I
got scared and rebooted. There's a difference between something with a lot
of options, and something so configurable that you need to actually walk it
through every step of installation.
So I'm downloading Suse now :) My research leads me to believe Suse has a
mix of noob and hardcore features, and only a few minor drawbacks, so
probably best suited to my rather uneven grasp of linux and my hardware
needs.
(BTW, I'm not criticising gentoo, but it sounds like you should only get it
if you have a strong opinion on how everything should be set up in linux, so
I might use it next time, if there is a next time)
--
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message
news:439155ee$1@news.povray.org...
> Okay, google doesn't seem to be able to give me any clear advice on this
> one, so I'll ask you guys:
>
> I just bought an 64-bit AMD Turion based laptop, which irritatingly has
> 32-bit windows installed, so I'm thinking about doing a dual-boot with
> linux and using the 64-bit version of pov. I've already run a 32-bit test
> and my laptop's almost as fast as my desktop machine, so I assume it will
> be faster in 64-bit. Anyway what I want to know is this:
>
> 1/ what version of linux should I get?
> 2/ how much better is 64-bit pov compared to 32-bit on the same system?
> (i.e. is it worth the effort?)
>
> Now I realise there's no straight answer to question 1 but I'm getting SO
> annoyed with linux users! Whenever I ask one of the guys at work they
> always name about a dozen versions of linux I should try. It's an OS! I
> don't want to try it, I just want to install one and use it! I'm not
> scared of having to use a command prompt (I use linux remotely from a
> windows PC at work sometimes so I know my way around), I just want someone
> to tell me what the difference is between them.
>
> Can all versions of linux run povray? Can they all run the same programs,
> and if not why not? Do different ones run pov at different speeds? Are
> there special 64-bit versions of linux (like windows) or is it just
> exposed in a more implicit way?
>
> BTW, I've just started using emacs at work, so don't worry about
> suggesting a version of linux that's friendly for windows users, I can
> handle a steep learning curve (I'm going to regret saying that!).
>
> Please help me!
>
> Thanks
> --
> Tek
> http://evilsuperbrain.com
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> Ooh that's less of an improvement than I was expecting.
Well, same clockrate, ~99% same architecture, same cache, same memory...
You can't expect miracles.
In most other 32/64-bit processors (such as UltraSparc and Mac) you
actually get something like a 5% slowdown when you compile the exact same
program to 64-bit compared to the 32-bit binary (this is because pointers
take twice as much space and thus caches fill a bit faster).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tek wrote:
> A quick update: I downloaded Gentoo, booted from the CD, it gave me a
> command prompt and from looking at the website and messages it gave me I
> still didn't have a clue what I was supposed to do next! Okay to be honest I
> got scared and rebooted. There's a difference between something with a lot
> of options, and something so configurable that you need to actually walk it
> through every step of installation.
I told you, didn't I? ;)
> So I'm downloading Suse now :) My research leads me to believe Suse has a
> mix of noob and hardcore features, and only a few minor drawbacks, so
> probably best suited to my rather uneven grasp of linux and my hardware
> needs.
Yeah, it's pretty popular. And it works. Some minor issues I don't like,
but they are mostly between the keyboard and the chair.
> (BTW, I'm not criticising gentoo, but it sounds like you should only get it
> if you have a strong opinion on how everything should be set up in linux, so
> I might use it next time, if there is a next time)
It really takes time to configure everything and to compile things. And,
especially, to get known enough of it (yet more to speak "all" instaed
of enough!). But, depending on the person, it can be very pleasuring :).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> Okay, google doesn't seem to be able to give me any clear advice on this
> one, so I'll ask you guys:
>
> I just bought an 64-bit AMD Turion based laptop, which irritatingly has
> 32-bit windows installed, so I'm thinking about doing a dual-boot with linux
> and using the 64-bit version of pov. I've already run a 32-bit test and my
> laptop's almost as fast as my desktop machine, so I assume it will be faster
> in 64-bit. Anyway what I want to know is this:
>
> 1/ what version of linux should I get?
Just so you know - "standard" Linux (for i386 (a.k.a. IA-32)) will be 32-bit
Linux, just like your Windows. For Linux on 64-bit, you'll need a variant,
e.g. a *SPECIAL* Linux for the so-called "IA-64" architechture (which means
64-bit processors).
(That said, you'd also need a "special" Linux if you're using it on a mac.
It's possible to run many linux apps on powerpc. :)
I suggest the 64-bit (IA-64) version of Ubuntu, but it's really a matter of
style. Do you know anything about linux? What do you want to get done
(e.g. apart from POV-Ray)? What do you need in your OS? Editor? Web
browsing? Multimedia? etc?
Second preference would be Debian; as for the rest, I've heard that the
packaging system can be troublesome, so use whatever works. Also note that
not all of the Linux distributions have 64-bit versions (it's possible, not
everyone will make one though). You might want to try one of those odd
Linux-distro-chooser surveys.
Also, a good many things are ... more complex in Linux. More powerful too,
but more complex anyways. And if it doesn't work from the get-go, chances
are, setting it up will be a pain or next-to impossible unless you can code
the device driver yourself.
Techincally Linux is just the kernel, all the apps run on it (e.g. X Windows
System, Gnome/KDE/TWM/etc/, your app, pov-ray etc. etc.), although the
generalization is there. *shrugs* Usually people don't really care though
about that.
> 2/ how much better is 64-bit pov compared to 32-bit on the same system?
> (i.e. is it worth the effort?)
A lot - but there is no official 64-bit Linux POV-Ray binary, and the native
compiler for Linux isn't as efficient as the official POV-Ray binary's
compiler (although I imagine that the performance gain from optimizing for
64-bit could make up for that). Also, the Linux version is _command-line_
so you'll need an external editor (e.g. Kate, QTPovEditor, etc.). Out of
curiousity, does the POV-Ray team's official Linux binaries use the same
compiler series as the Windows ones, or is it just Windows binaries that
use the Intel Compiler?
I should also mention that POV-Ray's linux installer is command-line based
(it's a historical thing; IIRC usually programs are installed from the
command-line as a "super-user" and there's no graphical desktop - usually
done for security reasons) - so you may like Window's graphical installer
better. My experience with graphical Linux installers has been rather
unsettling, with few exceptions.
If you can manage, I would recommend using 64-bit Windows and official
POV-Ray Binaries. If you still _want_ to try Linux, investigate the
concept known as creating a "Dual-Boot" system (I believe most decent Linux
distributions are designed for this from the get-go now) and then you can
"have the best of both worlds".
Just as a note, I write this from Linux on a dual-boot system with Windows
XP. :) 32-bit though. *sigh* I still keep XP for a couple of things -
Linux doesn't do quite everything I need in a OS.
-- Michael C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Actually "IA-64" refers to Intel's Itanium architecture. What you really
want is an x86-64 or AMD64 Linux distribution. Additionally, the compiler
used on 64-bit Linux distributions are usually using at least gcc 3.3,
which compiles very well. Besides, since Povray 3.6, compiling your own
povray binary in 64-bit Linux (or other unix-like os) is as easy as
"./configure && make && make" install. Prior to that, eg 3.5, you needed to
modify a few of the source files.
"Mike C" <the### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> > Okay, google doesn't seem to be able to give me any clear advice on this
> > one, so I'll ask you guys:
> >
> > I just bought an 64-bit AMD Turion based laptop, which irritatingly has
> > 32-bit windows installed, so I'm thinking about doing a dual-boot with linux
> > and using the 64-bit version of pov. I've already run a 32-bit test and my
> > laptop's almost as fast as my desktop machine, so I assume it will be faster
> > in 64-bit. Anyway what I want to know is this:
> >
> > 1/ what version of linux should I get?
>
> Just so you know - "standard" Linux (for i386 (a.k.a. IA-32)) will be 32-bit
> Linux, just like your Windows. For Linux on 64-bit, you'll need a variant,
> e.g. a *SPECIAL* Linux for the so-called "IA-64" architechture (which means
> 64-bit processors).
>
> (That said, you'd also need a "special" Linux if you're using it on a mac.
> It's possible to run many linux apps on powerpc. :)
>
> I suggest the 64-bit (IA-64) version of Ubuntu, but it's really a matter of
> style. Do you know anything about linux? What do you want to get done
> (e.g. apart from POV-Ray)? What do you need in your OS? Editor? Web
> browsing? Multimedia? etc?
>
> Second preference would be Debian; as for the rest, I've heard that the
> packaging system can be troublesome, so use whatever works. Also note that
> not all of the Linux distributions have 64-bit versions (it's possible, not
> everyone will make one though). You might want to try one of those odd
> Linux-distro-chooser surveys.
>
> Also, a good many things are ... more complex in Linux. More powerful too,
> but more complex anyways. And if it doesn't work from the get-go, chances
> are, setting it up will be a pain or next-to impossible unless you can code
> the device driver yourself.
>
> Techincally Linux is just the kernel, all the apps run on it (e.g. X Windows
> System, Gnome/KDE/TWM/etc/, your app, pov-ray etc. etc.), although the
> generalization is there. *shrugs* Usually people don't really care though
> about that.
>
> > 2/ how much better is 64-bit pov compared to 32-bit on the same system?
> > (i.e. is it worth the effort?)
>
> A lot - but there is no official 64-bit Linux POV-Ray binary, and the native
> compiler for Linux isn't as efficient as the official POV-Ray binary's
> compiler (although I imagine that the performance gain from optimizing for
> 64-bit could make up for that). Also, the Linux version is _command-line_
> so you'll need an external editor (e.g. Kate, QTPovEditor, etc.). Out of
> curiousity, does the POV-Ray team's official Linux binaries use the same
> compiler series as the Windows ones, or is it just Windows binaries that
> use the Intel Compiler?
>
> I should also mention that POV-Ray's linux installer is command-line based
> (it's a historical thing; IIRC usually programs are installed from the
> command-line as a "super-user" and there's no graphical desktop - usually
> done for security reasons) - so you may like Window's graphical installer
> better. My experience with graphical Linux installers has been rather
> unsettling, with few exceptions.
>
> If you can manage, I would recommend using 64-bit Windows and official
> POV-Ray Binaries. If you still _want_ to try Linux, investigate the
> concept known as creating a "Dual-Boot" system (I believe most decent Linux
> distributions are designed for this from the get-go now) and then you can
> "have the best of both worlds".
>
> Just as a note, I write this from Linux on a dual-boot system with Windows
> XP. :) 32-bit though. *sigh* I still keep XP for a couple of things -
> Linux doesn't do quite everything I need in a OS.
>
> -- Michael C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike C wrote:
>
> Just so you know - "standard" Linux (for i386 (a.k.a. IA-32)) will be 32-bit
> Linux, just like your Windows. For Linux on 64-bit, you'll need a variant,
> e.g. a *SPECIAL* Linux for the so-called "IA-64" architechture (which means
> 64-bit processors).
This is wrong. It would be a good idea not to pretend knowing things if
you don't.
There is no 'standard' linux platform and what's needed for AMD64 CPUs
is not 'IA-64' but 'x86-64' support. This is available from nearly all
up-to-date distributions (for example Redhat/Fedora, SuSE, Debian,
Ubuntu, Gentoo, Knoppix).
> A lot - but there is no official 64-bit Linux POV-Ray binary, and the native
> compiler for Linux isn't as efficient as the official POV-Ray binary's
> compiler
This is completely wrong as well. The official binary is built with
plain stock gcc.
> I should also mention that POV-Ray's linux installer is command-line based
> (it's a historical thing; IIRC usually programs are installed from the
> command-line as a "super-user" and there's no graphical desktop - usually
> done for security reasons)
This is absolute nonsense. I know no one who would not run a GUI
program as root for security reasons.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Landscape of the week:
http://www.imagico.de/ (Last updated 31 Oct. 2005)
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike C wrote:
> "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
>> Okay, google doesn't seem to be able to give me any clear advice on this
>> one, so I'll ask you guys:
>>
>> I just bought an 64-bit AMD Turion based laptop, which irritatingly has
>> 32-bit windows installed, so I'm thinking about doing a dual-boot with
>> linux and using the 64-bit version of pov. I've already run a 32-bit test
>> and my laptop's almost as fast as my desktop machine, so I assume it will
>> be faster in 64-bit. Anyway what I want to know is this:
>>
>> 1/ what version of linux should I get?
>
> Just so you know - "standard" Linux (for i386 (a.k.a. IA-32)) will be
> 32-bit
> Linux, just like your Windows. For Linux on 64-bit, you'll need a
> variant, e.g. a *SPECIAL* Linux for the so-called "IA-64" architechture
> (which means 64-bit processors).
What's so "special" about 64bit Linux?
>
> (That said, you'd also need a "special" Linux if you're using it on a mac.
> It's possible to run many linux apps on powerpc. :)
>
There are Linuxes for anything from a pocket watch to a "Blue Gene" super
computer. I personally run it on a cellphone, a PDA, my notebook, my
desktop computer and a cluster dedicated to Povray. And yes, my firewall,
file server,mail server and web/ftp/news server run Linux.
> I suggest the 64-bit (IA-64) version of Ubuntu, but it's really a matter
> of
> style. Do you know anything about linux? What do you want to get done
> (e.g. apart from POV-Ray)? What do you need in your OS? Editor? Web
> browsing? Multimedia? etc?
All are available in just about all distro's and in various flavors
>
> Second preference would be Debian; as for the rest, I've heard that the
> packaging system can be troublesome, so use whatever works. Also note
> that not all of the Linux distributions have 64-bit versions (it's
> possible, not
> everyone will make one though). You might want to try one of those odd
> Linux-distro-chooser surveys.
>
> Also, a good many things are ... more complex in Linux. More powerful
> too,
> but more complex anyways. And if it doesn't work from the get-go, chances
> are, setting it up will be a pain or next-to impossible unless you can
> code the device driver yourself.
You're way off the mark. Allmost everything works under Linux and if it
doesn't today it will next week.
>
> Techincally Linux is just the kernel, all the apps run on it (e.g. X
> Windows System, Gnome/KDE/TWM/etc/, your app, pov-ray etc. etc.), although
> the
> generalization is there. *shrugs* Usually people don't really care
> though about that.
>
>> 2/ how much better is 64-bit pov compared to 32-bit on the same system?
>> (i.e. is it worth the effort?)
>
> A lot - but there is no official 64-bit Linux POV-Ray binary, and the
> native compiler for Linux isn't as efficient as the official POV-Ray
> binary's compiler
I never knew there's a compiler specially made for Povray
> (although I imagine that the performance gain from
> optimizing for
> 64-bit could make up for that). Also, the Linux version is _command-line_
> so you'll need an external editor (e.g. Kate, QTPovEditor, etc.). Out of
> curiousity, does the POV-Ray team's official Linux binaries use the same
> compiler series as the Windows ones, or is it just Windows binaries that
> use the Intel Compiler?
Using a Windows compiler for Linux binaries?
>
> I should also mention that POV-Ray's linux installer is command-line based
> (it's a historical thing; IIRC usually programs are installed from the
> command-line as a "super-user" and there's no graphical desktop - usually
> done for security reasons)
Wrong again, plenty of graphic installer shells available. Every mainstream
distro has at least one and if one doesn't like it, there are others out
there.
> - so you may like Window's graphical installer
> better. My experience with graphical Linux installers has been rather
> unsettling, with few exceptions.
>
> If you can manage, I would recommend using 64-bit Windows and official
> POV-Ray Binaries. If you still _want_ to try Linux, investigate the
> concept known as creating a "Dual-Boot" system (I believe most decent
> Linux distributions are designed for this from the get-go now) and then
> you can "have the best of both worlds".
>
> Just as a note, I write this from Linux on a dual-boot system with Windows
> XP. :) 32-bit though. *sigh* I still keep XP for a couple of things -
> Linux doesn't do quite everything I need in a OS.
>
You must be needing "very" special things then. I installed Linux about 8
years ago and finally removed Windows about 5 years ago. I can do
everything I need done on Linux.
> -- Michael C.
Oh boy, you're so far of the mark, it hurts my brain
--
Ger
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I am often too lazy to boot to windows in order to watch a DVD, so
> I just watch it in linux with mplayer. Mplayer does not support
> anything else than watching the specified track (eg. it doesn't
> support the DVD menu system nor any interactive functionality that
> the DVD may have), but it has been enough...
Late response, but you may want to try Ogle for watching DVD's.
There's always VLC, as well.
--
To call a man an ass is to insult the jackass. M.Twain
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
